Geri Çekildi: Transparency and Accountability in Machine Translation: Are New Ethical Norms Emerging in the Age of AI?
Geri Çekme Notu
Öz
This study examines how transparency and accountability are articulated, operationalized, and transformed across policy documents, corporate communication, and academic discourse on Machine Translation (MT). The dataset consists of six international policy documents (e.g., UNESCO, OECD, EU AI Act drafts), twenty-three peer-reviewed academic articles, and nine corporate statements and technical guidelines issued by leading MT providers between 2018 and 2024. Documents were selected through purposive sampling based on explicit references to transparency, responsibility, or explainability in MT systems. The analysis follows Braun and Clarke’s thematic framework and was conducted through an iterative, inductive coding process supported by NVivo. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) the rhetorical expansion of transparency in policy discourse, where transparency is framed as a universal safeguard yet operational criteria remain vague; (2) the displacement of accountability in corporate communication, which locates evaluative labour and risk management at the user’s end; and (3) the narrowing of transparency in academic texts, where the concept is discussed conceptually but seldom integrated into empirical MT workflows. Building on these findings, the article proposes Hermeneutic Transparency as a relational model that integrates technical, ethical, and contextual layers of meaning-making in MT systems. The study highlights gaps between high-level discourse and actual implementation practices and argues that transparency should be reconceived not as a static requirement but as a situated, interpretive and dialogic process. Implications for MT research, governance, and platform design are also discussed.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
- Baker, M. (2018). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. Routledge.
- Bietti, E. (2020). From ethics washing to ethics bashing: Regulating AI in Europe. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(6), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105383
- Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Springer.
- Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Chesterman, A. (2001). Proposal for a hieronymic oath. The Translator, 7(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799099
- Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (Revised ed.). John Benjamins.
Ayrıntılar
Birincil Dil
İngilizce
Konular
Makine Öğrenme (Diğer), Bilgi Temsili ve Akıl Yürütme, İletişim Sistemleri
Bölüm
Sayıdan Geri Çekildi
Yazarlar
Gülfidan Aytaş
*
0000-0003-1566-1592
Türkiye
Yayımlanma Tarihi
30 Eylül 2026
Gönderilme Tarihi
27 Ekim 2025
Kabul Tarihi
14 Ocak 2026
Yayımlandığı Sayı
Yıl 2026 Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3