Faithful or evasive? An empirical study on translation norm preferences of Chinese and American LLMs in Chinese official political and policy discourse.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Large language models now handle a share of cross-lingual political translation, but no study has directly measured whether they follow stable normative preferences when doing so.
METHODS
We target Chinese-to-English translation of Chinese political and policy terms embedded in authentic official discourse. Mapping 52 publications across translation theory, LLM empirics, and AI alignment yields a five-dimensional Translation Norm Orientations (TNO) framework: Faithfulness (FN), Fluency (FLN), Cultural Adaptation (CAN), Ethical Hedging (EHN), and Foreignization Retention (FRN). Eight mainstream Chinese and American LLMs complete a Forced-Choice Translation Ranking Task (FCTRT) on 20 ideologically sensitive political terms, ranked across three repeated trials. Kendall's W assesses ranking stability, Mann-Whitney U tests with BH-FDR correction test between-group differences, and hierarchical clustering identifies latent normative prototypes.
RESULTS
All eight models rank FN first; CAN, EHN, and FRN settle into a shared low-priority band beneath it. None of the five dimensions shows a statistically significant CN-US split. FN alone carries a medium effect size (Cliff's δ = 0.50), which points to a difference in how strongly, not which way, the two groups lean. Cluster membership cuts across national lines rather than following it: four transnational profiles emerge, separated by foreignization tolerance rather than developer geography.
DISCUSSION: These results tie translation norm theory to AI evaluation and supply a benchmark other researchers can reuse to examine LLM-mediated political communication.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.