A Comparative Study of Google Translate and DeepL in Translating Indonesian to English Among Informatics Engineering Students at Universitas Potensi Utama Medan

Authors

  • Dwi Suci Amaniarsih English Study Program, Education and Social Science Faculty, Universtias Potensi Utama, Medan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47662/ejeee.v5i1.1192

Keywords:

machine translation, Google Translate, DeepL, translation accuracy, Indonesian-English translation, neural machine translation, informatics students

Abstract

This study aims to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of Google Translate and DeepL in translating Indonesian texts into English, focusing on Informatics Engineering students at Universitas Potensi Utama. In an era where machine translation tools have become essential in academic and professional settings, understanding their strengths and limitations is crucial. Grounded in Newmark’s translation theory and supported by insights from neural machine translation research, this study employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative scoring of translation outputs and qualitative analysis of linguistic accuracy, context retention, and semantic coherence. The research findings reveal that DeepL generally outperforms Google Translate in preserving contextual meaning and producing grammatically accurate sentences, although Google Translate remains more familiar and accessible to students. The statistical analysis shows a significant difference in translation quality between the two tools (p < 0.05), while student interviews highlight DeepL's advantage in handling nuanced or academic texts. This research provides valuable insights for educators and learners in choosing appropriate translation tools, and offers implications for the integration of machine translation in language learning and academic writing.

References

Aiken, M., & Balan, S. (2011). An analysis of Google Translate accuracy. Translation Journal, 16(2).

Bahri, H. S., & Mahadi, T. S. T. (2016). The Use of Google Translate in Translating English Texts to Bahasa Indonesia (A Study on Translation Students at Universitas Negeri Medan). Jurnal Ilmiah Makna, 1(1), 45–53.

Castilho, S., Gaspari, F., Moorkens, J., & Way, A. (2018). Is neural machine translation the new state of the art?. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 110(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.2478/pralin-2018-0008

DePalma, D. A., & Kelly, N. (2008). Translation Memory and Machine Translation: Insights and Implications. Common Sense Advisory.

Garcia, I., & Pena, M. I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: Writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.582687

Groves, M., & Mundt, K. (2015). Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.001

Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall.

Nuruzzaman, M., Shakil, M., & Azad, M. (2020). A comparative study on the performance of Google Translate and DeepL in English-Bangla translation. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 8(4), 22–38.

Toral, A., & Sánchez-Cartagena, V. M. (2017). A multifaceted evaluation of neural machine translation for the English–Spanish language pair. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 206–217.

Toral, A., Hu, K., & Sánchez-Cartagena, V. M. (2021). Reassessing the limits of neural machine translation: A case study of English–German literary translation. Machine Translation, 35, 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-021-09251-w

Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. John Benjamins

Downloads

Published

24-06-2025