Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

The Shortcomings of Natural Language Processing (NLP) Models and Their Applications in Achieving Accuracy in Translating from Arabic to English

Hilal Abdul-Raziq Sadiq ORCID ,  Zaxid Maxmudovich Islamov ORCID ,  Raziya Baltabaevna Matibaeva ORCID ,  Akbar Akmaldjanovich Kazakbaev ORCID ,  Mutabarkhon Amanullaevna Madaeva ORCID
    Received: 22 February 2026; Revised: 13 March 2026; Accepted: 1 April 2026; Published: 24 July 2026

    Abstract

    Translation is defined as the process of transferring meaning from one language to another. It is an extremely difficult and complex process because it involves not only transferring words but also ideas, culture, linguistic customs, and meanings derived from syntactic elements, their arrangement, word structure, and derivation. This is especially true in languages with complex structures, such as Arabic, which is characterized by its multiple linguistic contexts. These contexts have not been adequately addressed by NLP (Natural Language Processing) applications in machine translation models due to the lack of diverse contexts where metaphor, figurative language, grammatical inflections, morphological patterns and their connotations, and sentence structure all play pivotal roles in determining meaning. Furthermore, spoken language, with its inherent phonetic and expressive characteristics, conveys the text into broader semantic spaces. These spaces are influenced by the effect of intonation on specific syllables, the speaker's psychological state, the listener's mood, and accompanying body language, which transforms meaning into other subtle details. All of this, and more, is absent from machine translation, no matter how hard its creators try to imbue it with human emotions and feelings. This study highlights the importance of integrating in-depth linguistic analysis, contextual semantic modelling, and cultural awareness into natural language processing-based translation systems. By combining traditional linguistic insights with computational methods, the research offers a framework that can contribute to improving the accuracy of machine translation from Arabic to English.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Acı, M.; Vuran Sarı, N.; İnan Acı, Ç. Morphological and structural complexity analysis of low-resource English–Turkish language pair using neural machine translation models. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2025, 11, e3072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.3072
    2. 2. Anani, M. The Art of Translation, 5th ed.; Egyptian Publishing Company–Longman: Cairo, Egypt, 2000.
    3. 3. AL-Shayeb, F. The Impact of Phonetic Rules on the Structure of Arabic Words, 1st ed.; Alam al-Kutub al-Hadith: Amman, Jordan, 2004.
    4. 4. Nzeyimana, A. Low-resource neural machine translation with morphological modeling. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 2024; pp. 182–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.13
    5. 5. Habash, N. Arabic Morphological Representations for Machine Translation. In Arabic Computational Morphology; Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2010; pp. 263–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6046-5_14
    6. 6. Xu, W.; Liu, C. From grammatical to phonological metaphor: Marked tonality as semogenic remapping. Lingua 2026, 331, 104091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2025.104091
    7. 7. Xu, W.; Liu, C. Marked intonation as a phonological metaphor: A systemic functional approach. J. Pragmat. 2025, 235, 145–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.11.010
    8. 8. Omar, L.I.; Salih, A.A. Systematic Review of English/Arabic Machine Translation Postediting: Implications for AI Application in Translation Research and Pedagogy. Informatics 2024, 11, 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11020023
    9. 9. Alkhatib, M.; Shaalan, K. The Key Challenges for Arabic Machine Translation. In Intelligent Natural Language Processing: Trends and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 139–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67056-0_8
    10. 10. Zemni, B.; Zitouni, M.; Bouhadiba, F.; et al. A Comparative Study of the Lexical Ambiguity of Arabic, English, and French in Natural Language Processing. J. Intercult. Commun. 2024, 24, 203–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v24i1.171
    11. 11. Liang,L. Discrepancies in poetic discourse: A translation process from a relevance-theoretic perspective. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2023, 8, 100666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100666
    12. 12. Tamam, H. The Arabic Language: Its Structure and Meaning; Dar al-Thaqafa: Casablanca, Morocco, 1994.
    13. 13. Das, A.K. Neural Machine Translation (NMT): Inherent inadequacy, misrepresentation and cultural bias. Int. J. Transl. 2020, 32, 115–145.
    14. 14. Naveen, P.; Trojovský, P. Overview and challenges of machine translation for contextually appropriate translations. iScience 2024, 27, 110878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.110878
    15. 15. Habash, N. Introduction to Arabic Natural Language Processing, 1st ed.; Morgan & Claypool Publishers: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010.
    16. 16. Alamri, H.; Al-Amri, A. Arabic-English Machine Translation (MT) Quality: Exploring Researchers’ Perspectives and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 14th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC 2023, Online, 28–31 March 2023; pp. 176–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54808/IMCIC2023.01.176
    17. 17. Abdel Monem, A.; Shaalan, K.; Rafea, A.; et al. Generating Arabic text in multilingual speech-to-speech machine translation framework. Mach. Transl. 2008, 22, 205–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-009-9054-9
    18. 18. Kramsch, C. Language and Culture, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998.
    19. 19. Al Shaikhli, M. Problems of Machine Translation Systems in Arabic. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2022, 13, 755–762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1304.08
    20. 20. Castilho, S.; Knowles, R. A survey of context in neural machine translation and its evaluation. Nat. Lang. Process. 2025, 31, 986–1016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/nlp.2024.7
    21. 21. Al-Khalil, E.A.A.; Mohammed, I.A. Some reservations on translating taboos from English into Arabic: Problems and solutions. Wasit J. Humanit. 2025, 21, 1343–1329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol21.Iss3.1109 (in Arabic)
    22. 22. Al-Haj Eid, O.A.; Mansour, A.W.; Abumahfouz, A.M.; et al. Morphological markedness in the Holy Quran. Forum Linguist. Stud. 2025, 7, 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i9.9736
    23. 23. Omar, A.; Gomaa, Y.A. The machine translation of literature: implications for translation pedagogy. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i11.13275
    24. 24. Sadiq, H. General principles of morphological theory. Hermis 2024, 13, 131–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/herms.2024.381261
    25. 25. Isabelle, P.; Cherry, C.; Foster, G. A challenge set approach to evaluating machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Machine Translation Evaluation, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 2017.
    26. 26. Kazemi, A.; Toral, A.; Way, A.; et al. Syntax- and semantic-based reordering in hierarchical phrase-based statistical machine translation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 84, 186–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.05.001
    27. 27. Ibn Jini. The Despicable, 1st ed.; Dar Al-Kutub Al-Masreya: Cairo, Egypt, 1953. (in Arabic)
    28. 28. Mehrabian, A. Silent Message; Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc.: Belmont, CA, USA, 1972.
    29. 29. Ding, Q.; Cao, H.; Cao, Z.; et al. Cross-lingual semantic information fusion for word translation enhancement. Inf. Fusion 2026, 125, 103492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103492
    ×