Cover not available

Article published In: Mapping Synergies in Cognitive Research on Multilectal Mediated Communication
Edited by Laura Babcock, Raphael Sannholm and Elisabet Tiselius
[Target 37:2] 2025
► pp. 213–243

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The reception of translated vaccination information

Evidence from a reading and stops-making-sense judgment task

ORCiD logo with link | Leiden University
ORCiD logo with link | Leiden University
 | Leiden University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Leiden University.

Published online: 5 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.00033.val
Abstract
Reception-oriented research on health communication, especially when focusing on migrant populations, allows for an exploration of what it means to provide access to health information, shedding light on migrants’ communicative needs with practical implications for translators’ work. Adopting a multi-method approach, this study explores the potential for reading difficulty and for misinterpretation of translated vaccination-related public health information. For this purpose, we conducted a reception-oriented study that used a participant-paced, region-by-region reading method coupled with an incremental stops-making-sense judgment task and a post-hoc comprehension questionnaire with two participant groups (native and non-native English speakers). Three main findings stand out from our analysis. First, the triangulation of multiple data sources indicates that reading difficulty and misinterpretation were not exclusive to the non-native group but affected both participant groups. Second, while participants generally responded correctly to comprehension questions, average reading times showed that both groups took longer to read most texts than expected. Third, medical language was the most challenging aspect for our participants, as indicated by data from online and offline subjective measures.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related research
    • 2.1Experimental research on the reception of translated texts
    • 2.2Reception-oriented medical translation research
  • 3.Methods and materials
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2English language proficiency of the native Spanish speakers
    • 3.3Tasks and procedure
      • 3.3.1The steps of the procedure
        • Step 1: Pre-reading task questionnaire (demographics, reading habits, and English proficiency level)
        • Step 2: Participant-paced, region-by-region reading task and incremental stops-making-sense judgment task
        • Step 3: Post-hoc comprehension questionnaire
    • 3.4Target texts
    • 3.5Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Results on readers’ self-reported reading difficulty
      • 4.1.1Stops-making-sense judgments
      • 4.1.2‘I don’t know’ responses
      • 4.1.3Perceived level of difficulty
    • 4.2Results on readers’ observed difficulty
      • 4.2.1Comprehension performance outcome
      • 4.2.2Raw reading time
      • 4.2.3ResRT
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor Da Silva. 2011. “Towards an Investigation of Reading Modalities in/for Translation: An Exploratory Study Using Eye-Tracking Data.” In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, edited by Sharon O’Brien, 175–196. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Askehave, Inger, and Karen Korning Zethsen. 2000. “Medical Texts Made Simple — Dream or Reality?” HERMES — Journal of Language and Communication in Business 13 (25): 63–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Communication Barriers in Public Discourse.” Information Design Journal 4 (1): 23–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “A Comparative Analysis of the Lay-Friendliness of Danish EU Patient Information Leaflets from 2000 to 2012.” Communication and Medicine 11 (3): 209–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brems, Elke, and Sara Ramos Pinto. 2013. “Reception and Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 4, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 142–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British Academy. 2022. Overcoming Barriers to Vaccination by Empowering Citizens to Make Deliberate Choices. London: The British Academy. [URL]
Brøgge, Matilde Nisbeth, and Karen Korning Zethsen. 2021. “Inter- and Intralingual Translation of Medical Information.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Health, edited by Şebnem Susam-Saraeva and Eva Spišiaková, 96–107. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc. 2019. “How Many Words Do We Read per Minute? A Review and Meta-Analysis of Reading Rate.” Journal of Memory and Language 1091: 104047. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. “Causes, Translations, Effects.” Target 10 (2): 201–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Bruin, Angela, Manuel Carreiras, and Jon Andoni Duñabeitia. 2017. “The BEST Dataset of Language Proficiency.” Frontiers in Psychology 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, Elena, and Yves Gambier, eds. 2018. Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, and Sharon O’Brien. 2012. “A User-Based Usability Assessment of Raw Machine Translated Technical Instructions.” In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Commercial MT User Program. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Assessing the Usability of Raw Machine Translated Output.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30 (1): 40–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Charles Clifton. 1986. “The Independence of Syntactic Processing.” Journal of Memory and Language 25 (3): 348–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. 1970. “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics.” New Literary History 2 (1): 123–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franco Aixelá, Javier. 2010. “Una revisión de la bibliografía sobre traducción e interpretación médica recogida en BITRA (Bibliografía de Interpretación y Traducción) [An overview of the bibliography related to medical translation and interpreting as collected in BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation)].” Panace@ 11 (32): 151–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Izquierdo, Isabel, and Ana Muñoz-Miquel. 2015. “Los folletos de información oncológica en contextos hospitalarios [Cancer information leaflets in hospitals: Perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals].” Panace@ 16 (42): 225–231.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
GMDAC. n.d. “Forced Migration or Displacement.” Accessed June 28, 2023. [URL]
Gollan, Tamar H., Gali H. Weissberger, Elin Runnqvist, Rosa I. Montoya, and Cynthia M. Cera. 2012. “Self-Ratings of Spoken Language Dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and Preliminary Norms for Young and Aging Spanish–English Bilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15 (3): 594–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana, Joss Moorkens, and Sharon O’Brien. 2019. “What Is the Impact of Raw MT on Japanese Users of Word: Preliminary Results of a Usability Study Using Eye-Tracking.” Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVII Volume 1: Research Track 11: 67–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard. 2017. “Four Fundamental Types of Reading during Translation.” In Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology, edited by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Jensen. 2009. “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” Copenhagen Studies in Language 361: 103–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A., and Maribel Tercedor Sánchez. 2017. “Lexical Variation, Register and Explicitation in Medical Translation.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 12 (3): 405–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, and Jacqueline D. Woolley. 1982. “Paradigms and Processes in Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111 (2): 228–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krings, Hans Peter. 2005. “Wege ins Labyrinth — Fragestellungen und Methoden der Übersetzungsprozessforschung im Überblick [Paths into the labyrinth — An overview of the questions and methods of research into the translation process].” Meta 50 (2): 342–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Jan-Louis Kruger. 2017. “Cognition and Reception.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 71–89. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis. 2018. “Eye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation Research.” In The Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation, edited by Luis Pérez-González, 350–366. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis, and Stephen Doherty. 2018. “Triangulation of Online and Offline Measures of Processing and Reception in AVT.” In Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation, edited by Elena Di Giovanni and Yves Gambier, 91–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma. 2012. “Introducing LexTALE: A Quick and Valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (2): 325–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lizarazu, Mikel, Manuel Carreiras, Mathieu Bourguignon, Asier Zarraga, and Nicola Molinaro. 2021. “Language Proficiency Entails Tuning Cortical Activity to Second Language Speech.” Cerebral Cortex 31 (8): 3820–3831. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lo, Steson, and Sally Andrews. 2015. “To Transform or Not to Transform: Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models to Analyse Reaction Time Data.” Frontiers in Psychology 61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdecke, Daniel, Indrajeet Patil, Mattan S. Ben-Shachar, Brenton M. Wiernik, Etienne Bacher, Rémi Thériault, and Dominique Makowski. 2022. “easystats: Framework for Easy Statistical Modeling, Visualization, and Reporting.” CRAN. [URL]
MacIntyre, Peter D., Kimberly A. Noels, and Richard Clément. 1997. “Biases in Self-Ratings of Second Language Proficiency: The Role of Language Anxiety.” Language Learning 47 (2): 265–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher, and Brian James Baer. 2021. “Research Ethics in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike K. Pokorn, 365–380. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher, and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. “Considerations of Ecological Validity in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5 (1): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Misha-Laura, and Magali A. Mari. 2021. “Definite Descriptions in the Light of the Comprehension vs Acceptance Distinction: Comparing Self-Paced Reading with Eye-Tracking Measures.” Frontiers in Communication 61: 634362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2022. “Crisis Translation: A Snapshot in Time.” INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism 2 (1): 84–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, and Patrick Cadwell. 2017. “Translation Facilitates Comprehension of Health-Related Crisis Information: Kenya as an Example.” JoSTrans 281: 23–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ODPHP. 2016. Health Literacy Online: A Guide for Simplifying the User Experience. 2nd ed. health.gov/healthliteracyonlineGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okuhara, Tsuyoshi, Hirono Ishikawa, Haruka Ueno, Hiroko Okada, Mio Kato, and Takahiro Kiuchi. 2022. “Readability Assessment of Vaccine Information: A Systematic Review for Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy.” Patient Education and Counseling 105 (2): 331–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Jeongyeon. 2022. “Promoting L2 Reading Fluency at the Tertiary Level Through Timed and Repeated Reading.” System 1071: 102802. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patient Information Forum. 2023. Health and Digital Literacy Survey 2022/23. London: Patient Information Forum. [URL]
R Core Team. 2021. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Roland, Douglas, Hongoak Yun, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Gail Mauner. 2012. “Semantic Similarity, Predictability, and Models of Sentence Processing.” Cognition 122 (3): 267–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Screen, Benjamin. 2019. “What Effect Does Post-Editing Have on the Translation Product from an End-User’s Perspective?” JoSTrans 311: 133–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Christina Schäffner, Joseph H. Danks, and Jennifer Griffin. 1993. “Is There a Special Kind of ‘Reading’ for Translation? An Empirical Investigation of Reading in the Translation Process.” Target 5 (1): 21–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singh, Raj, Evelina Fedorenko, Kyle Mahowald, and Edward Gibson. 2016. “Accommodating Presuppositions Is Inappropriate in Implausible Contexts.” Cognitive Science 40 (3): 607–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tao, Lily, Marcus Taft, and Tamar H. Gollan. 2015. “The Bilingual Switching Advantage: Sometimes Related to Bilingual Proficiency, Sometimes Not.” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 21 (7): 531–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet, and Kayle Sneed. 2020. “Gaze and Eye Movement in Dialogue Interpreting: An Eye-Tracking Study.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23 (4): 780–787. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNHCR. 2023. Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022. Copenhagen: UNHCR. [URL]
Van Hoecke, Senne M., Iris Schrijver, and Isabelle S. Robert. 2022. “Methodological Preparation of a Within-Subject Audiovisual Cognition, Reception and Perception Study.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation 5 (1): 94–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, Mieke, Nina Reviers, Gert Vercauteren, et al. 2022. Final Report: Towards an Inclusive Covid-19 Crisis Communication Policy in Belgium. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen. [URL]
Walker, Callum. 2019. “A Cognitive Perspective on Equivalent Effect: Using Eye Tracking to Measure Equivalence in Source Text and Target Text Cognitive Effects on Readers.” Perspectives 27 (1): 124–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whyatt, Bogusława, Olga Witczak, Ewa Tomczak-Łukaszewska, and Olha Lehka-Paul. 2023. “The Proof of the Translation Process Is in the Reading of the Target Text: An Eyetracking Reception Study.” Ampersand 111: 100149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue