Cover not available

Article published In: Target
Vol. 36:2 (2024) ► pp.215–244

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

To be or not to be

A translation reception study of a literary text translated into Dutch and Catalan using machine translation

ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen
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 University of Groningen.

Published online: 2 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22134.gue
Abstract
This article presents the results of a study focusing on the reception of a fictional story by Kurt Vonnegut translated from English into Catalan and Dutch in three conditions: machine translated, post-edited, and human translated. Participants (n = 223) rated the three conditions using three scales: narrative engagement, enjoyment, and translation reception. The results show that human translation had higher engagement, enjoyment, and translation reception in Catalan, compared to the post-edited and machine-translated translations. However, Dutch readers scored the post-edited translation higher than the human and machine translation, and the highest engagement and enjoyment scores were reported for the original English version. We hypothesize that when reading a fictional story in translation, not only are the condition and the quality of the translation key to understanding its reception, but also the participants’ reading patterns, reading language, and, potentially, the status of the source language in their own societies.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related work
  • 3.Overall reading experience: Methodology
    • 3.1Source text
    • 3.2Target texts
    • 3.3Participants
    • 3.4Reading conditions
    • 3.5Questionnaire
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Similarities and differences between groups
    • 4.3Comprehension questions
    • 4.4Narrative engagement
    • 4.5Visual imagery
    • 4.6Enjoyment
    • 4.7Translation reception
    • 4.8Comparison between translation and original text
    • 4.9How much would you pay?
    • 4.10Quality of the MT systems according to the readers
    • 4.11Summary of findings
    • 4.12Comments from the readers
      • 4.12.1Difficult parts
      • 4.12.2Preferred sections
      • 4.12.3How did you realize it was a translation?
      • 4.12.4Final comments
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (24)
References
Busselle, Rick, and Helena Bilandzic. 2009. “Measuring Narrative Engagement.” Media Psychology 12 (4): 321–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colman, Toon, Margot Fonteyne, Joke Daems, Nicolas Dirix, and Lieve Macken. 2022. “GECO-MT: The Ghent Eye-tracking Corpus of Machine Translation.” In 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2022), edited by Nicoletta Calzolari et al., 29–38. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Peter, Marisa Bortolussi, Leslie C. Twilley, and Alice Leung. 1993. “Literary Processing and Interpretation: Towards Empirical Foundations.” Poetics 22 (1–2): 5–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Ydewalle, Géry. 1984. “Processing TV Information and Eye Movements Research: Interfaces in the Field.” In Readings on Cognitive Ergonomics – Mind and Computers: Proceedings of the Second European Conference, Gmunden, Austria, September 10–14, 1984, edited by Gerrit C. van der Veer, Michael J. Tauber, Thomas R. G. Green, and Peter Gorny, 200–204. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Ydewalle, Géry, Johan van Rensbergen, and Joris Pollet. 1987. “Reading a Message When the Same Message Is Available Auditorily in Another Language: The Case of Subtitling.” In Eye Movements from Physiology to Cognition: Selected/Edited Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Eye Movements, Dourdan, France, September 1985, edited by J. K. O’Regan and A. Levy-Schoen, 313–321. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Ydewalle, Géry, and Johan van Rensbergen. 1989. “13 Developmental Studies of Text-Picture Interactions in the Perception of Animated Cartoons with Text.” In Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, edited by Heinz Mandl and Joel R. Levin, special issue of Advances in Psychology 581: 233–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana, and Antonio Toral. 2022. “Creativity in Translation: Machine Translation as a Constraint for Literary Texts.” Translation Spaces 11 (2): 184–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “The Impact of Post-Editing and Machine Translation on Creativity and Reading Experience.” Translation Spaces 9 (2): 255–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakemulder, Jemeljan F. 2004. “Foregrounding and Its Effect on Readers’ Perception.” Discourse Processes 38 (2): 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, Ke, Sharon O’Brien, and Dorothy Kenny. 2021. “A Reception Study of Machine Translated Subtitles for MOOCs.” In Mapping Contemporary Audiovisual Translation in East Asia, edited by Dingkun Wang, Xiaochun Zhang, and Arista Szu-Yu Kuo, special issue of Perspectives 28 (4): 521–538.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotze, Haidee, Berit Janssen, Corina Koolen, Luka van der Plas, and Gys-Walt van Egdom. 2021. “Norms, Affect and Evaluation in the Reception of Literary Translations in Multilingual Online Reading Communities: Deriving Cognitive-Evaluative Templates from Big Data.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4 (2): 147–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2013. “Child and Adult Readers’ Processing of Foreign Elements in Translated South African Picturebooks.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 25 (2): 180–227. 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. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuijpers, Moniek M., Frank Hakemulder, Ed S. Tan, and Miruna M. Doicaru. 2014. “Exploring Absorbing Reading Experiences: Developing and Validating a Self-Report Scale to Measure Story World Absorption.” Scientific Study of Literature 4 (1): 89–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mangen, Anne, and Don Kuiken. 2014. “Lost in an iPad: Narrative Engagement on Paper and Tablet.” Scientific Study of Literature 4 (2): 150–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NOS. 2022. “Jongeren lezen graag boeken, maar dan wel in het Engels [Young people like to read books, but then in English].” NOS, April 16. [URL]
Nuland, Sherwin B. 1995. How We Die: Reflections of Life’s Final Chapter, New Edition. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, David. 2018. “Audiovisual Translation and Audience Reception.” In The Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation, edited by Luis Pérez-González, 367–382. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortiz Boix, Carla. 2016. Implementing Machine Translation and Post-Editing to the Translation of Wildlife Documentaries Through Voice-over and Off-Screen Dubbing. PhD diss. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. [URL]
Stasimioti, Maria, and Vilelmini Sosoni. 2022. “Creative Texts Translation vs Post-Editing: A Qualitative Study of the Product Quality, the Translators’ Perception and Audience’s Reception.” Presentation at the Workshop on Creativity and Technology: Proceedings of the 1st NETTT Conference. Rhodes: NETT.
Vonnegut, Kurt. 1999. Bagombo Snuff Box. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Callum. 2020. An Eye-Tracking Study of Equivalent Effect in Translation: The Reader Experience of Literary Style. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.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
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

de Lacerda Pataca, Caluã, Saad Hassan, Lloyd May, Michelle M Olson, Toni D'aurio, Roshan L Peiris & Matt Huenerfauth
2025. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2025. “If students translate like a robot … ” or how research on human-centered AI and intelligence augmentation can help realign translation education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 19:3-4 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Walter, Katharina
2025. Literarisches Übersetzen im KI-Zeitalter: Überlegungen zu einer nachhaltigen Markttransformation. Lebende Sprachen 70:1 ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Kayadibinli, Ezgi & Göksenin Abdal
2024. Edebi Metni Makine Çevirmenden Okumak: Çevirmen Okurun Makine Çevirisi Alımlaması. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Uluslararası Filoloji ve Çeviribilim Dergisi 6:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue