Article published In: Translation Spaces: Online-First Articles
Is machine translation gisting translation?
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 Tampere University.
Published online: 5 June 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.24048.nur
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.24048.nur
Abstract
This article explores the question of whether machine translation (MT) is translation by analyzing the processes involved in a translator-led ‘traditional’ process against those involved in receiver-led MT gisting. Backed by evidence from recent research on the use of MT, the analysis demonstrates that certain tasks and responsibilities that are normally carried by the professional translator in traditional processes are, in the case of MT gisting, taken on by the receiver of the translation. Therefore, MT gisting can and should be considered translation. The final section of the article presents three reasons why the inclusion of MT gisting in our discipline of Translation Studies enriches rather than impoverishes it.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.What is MT? Defining the scope of inquiry
- 2.1Scopes used in past studies
- 2.2The scope of this study
- 3.What is translation? A ‘traditional’ translation process
- 4.Is MT gisting translation?
- 4.1A first look at how MT gisting fits into the traditional process
- 4.2An alternative view of how MT gisting fits into the traditional process
- 4.3MT gisting is translation
- 5.Does the inclusion of machine translation in Translation Studies enrich or impoverish it?
References
References (34)
Anazawa, Ryoko, Hirono Ishikawa, and Kiuchi Takahiro. 2013. “Use of Online Machine Translation for Nursing Literature: A Questionnaire-Based Survey.” The Open Nursing Journal 71: 22–28.
Asscher, Omri. 2023. “The Position of Machine Translation in Translation Studies: A Definitional Perspective.” Translation Spaces 12 (1): 1–20.
Bowker, Lynne, and Jairo Buitrago Ciro. 2019. Machine Translation and Global Research: Towards Improved Machine Translation Literacy in the Scholarly Community. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Briva-Iglesias, Vicent, Sharon O’Brien, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2023. “The impact of traditional and interactive post-editing on Machine Translation User Experience, quality, and productivity.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6 (1): 60–86.
Canfora, Carmen, and Angelika Ottmann. 2020. “Risks in Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces 9 (1): 58–77.
do Carmo, Félix, and Joss Moorkens. 2023. “Translation’s New High-Tech Clothes.” In The Human Translator in the 2020s, edited by Gary Massey, Elsa Huertas-Barros, and David Katan, 11–26. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Alice Delorme Benites, and Caroline Lehr. 2023. “A New Role for Translators and Trainers: MT Literacy Consultants.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17 (3): 393–411.
EMT Board and Competence Task-Force. 2022. “European Master’s in Translation Competence Framework 2022.” European Master’s in Translation. [URL]
Gaspari, Federico. 2007. “The Role of Online MT in Webpage Translation.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana, and Joss Moorkens. 2023. “Ethics and Machine Translation: The End User Perspective.” In Towards Responsible Machine Translation: Ethical and Legal Considerations in Machine Translation, edited by Moniz, Helena and Carla Parra Escartín, 113–133. Cham: Springer.
Henisz-Dostert, Bozena. 1979. “Users’ Evaluation of Machine Translation.” In Machine Translation, edited by Werner Winter, 149–244. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Hutchins, W. John. 2010. “Machine Translation: A Concise History.” Edited by Chan Sin. Journal of Translation Studies 131: 29–70.
Koponen, Maarit, and Mary Nurminen. 2024. “Risk Management for Content Delivery via Raw Machine Translation.” In Translation, Interpreting and Technological Change: Innovations in Research, Practice and Training, edited by Marion Winters, Sharon Deane-Cox, and Ursula Böser. London: Bloomsbury.
Koponen, Maarit, Umut Sulubacak, Kaisa Vitikainen and Jörg Tiedemann. 2020. “MT for Subtitling: Investigating Professional Translators’ User Experience and Feedback.” Proceedings of 1st Workshop on Post-Editing in Modern-Day Translation, edited by John E. Ortega, Marcello Federico, Constantin Orasan, and Maja Popovic, 79–92, Virtual. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.
Koskinen, Kaisa. Forthcoming. “Translating at Work: Identifying and Contextualizing Paraprofessional Translatoriality in Organizations.” In Field Research on Translation and Interpreting, edited by Regina Rogl, Daniela Schlager, and Hanna Risku. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moorkens, Joss. Forthcoming. “The Machine Translator’s Visibility: A Postphenomenological Analysis of Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces.
Mossop, Brian. 2024. “Do Machines and Humans Translate in the Same Sense?” Translation Spaces.
Nomura, Saeko, Toru Ishida, and Mika Yasouka. 2003. “Open Source Software Development with Your Mother Language: Intercultural Collaboration Experiment 2002.” Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, 1163–1167, Crete, June 22–27. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nurminen, Mary. 2016. “Machine Translation-Mediated Interviewing in Qualitative Research: A Pilot Project.” New Horizons in Translation Research and Education 41: 66–84.
. 2019. “Decision-Making, Risk, and Gist Machine Translation in the Work of Patent Professionals.” Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Patent and Scientific Literature Translation, 32–42, Dublin, August 20. European Association for Machine Translation.
. 2020. “Raw Machine Translation Use by Patent Professionals: A Case of Distributed Cognition.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3 (1): 100–121.
. 2021. “Investigating the Influence of Context in the Use and Reception of Raw Machine Translation.” Ph.D. thesis, Tampere University. [URL]
Nurminen, Mary, and Niko Papula. 2018. “Gist MT Users: A Snapshot of the Use and Users of One Online MT Tool.” Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, edited by Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz et al., 199–208, Alicante, May 28–30. [URL]
O’Brien, Sharon, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2020. “MT Literacy–A Cognitive View.” Translation, Cognition and Behavior 3 (2): 143–63.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2017. “Machine Translation and Cognition.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 313–31. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Perrin, Daniel, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2018. “Translation in Journalism: Local Practices in Multilingual Newsflows.” In Un(intended) Language Planning in a Globalising World: Multiple Levels of Players at Work, edited by Phyllis Chew Ghim Lian, Catherine Chua, Kerry Taylor-Leech, and Colin Williams, 163–82. Warsaw/Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2024. “Is machine interpreting interpreting?” Translation Spaces.
Pym, Anthony. 2021. “Translation, Risk Management and Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 445–58. Abingdon: Routledge.
Rozmyslowicz, Tomasz. 2014. “Machine Translation: A Problem for Translation Theory.” New Voices in Translation Studies 111:145–63.
Scott, Juliette, and John O’Shea. 2021. “How Legal Documents Translated Outside Institutions Affect Lives, Businesses and the Economy.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law: 1–43.
Vieira, Lucas Nunes. 2023. “The Many Guises of Machine Translation: A Postphenomenology Perspective.” Digital Translation: International Journal of Translation and Localization 10 (1): 16–36.
Vieira, Lucas Nunes, O’Hagan, Minako, and O’Sullivan, Carol. 2020. “Understanding the societal impacts of machine translation: a critical review of the literature on medical and legal use cases.” Information, Communication & Society: 1–18.