Article published In:
TargetVol. 36:2 (2024) ► pp.215–244
To be or not to be
A translation reception study of a literary text translated into Dutch and Catalan using machine translation
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. 

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).
Dixon, Peter, Marisa Bortolussi, Leslie C. Twilley, and Alice Leung. 1993. “Literary
Processing and Interpretation: Towards Empirical
Foundations.” Poetics 22 (1–2): 5–33. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Hakemulder, Jemeljan F. 2004. “Foregrounding and Its Effect on
Readers’ Perception.” Discourse
Processes 38 (2): 193–218. 

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.
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. 

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.
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. 

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.
Walker, Callum. 2020. An
Eye-Tracking Study of Equivalent Effect in Translation: The Reader Experience of Literary
Style. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
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. 

Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. 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.