image of To be or not to be



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 ( = 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.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Busselle, Rick, and Helena Bilandzic
    2009 “Measuring Narrative Engagement.” Media Psychology (): –. 10.1080/15213260903287259
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259 [Google Scholar]
  2. Colman, Toon, Margot Fonteyne, Joke Daems, Nicolas Dirix, and Lieve Macken
    2022 “GECO-MT: The Ghent Eye-tracking Corpus of Machine Translation.” In13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2022), edited byNicoletta Calzolari , –. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dixon, Peter, Marisa Bortolussi, Leslie C. Twilley, and Alice Leung
    1993 “Literary Processing and Interpretation: Towards Empirical Foundations.” Poetics (): –. 10.1016/0304‑422X(93)90018‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(93)90018-C [Google Scholar]
  4. D’Ydewalle, Géry
    1984 “Processing TV Information and Eye Movements Research: Interfaces in the Field.” InReadings on Cognitive Ergonomics – Mind and Computers: Proceedings of the Second European Conference, Gmunden, Austria, September 10–14, 1984, edited byGerrit C. van der Veer, Michael J. Tauber, Thomas R. G. Green, and Peter Gorny, –. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑13394‑1_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-13394-1_17 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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.” InEye Movements from Physiology to Cognition: Selected/Edited Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Eye Movements, Dourdan, France, September 1985, edited byJ. K. O’Regan and A. Levy-Schoen, –. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑70113‑8.50047‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-70113-8.50047-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. D’Ydewalle, Géry, and Johan van Rensbergen
    1989 “13 Developmental Studies of Text-Picture Interactions in the Perception of Animated Cartoons with Text.” InKnowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, edited byHeinz Mandl and Joel R. Levin, special issue ofAdvances in Psychology: –. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62157‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62157-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Guerberof-Arenas, Ana, and Antonio Toral
    2022 “Creativity in Translation: Machine Translation as a Constraint for Literary Texts.” Translation Spaces (): –. 10.1075/ts.21025.gue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21025.gue [Google Scholar]
  8. 2020 “The Impact of Post-Editing and Machine Translation on Creativity and Reading Experience.” Translation Spaces (): –. 10.1075/ts.20035.gue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.20035.gue [Google Scholar]
  9. Hakemulder, Jemeljan F.
    2004 “Foregrounding and Its Effect on Readers’ Perception.” Discourse Processes (): –. 10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3802_3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hu, Ke, Sharon O’Brien, and Dorothy Kenny
    2021 “A Reception Study of Machine Translated Subtitles for MOOCs.” InMapping Contemporary Audiovisual Translation in East Asia, edited byDingkun Wang, Xiaochun Zhang, and Arista Szu-Yu Kuo, special issue ofPerspectives (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 (): –. 10.1075/tcb.00060.kot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00060.kot [Google Scholar]
  12. Kruger, Haidee
    2013 “Child and Adult Readers’ Processing of Foreign Elements in Translated South African Picturebooks.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies (): –. 10.1075/target.25.2.03kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.2.03kru [Google Scholar]
  13. Kruger, Jan-Louis
    2018 “Eye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation Research.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation, edited byLuis Pérez-González, –. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315717166‑22
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717166-22 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 (): –. 10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.05kui [Google Scholar]
  15. Mangen, Anne, and Don Kuiken
    2014 “Lost in an iPad: Narrative Engagement on Paper and Tablet.” Scientific Study of Literature (): –. 10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man [Google Scholar]
  16. NOS
    NOS 2022 “Jongeren lezen graag boeken, maar dan wel in het Engels [Young people like to read books, but then in English].” NOS, April16. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2425380-jongeren-lezen-graag-boeken-maar-dan-wel-in-het-engels
  17. Nuland, Sherwin B.
    1995How We Die: Reflections of Life’s Final Chapter, New Edition. New York: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Orrego-Carmona, David
    2018 “Audiovisual Translation and Audience Reception.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation, edited byLuis Pérez-González, –. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315717166‑23
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717166-23 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ortiz Boix, Carla
    2016Implementing Machine Translation and Post-Editing to the Translation of Wildlife Documentaries Through Voice-over and Off-Screen Dubbing. PhD diss. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/400020
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 theWorkshop on Creativity and Technology: Proceedings of the 1st NETTT Conference. Rhodes: NETT.
  21. Vonnegut, Kurt
    1999Bagombo Snuff Box. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Walker, Callum
    2020An Eye-Tracking Study of Equivalent Effect in Translation: The Reader Experience of Literary Style. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021 “Investigating How We Read Translations: A Call to Action for Experimental Studies of Translation Reception.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies (): –. 10.1075/cogls.00087.wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00087.wal [Google Scholar]
  24. 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, . 10.1016/j.amper.2023.100149
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100149 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error