In-between role and technology: literary translators on navigating the new socio-technological paradigm

Abstract

This thesis looks at Human-Computer Interaction in literary translation. In particular, it centres on literary translators’ perceptions of their own role and their attitudes towards technology. The study adopts a social constructionist, interpretivist and mixed-methods methodological approach and looks at results through the lens of Pinch and Bijker’s Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework. Data was elicited via means of a questionnaire administered to 150 literary translators. Findings show literary translators’ self-image as directly opposed to outsiders’ view of the profession. This situates them in a place of in-betweenness. Attitudes towards technology are extremely complex, however having undertaken technology training resulted in more positive attitudes and higher levels of confidence with technology. The youngest generation of respondents was also the most positive and confident with technology. A discrepancy between practitioners’ views and the recent research focus on the application of Machine Translation and post-editing to literary translation workflows was identified. Ultimately, findings suggest literary translators should be involved in the conversation around tools development to promote a convivial approach to technological innovation and produce tools that enhance and empower their end users.

Full text

In-between role and technology:
literary translators on navigating the new socio-technological paradigm
Paola Ruffo
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Heriot-Watt University
School of Social Sciences
April 2021
The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the
thesis or use of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge
this thesis as the source of the quotation or information.

Abstract
This thesis looks at Human-Computer Interaction in literary translation. In particular, it
centres on literary translators’ perceptions of their own role and their attitudes towards
technology. The study adopts a social constructionist, interpretivist and mixed-methods
methodological approach and looks at results through the lens of Pinch and Bijker’s
Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework. Data was elicited via means of
a questionnaire administered to 150 literary translators. Findings show literary
translators’ self-image as directly opposed to outsiders’ view of the profession. This
situates them in a place of in-betweenness. Attitudes towards technology are extremely
complex, however having undertaken technology training resulted in more positive
attitudes and higher levels of confidence with technology. The youngest generation of
respondents was also the most positive and confident with technology. A discrepancy
between practitioners’ views and the recent research focus on the application of
Machine Translation and post-editing to literary translation workflows was identified.
Ultimately, findings suggest literary translators should be involved in the conversation
around tools development to promote a convivial approach to technological innovation
and produce tools that enhance and empower their end users.

Acknowledgements

Research Thesis Submission
Name:
Paola Ruffo
School:
School of Social Sciences (SoSS)
Version:
Final
Degree
Sought:
Doctor of Philosophy
Declaration
In accordance with the appropriate regulations I hereby submit my thesis and I declare
that:
1. The thesis embodies the results of my own work and has been composed by myself
2. Where appropriate, I have made acknowledgement of the work of others
3. Where the thesis contains published outputs under Regulation 6 (9.1.2) these are
accompanied by a critical review which accurately describes my contribution to
the research and, for multi-author outputs, a signed declaration indicating the
contribution of each author (complete Inclusion of Published Works Form – see
below)
4. The thesis is the correct version for submission and is the same version as any
electronic versions submitted*.
5. My thesis for the award referred to, deposited in the Heriot-Watt University
Library, should be made available for loan or photocopying and be available via
the Institutional Repository, subject to such conditions as the Librarian may
require
6. I understand that as a student of the University I am required to abide by the
Regulations of the University and to conform to its discipline.
7. Inclusion of published outputs under Regulation 6 (9.1.2) shall not constitute
plagiarism.
8. I confirm that the thesis has been verified against plagiarism via an approved
plagiarism detection application e.g. Turnitin.
* Please note that it is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the correct
version of the thesis is submitted.
Signature of
Candidate:
Date:
27/4/2021
Submission
Submitted By:
Paola Ruffo
Signature of
Individual
Submitting:
Date Submitted:
27/4/2021
For Completion in the Student Service Centre (SSC)

Received in the SSC by:
Method of Submission
(Handed in to SSC; posted
through internal/external
mail):
E-thesis Submitted
(mandatory for final theses)
Signature:
Date:

I
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2: A NEW TRANSLATION ERA ........................................................................................ 6
2.1 THE TRANSLATION AGE .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 MATERIALITY AND IMMATERIALITY ......................................................................................... 10
2.3 HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN TRANSLATION ................................................................ 12
2.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY ............................................ 19
3.1 THE SCOT FRAMEWORK: AN OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 20
3.2 THE SCOT FRAMEWORK: CRITIQUE .......................................................................................... 22
3.3 THE SCOT FRAMEWORK IN TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING STUDIES .................................. 25
3.4 THE SCOT FRAMEWORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY ........................................................ 26
3.5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 4: TRANSLATORS AND TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 31
4.1 TRANSLATOR STATUS ................................................................................................................ 32
4.2 TRANSLATION AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 35
4.3 THE LITERARY TRANSLATOR ..................................................................................................... 39
4.4 LITERARY TRANSLATION AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 41
4.5 THE TRANSLATOR OF THE FUTURE ............................................................................................. 49
4.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ........................................................................... 55
5.1 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .................................................................................................. 56
5.1.1 Research epistemology ......................................................................................................... 56
5.1.2 Research ontology ................................................................................................................ 58
5.1.3 Mixed-methods approach ..................................................................................................... 59
5.1.4 Methodological issues .......................................................................................................... 63
5.2 SURVEY RESEARCH.................................................................................................................... 65
5.2.1 Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 66
5.2.1.1 UK translation associations ......................................................................................................... 68
5.2.1.2 Online communities .................................................................................................................... 70
5.2.2 Sampling frame .................................................................................................................... 71
5.2.3 Question design .................................................................................................................... 73
5.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 75
CHAPTER 6: PILOT STUDY ................................................................................................................ 77
6.1 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................. 77
6.2 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 79
6.2.1 Respondents’ background .................................................................................................... 79
6.2.2 Perceptions of role ............................................................................................................... 80
6.2.3 Attitudes towards technology ............................................................................................... 83
6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 85
6.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 87
CHAPTER 7: MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................. 88
7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DATA .............................................................................................................. 89
7.1.1 Section one: background information .................................................................................. 89
7.1.2 Section two: language skills ................................................................................................. 97
7.1.3 Section three: professional practice ................................................................................... 101
7.1.4 Section four: confidence with technologies ........................................................................ 105
7.1.5 Section five: open questions ............................................................................................... 114
7.1.6 Final comments and consent for follow-up contact ............................................................ 142

II
7.2 CROSS-REFERENCED DATA ...................................................................................................... 144
7.2.1 Perceptions of role ............................................................................................................. 146
7.2.1.1 Role and age ............................................................................................................................. 146
7.2.1.1.1 Age and essential traits ........................................................................................................ 146
7.2.1.1.2 Age and outsiders’ perceptions ............................................................................................ 148
7.2.1.1.3 Age and wish to be perceived .............................................................................................. 149
7.2.1.2 Role and educational background ............................................................................................. 149
7.2.1.2.1 Type of degree and essential traits ....................................................................................... 150
7.2.1.2.2 Type of degree and outsiders’ perceptions ........................................................................... 150
7.2.1.2.3 Type of degree and wish to be perceived ............................................................................. 151
7.2.1.3 Role and professional status ...................................................................................................... 152
7.2.1.3.1 Type of translation activity and essential traits .................................................................... 152
7.2.1.3.2 Type of translation activity and outsiders’ perceptions ........................................................ 153
7.2.1.3.3 Type of translation activity and wish to be perceived .......................................................... 154
7.2.1.3.4 Employment status and essential traits ................................................................................. 154
7.2.1.3.5 Employment status and outsiders’ perceptions .................................................................... 155
7.2.1.3.6 Employment status and wish to be perceived ....................................................................... 156
7.2.1.3.7 Self-defined professional status and essential traits ............................................................. 156
7.2.1.3.8 Self-defined professional status and outsiders’ perceptions ................................................. 158
7.2.1.3.9 Self-defined professional status and wish to be perceived ................................................... 158
7.2.1.4 Summary of perceptions of role ................................................................................................ 159
7.2.2 Attitudes towards technology ............................................................................................. 160
7.2.2.1 Attitudes towards technology and age ...................................................................................... 160
7.2.2.1.1 Age and essential traits-technology relationship .................................................................. 161
7.2.2.1.2 Age and literary translation-technology relationship ........................................................... 162
7.2.2.1.3 Age and future of literary translation-technology relationship ............................................. 163
7.2.2.1.4 Age and confidence with general technology....................................................................... 163
7.2.2.1.5 Age and confidence with translation-specific technology .................................................... 164
7.2.2.2 Attitudes towards technology and educational background ...................................................... 165
7.2.2.2.1 Type of degree and confidence with general technology ..................................................... 165
7.2.2.2.2 Type of degree and confidence with translation-specific technology................................... 166
7.2.2.2.3 Type of degree and essential traits-technology relationship ................................................. 167
7.2.2.2.4 Type of degree and literary translation-technology relationship .......................................... 168
7.2.2.3 Attitudes towards technology and translation technology training ........................................... 168
7.2.2.3.1 Academic translation technology training and confidence with general technology ............ 169
7.2.2.3.2 Academic translation technology training and confidence with translation technology ....... 169
7.2.2.3.3 Academic translation technology training and essential traits-technology relationship ....... 169
7.2.2.3.4 Academic translation technology training and literary translation-technology relationship . 170
7.2.2.3.5 Non-academic translation technology training and confidence with general technology ..... 170
7.2.2.3.6 Non-academic translation technology training and confidence with translation technology 171
7.2.2.3.7 Non-academic translation technology training and essential traits-technology relationship 171
7.2.2.3.8 Non-academic translation technology training and literary translation-technology relationship
171
7.2.2.4 Attitudes towards technology and professional status ............................................................... 172
7.2.2.4.1 Type of literary translation activity and confidence with general technology ...................... 172
7.2.2.4.2 Type of literary translation activity and confidence with translation technology ................. 173
7.2.2.4.3 Type of literary translation activity and essential traits-technology relationship ................. 173
7.2.2.4.4 Type of literary translation activity and literary translation-technology relationship ........... 174
7.2.2.4.5 Employment status and confidence with general technology ............................................... 175
7.2.2.4.6 Employment status and confidence with translation technology .......................................... 175
7.2.2.4.7 Employment status and essential traits-technology relationship .......................................... 176
7.2.2.4.8 Employment status and literary translation-technology relationship .................................... 176
7.2.2.4.9 Self-defined professional status and confidence with general technology ........................... 176
7.2.2.4.10 Self-defined professional status and confidence with translation technology ...................... 177
7.2.2.4.11 Self-defined professional status and essential traits-technology relationship ....................... 177
7.2.2.4.12 Self-defined professional status and literary translation-technology relationship ................ 178
7.2.2.5 Confidence with technology and attitudes towards technology ................................................ 178
7.2.2.5.1 Confidence with technology and essential traits-technology relationship ............................ 179
7.2.2.5.2 Confidence with technology and literary translation-technology relationship ..................... 180
7.2.2.6 Summary of attitudes towards technology ................................................................................ 181
7.3 SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 183
7.3.1 Who are literary translators? ............................................................................................. 183
7.3.1.1 The personal is professional ...................................................................................................... 183
7.3.1.2 Literary translators as misunderstood ....................................................................................... 186

III
7.3.1.3 Literary translators as in-between ............................................................................................. 188
7.3.2 The good, the bad, and the tech .......................................................................................... 189
7.3.2.1 The good side of technology ..................................................................................................... 189
7.3.2.2 The bad side of technology ....................................................................................................... 192
7.3.2.3 General vs translation technology ............................................................................................. 196
7.3.3 The role-technology interplay ............................................................................................ 203
7.4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 205
CHAPTER 8: THE LITERARY TRANSLATION AGE ................................................................... 207
8.1 A CONSTANT STATE OF OTHERNESS ......................................................................................... 210
8.2 A MUTUAL CONTROVERSY ....................................................................................................... 212
8.3 THE WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................ 216
8.4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 218
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 220
9.1 SIGNIFICANCE AND FUTURE WORK .......................................................................................... 223
9.2 FINAL REMARKS ...................................................................................................................... 225
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 227
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................... 234
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................... 240
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................................... 245
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................................... 254

IV
List of Tables
Table 7.1 – Question 3: breakdown of multiple choices (n=150, a=150) ....................... 91
Table 7.2 – Question 3.a: academic qualifications in translation – Other (n = 31, a = 37)
......................................................................................................................................... 92
Table 7.3 – Question 4.a: Translation technology-specific training (part of an academic
degree) – Other (n = 29, a = 35) ...................................................................................... 93
Table 7.4 – Question 5.a: Translation technology-specific training (outside of an
academic degree) (n = 37, a = 42) ................................................................................... 94
Table 7.5 – Question 6.a: Type of association (n = 98, a = 144) .................................... 95
Table 7.6 – Question 7.a: Type of online community (n = 129, a = 247)....................... 96
Table 7.7 – Question 9: Working languages (language direction) (n = 150, a = 150) .... 98
Table 7.8 – Question 9: Working languages (language pairs) (n = 150, a = 303) . ...... 100
Table 7.9 – Question 9: Working languages (target language) (n = 150, a = 197) ....... 101
Table 7.10 – Question 11.a: Type of literary translation activity – Other (n = 22, a =22)
....................................................................................................................................... 102
Table 7.11 – Question 12.a: Employment status – Other (n = 11, a = 11) ................... 103
Table 7.12 – Question 13: Type of client/employer (n = 130, a = 189) ....................... 103
Table 7.13 – Question 14.a: Literary translators’ status (n = 9, a = 9) ......................... 104
Table 7.14 – Question 15: Percentage of literary projects/year (n = 150, a = 150) ...... 105
Table 7.15 – Question 17: General technology in literary translation (n = 150, a = 397)
....................................................................................................................................... 107
Table 7.16 – Question 18: General technology in non-literary translation (n = 150, a =
378) ............................................................................................................................... 109
Table 7.17 – Question 20: Translation technology in literary translation (n = 150, a =
163) ............................................................................................................................... 112
Table 7.18 – Question 21: Translation technology in non-literary translation (n = 150, a
= 168) ............................................................................................................................ 113
Table 7.19 – Question 22: Essential traits (n = 150, a = 399) ....................................... 114
Table 7.20 – Question 23: Outsiders’ perceptions (n = 150, a = 195) .......................... 120
Table 7.21 – Question 24: Wish to be perceived by outsiders (n = 135, a = 158) ........ 123
Table 7.22 – Question 25: Relationship between literary translation and technology (n =
150, a = 150) ................................................................................................................. 124
Table 7.23 – Question 26: Feelings towards technology (n = 150, a = 150) ................ 128
Table 7.24 – Question 27.a: Future of relationship literary translation-technology –
Justification (n = 150, a = 160 (150)) ............................................................................ 130
Table 7.25 – Question 28: Appealing aspects of technology (n = 150, a = 201) .......... 133
Table 7.26 – Question 29: Unappealing aspects of technology (n = 150, a = 169) ...... 137

V
List of Figures
Figure 7.1 – Question 1: Age group (n = 150, a = 150) .................................................. 90
Figure 7.2 – Question 2: Country of work (n = 150, a = 150) ........................................ 90
Figure 7.3 – Question 3: Academic qualifications in translation (n = 150, a = 163) ...... 91
Figure 7.4 – Question 8: First language (n = 150, a = 150) ............................................ 97
Figure 7.5 – Question 10: Years of experience (n = 150, a = 150) ............................... 101
Figure 7.6 – Question 12: Employment status (n = 150, a = 150) ................................ 102
Figure 7.7 – Question 14: Literary translators’ status (n = 150, a = 150) ..................... 104
Figure 7.8 – Question 16: Confidence with general technologies (n = 150, a = 150) .. 106
Figure 7.9 – Question 19: Confidence with translation technology (n = 150, a = 150) 111

VI
List of abbreviations
ACE - Automated Content Enrichment
AI - Artificial Intelligence
CALT- Computer-Assisted Literary Translation
CAT - Computer-Aided Translation
CDR - Close and Distant Reading
DGT – Directorate-General for Translation
HCI - Human-Computer Interaction
ICT - Information and Communication Technology
MT - Machine Translation
NLP - Natural Language Processing
NMT - Neural Machine Translation
OCR - Optical Character Recognition
PE - Post-editing
SCOT - Social Construction of Technology
SMT - Statistical Machine Translation
STS - Science and Technology Studies
TM - Translation Memory

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Translation responded to the diversity of languages with the ideal
of a universal intelligibility. […] The modern age destroyed that security.
(Paz, 1979)
Translation both hides and manifests in all aspects of contemporary society, invisible by
means of its omnipresence. In fact, it is inherent to the process of globalisation, and as
such it intertwines with the concepts of speed, efficiency and innovation. For this reason,
recent years have seen both research and practice centre around the introduction of new
technology tools in translation, the developing of new workflows, and the metamorphosis
of the professional figure of the translator as a result of an increased interaction with
technology. In this respect, Cronin (2013) labels this the Translation Age, in that
translation is at the core of everything that powers the instantaneity of communication
and the rapid exchange of information that define the world we live in. Texts, images
and sounds can all be translated into binary code, to then be promptly shared and
contribute to the constant stream of information, incessant digitalisation of materials,
automation of processes, and speed of communication. According to Cronin (2013: 1),
all these traits have engendered a ‘sense of confusion’ for humans, who are consistently
left wondering about what their place is in this ever-changing socio-cultural landscape.
This is ever so true for translators, whereby the concept of translation itself is being
transformed and so are the ways in which it is approached as a profession. In fact, in a
world where translation pervades every aspect of life, it is paramount to reconsider the
boundaries between humans and technology and revisit the role of translators in society.
One of the reasons to reassess translators’ position in this new paradigm is also due to the
new place that technology tools are occupying in society in general and translation in
particular. In this respect, Littau (2016) emphasises the importance of reintroducing
materiality into the discourse surrounding translation in the contemporary age. Here,
materiality refers to the non-human element, e.g., digital tools, technology, machines,
computers. Conversely, immateriality is embodied by creativity, spirit, mind, conscience,
soul, and anything associated with being quintessentially human. What Littau (2016)
advances is the idea that in the present day it is not possible nor productive to consider
one without the other. In fact, the two interact symbiotically and mutually influence each
other. Their coexistence is the result of a natural interplay rather than a hierarchical fight

2
for subjugation. Thus, the study of immateriality in translation cannot overlook the ways
material tools affect and shape it. Rather, it should develop a discourse that includes and
accounts for both elements.
In line with Wolf (2007), translation is here deemed a socially- and culturally-embedded
activity. In fact, the above has shown how translation can be considered an inherent part
of society, intrinsically shaping and contributing to it. Taking this as a starting point,
O’Brien (2012) further defines contemporary translation as a form of Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI). The term originates from the field of Science and Technology Studies
(STS) and refers to how the relationship between humans and machines unfolds with
regard to aspects such as user interfaces and technology usability and acceptance. When
applied to Translation Studies, the concept of HCI causes to shift the focus on translators’
ever-increasing interaction with technology. In this respect, Kenny (2017) emphasises
the importance of addressing human issues arising from HCI in translation in order to
investigate the impact technology has on translators as actors in the current socio-cultural
climate.
Having said that, the field of literary translation seems to escape the wider discourse
around technology. In this respect, Toral and Way (2014) have referred to it as ‘the last
bastion of human translation’ (ibid.: 174). Overall, literary translators tend to distinguish
themselves from their colleagues in other areas of the field. According to Sela-Sheffy
(2008), unlike them, literary translators create idealised personae through which they
present themselves to the world. They often depict themselves as innovators,
ambassadors and custodians of culture, and artists in their own right. This, in order to
counteract the unappealing image of the profession and conquer professional autonomy
by using their personae as a self-promotion strategy (ibid.). The unappealing image of
translation is that of a low status profession where translators are constantly devalued and
unacknowledged (Sela-Sheffy, 2008; Katan, 2009; Dam and Zethsen, 2016). However,
literary translators’ tendency to remain untouched in the face of research and
technological innovation seems to have decreased in recent years. In fact, the relationship
between literary translation and technology has recently become the object of an
increasing number of research projects. For example, studies are being undertaken on the
application of Machine Translation (MT) to the translation of poetry (Genzel et al., 2010;
Greene et al., 2010; Jones and Irvine, 2013) and prose (Voigt and Jurafsky, 2012; Jones
and Irvine, 2013; Toral and Way, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2018; Besacier and Schwartz,

3
2015; Tezcan et al., 2019) and on literary translation workflows that integrate technology
(Rothwell, 2009; Toral et al., 2018; Murchú, 2019; Youdale, 2019; Youdale and
Rothwell, forthcoming). This being said, very few studies have focused on human issues
as related to technology in the field of literary translation (Large, 2018; Moorkens et al.,
2018; Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2018; Kenny and Winters, 2020). Notably, at the beginning
of this research project in 2016, no studies could be identified that directly involved
literary translators in uncovering their overall attitudes towards technology and the ways
the new socio-cultural landscape affects their role. This only changed recently, with
Slessor (2019) conducting a survey to unveil literary translators’ use of technology and
potential training needs, the first published study of this kind.
In light of the above, the question of how translators position themselves in a continuously
evolving socio-technological landscape becomes a compelling one. The sense of
confusion engendered by the Translation Age, the configuration of translation as a form
of HCI, and the need to address human issues deriving from these profound changes all
call for an investigation of how both translation and translators are influenced by
contemporary society and vice versa. More specifically, the world of literary translation
has emerged as distinct in many ways. In particular, literary translators seem to be
constructing their image differently than their colleagues, indicating that results from
studies on human issues and HCI in other branches of translation might not apply in the
same way to literary translation. For this reason, literary translation needs to be looked
at from a different angle when exploring how, for example, the character described by
Sela-Sheffy (2008) fits in the current technological landscape and how HCI manifests
itself in literary translation. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, a growing body of
literature on technology applied to literary translation is met by a lack of focus on human
issues. Ultimately, the rationale behind this research project is rooted in the belief that
time is ripe for an investigation of literary translators’ personal and emotional narratives
of their role in contemporary society and their attitudes towards technology as related to
their profession. This, in order to better determine their place in this new shifting
paradigm. Hence, the focus of this study is on exploring the dynamic, mutual and social
construction of HCI in literary translation. More specifically, this study aims at obtaining
a richer understanding of the human and technological factors at play in the field of
literary translation by gaining an insight into literary translators’ perspectives and
attitudes towards technology and their role in society. The research question that informs
this study is the following:

4
What is the dynamic between humans and technology in literary translation?
Two sub-questions have been formulated to assist and guide the answering of the main
research question. These are:
a) How do literary translators perceive their role in society?
b) What are their attitudes towards technology as related to literary translation?
In order to answer these questions and meet the overall research aim, this study sets out
to fulfil the following objectives:
a. To empower the professional figure of the literary translator by centring their
attitudes and perceptions.
b. To establish how literary translators’ interpretations of their profession contribute
to the social construction of technology, and whether any conflicts are present
with the other social groups involved.
c. To relate the findings to the wider socio-cultural context of The Translation Age
and the reintroduction of materiality in the translation discourse in order to devise
a more productive, inclusive and sustainable way forward for literary translators.
In order to answer the research questions and meet the overall aim, this study employs an
interpretivist, constructionist and mixed-methods methodological approach. Data was
collected via means of a questionnaire, which was completed by 150 literary translators.
Furthermore, the study follows the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)
framework as theorised by Pinch and Bijker (1984). This framework refutes
technological determinism by recognising technological innovation as the result of
different social groups’ interpretations of new technological artefacts.
The thesis is structured as follows:
Chapter 1 has introduced the study by providing the contextual background to it.
Additionally, it has presented its research aim, objectives, and research questions.

5
Chapter 2 delves into the theoretical framework of the study. In particular, it outlines the
concepts of Translation Age, materiality and immateriality, and HCI as related to
translation.
Chapter 3 is dedicated to presenting the SCOT framework, its main tenets and critique.
It also provides an overview of how it has been applied in the field of Translation and
Interpreting Studies so far. It finally outlines how SCOT has been adapted for this
specific research project.
Chapter 4 focuses on reviewing state-of-the-art literature relevant to this study. More
specifically, it centres on the distinction between literary and non-literary translation.
Respectively, literature on role and technology in literary and non-literary translation is
presented.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to exploring the methodological approaches adopted. Here, the
epistemological and ontological positions employed by the study are clarified, while the
overall methodology and relevant issues are discussed. Particular attention is given to the
questionnaire design and sampling method.
Chapter 6 details the process of piloting the questionnaire. It presents the pilot study’s
results and reflects on its implications in terms of finalising the questionnaire.
Chapter 7 presents the questionnaire’s results and their analysis. It first presents the data
collected. It then goes on to provide cross-referenced data to further analyse participants’
perceptions of role and attitudes towards technology. Ultimately, an analysis discussion
is provided, where the main themes emerging from the data are collated and
contextualised. This preludes the discussion of the study, which is the object of the
subsequent chapter.
Chapter 8 is where the study’s findings undergo further evaluation to then be reconducted
to the wider theoretical background and to the relevant literature in the field.
Chapter 9 concludes this thesis by summarising its findings, answering the research
questions, and providing suggestions for future work.

6
Chapter 2: A new translation era
The advent of the Information Age has deeply shaped and transformed almost every
aspect of our daily lives. A structural and paradigmatic change on this scale is bound to
alter deeply rooted ideals in sometimes unexpected ways, creating uncertainty and
disruption in an existing order of things. As a result of this, the intricate process of
translation, together with research in Translation Studies, underwent, and it is still
undergoing, a series of changes that have had a profound impact on every aspect of the
field.
According to Cronin (2013), translation is taking on a wider meaning. In fact, in a world
where everything is continuously multiplied and transformed, translation does not belong
solely to the realm of language anymore. Instead, translatability becomes an inherent
quality of culture and society, to the point that Cronin states how ‘our present age, which
is often referred to as the information age […] should more properly be termed the
translation age’ (ibid.: 3). The ‘sense of confusion’ generated by phenomena such as the
emergence of new technological innovations, increasing automation of tasks,
digitalisation of documents, the constant bombardment of information, instant
communication and access to knowledge, bring into question the future of the translation
profession as well as that of translators as the humans in charge of it (ibid.: 1). In
particular, the way the latter interact with digital technologies emerges as not only
problematic, but also the area where the answers are the vaguest. In this respect, Cronin
highlights the surfacing of digital humanism discourses supporting the investigation of
the new links originated by the interaction of culture, society, translation and technology
in the digital age (ibid.: 7).
In an attempt to address similar questions, Littau (2016) proposes some theoretical
coordinates for the exploration of the new digital paradigm and its implications for the
world of translation. More specifically, she reassesses the interplay between materiality
and immateriality, calling for the reintroduction of tools into the discourse, as opposed to
the exaltation of intellectuality only (ibid.: 83). In her words:
If we take seriously the entanglement of the material and the ideational, it is just as untenable to
prioritize spirit over matter or subject over object as it is to downgrade media technologies to
empty shells, the sole function of which it is to carry the fruits of the mind’s labours. Media are

7
not merely instruments with which writers or translators produce meanings; rather, they set the
framework within which something like meaning becomes possible at all. […] Given the fast-
changing technological landscape, however, and the pivotal role that non-human agents such as
machines and media play in the very stakes of civilization, would it not be appropriate to pay them
their due? (ibid.: 83)
Here, non-human agents actively participate in the act of translation, one where the human
is less lonely, and both join to create ‘the conditions of possibility for humanization’
(ibid.: 84). From this perspective, materiality and immateriality co-exist, generating a
natural interplay where they act symbiotically, mutually influencing each other: ‘we
cannot think without tools or outside of them […] this is why we need to be attentive to
materiality and its cognates’ (ibid.). Thus, the bond between ideality and materiality is
indissoluble, and to study translation in contemporary society is to explore the way they
interact (ibid.: 93).
All of the above forms the basis for the outlining of this research project’s theoretical
framework and thus for the exploration of the dynamic, mutual and social construction of
HCI in literary translation. Recognising this interaction as socially constructed means
that technology is inextricably embedded in society and culture, the same way translation
is. Consequently, different social groups will construct reality in different ways, giving
rise to a multitude of interpretations of technological innovation. To aid the exploration
of technology as a social construction in literary translation this study employs the SCOT
framework as theorised by Pinch and Bijker in 1984. The framework, its criticism and
the way in which it has been employed will be detailed in Chapter 3.
This chapter aims at outlining the conceptual framework that provides the scaffolding to
this study and puts into context the reasons for undertaking it. It is divided into three
main sections. The first one will delve deeper into Cronin’s definition of ‘Translation
Age’, delineating the socio-technological background of this thesis. The chapter will then
move on to further define the concepts of materiality and immateriality, and point out the
need for research in translation to address the relationship between the two, as noted by
Littau (2016). Finally, the third section will turn to the concept of HCI, how this can be
applied to translation, and what meaning it holds for both research and practice.

8
2.1 The Translation Age
In less suspicious times, Octavio Paz (1979) reflected on how translation went from
epitomising universality to being a means by which diversity and fragmentation in
languages and culture are highlighted. He attributes this shift to the modern age, that
‘destroyed that security’ (ibid.: 13), and to the double nature of translation ‘that in a way
[…] overcomes the differences between two languages; in another way, it reveals them
more fully’ (ibid.: 14). The complexifying role of translation in society has been explored
more recently by Cronin (2013), who associates the defragmentation typical of the digital
age with the essence of translation itself. He aims at putting translation and translators in
relation to the present technological landscape, raising relevant questions on the future of
the profession, and how humans, products and processes will be impacted. His analysis
starts by configuring the contemporary age as a translation age, whereby translation is an
invaluable and integral quality of contemporary society. Nowadays, everything is
translatable: files, contents, information, images, sounds, can all be encoded and shared,
and thus ‘the radical changes that have been wrought in all areas of life as a result of the
advent of information technology are to be placed under the sign of convertibility or
translation’ (ibid.: 3). This is even more relevant if we consider encoding as carrying
characteristics intrinsic to translation, namely that of establishing a relationship between
two different systems which also has an impact on said systems. Thus, designating this
as a ‘translation age rather than an information age better defines not only changing
understandings of information and technology but also the alteration, the mutability in
relations between languages and cultures brought about by new translation media’ (ibid.:
105).
Configuring our age as a translation age brings to light matters related to the specific role
language translation has in it and, in turn, how new tools and ways of encoding affect it.
With respect to the former, the question arises of what becomes of translators and
translation in a socio-cultural context where the latter inherently belongs to everything
and everyone. In fact, translation being constitutive of society could lead to it being taken
for granted, nothing more than a natural occurrence. Similarly, its immediate availability
in the form of automated translation could give the impression that translation is indeed
a mechanical task for which the mediation of a human translator is superfluous. In this
respect, Cronin states:

9
The disembodied, instantaneous execution of the translation task implies that translation is an
agentless, automatic function that can be realized in no time at all, and that translation is
fundamentally a matching or substitutive operation, the text changing as the language is translated,
but the layout remaining the same. Hitting the ‘Translate’ button or the ‘Translate this page’ link
is more than a keystroke, it is a paradigm shift. (ibid.: 46-47)
Paradoxically, by being omnipresent, translation only incurs the risk of reasserting its
invisibility. Furthermore, complicating the socio-cultural positioning of translation is
the increasing role of material tools, which allow it to pervade most aspects of
contemporary life. Notably, Cronin advances the idea of humans and tools reciprocally
influencing each other (ibid.: 10). In light of the above, it then becomes crucial for
research to address questions related to how both humans and machines affect each
other in the context of this paradigm shift. To address the peculiarities of the translation
age is then also to identify how translation and translators themselves are shaped by this
new configuration.
Especially regarding the relationship between translators and technology, Cronin
observes how examining the relationship between the two could indeed lead to
highlighting what constitutes the very essence of humanity (ibid.). The multifaceted
nature of the Translation Age emerges here once again, whereby the other face of the
potential devaluation of the profession is a rediscovery of the translator as human,
through the resurfacing of what makes them invaluable. As media theorist Marshall
McLuhan (1964) puts it:
‘in this electric age we see ourselves […] moving toward the technological extension of
consciousness. That is what is meant when we say that we daily know more and more about man
[sic]. We mean that we can translate more and more of ourselves into other forms of expression
that exceed ourselves’ (ibid.: ch.6, para. 2).
Ultimately, the reconfiguration of the Information Age as the Translation Age
engenders a series of implications for the relationship of both translation and translators
with materiality. This will be further explored in the next section. Moreover, this
paradigm shift calls for the need to investigate the opportunities offered by new modes
of working, communicating and translating. In this sense, ‘the ever-changing, self-
renewing figure of translation’ will be central and, ‘more broadly, we will have to
negotiate the perpetual challenge of what it means to be human in the translation age,
knowing that the only certainty in our digital world is that there is none’ (Cronin, 2013:
141).

10
2.2 Materiality and Immateriality
The previous section has highlighted how materiality is a key element of contemporary
society, and how its interaction with human factors raises new issues that need to be
addressed by both research and practice. A forum hosted on the journal Translation
Studies between 2016 and 2017 attempted to account for this need by starting a
conversation around material culture in translation. The forum opened with an article by
Karin Littau (2016), which was followed by three rounds of replies. Littau’s paper
proposes a rebalancing of material and immaterial elements in the humanities, whereby
current approaches tend to focus exclusively either on the human or on technology. She
does so by ‘urging the humanities to embrace technology, to understand that media affect
not only the material ways in which we communicate, but also how we think’ (Bassnett,
2016: 112).
Humanities’ discourse has tended to privilege mind – ‘that which the Germans call Geist
– spirit, mind, soul’, over matter (Littau, 2016: 82). In particular, the “cultural turn” in
Translation Studies has given prominence to the figure of the translator, putting the focus
on ideality. Without denying its transformative nature, Littau advances the idea that the
ever-increasing technologisation of society and the even more inevitable relationship with
the material factor that results from it calls for a reconsideration of the “cultural turn”,
and for the development of a new paradigm that includes both materiality and
immateriality in its questions (ibid.: 86). Human and non-human agents mutually
influence each other, and ‘neither belongs exclusively either to matter or spirit, to the
technological or the natural’ (ibid.: 93). As far as translation is concerned, focusing on
translators, meanings, culture, processes, inevitably implies the presence of machines,
tools and media, especially in the present day and age. These cannot and should not be
ignored, together with the fact that they do indeed participate in shaping society. In this
view, the construction of society, and hence translation, is not solely a human prerogative.
The concept of technological determinism is thus reprised, as opposed to that of an all-
determining human: ‘machines have made us what we are, just as we have made
machines’ (ibid.: 84). The reciprocity that characterises the encounter between
materiality and immateriality as presented by Littau conflicts with Cronin’s view (2003)
of a technology that does not contribute to the configuration of ideality (Littau, 2016: 84).
In fact, in his response to Littau’s positional paper, Cronin underlines how it is hard ‘to
resist the political fatalism of technodeterminism’, and for this reason research ‘need[s]

11
urgently to reflect on […] what any future convergence might look like’ (Cronin, 2017:
96).
The timeliness and urgency of exploring spirit and matter in translation as two faces of
the same coin is also present in other responses to Littau’s paper. In particular, O’Hagan
(2017) suggests employing empirical methods to uncover material and immaterial
dimensions of translation. For Kosick (2016), this exploration shows the potential to
include the study of how language resists materiality, and not only how the two relate to
each other. To a certain extent, the current study is interested in exploring both resistance
and interrelation of human and non-human factors in literary translation. More
specifically, it recognises materiality entering the literary translation discourse, and
attempts at outlining the boundaries of this convergence by first looking at it through the
eyes of literary translators. It addresses questions raised by the Translation Age as defined
by Cronin (2013), and accounts for the importance of materiality and the power it has to
shape society. This being said, it does not yield to technological determinism. On the
contrary, human agency does not disappear nor is it erased by technological innovation.
This project welcomes Littau’s (2016) invite to reassess the relationship between material
and immaterial, and looks at re-balancing the conversation around technology in literary
translation, whereby literary translators are virtually absent from it (see Section 4.4). The
relationship between humans and technology is hereby taken not to be hierarchical.
Instead, both influence and determine each other in ways that, especially in the case of
contemporary literary translation, still need to be uncovered. In Littau’s words:
since no human culture is possible without an enabling materiality and a possibilizing technology,
culture and technology are not mutually exclusive, but on the contrary necessarily inclusive. And
if this is so, then technologies produce consequent imaginations: they are active in effecting the
ways in which we think, read, write and translate. (Littau, 2017: 100)
Having provided the theoretical underpinnings for the reintroduction of materiality in the
study of translation, and highlighted the need for research to focus on the new questions
that the mutual interplay of mind and matter pose on the background of the Translation
Age, the following section will go on to configure translation as a form of HCI.

12
2.3 Human-Computer Interaction in Translation
In 1983, an age where translators still worked with ‘pencil and paper or a typewriter or a
tape recorder’, Melby predicted a future in which Computer-Aided Translation (CAT)
would have been the norm, both in the profession and in teaching programmes (ibid.: 55).
Just over 30 years later, Bowker (2015), advocating for a reform of the translation
curriculum to include translation technology training, states that nowadays it would
almost be inconceivable to think of a translator who does not make use of any kind of
computer technology when approaching a translation task (ibid.: 88). New forms of
telecommunication, generally faster processes and new multimedia file formats have
allowed things such as more efficient and speedy communication and the embedding of
MT and/or CAT in the translation workflow. These all characterise what has earlier been
defined as the Translation Age (Cronin, 2013; also see Section 2.1). This process of
social, economic and technological change is now irreversible in a way that requires
people who live it to creatively find new ways of riding the wave of time without
necessarily being swept away by it. In the words of Austermühl (2001), ‘the use of
information and communication technology (ICT) is a fait accompli in the lives of today’s
language professionals that cannot be ignored and from which there is no return’ (ibid.:
7). For this reason, and as a result of these ‘drastic and lasting changes in the way
translators work’, he also advocates for a general paradigmatic shift in methodology that
‘must embrace practice, teaching and research’ (ibid.: 1). All of the above makes it
extremely relevant to think of translation as an activity that is essentially both socially-
and culturally- embedded. According to Wolf (2007) ,
‘any translation, as both an enactment and a product, is necessarily embedded within social
contexts. […] Accordingly, the subjectivity of the participants in this “global play” is of paramount
importance. […] Analysing the social implications of translation helps us to identify the translator
and the translation researcher as a constructing and constructed subject in society.’ (ibid.: 1)
In this respect, agreeing with Wolf (2007) in considering the process of translation as
influenced by cultural and social factors makes it easier to recognise the subjective
agencies involved in all different areas of translation, from training to research and
professional practices. In fact, focusing on these aspects becomes fundamental when
investigating the substantial ways in which the introduction of translation technologies in
the translator’s workflow has shaped the industry and altered translators’ roles, needs and
perceptions in recent years.

13
A significant step in this direction is taken by O’Brien (2012), who commences her
analysis of the relationship between translator and machine by first configuring
translation as a form of HCI. This premise allows for an analysis of translators’
perceptions towards the machines they almost necessarily have to work with on a daily
basis. O’Brien highlights how ‘translation requires ever-increasing interaction with
computers and this has been both enabling and a source of malcontent in the translation
profession’ (ibid.: 103). In fact, translators’ contrasting attitudes describe technology as
both a help and a hindrance to the translation process. On one hand, MT and CAT tools
are meant to be cost-saving solutions and improve productivity. On the other hand, they
pose the risk of dehumanisation and devaluation of the translator as both human and
professional (ibid.: 109). This can manifest in the reduction of pay following the
introduction of technology tools in the workflow or in the feeling of being ‘remove[d]
[…] from the task of translation’ (ibid.). In addressing the discrepancy in translators’
interaction with technology, O’Brien advances the hypothesis that translation
technologies, instead of becoming a hindrance, could indeed make ‘translators’ work
more valuable’ in the future (ibid.: 118) by making space for the most human tasks while
letting tools manage the more mechanical aspects of translation (ibid.: 111). Looking at
the future, she then identifies the need to foster collaboration and training for a fruitful
HCI in translation. In particular, the involvement of translators in the tools’ development
process could promote acceptance of such tools and at the same time empower translators,
leading them to think of technology as enhancing their humanity rather than threatening
it (ibid.: 109, 116, 119). O’Brien’s suggestion is to ‘promote symbiosis, rather than
friction’, by putting the translator (i.e., the end-user) and their cognitive and practical
activity at the centre of the software development process (ibid.: 116). In the context of
the current study, it is then worth remembering that, while O’Brien’s analysis is referring
prevalently to commercial and/or technical translation, literary translation can also be
considered a form of HCI (ibid.: 102). Comprehensively, thinking of translation as a form
of HCI helps framing its research and practice in the context of this new age and pushes
for new approaches and research questions. Notably, it allows to focus on the concurrent
emergence of materiality and immateriality as described in Section 2.2, and to undertake
an exploration of the particular ways in which translators approach technology in the
present and how these insights can be used to promote a symbiotic and mutually
beneficial relationship by addressing human issues in relation to technology.

14
The need for further investigation of the impact that technologies are having on translators
as actors in a socially- and culturally-embedded activity such as translation is also
highlighted by Kenny (2017), who advocates for a new focus on the human issues that
arise from the relationship between translators and technology. She also draws special
attention to how research tends to focus on the innovation side of technology, often
neglecting the users (ibid.: 2). This means that ‘the desires and abilities of – and impacts
[of technology] on – human beings’ (ibid.) are also ignored. For this reason, drawing
from STS, she favours a technostructuralist approach, which focuses more on the socio-
cultural context and on the actors related to technology implementation, as opposed to a
technoneutral one, which is ‘associated with blindness to context, inadequate
understanding of social and institutional forces, and impoverished ethical reasoning’
(ibid.: 2). On a similar note, but specifically referring to MT, Cadwell et al. (2016) state
how ‘the current relationship between translators and MT is a complex HCI challenge
that warrants for further investigation’ (ibid.: 226). They also highlight the emergence
of:
a move towards investigating the interaction with the technology from a socio-technical
perspective. […] In going beyond the level of the computer tool or monitor, it is likely we will
gain a greater understanding of the broad range of factors that impact on translators’ use of tools.
(ibid.)
In this respect, Olohan (2011, 2017) argues that nowadays not taking technology into
account means having only a partial view of the profession. She focuses in particular on
power asymmetry as related to HCI, and proposes the adoption of STS frameworks for
its study, which has been neglected in virtually every aspect (ibid.). Gaining insights into
how technology is developed, implemented, used and viewed, could benefit the
relationship between the material and the immaterial, allowing, for example, to ‘inform
translator training and help translators develop a perspective on technology which is
neither deterministic nor somnambulant but emergent and reflective’ (Olohan, 2011:
354). Also informed by STS theories is a study by Koskinen and Ruokonen (2017). Here,
they observe the ways in which the translation profession’s shift from humanistic to
technology-driven constantly causes professionals’ practices to readjust. In order to do
this, exploring the human side of the relationship with technologies becomes
fundamental, in that ‘the emotional side of new technology, […] [is] also relevant for
explaining translators’ technology acceptance processes and for understanding the social
effects of technologisation on the translation profession’ (ibid.: 9). The two scholars
employ STS frameworks to analyse technology acceptance, asking translators to write a
love and/or a break-up letter to a tool they use in their everyday professional practice,

15
thus encouraging them to share emotional narratives of personal experiences. Among
other things, results challenge the widespread assumption that translators are averse to
technology as such (ibid.: 13). Overall, looking at translation through the lens of HCI
opens up innumerable avenues for the investigation of how the material interacts with the
human and vice versa, of issues emerging from such interaction, and the effects that each
element has on the other, both in the present and in the future. While trying to establish
an overall framework for how technology has affected the process and product of
translation and the role of the translator, Doherty (2016) shines a light on the latter by
highlighting how ‘in looking ahead, what remains unclear is the particular roles that
translators and everyday users of translation will play in an increasingly technology-
dependent globalized society’ (ibid.: 963). Ultimately, bringing technology into the
conversation implies the role of the human being called into question, while
simultaneously stating the importance of investigating personal narratives to better
understand translation as HCI and finding ways of balancing both material and immaterial
agents.
In addressing this issue, Cronin (2013) discusses crowdsourcing in translation as an
example of fostering a collaborative approach where technology becomes a means to
achieve human objectives (ibid.: 102). Mitchell (2010) furthers this thought by
suggesting that, while it is worth addressing HCI issues, it has to be recognised that
technology has led to the emergence of new forms of translation, such as volunteer and
collaborative translation (ibid.: 28). Indeed, translation can be deemed collaborative in a
more general sense, whereby its product results from the ‘combination of human and
machine processes’ (ibid.: 25). To better understand how collaboration between humans
and machines might look like in the future, Cronin (2013) borrows the concept of
‘conviviality’ as defined by Illich (1975). In his view, conviviality is ‘the opposite of
industrial productivity’ (ibid.: 24), in that what is valued is individual freedom, which
should be enhanced and not enslaved by tools: ‘people need new tools to work with rather
than tools that “work” for them. They need technology to make the most of the energy
and imagination each has, rather than more well-programmed energy slaves’ (ibid.: 23).
Thus, ‘convivial tools are those which give each person who uses them the greatest
opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision’, and whose
employment is determined solely by the user, who should have control over tools used in
their work if these are to empower them (ibid.: 34). In a way, the concept of conviviality
is similar to that of symbiosis seen earlier in O’Brien (2012), and has certainly been

16
present as a notion in the discourse around translation and technology for a long time. In
particular, Kay (1997) argues that while translation cannot be fully automated, computers
can make it more human. He then introduces the concept of a collaborative human-
machine system that would free translators from the more routine tasks. The Translator
Amanuensis as envisioned by Kay (1997) is ‘a device that can be used to magnify human
productivity’ and that ‘does not dehumanize by imposing its own Orwellian stamp on the
products of the human spirit and the dignity of human labor but […] frees human beings
for what is essentially human’ (ibid.: 3). Furthermore, in his view, it is fundamental that
such a framework arises synchronously with the needs and abilities of the time in which
it is developed and, most of all, ‘it is to be hoped that it will be built with taste by people
who understand languages and computers well enough to know how little it is that they
know’ (ibid.: 23).
The idea of studying HCI in translation with the aim of looking at the best ways in which
materiality and immateriality can collaborate and coexist is one that is central to this
thesis. In particular, the idea of conviviality as expressed by Illich (1975) complements
the socio-cultural background of the Translation Age and the emergence of the need for
studying human issues in Translation Studies as a consequence of the increasing role of
materiality in translation. This being said, Illich’s stance is deeply political, whereby he
ultimately sees the solution to the enslaving of humans by machines in the destruction of
the institutions that allow it and in limiting access to technology. Conversely, the focus
of the current study is less on dismantling socio-political institutions, and more on
promoting dialogue between relevant social groups involved in the technologisation of
literary translation and making literary translators’ voices heard. The concern most
relevant to this research project is that individuals retain their right to self-expression
through media, and that increased HCI does not result in dehumanising translators nor
devaluing their profession. Rather, the aim of listening to and analysing literary
translators’ narratives is that of pinpointing possible avenues for the conciliation of
immateriality (represented by how literary translators perceive their role in society and
define their work) and materiality (in this case, technology as seen through research and
literary translators’ attitudes) to allow a balanced interaction between the two. In other
words, the notion of conviviality is not hereby applied to the whole of society as argued
by Illich (1975), but instead it is used as a tool to look at how literary translators can be
included in the conversation around technology in the medium- to short-term, and
whether conviviality could indeed be envisioned as a productive approach to the future

17
of HCI in literary translation. The particular ways in which literary translators have been
taken into account as a social group in this study and how technological innovation is
being looked at from a theoretical point of view will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.
In conclusion, this section has presented contemporary translation as a socially
constructed activity and a form of HCI. In fact, the increasing involvement of technology
in translation has complicated the role of the human and how it relates to materiality when
translating. New questions regarding human issues have been raised, and the case for the
adoption of interdisciplinary frameworks has been discussed, with recent studies pointing
towards STS as a field that could provide appropriate contexts for the analysis of HCI in
translation. Finally, collaboration and conviviality have been presented as a suitable
response to this shift in translators’ experience, one that would account for the ever-
changing needs and attitudes of translators, while avoiding the risk of dehumanisation
and devaluation.
2.4 Conclusion
This chapter has focused on delineating the socio-cultural and theoretical background of
the current study. In particular, it has first established translation as an intrinsic quality
of contemporary society. For this reason, following Cronin (2013), the current age has
been defined as The Translation Age. The consequences of this definition have been
outlined, in particular those regarding the risk of devaluing the translation profession.
The concepts of materiality and immateriality (Littau, 2016) have then been introduced,
together with the notion that they mutually shape each other, and thus it is not
technology that exclusively determines society, nor vice versa. Both the Translation
Age and the (re-)emergence of materiality in translation lead to try and redefine the role
of the human in this new technological paradigm, where the interaction between
immaterial and material elements is virtually inevitable. Notably, human issues have
gained prominence in research and complex views of the human-technology interplay
have started to emerge. In particular, translation has been configured as a form of HCI
(O’Brien, 2012), which has helped in framing the discussion around what issues to
research and how. Additionally, the idea of reaching a level of collaboration between
humans and tools in translation is put forward. In particular, ‘convivial’ tools (Illich,
1975) could help develop a balanced HCI where translators work together with the tools

18
as opposed to the latter substituting them or contributing to narratives of
dehumanisation and devaluation. Finally, STS has been identified as a field whose
frameworks are particularly compatible with studying issues resulting from HCI in
translation. The following chapter will detail how one of these frameworks, the Social
Construction of Technology (SCOT), was borrowed to inform the theoretical
underpinnings for the study of materiality in this project.

19
Chapter 3: The Social Construction of Technology
The previous chapter has highlighted how technology constitutes an intrinsic quality of
contemporary society. This has remarkably complicated the relationship between
materiality and immateriality, which calls for a more in-depth analysis of how the two
interact with each other to dynamically construct the socio-cultural landscape in which
they appear. The SCOT framework as theorised by Pinch and Bijker in 1984 has been
chosen as a suitable conceptual framework to carry out this analysis in the context of the
present study. Hence, this chapter focuses on delineating SCOT’s profile, particularly as
applied to technological development in literary translation.
SCOT originates in the field of STS and is based on (1) the refusal of technological
determinism and (2) recognising technological innovation as the result of a dynamic
interplay between different social groups’ interpretations of a technological artefact. In
this view, humans regain their role as agents of determination, acceptance, and rejection
of technology, and the interpretations of all social groups involved assume a central role
in technological development. In terms of this project, which aims at exploring HCI in
literary translation as constructed by literary translators’ perceptions of their role and
attitudes towards technology, SCOT offers a fitting conceptual underpinning to both
structuring its research design, and informing methodology, data analysis and discussion
of findings. How it does so will be detailed in the following pages.
The chapter consists of four main sections. In the first one, an overview of the SCOT
framework, its history, and its tenets will be provided. The second section will outline
SCOT’s limitations and the arguments of its main critics. The third section will illustrate
the SCOT framework’s relevance to the field of Translation and Interpreting Studies and
its potential for future research in the field. Finally, the chapter will offer an analysis of
the specific way in which SCOT has been adapted for this research project, highlighting
differences and similarities with its original formulation, addressing criticism, and
illustrating the reasons for its adoption.

20
3.1 The SCOT framework: an overview
In a paper from 1984, sociologists Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker advocate for a
social constructionist approach to the study of science and technology as opposed to a
deterministic view in which technology has the power to affect society independently
from human action. The aim of the paper is to set forth a new programme for the study
of technology and society. In order to do so, they firstly provide a thorough review of the
literature of the time relating to the sociology of science, technology studies and the
relationship between science and technology. What emerges from the review is that
technology studies tend to lack depth in terms of sociological analysis as opposed to their
counterparts in the field of science. While scientific knowledge is widely treated as a
social construction whose uncovering is ‘a sociological rather than an epistemological
task’ (Pinch and Bijker, 1984: 402), the study of technology typically tends to fail in
treating its subject as a social manifestation, especially in the case of innovation and
historical studies. Their objective being to establish a sociology of technology, Pinch and
Bijker (1984) decide to discuss and synthesize two main approaches, the more established
Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR) and the newer SCOT framework, belonging,
respectively, to the fields of the sociology of scientific knowledge and the sociology of
technology.
EPOR’s focus is on scientific controversies as a means towards comprehending the
contents of science as social constructions. This approach consists of three main phases.
The first one is concerned with demonstrating the concept of ‘interpretative flexibility’
by identifying controversies arising from different interpretations of a scientific finding.
The second stage consists in unveiling the closure mechanisms that allow these
controversies to end. Finally, during the third phase, these ‘closure mechanisms’ are
reported ‘to the wider social-cultural milieu’ (ibid.: 409).
While EPOR proposes to study science, SCOT is to be applied to the analysis of
technological innovation. SCOT is characterised by being a multi-directional model in
that it takes into consideration not only the final version of a technological artefact as
resulting from a linear process, but also all its variations before it reached the stage of
closure. By doing so, it allows the researcher to lead a social constructionist analysis of
technological innovation by accounting for the problems and solutions arising from

21
contrasting meanings assigned to it by different social groups. This process informs a
dialectic of variation and selection of artefacts, which forms the core of the SCOT
framework. Following the EPOR model, SCOT too develops in three stages. The first
stage aims at bringing to light the different ways in which a technological artefact is
socially constructed to demonstrate interpretative flexibility. This involves determining
which groups are most affected by or interested in the technological innovation and how
these confer meaning upon it. Varying interpretations give rise to a process of alternation
between problems and solutions surrounding the artefact. The ways in which problems
are solved and stabilisation reached, and particularly the closure mechanisms underlying
this process, are the object of analysis of the second stage. There are numerous closure
mechanisms possible, however the two identified by Pinch and Bijker are rhetorical
closure (e.g., an advert publicising the artefact that convinces a social group the problem
has been solved) or closure by redefinition of the original problem (e.g., one of the
solutions solves a problem that was not envisaged before, so some social groups are now
more prone to accept the artefact despite their previous unfavourable interpretation).
Fundamentally, ‘the key point is whether the relevant social group see the problem as
being solved’ (ibid.: 427). The third and last stage consists of establishing a relation
between the findings and the wider socio-cultural context. This stage was never put into
practice as far as EPOR is concerned. However, unlike EPOR,
the sociocultural and political situation of a social group shapes its norms and values, which in
turn influence the meaning given to an artefact. Since […] different meanings can constitute
different lines of development, SCOT’s descriptive model seems to offer an operationalization of
the relationship between the wider milieu and the actual content of technology. (ibid.: 428-429)
Ultimately, a SCOT-informed analysis of technology (1) sees technological artefacts as
social constructs resulting from a multi-directional process of variation and selection, (2)
identifies relevant social groups, recognising the way in which these construct
controversies, and thus demonstrates the concept of interpretative flexibility, and (3)
defines relevant problems and solutions, and closure mechanisms that result into the
stabilisation of technological innovations. In this view, a better understanding of the
social groups involved in the variation and selection dynamic signifies a better
understanding of the function that the artefact has for each group, the factors that
constitute a problem, and for whom. Identifying problems in the developmental process
of the artefact provides an opportunity to highlight the dynamic of its conflicts and the
various stages that are necessary to reach stabilisation and closure. At the same time,
social groups’ interpretations become central to the study of technology.

22
In summary, in setting forth a new approach to the sociology of technology, Pinch and
Bijker (1984) draw parallels between EPOR and SCOT, describing how some concepts
belonging to the sociology of scientific knowledge can be applied to the field of
technology studies. In fact, their SCOT framework can be said to be a revision and
integration of the main constructs of EPOR and their application to the study of
technology from a social constructionist perspective. This stems from the underlying
belief that technological artefacts are indeed social constructs, and thus can be interpreted
in different ways by different social groups, which is what they refer to with the term
‘interpretative flexibility’. When a new technological artefact is introduced, different
interpretations may conflict with each other, giving rise to a process of adjustment via
means of variation and selection. The process resolves when the phase of stabilisation is
reached via means of a closure mechanism. The mechanism is triggered by different
stakeholders finding a compromise or agreeing on one particular interpretation of the
artefact.
3.2 The SCOT framework: critique
Having provided an overview of SCOT’s tenets, what follows will account for its
limitations as a framework by presenting some of the criticism it faces. In particular, it
will present Russell’s (1986) and Winner’s (1993) analysis of SCOT. While both believe
it is worth exploring new conceptual frameworks for the study of technological
development, they argue that Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) model lacks the tools for
undertaking a comprehensive examination of all socio-political aspects that play a role in
the variation and selection process, and in the choice of relevant social groups. Notably,
Russell’s argument (1986) centres on the inadequacy of EPOR’s tenets for the study of
technology, and suggests a Marxist analysis as a more valid alternative. In the same vein,
Winner (1993) points out aspects of SCOT that resemble political pluralism, and thus
involve the risk of overlooking certain social groups and their interpretations of the
artefact; a model of this kind would ‘offer an account of politics and society that is
implicitly conservative, an account that attends to the needs and machinations of the
powerful as if they were all that mattered’ (ibid.: 369).
The selection of relevant social groups and their interpretations carries the possibility of
some of them being excluded from the analysis altogether (Russell, 1986; Winner, 1993).

23
An intrinsic issue of the concept of ‘relevant social groups’ lies in its disregard for
limitations dictated by the socio-cultural and political contexts in which they are rooted,
and the fact that some of these elements might cause the systematic exclusion of such
groups and their interpretations from the discourse around technological innovation
(Russell, 1986). What Pinch and Bijker do not take into account is that ‘it is easy to omit
groups, either because they had no voice in the process, or because they were indifferent
to the specific options on offer’ (ibid.: 335). In this view, the SCOT framework fails to
account for the role of power structures and societal inequalities in technological
innovation, as well as the effect technology has on them. In Winner’s words (1993):
this is a sociology of technology that has little concern for the ways in which technologies
transform personal experience and social relations. The object of fascination is social construction
of technical artefacts and processes. But why such innovations matter in the broader context is no
longer of any great concern. (ibid.: 369)
A direct consequence of this is that ‘interpretive flexibility works especially well in cases
in which social consensus is achievable, where all or most parties can say […] "Thank
God we came together around this set of design features"’, but otherwise it ‘soon becomes
moral and political indifference’ (ibid.: 372). In sum, the problematic quality of SCOT
lies in its similarity with political pluralism, whereby there is an inherent power imbalance
in the mechanism of determining the social groups that are worth analysing, which
assumes the exclusion or silencing of others (ibid.: 369). Also related to interpretative
flexibility is Russell’s belief that there is a need to elucidate ‘why a workforce is excluded
from the design of equipment it must use [...] Not to do so is again to legitimate existing
patterns of control and deny the possibility of change’ (Russell, 1986: 336). In his view,
a more suitable approach would be one inspired by Marxist and labour theories rather
than science (ibid.). In fact, an approach of this kind would make it possible to
simultaneously explore how technological innovations came to be, as well as how society,
culture and politics influence the process and vice versa. This would then allow for
alternatives to the capitalist tendency to develop and employ technology to reduce
production costs and increase productivity, which almost inevitably results in the de-
skilling of workers (ibid.: 339).
The review above has highlighted how critiques of the SCOT framework mainly revolve
around its disregard for issues of power and inequality as linked to technological
development. This is a direct consequence of the little attention given to social, cultural,
and political contexts surrounding social groups and their interpretations of artefacts. In

24
fact, while the effort of producing a systematic paradigm for the exploration of
technological innovation from a social constructionist viewpoint is welcomed by both
Russell (1986) and Winner (1993) as timely and necessary, they both shed light on
SCOT’s inadequacy to account for those variations and solutions that are systematically
excluded from the narrative. By replicating the fallacies of pluralism, SCOT risks to
perpetrate politics of exclusion to the detriment of already disadvantaged groups, whose
voices are being silenced as a result of issues intrinsic to their socio-cultural background.
The significance of the above for the current study will be detailed in Section 3.4. For
the moment, it suffices to say that, while acknowledging the criticism, the way in which
SCOT has hereby been adopted and adapted allows for a different take on some of the
issues raised in this section. One of the main differences is that this project does not carry
out a retrospective analysis of a specific technological artefact. Instead, it focuses on one
specific social group, and one whose voice has been, if not silenced, ignored in most of
the discourse around technological innovation. This is in itself a symptom of a power
imbalance in both research and practice as far as technological advances in the field of
literary translation are concerned, especially when considering that literary translators are
the end users. Thus, power relations emerge as a central element of the discussion around
literary translation and technology. However, they are not the main focus of this thesis.
This is because, while exploring the nature of this power imbalance would be extremely
valuable, both the focus and theoretical framework of this study do not allow to gain
constructive insights in this sense, in that they revolve around the need to characterise
literary translators’ attitudes and perceptions before relating these to other social groups.
In a similar way, conceptualising and contextualising power to offer a rigorous analysis
of how it relates to literary translation and technology would deserve more space than it
is allowed by the current project, and a different set of research questions to answer.
Notwithstanding, where power imbalances did arise from the data, these were highlighted
and analysed throughout this thesis in the context of the overall framework adopted.
Where appropriate, suggestions for future studies on power were made (see 9.1).
Ultimately, the use of SCOT provides a useful framework at this stage for the
identification, analysis and discussion of recurrent themes in literary translators’
narratives of technology and their position in society. Moreover, the proactive character
of this study could offer the basis to uncover power relations in the human-machine
interplay in literary translation in the future, possibly by employing a model closer to
Marxist and labour theories as proposed by Russell (1986).

25
3.3 The SCOT framework in Translation and Interpreting Studies
Having provided an outline of SCOT and its main critique, this section will now look at
its presence in the Translation and Interpreting Studies discourse.
Olohan (2017, 2019) explores the potential application of STS frameworks in
investigating the use of technology in the translation profession, with particular focus on
issues of power and the social context in which this relationship happens. In fact, she
states that ‘not taking technology into consideration in our theoretical models and
frameworks means we have, at best, a partial understanding of how translation works’
(Olohan, 2017: 279-280). In highlighting the ways in which sociological approaches to
the study of technology distance themselves from technological determinism, she reports
on how this position allows to see technological advancement as a multi-directional
process in which all actors can have a say, as opposed to passively accepting technological
changes (Olohan, 2017, 2019). Transposing this discourse to Translation Studies, Olohan
advocates for a systematic investigation of whether and how ‘translation and translation
practices are perceived as being driven by technological factors’ (Olohan, 2017: 268),
indicating SCOT as one of the most suitable frameworks for such a socio-technological
enquiry into translation. More specifically, the predominantly deterministic view of
technology in the translation world, and the kind of HCI power dynamics arising from it
could benefit from a SCOT-inspired approach focusing on sociological aspects instead of
historical documentation of technological innovation (ibid.). Having said that, scholars
have recently started to address topics of materiality in translation from a sociological
point of view, although none of them has yet taken full advantage of SCOT’s potential in
this sense (ibid.: 272). Among numerous potential research questions that could be
answered by adopting a socio-technological framework, the ones that stand out in terms
of the current project relate to identifying relevant actors in the translation-technology
interplay and unravel decision-making processes behind technology adoption,
development, and design, ‘also rais[ing] questions of who claims to speak for whom
within the sector, which voices are loudest and which go largely unheard’ (ibid.: 273).
Ultimately, employing SCOT would aid in filling a gap in translation research, whereby
meanings assigned to technology by relevant social groups, how these affect the product
and process of translation, and how technology design and development come to be are

26
understudied, especially from a constructionist standpoint. In this respect, Olohan
concludes that this way,
translation studies can expand its repertoire of applicable social theories to account for the hitherto
rather neglected technological and material dimensions, to understand the nature of technological
development and articulate how technology embodies and materializes the hegemonies and power
relations of the translation sector. (ibid.: 280)
The only instance that could be identified of a practical application of SCOT in
Translation and Interpreting Studies is Braun et al. (2018), who conducted an
ethnographic analysis of video-mediated legal interpreting. They combined observations,
site visits, document reviews and interviews to uncover social groups relevant to the
introduction of legal interpreting via video-link, and their interpretations of this
technological innovation. Using SCOT allowed to highlight the exclusion of interpreters
and their views from processes of technology implementation, and the overall
underestimation of the challenges linked to integrating videoconferencing technology and
interpreting (ibid.: 175). Finally, they observe how, to achieve a stage of stabilisation, it
is necessary to first establish who the relevant social groups are, and then share their
respective knowledge regarding the best way to facilitate interpreting via video-link in
legal settings (ibid.: 176). Braun et al.’s study (2018) provides a unique example of SCOT
applied to research in Translation and Interpreting Studies, and a practical indication of
how this framework could benefit the field. In fact, a social constructionist analysis of
technological innovation allowed to establish that interpreters’ voices are mostly going
unheard when developing and introducing new technology. The analysis also highlighted
relevant controversies among social groups and pinpointed a solution to the process of
stabilisation and closure. In a similar way, the current study is concerned with the
concepts of relevant social groups and interpretative flexibility as applied to literary
translation and its socially-constructed relationship with technology. This being said,
unlike Braun et al. (2018) this project is not adopting an ethnographic stance, and for this
reason the way SCOT has been applied here differs in some ways from both Olohan’s
suggestions (2017, 2019) and Braun et al.’s (2018) methodology. The way in which it
does so will be illustrated in the following section.
3.4 The SCOT framework in the context of this study
The decision to adopt the SCOT framework to conceptually situate the current study is
rooted in acknowledging the interaction between society and technology as a socially

27
constructed one. In this view, technology is a socially- and culturally- embedded
enterprise, the same way translation is. The way technology and translation construct and
are constructed by society relies on a dialectic of controversies and resolutions borne out
of relevant social groups’ varying interpretations of technological artefacts. This dialectic
is not linear nor deterministic, but instead multi-directional and dynamic. In other words,
humans are agents of problematisation, interpretation and stabilisation of technological
artefacts, and at the same time initiators and participants of a mutual process of
construction.
The SCOT framework is hereby adopted at a conceptual level, with some of its tenets
inspiring the research process, and others being amended to serve its aims and objectives.
In Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) words: ‘our model is not used as a mould, into which the
empirical data have to be forced, coûte que coûte. […] Its function is primarily heuristic
– to bring out all the aspects relevant for our purposes.’ (ibid.: 419). For this reason,
SCOT has been deemed a suitable scaffolding for the study of technological innovation
as pertaining to literary translation. More specifically, this study does not wish to identify
all social groups relevant to technological development, nor does it pinpoint one specific
artefact to analyse. Furthermore, unlike what the original formulation of the model
suggests, this study is not retrospective in nature, as its object is not the ex post facto
exploration of a tool that has already reached closure. Instead, SCOT is hereby adopted
proactively, in order to address controversies as they arise in the present and give voice
to literary translators as a relevant social group. In this light, the analysis of their
narratives acts as a springboard to devise suitable closure mechanisms and initiate a
conversation around the topic of technology in literary translation inclusive of different,
relevant standpoints.
The choice of literary translators as the social group to study is due to the relationship
between literary translation and technology being a fairly under-researched area,
especially from a socio-technological standpoint. More specifically, literary translators
have virtually never been given the opportunity to voice their interpretations of
technology and become part of its development and implementation (see Section 4.4).
Given how technological innovation has proven to be a major shaping force in translation,
it appears fundamental to focus primarily on literary translators and prioritise their voices
at this time. In fact, literary translators’ livelihoods and profession are likely to be the

28
most directly affected by fast-paced developments in technology, as shown by the latter’s
impact on other branches of translation (see Section 4.2).
Ideally, a SCOT-informed study should focus on all relevant social groups involved. The
need to prioritise literary translators’ voices as the only relevant social group in this study
arises from the current project’s limited timeframe, which would have not allowed for a
comprehensive study of all other relevant social groups (e.g., publishers, technology
developers, clients), especially given the lack of research or established workflows to
build on. Furthermore, unlike Olohan (2017, 2019) and Braun et al. (2018), this study is
not ethnographic in nature. In fact, the individual and isolating nature of the literary
translation profession and the fact that technological artefacts are not a part of daily
practice in this area as consistently as in non-literary translation, does not allow for a
meaningful ethnographic study of literary translators’ technology usage. Moreover, given
this is a relatively new area of research in the literary translation field, there is a need for
a more fundamental understanding of human factors and relevant artefacts: both the point
of view of literary translators and the technological tools they use are almost completely
missing from the literature, which makes a SCOT-informed ethnographic study of the
technologisation of the profession infeasible at this stage.
One of the main critiques of the SCOT framework highlights how it risks disregarding
those whose socio-cultural background is a reason for them not to be considered a relevant
social group in the first place (Russell, 1986; Winner, 1993). Although focusing on only
one group, this study hopes to tackle this criticism by creating the opportunity for a
neglected group to uncover the ways in which they interpret their professional reality and
technological change by sharing their narratives. As mentioned in Section 3.2, literary
translators are undoubtedly central to the discourse, and their interpretations are essential
for the conversation to happen in a mutual and dynamic way. In fact, as long as literary
translators are excluded from the development of tools of which they are the end users,
they will also be unable to control the narrative surrounding their profession and
participate in the construction of the interplay between literary translation and
technological innovation. Additionally, the proactive quality of SCOT as adopted here
has the potential to reveal both patterns of inequality and controversies, as the analysis
happens in parallel with technological research and development, as opposed to the a
posteriori account envisioned by Pinch and Bijker (1989). Ultimately, SCOT befits an
analysis like the one presented in this thesis, whereby its research questions aim at

29
establishing literary translators’ interpretations of the technologisation of their profession
and their role against the contemporary socio-technological background. This being said,
Russell’s (1986) suggestion to employ models inspired by labour theories could be
applied to future studies, once the dynamics between different social groups and the way
literary translators position themselves in this landscape have been established (see
Section 9.1).
Finally, it is worth noticing how the current study does not refute technological
determinism altogether, like the SCOT framework does. In fact, as pointed out in Section
2.2, this project looks at literary translators with the assumption that technology has the
power to determine translation the same way humans do. Once again, the study takes
advantage of SCOT’s flexibility as a framework to account for the virtual absence of
literary translators from the discourse around technology, while recognising the fact that
technology cannot determine the human alone and vice versa. Thus, technological
determinism is not denied in its entirety. Instead, both human and non-human agents are
taken as having a role in shaping society.
In conclusion, the use of SCOT as a theoretical framework in this study allows the
flexibility required by a time-constrained project focusing on a newly researched topic.
It helps uncover and define interpretative flexibility and controversies with the aim of
contributing to the construction of the debate around literary translation and technology
in a way that is academic, but that will also reflect on everyday practice. Moreover, it
does so proactively, in order to address controversies as they arise, and attempts at
devising possible closure mechanisms.
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter began by providing an overview of the SCOT framework (Pinch and Bijker,
1984), which forms part of the conceptual scaffolding of this thesis. SCOT is a model
for the social constructionist analysis of technological innovation. It stems from the
refusal of technological determinism, in that it supports the idea of social groups
determining technological development through a process of variation and selection of
artefacts, and not vice versa. The framework’s main tenets revolve around the concepts
of ‘relevant social groups’, ‘interpretative flexibility’, ‘variation and solution’, ‘closure
mechanisms’, and ‘stabilisation/closure’. Its aim is to first identify relevant social groups

30
and their interpretation of the technological artefact. These interpretations often give rise
to controversies, which need to be resolved if stabilisation and closure are to be achieved.
The closure mechanisms behind this process are one of SCOT’s main objects of study.
Critics report on the lack of focus on power dynamics between social groups as being one
of SCOT’s flaws and suggest adopting labour theories instead of a model derived from
the study of scientific discoveries. The current study adopts SCOT’s tenets, however it
applies them to a proactive rather than retrospective analysis of technological advances
in the field of literary translation. Moreover, it considers only one social group, literary
translators, trying to address their almost total exclusion from discussions around
technology implementation in their profession. The assumption behind the choice of this
framework is that SCOT’s flexibility allows an in-depth social constructionist analysis of
a relevant social group’s interpretations of technological innovation while respecting the
time- and resource-constraints of this project. Furthermore, this study does not refute
technological determinism in its entirety, rather both the material and the immaterial act
concurrently in shaping society. Ultimately, it is hoped that providing a SCOT-informed
analysis of literary translators’ perceptions of technology at this stage will pave the way
for future investigations involving more social groups and exploring the practicability of
closure mechanisms.

31
Chapter 4: Translators and technology
The theoretical framework outlined in the last two chapters has highlighted the emerging
need to position translators in a new sociological, cultural, and technological paradigm.
In fact, it configured translation as a form of HCI (O’Brien, 2012), established the need
to reintroduce materiality in translation research (Littau, 2016) and, consequently, to
explore human issues as related to technology (Kenny, 2017). The objective of the
current chapter is thus to provide a background for the research of role and technology in
literary translation. In particular, the chapter will offer an overview of the role of the
translator, both in literary and non-literary translation. Furthermore, it will review state-
of-the-art literature on the relationship between translation and technology. This will
provide the necessary context to present, analyse, and discuss this study’s data in order to
answer its research questions. Moreover, it will add to the rationale behind it, presenting
more reasons why an exploration of the relationship between role and technology in
literary translation is timely and necessary.
The chapter is structured around the two main pillars of literary and non-literary
translation. This is because the review of the literature has highlighted some differences
between the two in terms of research findings and approaches. In fact, studies on
translator status see literary translators emerging as distinct from all their other translator
colleagues. Similarly, the study of translation and technology has mainly focused on non-
literary translation, in that tools such as CAT and MT are often seen as not suitable for
literary translation. In this respect, it is only recently that researchers have started looking
at ways to apply technology to literary translation workflows. For this reason, research
on technology in literary translation has taken a different course than its counterpart and
deserves to be observed separately, especially in the context of this particular study.
Ultimately, presenting the two independently will allow to obtain a clearer picture of the
overall translation context in terms of role and technology, as well as presenting an
opportunity to make the necessary comparisons and identify where and how the
discrepancies between the two manifest. In this regard, the chapter will conclude with an
outline of the future of the translator according to relevant literature.
The chapter structure comprises four main sections. The first two will deal, respectively,
with translator status (Section 4.1) and technology in translation (Section 4.2). The

32
studies mentioned in these two sections and their findings mainly refer to non-literary
translation. Where results concern literary translators, this will be specified. The second
half of the chapter will delve deeper into the specificities of translator status (Section 4.3)
and technology (Section 4.4) as related specifically to literary translation. Finally,
Section 4.5 will explore the future of the profession in order to delineate possible closure
mechanisms based on the literature and in tune with the current academic and professional
landscape.
4.1 Translator status
Translator status has only recently become an object of study (Sela-Sheffy and
Shlesinger, 2008; Dam and Zethsen, 2011; Ferreira-Alves, 2011; Sela-Sheffy, 2015;
Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018). In particular, empirical studies on translators as social
agents and part of an occupational group have only surfaced in the last ten years (Dam
and Zethsen, 2011: 977; Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018: 2). Research has highlighted a
split between how translators see themselves and the status maintained by the translation
profession. Given the sociological changes resulting from globalisation, ‘the role and
position of the translator [has been redefined] as an autonomous, professionally oriented
subject’ (Ferreira-Alves, 2011: 1). Thus, it has become even more crucial to explore
questions of self-image and conflicting ideas of status in the occupational field of
translation. This section will present state-of-the-art literature on translator status,
whereby ‘status’ ‘refer[s] to the experience of the people who work in the different
translatorial jobs and the ways they understand their occupation and make sense of it as
part of their social world’ (Sela-Sheffy, 2015: 131).
From an occupational standpoint, translators present a submissive and insecure image,
reflected by translation’s low professional status. In particular, ‘given the weak
institutional boundaries and obscure role definition and criteria of this profession,
[translators] often suffer from non-standardized conditions and pay scales, as well as
fragmentary career patterns’ (Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger, 2008: 80). Interestingly, this
picture is in stark contrast with the value attributed to it by translators themselves.
According to Katan, ‘there is ‘a translator world’ and […] it is not the same as that of
their clients’ (Katan, 2009: 190). In fact, translators’ discourse around their identity is
constellated by mentions to individuality, vocation, and job satisfaction. Oppositely,
when looking at the bigger picture, they recount an overall lack of status and recognition

33
from outsiders (ibid.: 206). According to Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger (2008), translators’
narratives are to be considered as a direct response to the lack of structure in the profession
and the constant undermining by outsiders. More specifically, translators adopt
‘strategies of status improvement’ in order to be recognised professionally (Sela-Sheffy
and Shlesinger, 2008: 85). The way translators depict themselves is thus strictly related
to the way their profession is perceived, and it often directly opposes its low status. In
fact, the translation career is mostly associated with feelings of satisfaction, excitement
and happiness (Dam and Zethsen, 2016: 180). Furthermore, joy and gratification are
linked to the perceived significance of the translation task (ibid.: 182) and its stimulating
variety in terms of texts and clients (ibid.: 180). Finally, translation is seen as a positive
challenge, both intellectually and creatively, for which formal training needs to be
complemented by a varied set of more personal qualities, such as decision-making skills,
good memory, independence, consistency, and attention to detail (ibid.: 180).
As anticipated above, in translator discourse, the rewarding nature of translation often
parallels their dissatisfaction with its professional status, be it in terms of lack of
autonomy (Katan, 2009: 149) or low status, overall devaluation and pay (Dam and
Zethsen, 2016: 179). For example, in a 2008 survey aimed at Portuguese translators,
Ferreira-Alves (2011) found that more than half of respondents were dissatisfied with
their working conditions, and about 70% did not feel financially secure (ibid.: 10).
Likewise, slightly more than 60% think the image of the translator held by society is
negative (ibid.). Conversely, almost 70% indicated they were satisfied with their quality
of life, while 80% consider translation as their vocation, and almost 70% said that being
a translator was important for their self-esteem (ibid.). This data further uncovers the
paradoxical nature of translator status, whereby vocation and personal satisfaction are
inversely proportional to the image translation projects on society. In this regard,
Ruokonen and Mäkisalo (2018) set out to explore Finnish translators’ perceptions of their
own work status versus the status or prestige of the profession. Their results confirm that
perceptions of professional status do not depend on working conditions or job
satisfaction. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in terms of respondents’
backgrounds (gender, age, working languages, education). The only exception to this is
work experience, whereby those with more than 21 years of experience had a significantly
higher perception of the profession than those with 5 years or less. Overall, translators’
‘perceptions of translator status […] appear rather resistant to variation’(ibid.: 13).
Although translators felt mostly valued in their own professional sphere, the same cannot

34
be said for the wider social context (ibid.: 10). Ultimately, translators tend to value what
Dam and Zethsen (2011) refer to as ‘“soft” parameters’, e.g., appreciation and
responsibility, and put particular emphasis on their expertise (ibid.: 995). In contrast to
this, the external world refuses to recognise this expertise and translators are met with
indifference, while translation keeps being a low status profession (Dam and Zethsen,
2016: 182). Overall, research on status has highlighted the considerable gap between the
way translators perceive themselves and how the profession is received by society.
Notably, translators are satisfied with their job and describe it in enthusiastic terms,
recognising its importance and their expertise, and valuing personal skills such as
organisation and creativity. Conversely, they are aware that the status of the profession
is low, and its significance goes mainly unacknowledged. The disconnect between the
two is a cause of frustration, and it calls for research to address this gap.
Finally, it is worth mentioning how literary translators positioned themselves in the
context of the studies mentioned above. Overall, literary translators were thought by other
translators to enjoy the highest status of all (Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018: 14), while
Katan (2017) found they were the most autonomous in terms of translation strategy,
whereby their loyalty lies almost exclusively with the source text (ibid.: 139). This higher
status does not reflect on their incomes, which are the lowest of all translators. This being
said, while income levels affected other translators’ perceptions of their profession, the
same did not occur in the case of literary translators (Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018: 11).
In fact, perceptions of their own status were high regardless of income (ibid.). This points
towards differences in the way literary translators see themselves and their profession as
opposed to colleagues working in other areas. In this regard, Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger
(2008) note how translators’ strategies of status improvement vary between literary and
non-literary translators. In fact, while non-literary translators, interpreters and subtitlers
adopt strategies aimed at developing professionalisation, literary translators are mostly
oriented towards ‘individual-centeredness, intellectual stature and creative skills’ (ibid.:
85). The peculiarities of literary translators’ identities will be dealt with in more detail in
Section 4.3.
To conclude, research on status has highlighted the gap between how translators perceive
themselves and how translation is perceived as a profession by society. The relationship
between these two layers of status is a paradoxical one. Notably, while translators see
their job as rewarding and are generally highly satisfied with it, translation is often seen

35
as a low status profession that provides translators with low levels of autonomy and pay.
Furthermore, the status configurations adopted by translators are thought to be a direct
response to how the profession is seen from the outside. In particular, their enthusiastic
descriptions of the task of translation and the skills and expertise it requires are viewed
as an attempt to establish their individuality and assert their status against a world that
refuses to acknowledge them as high-status professionals. Thus, the translator emerges
as ‘a self-centred non-person […] somewhere between over-visibility and complete self-
effacement, as if invisible to the outside world and visible to their own group’ (Ferreira-
Alves, 2011: 12). Translators show ‘internal consolidated “repertoires”’ and ‘seek some
sort of legitimacy, whether symbolical or institutionalised, that will empower them to go
on the market and use their professional skills accordingly’ (Ferreira-Alves, 2011: 7).
Ultimately, continued research in this area could help bridge the gap between the
translator’s world and outsiders. In fact, by further delineating the boundaries of their
identities, it will be possible to address questions of professionalisation and
empowerment. In order to do so, it is essential for them to keep sharing their narratives
(Ferreira-Alves, 2011; Sela-Sheffy, 2015) and for research to analyse them in light of the
socio-cultural background in which translation exists.
4.2 Translation and technology
Recent years have seen the widespread implementation of translation technology tools in
non-literary translation workflows, namely CAT tools, TMs and MT (O’Brien, 2012;
Doherty, 2016; Youdale, 2019). CAT tools allow to store translated segments in a TM
and reuse these when similar or identical segments appear in a source text (García, 2015:
69; Doherty, 2016: 950), while MT automates the translation process. The two main
types of MT are Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) and Neural Machine Translation
(NMT), which was introduced less than 5 years ago. In both systems, the target text is
determined by probability. However, while SMT works at phrase-level to determine the
target translation, NMT does so by considering both the source and already-translated
content in the target text (Forcada, 2017: 300–301). The UK Translators Survey 2017
found that 65% of its 588 respondents use TM in their work, while 22% use MT (2017:
26). While TM was ‘extremely important’ for 40% of respondents, MT was deemed ‘not
at all important’ and ‘slightly important’ by, respectively, 29% and 28% of participants
(ibid.: 28, 32). This being said, in addition to predominantly negative attitudes towards

36
MT, open questions highlighted translators’ mixed feelings in relation to TM adoption
(ibid.).
Overall, the introduction of translation technology and its increasing use is continuously
changing the face of the translation profession. In this respect, O’Brien (2012) observers
how TMs help reduce costs and increase speed, quality and consistency (ibid.: 104-105).
In a similar way, MT allows for fast translations of large amounts of texts and for gist
reading (ibid.: 108). In contrast with this, the positive qualities of translation technology
result in lower pay for translators and in feelings of dehumanisation and devaluation,
whereby they either no longer have full control of the translation task or feel detached
from it (ibid.: 109). In this respect, LeBlanc (2017) notices how the reasons behind
translators’ mixed feelings towards CAT tools are to be found in ‘the shifts in
administrative and business practices’ (ibid.: 45) rather than in the technology itself.
Similarly, Vieira (2020) found translators’ negative attitudes towards MT to be caused by
resulting business and marketing practices (ibid.: 16). In addition to this, O’Hagan (2017)
suggests that the technologisation of translation might limit the translator’s autonomy and
‘human intelligence’ (ibid.: 32). Furthermore, she identifies tools developers’ disregard
for translators’ views as a reason for the latter not to trust or adopt such tools, which poses
the risk for them of having to passively accept tools imposed by others (ibid.: 41). For
this reason, she ultimately advocates for developers to consider translators’ autonomy so
as to facilitate a more trustful HCI (ibid.). This is similar to O’Brien’s (2012) conclusions
in that, as seen earlier (Section 2.3), she also suggests that collaboration between
developers and translators is central to increasing tools acceptance and develop more
positive attitudes towards technology (ibid.).
As a result of the increasing ubiquity of translation technology and the complexity of its
effects on translation processes and practices, recent years have seen an increasing
number of surveys of the profession addressing translators’ feelings towards technology
and their lack of inclusion in tools development (Olohan, 2011; O’Brien, 2012; Guerberof
Arenas, 2013; Moorkens and O’Brien, 2017). For example, in their 2005 survey on the
adoption of ICT by UK freelance translators, Fulford and Granell-Zafra found translators
to be predominantly sceptic of translation technology’s value and usefulness. This being
said, professionals who used CAT tools in their daily lives tended to express more
favourable opinions (ibid.: 13-14). A year later, Lagoudaki (2006) set out to survey
translators on their TM use. More than 80% of her respondents used TM in their work,

37
while more than 70% of non-users intended to employ it in the future; this being said,
16% of non-users indicated they owned a TM tool but were not able to learn how to use
it (ibid.: 27). In support of the need for translators to be involved in tools development
(Olohan, 2011; O’Brien, 2012), Lagoudaki (2006) found that almost 70% of respondents
were willing to participate in the development process (ibid.: 28). Furthermore,
participants appreciated TM’s ease of use, efficiency and functionality (ibid.). However,
they also indicated TM needs improvements in terms of design, e.g., ability to handle
PDF files and images with text, and compatibility with other software (ibid.).
Interestingly, the great majority of translators would prefer using TM independently of
its text-editing environment, favouring MS Word to it, while also wishing for integration
of web resources into TM tools (ibid.). Overall, it appears that translators’ relationship
with translation technology is extremely complex, and there are many different factors
affecting tools’ uptake and acceptance. In this respect, Olohan (2011) notices a split in
the translators’ community between the ones who are struggling with technology and
resisting its advancement and adoption, and the ones who are indeed embracing it (ibid.:
352). These mixed views seem to be related to the type of technology used and how it
changes the working conditions for practitioners. For example, Guerberof Arenas (2013)
talks about an increasing sense of invisibility brought about by the growing automation
of the profession (ibid.: 75). Furthermore, translators in her study indicated they feel
perfectly satisfied with their job, however they resent its devaluation in the form of
reduced payment as a consequence of the adoption of translation technology tools in the
industry (ibid.). A more recent study by Moorkens and O’Brien (2017) assessed user
interface needs of post-editors of MT output via means of a questionnaire. The study
revealed an overall sense of dissatisfaction with post-editing (PE) tools, scepticism
towards MT output quality and dispossession towards their work, which is being used to
improve said MT output. According to the authors, ‘this highlights a lack of human-
computer interaction (HCI) input in translation development and design, and would
suggest a real need for input from HCI experts’ (ibid.: 128).
In addition to type of tools and impact on working conditions, the kind of texts to be
translated also seems to have a bearing on attitudes towards and acceptance of translation
technology. This is the case for Cadwell et al. (2016), where translators at the European
Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) detailed their experiences with
the adoption of MT. Positive attitudes towards MT tended to prevail, especially in regard
to its usefulness. This being said, MT was not deemed applicable to all types of text

38
(ibid.: 222). In particular, DGT translators did not trust MT with legally binding
documents, for which they preferred to retain control over the whole translation process
(ibid.: 239). According to the authors, MT adoption and non-adoption eventually depends
on ‘ergonomic factors related to a human translator’s needs, abilities, limitations, and
overall well-being’, e.g., matters of quality of MT output, and increase in speed and
productivity, and impact on circumstances of a physical and/or cognitive nature’ (ibid.:
240). Ultimately, in focusing on translators’ affective responses to technology, Koskinen
and Ruokonen (2017) found that they are not averse to technology as such, in that more
than half of respondents expressed positive attitudes towards technology. Rather, poor
usability that hinders efficiency and productivity is one of the main reasons for rejection
of tools. Once again, they suggest the solution to this could be a higher degree of
translator involvement in the development of translation technology (ibid.).
In summary, the review of the literature in this section has highlighted the emerging need
for tools developers and translators to establish a cooperative relationship and for
translators’ needs and attitudes to be taken into consideration when developing translation
technology. Furthermore, it has shown the considerable variety in attitudes towards
translation technology and reasons for its acceptance and rejection. In particular,
favourable opinions seem to vary according to the type of tools being used, the kind of
text being translated, and the ease of use of the tool interface. Overall, among the positive
aspects of translation technology are increased efficiency, productivity, and consistency.
Conversely, what makes it unappealing is its potential to hinder the process of translation,
and consequences of technology adoption at industry level, such as dehumanising and
devaluing business practices. Generally, the studies mentioned above highlighted a
growing interest in research for translators’ opinions and perceptions of their professional
practice as related to technology. This being said, it is worth noticing how literary
translation was not an object of study in this sense. This is mainly because literary
translation has prevalently been regarded as resistant to changes that are happening in
other branches of translation. In fact, it is only recently that research has begun to focus
on the application of translation technology to the literary translation workflow. Thus,
the study of human issues as a consequence of increased HCI in literary translation is not
as developed as in non-literary translation. In fact, this is the main reason for the adoption
of a proactive approach for the current study. In particular, the aim is to start a
conversation around literary translators’ involvement in the tools developing process,
their attitudes towards technology and the way this is affecting their professional selves

39
before technological innovation leads to practical repercussions, e.g., dehumanisation and
devaluation of the profession. The specificities of literary translation and its rapport with
technology will be dealt with in more detail in Section 4.4.
4.3 The literary translator
The figure of the literary translator is hard to define. This is partly due to a scarcity of
research on translators’ identities, which is a relatively recent field (Sela-Sheffy, 2010,
2015; Sapiro, 2013; Georgiou, 2018). Notably, studies have focused on the relation
between literary translators’ professional status and how they present themselves. In fact,
literary translators’ need to assert their identities is deeply rooted in their semi-
professional status (Sela-Sheffy, 2008, 2010, 2016; Voinova and Shlesinger, 2013;
Georgiou, 2018). For example, translators’ invisibility as related to the source text and
its author seems to find its counterpart in configuring translation as a form of art (Jänis,
1996). Similarly, issues of professional status (e.g., pay and work recognition) are often
echoed by narratives of identity centring on personal traits, cultural and educational
capital, vocation, and creativity. In this respect, literary translators often refer to their
childhood or personal experience as central to their professional choice (Voinova and
Shlesinger, 2013; Sela-Sheffy, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2016). This allows them to develop the
‘sense of a distinct, sophisticated identity, unlike that of most “ordinary” people’
(Voinova and Shlesinger, 2013: 36). Strictly related to the personal trajectory of their
career choice, is then discourse around literary translation as a vocation (Sela-Sheffy,
2005, 2008, 2010, 2016; Sapiro, 2013), in that becoming a literary translator is associated
with a calling dictated by personal circumstances. Such a narrative merges with that of
being a custodian of cultural and educational capital (Sela-Sheffy, 2008, 2010, 2016;
Sapiro, 2013; Georgiou, 2018), and with comparing literary translation to a creative
endeavour (Jänis, 1996; Sela-Sheffy, 2008; Voinova and Shlesinger, 2013) as well as an
act of writing in its own right (Jänis, 1996; Sapiro, 2013). Overall, the aura surrounding
literary translators’ self-representation is one of ‘strange outsiderness’ (Voinova and
Shlesinger, 2013: 41), whereby the act of distinguishing themselves from others is
intrinsic to the process of self-identification.
The literary translator’s character articulated above is further unpacked in the work of
Sela-Sheffy (primarily 2008 and 2010). Here, she provides an encompassing
classification of literary translators’ personae. Her research examines the collective self-

40
image of Israeli translators of literature, distilling the roles they assume to attain prestige,
recognition and success in their field. These ‘provide the translators […] with a
distinguishing symbolic capital’ (Sela-Sheffy, 2008: 610), compensating how the
profession is portrayed. More specifically, translators seek to present themselves in a
certain idealised way to contrast the assumed ‘humble, unattractive image of their
occupation’ (ibid.). The varied account of literary translators’ identities has been grouped
in three main categories, namely those of custodian of language, cultural ambassador and
innovator, and artist (Sela-Sheffy, 2008). In the first instance, literary translators feel it
is their mission to safeguard their language. This is something that has been put into their
care and for which they feel responsible. In her words, ‘this image endows the translator
with the position of someone who performs a cultural mission on a national-scale’ (ibid.:
612). Additionally, they are in the position to decide what gets translated in a certain
language and how. Thus, they assume the role of importers and innovators, ‘presenting
themselves as ambassadors of foreign cultures’ whose audience can only benefit from
their linguistic and cultural knowledge (ibid.: 613-614). Finally, literary translation is
often described as inhabiting the space ‘between “craftsmanship” and “individual
creation”’ (ibid.: 615), and literary translators being in-between ‘“performers” and
“creators”‘ (ibid.: 616). Literary translation is presented as an art, and the translator as
an artist moved by passion and supported by an unconventional personality.
Characteristic in this respect is ‘the sense of being an outsider’, which Sela-Sheffy argues
is a response to ‘the absence of formal professional criteria and qualifications’ (ibid.:
617). Furthermore, their career choice is portrayed as the fruit of vocation, something
they were destined to do more than a conscious choice (ibid.: 619).
Literary translators’ accounts of their profession promote a heterogeneous but coherent
image. In order to oppose narratives of invisibility and modesty, they promote a discourse
centred on individual qualities, unconventional personality traits, and creativity.
Additionally, they position themselves at the intersection of cultural worlds in the role of
gatekeepers and guardians of entire linguistic and cultural systems, configuring literary
translation as something ‘more than a mere occupation or profession’ (Sapiro, 2013: 79).
Pivotal for the construction of literary translators’ self-image is the inherent anti-
professionalisation discourse on which it is based (Sela-Sheffy, 2005, 2010, 2016). In
fact, its portrayal as something so deeply related to personal circumstances and residing
in the realm of art, vocation and creativity eludes any form of institutionalisation or
standardisation. This way, ‘professionalisation of translation […] is suspended’ (Sela-

41
Sheffy, 2016: 68), while ‘professional skills and methods […] remain obscure’ as ‘the
ability to translate is based entirely on ‘natural resources’, which entail above all an
exceptional personality’ (ibid.: 58). This rhetoric removes literary translators from all
other forms of translation, too. In fact, it is used as a means ‘to distinguish themselves
from all other translators, whom they call ‘mere technicians’’ (ibid.: 136). In this respect,
Sela-Sheffy concludes that
while the ethos of “ordinary translators” allows for down-to-earth open discussions of mundane
technicalities […] all this is absolutely absent from the discourse of literary translators, which is
dedicated, instead, to philosophical and emotional deliberations (Sela-Sheffy, 2005: 19).
While literary translators’ identities fit their immediate context and originate as a direct
response to it, they cannot be removed from the wider setting in which they are formed.
In fact, despite differences, they have to abide by ‘the same economic imperatives’ of
their non-literary translation counterparts (Buzelin, 2005: 212). Exploring literary
translators’ identities in relation to technology could help revaluate material aspects of
the profession without compromising their character. In this respect, we have seen how
literary translators inhabit a space where their symbolic capital is nurtured by a will to
resist outsiders’ narratives of their profession. It is this opposition that leads to them
adopting the role of outsiders themselves by paradoxically taking centre stage to elevate
their status through the construction of a powerful counternarrative. This study aims at
further uncovering this counternarrative and relate it to the changes caused by an era of
increased technologisation. This quest is guided by the question of whether and how the
peculiar character of literary translators fits into the current socio-cultural climate. The
link between identity and technology will be further explored in the next section, which
reports on technological innovation in literary translation.
4.4 Literary translation and technology
In the context of a globalised and technology-driven society, the encounter between
literary translation and technology appears to be minimal. As noted by Large (2018), the
PETRA-E 2016 Framework of Reference for the Education and Training of Literary
Translators only references technology as related to searching the internet and applying
digital search strategies for the consultation of reference material (PETRA-E, 2016).
Despite literary translation being considered ‘the last bastion of human translation’ (Toral

42
and Way, 2014: 174), the technological landscape is rapidly evolving, and with it research
on the applicability of new tools to the literary translation practice. This being said, it is
worth distinguishing between different types of technologies and their application to
literary translation. In fact, while literary translators use various digital tools for tasks
such as communicating with colleagues and clients, researching terminology, and typing
their work, they do not seem to employ translation-specific technology in their workflow
(Large, 2018: 80-81). Furthermore, technology in this setting is often equated to MT
systems and/or CAT tools, ‘which are seen as either inappropriate or a threat to the skills
and livelihoods of literary translators’ (Youdale, 2019: 199). The peculiarities of literary
translation appear to have acted as a deterrent to the research and application of digital
tools to its practice, whereby its nature ‘represents perhaps the strongest formulation of
the machine translation problem’ (Voigt and Jurafsky, 2012: 18). In particular, its
concern with transcending meaning to recreate the expressive function of the text, and
having as a primary objective that of retaining readers’ experience (Jones and Irvine,
2013; Toral and Way, 2015a; Tezcan et al., 2019) represent a significant challenge to the
automation or increased technologisation of certain tasks. According to Taivalkoski-
Shilov,
what makes literary texts special is that they are often characterized by a remarkable, vocal
multilayeredness and deliberate ambiguity. […] It is this multivocality that makes literary
translation particularly challenging, as texts often lend themselves to plural interpretations and the
construction of voices in different languages is marked by incommensurability (Taivalkoski-
Shilov, 2018: 695-696).
Notwithstanding the implicit resistance of literary translation to technology
developments, recent years have seen an increase in research concerning the application
of technology tools to the literary translation workflow. These studies have almost
exclusively focused on MT, and in particular on its applicability to the translation of
poetry (Genzel et al., 2010; Greene et al., 2010; Jones and Irvine, 2013) and prose (Voigt
and Jurafsky, 2012; Jones and Irvine, 2013; Toral and Way, 2014, 2015b, 2015a, 2018;
Besacier and Schwartz, 2015; Tezcan et al., 2019), and how it can be combined with PE
(Toral et al., 2018; Murchú, 2019). The only exceptions to this are Youdale (2019) and
Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming), who explore the use of corpus linguistics, text-
visualisation, and CAT tools for literary translation. The next paragraphs will provide
more details on the studies mentioned above. It is worth noting that, where not specified,
all studies published before 2016 pre-date the introduction of NMT, and thus employ
SMT in their experiments.

43
As far as the automated translation of poetry is concerned, Genzel et al. (2010) trained an
SMT system to reproduce the source text meter and rhyme in the target text. Although
they succeeded in reproducing meter and rhyme patterns, they observe that ‘the impact
on translation quality […] is quite profound’, and thus ‘at the present state of machine
translation, one does indeed have to choose between getting either the form or the
meaning right’ (ibid.: 163). A similar finding is noted in Greene et al., (2010), whereby
automated translation is found to struggle to retain both meaning and form, with the latter
being easier to replicate. In 2013, Jones and Irvine offer a qualitative analysis grounded
in translation theory of the MT output for two literary texts, one work of prose and one
poem. What they find is that using MT results in ‘a constant tradeoff between fluency
and faithfulness’ (Jones and Irvine, 2013: 100).
Also focusing on automated translation of literary text is Voigt and Jurafsky’s work
(2012) on referential cohesion. Their findings indicate that literary texts present a higher
level of cohesion than informative texts, e.g., news. This has proven particularly difficult
for MT to convey adequately, thus they recommend focusing on textual features above
the sentence level in order to develop a system that can successfully approach the task of
translating literature (Voigt and Jurafsky, 2012: 18). Subsequent work by Toral and Way
(2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2018) has focused on the applicability of MT to the literary
translation workflow, namely looking at how factors such as the degree of freedom of the
translation, the narrowness of the text domain, the relatedness of the language pair, and
the type of MT used affect the process and product of literary translation. In their 2014
pilot study, they ascertain that the translatability of a text by means of SMT improves the
narrower the text domain, the smaller the degree of freedom of the translation, and the
more related the source and target languages (Toral and Way, 2014). Aiming to challenge
the widespread perception that MT and literary translation are incompatible, Toral and
Way (2015a, 2015b) then train a literary-specific MT system and proceed to study its
output when translating a novel. Here, they further corroborate their hypothesis that MT
can be useful for translating literature. More specifically, they confirm that when using
MT between related languages, its output is more readily applicable to PE, and that both
the type of text and the type of translation to be produced are to be taken into account
when applying it to the literary translation workflow (ibid.). When evaluating the MT of
a novel between related languages, 60% of native speakers thought it to be of the same
quality as its human translated counterpart; additionally, almost 20% of the automated

44
translations matched those produced by a professional human translator (Toral and Way,
2015b: 130). More recently, following the rise of a new model of MT based on neural
networks (NMT), Toral and Way (2018) trained both an SMT and an NMT system on
large amounts of literary texts in order to evaluate and compare their performance when
translating three novels. Both outputs were evaluated automatically using the BLEU
metric, and qualitatively by two native speakers, both unaware of whether each translation
was produced by humans or machines. NMT significantly outperforms SMT, and
between 17-34% of its output was found to be of equivalent quality to the human
translation by the evaluators (ibid.: 285). Also focusing on NMT, Tezcan et al. (2019)
aim at developing a deeper understanding of its usability for literary translation. They do
so by comparing lexical richness, cohesion, and syntactic equivalence between source
text, professional human translation and machine translated output of a novel using
Google Translate (ibid.). When analysing the first chapter of the novel, 44% of sentences
were error-free, highlighting its potential for future application to the literary translation
workflow (ibid.: 48). In this respect, it is worth noticing that performance was poorer
with longer sentences, and that ‘‘not containing any errors’ is in no way equal to
‘comparable to human quality’’ (ibid.: 45).
Another topic that has been brought forward regarding the application of translation
technology to literary translation is that of PE of MT output. In the first study of this
kind, Besacier and Schwartz (2015) try to assess whether a combination of SMT and PE
can constitute a feasible pipeline for the translation of literary texts. In order to achieve
this, they ask non-professional translators to post-edit and revise an automatically
translated essay. While the translation time is halved, this is at the expenses of quality;
in fact, although the revisers deemed it acceptable, the output was not of publishable
quality nor respected professional standards, according to the official translator of the
essay’s author (ibid.). Nevertheless, the study suggests that an admittedly low-quality
translation could be useful to allow a quicker and wider dissemination of literary works
or simply aid non-native speakers when reading in another language (ibid.: 121). A
similar experiment was reported more recently in Toral et al. (2018), where for the first
time professional translators were employed to translate different passages from the same
book chapter using three different modes of translation, namely human translation, post-
editing of SMT output, and post-editing of NMT output. Additionally, the six
professional translators were also made to translate the same texts from scratch. The
researchers then proceeded to evaluate translators’ keystrokes, time employed to carry

45
out the translation, and any pauses and their duration, in order to account for temporal,
technical and cognitive aspects. Results show that NMT performs better than SMT, and
for both instances PE resulted in increased productivity, respectively 18% for SMT and
36% for NMT (ibid.: 10). PE also reduces the number of keystrokes and pauses, although
these are shorter when translating from scratch (ibid.). Finally, an interesting perspective
on PE is offered by Murchú (2019), a translator who used the Intergaelic MT system to
pre-translate a novel and then post-edit it. Ultimately, PE was 31% faster than translating
from scratch and its quality deemed above acceptable, although the resulting language
was felt to be more natural when translating from scratch (ibid.: 22-23). The author
concludes by predicting a change of professional role from translator to literary post-
editor and an overall ‘demotion of human intellectual labour’ (ibid.: 24).
Having looked at the different ways in which MT has been studied in relation to literary
translation, it is now worth mentioning Youdale’s (2019) innovative approach to what he
defines Computer-Assisted Literary Translation (CALT). He translates a novel by
adopting a close and distant reading approach (CDR), which combines close reading with
the use of corpus linguistics and text-visualisation tools and techniques. Youdale (2019)
does not focus on MT or CAT tools because these ‘have been developed in the context of
a commercial translation industry driven by pressures to increase productivity and reduce
both translation costs and the role of the human translator in the translation process’ (ibid.:
24). On the contrary, the CDR approach ‘is consciously designed to support and enhance
the literary translator’s creativity by maximising the amount of stylistic (and frequently
narratological) information they have at their disposal. Translation options are increased
rather than decreased’ (ibid.: 24-25). Furthermore, Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming)
challenge the general assumptions that see CAT tools as unsuitable for literary texts due
to the latter’s lack of repetitiveness and higher degree of complexity. In particular, they
find that using CAT can help with easily locating previous translations, monitoring one’s
progress, reducing the risk of omission, and taking advantage of the different export file
formats (e.g., for revision purposes) when compared to using a text-editor alone (ibid.).
Moreover, alignment and CAT tools were used to retranslate Émile Zola's La Joie de
vivre, allowing ‘the retranslator to situate his or her own decisions in the historical
afterlife of the original, rather than simply in the amorphous and anachronistic present of
contemporary norms and tastes’ (ibid.: no pagination). In this instance, CAT tools helped
to make visible connections between the original and its past and future translations,
which could have been lost otherwise. Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming) conclude by

46
suggesting that CAT tools’ features that are often overlooked could indeed enhance the
literary (re)translator, particularly by providing them with insights hardly accessible by
other means (ibid.).
In line with Youdale (2019), the review of the literature offered above highlighted a lack
of focus on human issues stemming from the study or the adoption of new technologies
in the field of literary translation. In particular, little attention has been given to literary
translators’ perceptions and attitudes, and the effects the introduction of new tools could
have on their professional role. On the contrary, research tends to focus on issues of
productivity and MT systems’ development. Notably, at the beginning of this project in
2016, no studies could be identified that had at their core the investigation of literary
translators’ attitudes towards technology and its effects on their role. This being said,
recent efforts to bridge this gap have been observed. Particularly, researchers have started
to turn their attention to human issues resulting from HCI in literary translation, also
inviting reflection on ethical issues as related to the adoption of technologies in such a
professional field. In this respect, Moorkens et al. (2018) report on the perceptions of
post-editing NMT of the professional literary translators involved in Toral et al.’s (2018)
study mentioned earlier in this section. All participants favoured translation from scratch
over post-editing MT output, despite the latter requiring less time; this was attributed in
particular to feeling creatively constrained and led towards a more literal rendition of the
text (Moorkens et al., 2018: 255). Overall, despite some showing feelings of discomfort
towards MT development, translators demonstrated critical thinking in highlighting
NMT’s shortcomings. In this respect, one participant points out ‘that it is “scary and
frightening to see that the machines are getting better”’, but nonetheless concludes that
MT systems are ‘“still far [from being a threat]”’ (ibid.: 256). Kenny and Winters (2020)
are the first to conduct a study on whether and how literary translators’ textual voice is
affected by the use of MT and PE. By comparing translator voice in the same passage
translated both from scratch and by using an NMT + PE workflow by the same translator,
they found that the translator ‘style […] is still discernible in the edits he makes to the
machine translation output, but the overall effect is perhaps a slight dampening of his
textual voice’ (ibid.: 144). Another attempt at compensating for the lack of insight into
literary translators’ voices as related to translation technology is made by Slessor (2019).
In the first published study of this kind, he conducted a survey among Canadian literary
translators aimed at uncovering their use of technology and potential training needs.
Slessor's (2019) definition of technology included ‘any Internet-based resources a

47
translator may access, as well as both general desktop software applications and more
specialized tools, including CAT tools and MT’ (ibid.: 242). Results show that literary
translators use a wide variety of electronic resources and standard tools, while they
employ very few translation-specific tools in their practice, and when they do, they tend
to use them in original ways (ibid.). This being said, an overall desire for more training
in specialised technologies was also identified, together with a vast array of needs peculiar
to literary translation and mainly concerned with linguistic and cultural research (ibid.).
For this reason, and ‘because the findings also showed no apparent relationship between
technology training and use of specialized tools’, he recommends to review technology
training for literary translators, and consider their specific needs when developing digital
tools and resources (ibid.: 250). Finally, he states: ‘if active professional literary
translators are finally granted a greater role in the broader discussion on technologies, it
may eventually be possible for them to make their peace with the computer age’ (ibid.).
Despite being the first published study to interrogate literary translators on their use of
technology, the article’s focus on their attitudes is limited, granting the need for further
investigation in this area, and specifically on how attitudes towards technology and
literary translators’ role intertwine, which is what underlies the present study’s aim and
objectives. This being said, Slessor (2019) successfully sets a background for the setting
and comparability of future studies on the topic, such as the current research project.
The recent focus on literary translators’ perceptions of technology has also been
accompanied by studies focusing on ethical and human implications of the adoption of
technologies in literary translation. In view of this, Large (2018) questions the reasons
behind trying to translate literature using MT. In particular, he argues that these
developments are driven by an attempt to save costs, however ‘there’s really no point to
a literary translation that is all content and no form: a literary translation is nothing if not
pleasurably concerned with the means of its own expression’ (ibid.: 91-92). Furthermore,
MT could ‘successfully mimic humans, but what an impoverished, one-dimensional view
of what human translators are capable of’ (ibid.: 93). In this respect, Taivalkoski-Shilov
(2019) notices that MT has been so far unsuccessful in replicating narrative features,
which are central to the literary quality of a text. According to Large, should this type of
technology prevail in the future, the solution would be for humans to become more
creative (Large, 2018: 93). In this respect, Taivalkoski-Shilov (2018) raises many points
related to translation quality and the technologisation of the profession, shining a light on
how many of the studies on MT in literary translation seem to neglect narrative aspects

48
of literary texts and separate content from form when evaluating translation quality (ibid.:
693). As a consequence of this, the MT+PE pipeline seems incompatible with literary
translation, in that it separates structure and content, while interactive MT would seem
more feasible, provided literary translators are involved in the design process (ibid.: 694).
Ultimately, Taivalkoski-Shilov foresees a rise in the use of CAT tools and interactive MT
in the near future, however ‘literary translators might even benefit from the change,
provided that all players in the field, especially the powerful ones, such as major
publishing houses, incorporate sustainable development as part of their view on
translation quality’ (ibid.: 698). A unique point of view regarding the application of MT
to literary translation is offered by Rothwell (2009), who argues that, if not for all types
of literary translation, MT could be useful in specific cases. In particular, he adopts MT
for the translation of Dada texts, which are rooted in defying conventional understandings
of meaning. By operating outside the realm of ‘powerful syntax-building [and] sense-
structuring’ (ibid.: 267) of human translators, and thus adhering to Dadaist principles, MT
succeeds in offering ‘not only appropriate’, but also ‘potentially revealing’ solutions
(ibid.: 265).
Ultimately, despite a growing body of research on the application of technology to literary
translation, the relationship between the two appears extremely complex. The studies
presented in this section suggest that literary translators seem to either rely on generic
digital tools or avoid technology altogether. Oppositely, research has primarily been
focusing on the applicability of translation-specific technology to literary texts, with
particular attention being dedicated to MT. The review of the literature has thus
highlighted a discrepancy between research and practice. Overall, literary translation’s
peculiarities seem to pose unique challenges to the development of ad-hoc translation
technology tools. Notably, one of the main issues engendered by the MT-literature
encounter relates to the difficult reconciliation of content and form in the translation
output. While evidence shows that narrower domains, type of text, and relatedness of the
language pair can improve MT output, this is still not comparable to human quality.
Similarly, the studies reviewed above support the notion that PE improves productivity
and that the MT+PE pipeline produces work of overall acceptable quality. However, this
approach seems to mostly benefit publishing houses by reducing translation costs, while
literary translators do not believe MT is up to the task and prefer translating from scratch,
regardless of gains in productivity. Furthermore, they demonstrate aversion towards
translation technology, and see it as incompatible with the very mission of literary

49
translation. Ultimately, the review of the literature has identified the need for literary
translators to be involved in the conversation in order to develop a more sustainable
approach to the increasing technologisation of the profession and reduce the gap between
research and practice.
Collectively, the studies mentioned above highlight the need for a more in-depth analysis
of literary translators’ own positioning in this new socio-cultural landscape, and for their
increased involvement in research on technology and tools development. This project
aims at addressing this gap in research by focusing on literary translators’ attitudes
towards technology and how they perceive their role, ultimately offering an analysis of
how the two relate to and interact with each other and attempting to bring them back into
the conversation around technology and translation of literary texts. The state-of-the-art
literature presented in this section will guide the data analysis and inform the final
discussion by offering themes and terms for comparison. To conclude:
Gaining an insight into literary translators’ perspectives and attitudes towards technology and their
role in society could help prevent some of the drawbacks of technology implementation that have
affected their colleagues in other branches of translation and, in turn, empower the professional
figure of the literary translator as a professional by taking control of the translation process, instead
of being ‘passive automata that are simply ‘told’ to use a predetermined tool’ (O’Hagan, 2017: 41)
4.5 The translator of the future
When outlining the technologisation of the translation profession and the identity of
translators, inevitable questions on the future of the profession are raised. In particular,
Translation Studies research has tried to envisage ways in which the material and
immaterial (Section 2.2) can coexist. An idea that has been briefly introduced in Section
2.3 is that of promoting collaboration between humans and machines as a solution to the
conflicts arising from HCI. The suggestion is not new, with Kay (1997) arguing that a
collaborative human-machine system could free translators from routine tasks, increasing
their productivity and making the work ‘more rewarding, more exciting, more human’
(ibid.: 3). In his vision, the human never loses control over the process and the machine
never attempts to appropriate tasks for which it is not ready. Of a similar view is Melby
(1983), who proposes a Translation Aid System aimed at serving and complementing
translators instead of replacing them. Here, MT moves to the background in favour of
other tools that aid productivity, such as termbanks, suggestion boxes and word
processing. In his words, ‘it would seem illogical to spend all our effort on MT […] and

50
ignore what can be done to improve productivity in human translation’ (ibid.: 31). Both
views seem to point toward collaboration between humans and machines as the way
forward, provided the human stays in control of the process and technological tools are
developed and employed as an aid and not a substitute.
More recently, the idea of cooperation between humans and machines has been reprised,
and with it the notion of HCI as a means of freeing the translator from mundane tasks,
making the human element even more visible. For O’Brien (2012), symbiosis between
translators and their tools is fundamental for technological development, which should
centre on the user. Concurrently, the need emerges for research to focus on what tasks
can be performed by machines and which are exclusive to translators, and whether by
being relieved of such tasks, translators can indeed become more human (ibid.: 111). In
this respect, Cronin argues that the discourse around HCI in translation can be included
in the wider discussion around transhumanism, whereby ‘evolving technologies will
greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities’ (Cronin,
2013: 138). However, rethinking translation to establish what is exclusively human, what
is mechanical and what is shared between the two entails putting into question both
identities and processes. This, in order to reframe the way translation is approached both
in theory and practice. In this view, reassessing ‘cultural production in terms of
collective, collaborative labour—whether as human authors, producers, readers, or a
combination of human and machine processes’ (Mitchell, 2010: 25) becomes central to
the exercise of defining translators’ identities in the Translation Age. The main concern
is that individuals retain self-expression through media as opposed to being enslaved by
them. The notion that material elements could enhance the immaterial is also present in
the discourse around HCI. In this regard, Section 2.3 has introduced the concept of
‘convivial tools’, which work alongside people and ultimately enhance individual
freedom instead of diminishing it (Illich, 1975).
The question of HCI and enhancement in Translation Studies research has recently been
approached from a more practical angle. Studies like those of Kay (1997) and Melby
(1983) have been revisited, and proposals for new workflows and tools have been
advanced. Such is the case of the Translator Amanuensis 2020 (TA2020), an updated
version of Kay’s translation system envisioned by Alonso and Vieira (2017). Here, they
describe a ubiquitous translation platform able to record cognitive data and predict effort
and centred on the use of MT and PE. The understanding behind it is that both the

51
commercial stance founded on productivity, reduction of costs and translation as a
product, and the one focusing more on translation as an immaterial (as per Littau’s 2016
definition) process will have ‘a harmonious co-existence’ (Alonso and Vieira, 2017: 353).
Furthermore, they see PE as having a prominent role in the future of translation, as ‘we
will continue to witness mutual forms of remediation and tensions of expansion and
convergence between human and machine translation’ (ibid.: 354). Also including MT
is the augmented translation model presented by Lommel (2017). Augmented translation
is powered by AI and consists of four main components: TM, adaptive NMT, automated
content enrichment (ACE) and terminology management (ibid.). While TM stores
translated segments, NMT learns from the translator, ACE provides external links to
relevant information found in the text, and terminology management tools suggest
translation of terms, all interacting with each other in real time. This system ‘hinges on
the premise that humans or machines alone won’t deliver great translation, but the
combination of the two will’ (ibid.: 2). The augmented translation workflow is ‘a form
of machine-assisted human translation’ (ibid.: 8) where translators retain complete
control of the process and ‘gain deeper levels of insight and context into their work, while
machines eliminate a labor intensive but inefficient set of project management tasks’
(ibid.: 2). It is clear there is consensus on the fact that technology should not aim to
substitute the human, but to enhance them instead. This should be achieved by allowing
machines to undertake humdrum tasks and/or alleviate the cognitive load of the translator
who, in turn, can be more efficient and access areas of discernment that are their exclusive
prerogative. This being said, models such as TA2020 and augmented translation remain
mainly theoretical. The only practical applications of an enhancing technology-driven
workflow have been found in Rothwell (2009), Youdale (2019) and Youdale and
Rothwell (forthcoming) (also see Section 4.4). In particular, we have seen how Rothwell
(2009) successfully employs MT for the translation of Dada texts, Youdale (2019)
introduces the CDR approach, which combines close and distant reading and uses text-
visualisation tools and corpus linguistics techniques to enhance literary translation from
both a creative and efficiency standpoint, and Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming)
highlight the advantages of using CAT tools for literary translation and retranslation.
Overall, it appears that HCI in translation is heading towards a new definition of
humanity, or at least a novel, enhanced, version of it. For example, according to Large
(2018), MT could push literary translators towards new forms of creative expression.
More specifically, he argues that with ‘machines […] snapping at the heels of human

52
translators […] the only valid response is to become more creative’ (ibid.: 93). This
concept is further explained through the analogy of painting and photography: after the
invention of photography, painting had to find new ways to exist, thus giving rise to more
abstract art movements and styles (ibid.: 94). In a similar way, by using MT, translators
could ‘be liberated from the shackles of "faithful" reproduction, of "equivalence"
narrowly defined, and freed up to become rather their inner Picasso’ (ibid.). In this view,
with equivalence becoming a feature of MT, more space becomes available for translators
to explore the realm of unfaithfulness and the unknown. Particularly concerned with the
linguistic unknown is Allison Parrish (2015) who advances the idea of technology as a
potential explorer of semantic spaces still unknown to humans. Parrish (2015) defines
herself as an experimental computer poet, in that she writes computer programmes whose
task is to write poems. Although she is speaking about writing, some of her observations
are equally applicable to translation. By applying technology to her writing, her ‘goal
[…] [is] not to imitate existing poetry, but to find new ways for poetry to exist’ (ibid.:
3:52 - 3:58). Here, the aim is not for the machine to imitate the human, but for it to go
where the human cannot reach to help them stray from the familiar and adventure into the
unknown. Computers are a means, not the end. In the case of writing,
because a computer programme isn’t constrained by convention it can […] speak interesting truths
that people find […] difficult to say, and it can come up with serendipitous juxtapositions that
make language dance and sing and do unexpected things that can be beautiful and insightful. (ibid.:
40:59 - 41:18)
In the case of translation, this statement could be said to work in both directions. In fact,
one of the main differences between translation and writing is in the kind of creative
freedom they abide by. Translators’ freedom is always constrained by adherence to the
source text, even if its extent can vary. This way, translation technology tools like MT
could function as both a source of unexpected inspiration and as an enabler for translators
to walk unbeaten paths while technology handles more mechanical tasks, as suggested by
Large (2018) and Rothwell (2009). Similarly, Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming) have
argued that applying CAT tools to literary translation could indeed provide the translator
with new ways of seeing the text and translating it. In this view, translation technology
is the bearer of new possibilities and the provider of new avenues for literary translation
to exist. According to Mitchell and Raley (2018), ‘rather than regarding the machine as
marking the limits of translation’ we should ‘continue to investigate […] translation
as machined, and translation as machining meaning’ (ibid.: no pagination). In order to
do so, it is essential to employ innovative ways to ‘[situate translation] in the digital media

53
age of materialities and virtualities, connecting the dots between mind and matter’
(O’Hagan, 2016).
In light of the above, the trend towards a more human development and uptake of
technology appears evident, however the specific ways in which this is to be achieved are
still unclear. As far as literary translation is concerned, research shows that despite
technology advances and promises of improvements in productivity and efficiency,
literary translators are wary of technology adoption (see Section 4.3). According to
Slessor (2019), what is needed is for professional literary translators to be part of the
conversation around technology innovation for both worlds to reconcile (ibid.: 250).
Including literary translators in the discussion becomes even more necessary if this
development is to be sustainable. In fact, given translators’ resistance to technology and
the industry’s push towards cost and time reduction, it is essential to centre the human in
technology design and implementation. To do otherwise could prove damaging for the
profession (Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2018: 694). Another way to empower translators is to
ensure they are informed about what technologies are available and how they can best be
matched to their particular needs. This is particularly relevant for ‘the everyday user who
is the most unaware and vulnerable’ (Doherty, 2016: 963). In looking ahead, the need is
highlighted for research to address translators’ roles, identities, perceptions, attitudes and
training needs to secure a sustainable technological development in the future.
The current section has identified the sustainable collaboration between humans and
machines as the preferred way forward. In particular, by keeping the human in control,
the deskilling and devaluing of translators can be avoided. Moreover, the notion of
technology as freeing and enhancing has been advanced, in that by performing more
mechanical and redundant tasks technology could open new avenues for translators’
creativity and humanity. In order to uncover what aspects can be enhanced by technology
and which ones can be taken over by it, it is fundamental to include translators in the
discussion around HCI. Furthermore, the need for translators to be informed about the
technology at their disposal has also been identified. The combination of humans and
technology is not new in history. What has changed are the specificities of the tools and
the age they appear in. For this reason, the dynamic between the two needs to be
reassessed and in particular the question of what will become of the translator, their
identity and role, and ultimately, what characterises their humanity in the interaction with
technology. The current study positions itself in this scenario, particularly focusing on

54
HCI in the field of literary translation. In this regard, an attempt has been made to include
literary translators in the conversation. More specifically, the study participants were
encouraged to share their narratives around professional identity and technology as
related to their literary translation activity. This, in order to better understand what is
needed to put the literary translator in control in the current socio-technological
landscape, and what a sustainable model of HCI could look like in the future of literary
translation.
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a review of the literature regarding translator status and the
relationship between translation and technology. In particular, it has done so by
approaching the two from the lens of non-literary and literary translation. In fact, literary
translators have emerged as positioning themselves in society differently than their
colleagues in other branches of translation. At the same time, the application of
translation technology (and technology in general) to literary translation workflows has
followed a different course. Furthermore, because of the differences in translator
character and in types of translated texts, the study of technological innovation and HCI
in literary translation needs to address issues of a different nature than non-literary
translation. This study’s proactive approach aims at pinpointing some of these issues and
identifying how the peculiar identity of literary translators influences attitudes towards
technology in literary translation. The specific way this has been done will be presented
in the next chapter, which is dedicated to methodology and methods.

55
Chapter 5: Methodology and methods
The review of the literature has highlighted the need for an exploration of translators’
needs and perspectives in light of the increasing technologisation of the profession. In
particular, we have seen how ‘translators’ emotions and affects are still a fairly under-
researched area’ (Koskinen and Ruokonen, 2017: 9) and how Translation Studies would
benefit from focusing on human issues and the impact of technologies on translators
(Kenny, 2017: 2). Thus, the object of this study deals with mostly uncharted territory,
especially as far as literary translation is concerned. Furthermore, the project focuses on
literary translators’ narratives of their own experience, hence it is extremely important to
acknowledge both their subjectivity in the form of their interpretations of the world and
their role as social actors in a socio-cultural context that is taken to be continuously
changing. For its very nature, this study favours interpretations of words, values
participants’ points of view, and has a focus on socially-embedded processes and
contextual understanding. These are things usually associated with a qualitative approach
to research, as opposed to a quantitative one. The latter, in fact, is generally more
concerned with numeric measurements and statistical generalisability, and sees society as
something static (Bryman, 2008: 393–394). This being said, this study assumes that
neither research approach is superior to the other, nor are they mutually exclusive. In
fact, while there are epistemological and ontological differences, they are not to be
deemed unreservedly discordant. Conversely, the view is hereby adopted that methods
usually associated with one research strategy or the other are indeed compatible and can
be combined in numerous ways to serve research questions belonging to either strategy
(Luker, 2008; Oliver, 2010; Saldanha and O’Brien, 2014).
For this project, an interpretivist epistemology and a social constructionist ontological
view combined into a mixed-methods approach were deemed the most appropriate to
address the questions that this study set out to answer. This, in order to gather initial
insights into and ultimately open new avenues for further research on the topic of human-
technology interaction in literary translation, and the role of literary translators in an
increasingly technology-dependent globalised society. The survey method was adopted,
and a questionnaire was administered to literary translators. Here, quantitative and
qualitative elements were combined by using both open and closed questions.

56
This chapter consists of three main sections. Section 5.1 is concerned with the overall
methodological approach adopted and is in turn divided into four subsections. These will
respectively outline the epistemological and ontological frameworks that underpin the
study (5.1.1 and 5.1.2), discuss the reasons behind the choice for a mixed-methods
approach (5.1.3), and address methodological issues (5.1.4). The chapter will then focus
on the survey method in Section 5.2, paying particular attention to sampling (5.2.1 and
5.2.2) and question design (5.2.3). Section 5.3 will conclude the chapter and lead the way
to Chapter 6, where the process of piloting the questionnaire will be presented, together
with its results and implications for the main questionnaire.
5.1 Methodological approach
The epistemological and ontological positions and the mixed-methods approach adopted
will be detailed in the following sections 5.1.1-5.1.3, while a discussion on
methodological issues will be presented in Section 5.1.4.
5.1.1 Research epistemology
Epistemology (from the Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη, ‘science’, and λόγος, ‘discourse’) is the
branch of philosophy that is concerned with defining science and knowledge.
Determining the epistemological position of a research study helps delimiting its limits
and validity and the extent to which it is possible to generalise its claims. When
considering an epistemological position from which to undertake a research study, the
choice depends heavily on the type of questions that need to be answered, since:
we may employ careful observation and uncontroversial modes of inference yet still reach false
conclusions […]. Following a procedure will not always improve the quality of the observation or
reasoning. This is because any procedure relies upon assumptions and these could be false.
(Hammersley, 2011: 93)
It is thus fundamental to make sure that both procedure and research questions are aligned
to the best of our ability. When approaching the question of which epistemological
approach to adopt for this project, the two main epistemological standpoints of positivism
and interpretivism were evaluated. The former is linked to research aimed at being value-
free, i.e., objective, based on deductive hypothesis-testing and/or the induction of laws,
and on reliable quantitative data ( McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 15-18; Bryman, 2008:
13). In this respect, McNeill and Chapman (2005) underline how positivism tends to

57
focus on society and its structures as opposed to individuals, whose behaviour is seen as
subjected to natural laws that are ‘beyond human influence’ (ibid.: 15) and as lying
‘outside of the individual in the structural forces of society’ (ibid.: 18). Thus, in this view,
society is equated to the object of study of natural sciences, in that it can be objectively
measured, and laws and predictions can be inferred from its study (ibid.: 16).
By contrast, the philosophical concept of interpretivism prioritizes people’s subjective
understandings and interpretations of social phenomena and is often linked with
qualitative approaches to research, where researchers explore the social world by
adopting the point of view of the social actors and reflecting on their own subjective
interpretations (Saldanha and O’Brien, 2014: 11-12). From this angle, ‘the researcher has
to understand and make sense of that which is being investigated’ (Oliver, 2010: 73-74).
Concurrently, both researcher and object of research mutually affect each other, in that
they share the same social reality: ‘we are fish studying water, and our very fishiness
shapes how we think about it’ (Luker, 2008: 31). The two research approaches show core
differences in the way they address the study of people. In this respect, positivists can be
said to focus more on explaining human behaviour, while interpretivists’ stress is on
understanding it (Bryman, 2008: 15). Furthermore, an interpretivist point of view
recognises individuals as sentient, conscious beings who are capable of assigning
meanings to social instances and thus choosing how to interpret them. In this view,
people’s interpretations of the social world become essential to understand social realities
(McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 18-21). In fact, the act of comprehending the social world
cannot be discerned from its actors’ interpretations of it. In contrast with the positivist
standpoint outlined above, interpretivism is rooted in the notion that ‘man [sic] is a
conscious, active, purposeful social being, rather than being subject to external influences
over which he has no control’ (ibid.: 21).
The current study is concerned with literary translators’ perspectives and their
interpretations of reality. Literary translators are here seen as simultaneously having an
influence on and being influenced by the underlying structures of society. While
positivism mainly denies individuals’ agency on social structures, and favours an
objective, quantitative analysis of any given phenomena, the interpretivist axiom allows
for an exploration of the effects that individuals have on social structures and vice versa.
For this reason, interpretivism is hereby used as an epistemological springboard to
embark on the journey of answering this project’s research questions. Strictly linked to

58
the interpretivist epistemology is the ontological view of constructionism, which will be
dealt with in the following subsection.
5.1.2 Research ontology
Ontology (from the Ancient Greek ὄντος, ‘being’ and λόγος, ‘discourse’), is the branch
of philosophy that is concerned with the study of being in all its manifestations and
categories. As with epistemology, acknowledging one’s ontological standpoint when
doing research is fundamental in validating research methods and findings, and in
offering an in-depth understanding of the researcher’s motivations. This allows to both
admit and reduce bias by recognising the researcher as someone who is as embedded in
the socio-cultural context as the object of their research. Here, the two opposite
ontological positions of objectivism and constructionism are considered. Both are
concerned with the degree of mutual involvement of social phenomena and individuals,
namely whether the former are to be considered as independent external realities or as a
direct result of individuals’ perceptions and actions.
The main assumption underlying the ontological position of objectivism is that ‘social
phenomena and the categories that we use in everyday discourse have an existence that
is independent or separate from actors’ (Bryman, 2008: 19). This view finds its
counterpart in the epistemological standpoint of positivism, in that social phenomena are
seen as instances that can be objectively studied without the social world or individuals
having any modifying effect on them (see Section 5.1.1). Consequently, the study of
society as a structure constituted by external, independent, singular objects prevails over
researching individuals as social actors that are both influencing and being influenced by
social entities through subjective perceptions and actions.
Conversely, constructionism takes the view that social reality is indeed constructed via
social interactions, despite being perceived as an external entity that lives independently
of us (McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 19). Knowledge is constructed in the same way,
becoming a comprehensive process of contextual data gathering and interpretation. In
Hammersley’s (2011) words, ‘the truth that is documented is not independent of the
process of ‘discovering’ it’ (ibid.: 128). Thus, approaching research from a
constructionist viewpoint implies that findings cannot be considered as definitive and
conclusive. In fact, the act of research itself is a social construction, and as such it is

59
subject to ‘a constant state of revision’ (Bryman, 2008: 19). Where objectivism and
positivism externally observe and quantify reality to produce knowledge, constructionism
implies a vision of reality where social phenomena ‘are only real in the sense that they
are constructed ideas which are continually being reviewed by those involved in them’
(Matthews and Ross, 2010: 24-25). Thus, a social-constructionist view acknowledges the
fact that research findings cannot be objective in an absolute way, since the researcher,
just like the research itself and the other social actors involved, is also culturally and
socially situated and the way they understand the world will have a bearing on the
meanings constructed by the study.
This particular project is based on the assumption that translation is a culturally- and
socially-embedded phenomenon, and both translator and researcher are ‘a constructing
and constructed subject in society’ (Wolf, 2007: 1). In fact, the whole research process
is based on the premise that the phenomena being observed are socially, culturally and
contextually constructed. This being said, by using a questionnaire with open and closed
questions (see Section 5.2), the current research project presents both objective and
subjective elements, and acknowledges that the quantitative-qualitative dichotomy is not
a clear-cut distinction. In particular, results are not exclusively numerically measurable,
as data also consists of the perceptions and attitudes of individuals seen as actors in a
social context that is continuously constructed by means of actions and interpretations.
This being said, the quantitative element is not automatically rejected as a consequence
of the adoption of an interpretivist and constructionist stance. Instead, the intention is to
embrace both the qualitative and quantitative sides in order to provide a well-rounded
picture of literary translators’ perceptions and attitudes as related to their role in society
and the technologisation of their profession, recognising their role as agents of socio-
cultural change. For this reason, the ontological lens of constructionism as defined in this
section was adopted and the uncovering of shared meanings and interpretations was taken
to be the main objective of research (McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 18-21).
5.1.3 Mixed-methods approach
Having defined the philosophical underpinnings of this study, this section will now move
on to outline the mixed-methods approach adopted.

60
Generally, the quantitative and qualitative approaches are seen in opposition as
representing two inherently different ways of doing research. The former is usually
linked to a positivist and objective point of view, while the latter tends to reflect more the
interpretivist and constructionist positions and present a more subjective nature. More
specifically, a quantitative research approach relies on a logic of verification derived from
a natural scientific view of the world, according to which the elements and phenomena
studied are measurable and verifiable because they constitute an external and objective
reality (Bryman, 2008: 21-23). In other words, quantitative research primarily seeks to
measure things, count, and compare statistically (Williams and Chesterman, 2002: 64-
65). On the other hand, a qualitative approach - as the word itself suggests, is focused on
the quality of data, which inherently implies the concept of subjectivity. Consequently,
the focus shifts to interpretations of the social world. These are taken to continuously
change society’s structure, giving rise to a constant process of construction and
deconstruction of reality (Bryman, 2008: 21-23).
This being said, neither approach is exempt from criticism. For example, we have seen
in Section 5.1.1 how false assumptions could spoil even the most rigorous, objective and
quantitative of procedures (Hammersley, 2011: 93). In this regard, Luker (2008) also
observes that ‘both the “rigor” and “scientific” nature of numbers and those who produce
them are socially situated’ (Luker, 2008: 31), as is the process of research itself. It follows
that, even when determining the most appropriate method for the current study, we are
doing nothing short of making use of our subjective assumptions (ibid.). Additionally,
among the most common criticism of quantitative research, Bryman (2008) lists ignoring
the difference between natural and social world, the artificial and assumed objectivity of
quantitative measurements and the general tendency to be detached from people’s
everyday life (ibid.: 159-160). Conversely, criticism directed at qualitative research
mainly concerns issues of replication and generalisability and the fact that it is considered
by some to be too subjective, making the analysis and universalisation of its results
problematic. In fact, the focus on individuals and their interpretations of the world is
sometimes seen as unsystematic, as opposed to the highly structured approach of
quantitative research. This unsystematic quality, together with the idea that phenomena
are socially constructed and in constant revision, is what attracts criticism in relation to a
qualitative study’s replicability and generalisation (ibid.: 391-392).

61
It is worth noting that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative approaches to
research is not always unequivocal. According to Luker (2008), ‘the dichotomy between
qualitative and quantitative methods is simply silly’ (ibid.: 4-5), and a researcher should
choose the methods that are more appropriate to the type of study that is being conducted,
regardless of their historical association with a quantitative or qualitative standpoint.
Similarly, Oliver (2010) encourages people to think about the specific requirements of a
research question when choosing the most suitable methods, as opposed to taking sides
in what looks like ‘an almost ideological divide between researchers’ (ibid.: 78-79).
Moreover, he suggests how, in some instances, mixing the two stances could prove
extremely fruitful (ibid.: 79). In fact, while theoretically the qualitative/quantitative
dichotomy might seem justifiable, at least to a certain extent, when we translate it into
practice the lines between the two tend to get significantly blurred. For this reason, many
social researchers have decided to combine both stances by adopting the so-called mixed-
methods approach (Burgess, 1993: 105; Silverman, 1997 in McNeill and Chapman, 2005:
66; Bryman, 2008: 21-23). While the main argument against mixed-methods is based on
the idea that quantitative and qualitative methods are epistemological opposites and thus
incompatible, with the current study sides with what has been defined by Bryman (2008)
as the ‘technical version’ of the argument (ibid.: 606). According to this view, research
methods are autonomous and thus compatible across methodological approaches, serving
different data collection and analysis purposes, regardless of epistemological and
ontological differences between the two (ibid.: 606).
Consistent with this view, while operating in an interpretive and constructionist
framework, the method chosen for the current study is the survey method in the form of
a questionnaire. This is typically associated with a quantitative research approach.
However, in the context of this project, the questionnaire presented a mix of quantitative
and qualitative elements by including both closed and open questions (see Section 5.2).
This was done to ‘[account] for the complex nature of a research object that comprises
both “mind” and “matter”’ (Meister, 2018: 12), such as the study of the relationship
between human and technological factors in literary translation. In this respect, Meister
(2018) notes how a mixed-methods approach is particularly suitable for interdisciplinary
studies, in that its flexibility is conducive not only to methodological innovation, but also
to ‘generating enhanced understanding’ of complex issues (ibid.: 13). Moreover,
combining different stances encourages the researcher to further reflect on their

62
methodological choices, and thus pursue an additional layer of awareness in the overall
framework (ibid.: 12).
The purpose of combining quantitative and qualitative elements in this study was
complementarity. This was first defined by Greene et al. (1989) as the intent of mixing
methods in order to ‘elaborate, enhance, or illustrate’ results (ibid.: 266). With
complementarity, ‘qualitative and quantitative methods are used to measure overlapping
but also different facets of a phenomenon, yielding an enriched, elaborated understanding
of [it]’ (ibid.: 258). In this particular research project, the quantitative element of the
questionnaire allowed to complement and contextualise the narratives emerging from the
open questions, as well as providing stand-alone insights into respondents’ backgrounds.
This way, it was possible to not only gather qualitative accounts of literary translators’
lived experiences and perceptions, but also to link these to their personal, professional,
and educational circumstances. Both quantitative and qualitative elements of the
questionnaire were made to work concurrently to provide a picture of the topic at hand
that was as comprehensive as possible, within the limits of the study. In particular,
qualitative data provided direct access to respondents’ emotional narratives of their
perceptions and attitudes, while quantitative results aided in framing such narratives by
defining the population being studied. Knowing more about participants’ backgrounds
also added a further layer of comparability to the findings – both in relation to previous
literature on the topic and future studies in the field – by establishing, for example,
whether certain attitudes are linked to factors such as age, educational background and
confidence with technology. The way complementarity was achieved in practice can be
seen in 7.2, where cross-referenced results are presented and analysed.
Ultimately, adopting a complementarity mixed-methods approach allowed to reconstruct
literary translators’ narratives by linking their interpretations of the world to the place
they occupy in society. In particular, the quantitative element allowed to anchor
qualitative narratives to a solid background, while qualitative data offered an unfiltered
look into respondents’ attitudes and perceptions expressed in their own words. Together,
quantitative and qualitative elements allowed to further enhance the resulting narrative
and eventually provide a holistic account of literary translators’ self-image and attitudes
towards technology.

63
5.1.4 Methodological issues
The nature of this project’s methodological issues is deeply interwoven into the fabric of
its philosophical underpinnings and mixed-methods approach. While this research
project does not aim at claiming universal validity and statistical generalisability due to
the nature of the population, the topic at hand and the sampling criteria adopted (see
Section 5.2.1), the use of the survey method allows the collection of a large set of data
that is both valid and reliable.
The concept of validity concerns the correspondence between a study’s data and
conclusions and the reality being researched; it thus closely relates to the methods chosen
to answer the research question and the degree of generalisability of the findings (McNeill
and Chapman, 2005: 9; Bryman, 2008: 32; Oliver, 2010: 73). Reliability is then
concerned with whether the study can be replicated by others obtaining analogous results
(Bryman, 2008: 378). In the context of this study, in order to account for both elements
and for the interpretative and constructionist stances, the concepts of validity and
reliability have been combined with that of trustworthiness as described by Lincoln and
Guba (1985) and Guba and Lincoln (1994) and as reported by Bryman (2008: 377-379).
Trustworthiness accounts for the interpretivist and constructionist view that there is no
such thing as absolute truth. A study is trustworthy when it is: credible (i.e., internally
valid by following good research practice and being acceptable to others), transferable
(i.e., externally valid in that findings can be applied to similar contexts), dependable (i.e.,
reliable, whereby each phase of the research process is recorded and accessible) and
confirmable (i.e., objective, in that the researcher has acted in good faith and has not
manipulated results to reach one outcome instead of another) (ibid.).
This project is committed to conducting a study that is valid and reliable in terms of
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In fact, it builds on previous
literature and appropriate measures have been adopted to ensure the internal validity of
the method chosen (e.g., pilot study and sampling criteria as detailed in Section 5.2). The
study’s external validity, or its potential to be applied to other similar contexts, is limited
because of the non-random nature of the sample. This being said, these issues have been
minimised by the adoption of specific target group criteria (Section 5.2.1) and of the
mixed-methods approach. In particular, the quantitative element of the questionnaire has
allowed to clearly define participants’ context in terms of age, country, educational

64
background and professional practice, thus delimitating the extent to which literary
translators’ personal accounts of their profession can be generalised to similar contexts.
Similar issues originating from the non-random nature of the sample affected the study’s
reliability. Nonetheless, while the same conditions for research cannot be perfectly
replicated, measures have been taken to limit such issues. More specifically, in addition
to choosing balanced sampling criteria, records of the process have been kept throughout,
and the stages of research design, data collection and data analysis have been reported in
detail in this thesis, together with the rationale behind each choice that was made. Lastly,
while in an interpretivist and constructionist view absolute objectivity is unattainable,
measures have been taken to reduce any chances of bias and ultimately avoid any
manipulation of data and conclusions. In this instance too, the mixed-methods approach
has proven beneficial whereby assumptions inferred from participants’ qualitative
accounts could be compared with and confirmed by quantitative data and vice versa.
Additionally, the steps described above taken to ensure validity and reliability also
contributed to guarantee an adequate level of transparency as far as methodology and data
presentation, analysis and discussion are concerned.
As mentioned above, the concept of generalisability is strictly related to that of external
validity and transferability. A study is said to be generalisable when its results can also
be applied to other groups or the wider population (McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 10).
Furthermore, taking into account the generalisability of a research project is fundamental
for the strength of its argument, although a lack of it ‘does not necessarily invalidate [it]’
(Saldanha and O’Brien, 2014: 36). The degree of generalisability is usually determined
by sampling method and sample size. Earlier it was mentioned how this study employs
non-random sampling, and thus it cannot claim universal generalisability. This being
said, specific criteria were used to better define the target population (Section 5.2.1).
Additionally, answers to the closed questions provided a link between established patterns
and participants’ personal and professional backgrounds (e.g., age, country, years of
experience, educational background, etc.). Both the criteria and the closed questions
helped mitigate issues of external validity, especially regarding sampling and the
interaction of quantitative and qualitative elements. The study’s degree of transferability
was then enhanced through logical and theoretical generalisation. In this respect, Luker
(2008) notices how, even when sampling issues do not allow for statistical generalisation,
it is still possible to work on a logical and theoretical level of abstraction. When
theoretically generalising, findings are compared to previous theories and studies ‘to see

65
how [they] illuminate, contradict, extend, or amplify existing theory’ (ibid.: 127). The
extent to which the findings could be generalised is discussed in Chapter 8.
Ultimately, the current study commits to McNeill and Chapman's (2005) view that
research should be ‘done according to principles of integrity and rationality’ (ibid.: 192).
The overall aim of this project is thus to gather insights through valid, reliable,
trustworthy, and balanced processes and determine the extent to which these can be
generalised to the wider literary translators’ population based on sampling criteria, cross-
referencing of data, and comparison with previous literature on the topic. The following
section will delve deeper into the survey method and the specificities of the questionnaire
devised for this study.
5.2 Survey research
As previously anticipated, the study uses the survey method in the form of a questionnaire
to collect and contextualise literary translators’ narratives as related to their role in society
and technology. Sun (2015) effectively describes a survey as ‘a method designed to
gather data about a human population (commonly referred to as a sample) through a
sequence of focused questions’ (ibid.: 267). Typically, the survey method allows to
obtain large amounts of quantifiable, comparable and generalisable data in a cost- and
time-effective manner (McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 29). The criteria that can be applied
to survey design can vary, however scholars tend to agree on the fundamental steps to
follow when conducting survey research. More specifically, when designing a
questionnaire, the researcher needs to carefully delimit the area of study, choose a
sampling frame, build the questions, and pilot them before conducting the study (Burgess,
1993: 57; McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 29-30).
In this project, the review of the literature has allowed to delimit the area of study by
identifying the need for further research on human issues and technology in literary
translation (see Chapter 4). This has provided the basis for defining relevant sampling
criteria and formulating pertinent questions. An online self-completion questionnaire
comprising both open and closed questions was regarded as the most feasible and
effective way of gathering data from the most balanced sample possible within our
specific time and costs limitations. Before reaching its final form, the questionnaire was
first piloted (see Chapter 6). This, in order to highlight both strengths and weaknesses of

66
the survey design and refine the parameters to fine-tune the main questionnaire (Fowler,
2002: 116; McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 45; Bryman, 2008: 247-248). This chapter will
detail the process of survey design. In particular, Section 5.2.1 will deal with sampling
and detail the criteria adopted, Section 5.2.2 will describe how the criteria were applied,
and Section 5.2.3 will present the question design process.
5.2.1 Sampling
Sampling indicates the process through which the set of participants in a research study
is selected. According to Luker (2008) the researcher should sample ‘to find a case or set
of cases that is […] reasonably representative of the larger phenomenon we are
investigating’ (ibid.: 103). As noted by Saldanha and O’Brien (2014), clearly defining a
population and obtaining the perfect sample is often an extremely arduous, if not
unachievable, task (ibid.: 35). For this reason, instead of striving for perfection, the
researcher should endeavour to ‘reduce bias and increase validity by using the most
appropriate sampling methods under the circumstances’ (ibid.). Similarly, Hale and
Napier (2013) note how there is no right or wrong when it comes to the choice of a
sampling method, as long as this is aligned to the research questions and justifiable by the
researcher (ibid.: 68).
Depending on the way participants are selected, sampling can be random or non-random.
The former is based on randomness, in that all initial units have the same probability of
being selected. A consequence of this is that results can be generalised to the whole
population to which the sampling frame belongs (Fowler, 2002: 14; Bryman, 2008: 171).
This type of sampling has been deemed infeasible for this project. This is mainly because
the literary translators’ population is uncountable, and consequently it cannot be
randomised, nor a representative sample be selected. For example, there is no official
register of literary translators and many work as freelancers, which makes it impossible
to pinpoint them univocally as a population.
Given the above, non-random sampling was deemed the most appropriate for this study.
More specifically, the study employs purposive sampling as a way to minimise
methodological issues related to the lack of universal generalisability. Purposive
sampling refers to a type of non-probability sampling technique where the construction
of a sampling frame is closely and directly influenced by the research question. In other

67
words, ‘the goal of purposive sampling is to sample cases/participants in a strategic way,
so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions that are being posed’ (Bryman,
2008: 415). By employing purposive sampling and providing a transparent account of
the sampling criteria, the aim was to design and obtain a valid and balanced data set that
allowed for generalisation in terms of the sampled population and within the limits
imposed by the criteria chosen.
The concepts of ‘balance’ and ‘balanced data set’ are hereby adopted in a similar way to
how the field of Corpus Studies defines a balanced corpus. The rationale behind this
choice lies in the belief that this data set can be compared to a corpus. Sinclair (2004)
defines a corpus as ‘a collection of pieces of language text in electronic form, selected
according to external criteria to represent, as far as possible, a language or language
variety as a source of data for linguistic research’ (ibid.: no pagination). Similarly, our
data set is a collection of results in electronic form, obtained following specific criteria
chosen to represent as closely as possible a certain population, in order to conduct
research on it. To allow for a straightforward sampling frame selection and a balanced
data set, the structural criteria, much like those designed to compile a corpus, should be
few, clear, systematic and rather simple (ibid.). Here, obtaining a balanced data set is
intended as the result of aligning criteria and research objectives ‘with informed and
intuitive judgements’ (ibid.). In fact, ‘the corpus builder should retain, as target notions,
representativeness and balance. While these are not precisely definable and attainable
goals, they must be used to guide the design of a corpus and the selection of its
components’ (ibid.).
As far as generalisability is concerned, having established that the current sample does
not allow for universal representativeness, it is important to reflect upon the extent to
which the results can be applied to a wider population. As seen earlier, by using non-
probability sampling, the study at hand cannot claim statistical generalisability (see also
Section 5.1.4). However, purposive sampling allows for a greater degree of control over
the population by means of delimiting it via specific criteria, as opposed to snowball
sampling, where the researcher has to rely on an initial group of people to forward the
study to their contacts (Bryman, 2008: 185) and thus the degree of control on the final
sampling frame is significantly lowered. Additionally, it is possible to generalise on a
theoretical and logical level (Luker, 2008: 127) by creating the relevant links between the
data elicited from the target group and the literature, thus ensuring what Saldanha and

68
O’Brien (2014) define as ‘transferability of the findings’ (ibid.: 37). In other words,
‘although we cannot claim representativeness with a non-probabilistic sample, if our
technique is well-thought out and devised, we can extend our results to other studies’
(Hale and Napier, 2013: 71).
The methodological principles outlined so far in this chapter informed the selection of the
questionnaire’s target group. This consists of two subgroups: UK translation associations
and online communities. A different set of criteria for each subgroup was developed.
The reason for basing our target population on translation associations and online
communities is rooted in the hardly confinable nature of the translators’ population. In
fact, as mentioned earlier, literary translators rarely work in-house or for one company
only. Instead, they tend to be freelancers, self-employed and working from home, which
makes it hard to specifically group and target them. For this reason, the solution to
forming a balanced target group in a time- and cost-effective manner in line with this
study’s material limits, was to target places where translators gather and share
information, namely sector associations and online communities. The latter, in particular,
have been confirmed by our pilot study as one of the most appreciated means of
aggregation in an otherwise isolating profession (see Chapter 6). The overall aim was to
develop criteria that would be as coherent, concise, clear, transparent and replicable as
possible. This, in order to obtain a balanced target group and data set to answer the
research questions in a valid and reliable way. This project’s definitions of ‘UK
translation associations’ and ‘online communities’ together with the detailed target group
criteria will be presented in the two following sub-sections.
5.2.1.1 UK translation associations
The first subgroup of the target population of this study consists of self-defined, English-
speaking literary translators that are members of a UK translation association. The phrase
‘UK translation association’ refers to groups, organisations and associations based in the
UK and whose membership is made up of and aimed at translators living and/or working
in the UK. Both literary translation-specific associations and those aimed at translation
in general are included, while UK-based associations dedicated to specific branches of
translation that are not literary translation (e.g., a UK-based association for legal
translators) are excluded. The criteria for the UK translation associations subgroup are
detailed as follows:

69
(a) Self-defined literary translators
The participants targeted for the UK translation association subgroup are self-defined
literary translators. Participants had the chance to self-define their perceived status in the
questionnaire. Here, participants were invited to choose between ‘professionals’ where
their literary translation activity was remunerated, ‘volunteer’ where their literary
translation activity was pro bono or not remunerated, ‘amateur’ in the case of their main
activity and/or field of occupation and/or study not being related to translation, and
‘trainee’ where respondents were carrying out literary translation work while still
undertaking training. Additionally, participants could choose to answer ‘Other’ and
specify other ways they self-perceived their status in a free text response. The completion
of the questionnaire itself has been deemed a self-selection/self-definition tool, in that it
has been specifically and explicitly aimed at literary translators. Although not impossible,
it is highly unlikely that someone who is not a literary translator could find, engage with
or decide to complete the questionnaire.
(b) Members of UK translation associations
The questionnaire targeted members of UK translation associations, both non-literary
translation- and literary translation-specific. In the case of the former, only those aimed
at generic translators have been included in the target group (e.g., associations for UK
legal translators were not considered). The rationale behind this choice was dictated
mainly by temporal, spatial and linguistic constraints. In particular, this research project
was both conducted in and funded by a UK university and the working language of the
researcher is English, which leads to the third and last criterion for the UK translation
associations subgroup.
(c) English-speaking
The questionnaire targeted English speakers. This is mainly because (1) the whole study
was conducted in English, and at a UK university, (2) the researcher would have only
been able to process responses in English (her second language) and Italian (her mother
tongue), and (3) it would have not been feasible to translate the questionnaire and its
responses as a result of the time and money constraints of this PhD project.

70
5.2.1.2 Online communities
The second subgroup consists of self-defined, English-speaking literary translators that
are members of a translator online community. The phrase ‘translator online community’
refers to online forums, social media groups, and mailing lists whose membership both
consists of and is aimed at translators. These include both non-literary translation- and
literary translation-specific online communities, however it excludes the ones aimed at
specialised sectors of non-literary translation (e.g., social media groups solely aimed at
patent translators were not considered). In the rare instances where communities
dedicated to specific languages came up in the searches, these were included in the
sampling frame as long as they satisfied the other conditions just mentioned. The criteria
for the translator online community subgroup are detailed as follows:
(a) Self-defined literary translators
As for the previous subgroup, participants targeted for the translator online communities
subgroup are self-defined literary translators. This includes professional, volunteer,
amateur and trainee literary translators, as defined in Section 5.2.1.1. In addition to these,
the respondent could further describe their self-perceived professional status in a free text
response. As mentioned earlier, the completion of the questionnaire itself was deemed a
self-selection/self-definition tool, it being specifically and explicitly aimed at literary
translators. Although not impossible, it is highly unlikely that someone who is not a
literary translator could find, engage with or decide to complete the questionnaire.
(b) Members of translators’ online communities
In addition to UK translation associations, the questionnaire targeted members of both
non-literary translation- and literary translation-specific online communities. As per the
other subgroup, only communities aimed at translators, literary translators or translation
in general were included in the target group (e.g., online communities for legal translators
were not considered). As opposed to the first subgroup, online communities were not
geographically restricted, as point ‘d’ will clarify.
(c) English-speaking

71
The questionnaire targeted English-speaking online communities, for the same reasons
highlighted in Section 5.2.1.1.
(d) No geographical restrictions
While the aim was to make the criteria as comparable as possible between the two
subgroups, online communities cannot be geographically pinned down the same way as
sector associations. In fact, even when an online community is aimed at or originates
from a particular country, there is no assurance that their members actually live, are from
or work in said country. For this reason, a criterion pertaining to geographical restrictions
was not set for online communities. This being said, respondents have been asked to
disclose their country of work in the questionnaire, allowing for the geographical element
to be considered in the results in instances where meaningful and relevant trends emerged.
Additionally, it is worth noticing how the selection process itself might have had a bearing
on data regarding respondents’ geographical provenance. This will be addressed in the
following section, which describes how the criteria listed here have been applied to
delimit the final sampling frame.
5.2.2 Sampling frame
The final sampling frame for the questionnaire has been obtained via means of online
searches. The internet search occurred in two phases, one for each subgroup identified,
resulting in a list of UK translation associations and translators’ online communities that
follow the parameters set in the previous section.
As far as the first subgroup is concerned, a Google search was performed of the words
UK+translation+associations and list+of+UK+translation+associations. The URL
used was google.co.uk, with the search language set to English and the first 100 results
being checked. The final list comprises 12 UK translation associations (see Appendix
A).
The second phase of the web search concerned translators’ online communities. As per
Section 5.2.1.2, online communities as defined in this study include mailing lists, online
forums and social media groups. A separate Google search was conducted for each of

72
these, using the same settings as the UK associations’ search (google.co.uk, English
language, first 100 results) and several keywords for each type of online community
identified. In particular, in order to find relevant mailing lists, a Google search was
performed of the words translators+mailing+lists and
literary+translators+mailing+lists. This was followed by a similar search on JISCMail
(the UK national academic mailing list service) using the keywords translation,
literary+translation and translator(s). Subsequently, a Google search for online forums
and communities was performed using the words
literary+translation+[online]+forum(s), translation+[online]+forum(s),
translators+forum(s), literary+translation+online+community(-ies),
translation+online+community(-ies), literary+translators+online+community(-ies) and
translators+online+community(-ies). From this search, it emerged that most online
forums and communities that used to be hosted on the Google Groups and Yahoo! Groups
platforms had migrated to newer social media platforms that allowed to create online
groups, namely Facebook and LinkedIn. Consequently, separate searches were
conducted on these two websites. As far as Facebook is concerned, the language was set
to English (UK) and either the first 100 results were checked, or all the results until the
‘end of results’ message (whichever came first), both for pages and groups. The same
procedure was adopted for LinkedIn groups. In both instances, the search-words were
translation, translators, literary+translation, literary+translators,
freelance+translators, in-house+translators, professional+translators,
professional+literary+translators, translators+forum, literary+translators+forum,
translators+community, literary+translators+community, cultural+translation,
creative+translation, volunteer+[literary]+translators and
amateur+[literary]+translators. For all the groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, a request
to join had to be sent to the administrators, with some of them including questions on
professional status and motivations to join the group. In line with the target group criteria
chosen, the groups selected were either literary translation-specific or concerning
translation in general, with no groups included dedicated to specific branches of
translation that were not literary translation (e.g., legal translation groups). Also excluded
were groups sponsored by a specific translation company or reserved for translators of a
specific software/app/videogame, ones with unclear descriptions, groups not meant for
the public (e.g., those aimed at students of a specific translation course/academic year)
and those with less than 100 members, which coincided predominantly with groups not
meant for the public. The final sampling frame for the second subgroup includes a total

73
of 68 Online communities (8 mailing lists, 9 online forums, 19 Facebook groups, 26
Facebook pages and 6 LinkedIn groups).
5.2.3 Question design
When designing a questionnaire, formulating the right questions is of paramount
importance. One thing to keep in mind at all times is that questions are measures, and as
such need to be clear and unbiased. Fowler (2002: 76) identifies two main criteria as
essential for questions to be considered as appropriate units of measure: reliability and
validity. Respectively, a question is reliable when it ‘[provides] consistent measures in
comparable situations’ and valid when ‘answers correspond to what they are interested to
measure’ (ibid.: 76). Generally, ‘good questions maximize the relationship between the
answers recorded and what the researcher is trying to measure’ (ibid.). In this respect,
another crucial element in question design is language. In particular, the way questions
are worded should be as clear, unambiguous and straightforward as possible. They should
also be unbiased and not leading the respondent towards one specific answer. This could
happen when using language that is too emotionally charged, which is thus to be avoided
in favour of neutral wording (McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 38).
Regarding the typology of questions to be used, it is worth distinguishing between closed
and open questions. Closed questions are defined as presenting pre-set answers, while
open questions allow respondents to freely word their answer (ibid.: 36-37). The
questionnaire devised for this study comprises both closed and open questions. This, so
as to compensate for the shortcomings of both while at the same time benefitting from
their individual advantages. In particular, closed questions allow to obtain systematic and
quantifiable data that can integrate the qualitative data obtained from the open questions
and improve the comparability of answers; they also tend to be quicker and more
straightforward for the respondent to complete (Bryman, 2008: 235). The downside is
that closed questions might not always allow for spontaneous answers, since the
categories to choose from are already provided (ibid.: 238). Furthermore, McNeill and
Chapman (2005) note how, from an interpretivist viewpoint, the researcher might project
their own beliefs on the choice of answers, thus making it hard to uncover ‘the real
meanings behind the actions or behaviour of social actors’ (ibid.: 44-45). Conversely,
open questions minimise this risk by allowing the respondent more freedom to express
themselves. In this respect, open questions ‘allow unusual responses’ and ‘are useful for

74
exploring new areas or ones in which the researcher has limited knowledge’ (Bryman,
2008: 232). Having said that, they require more effort from both the respondent (open
questions take more time to answer than closed ones) and the researcher (the process of
coding and analysis tends to be less straightforward) (Bryman, 2008: 232). The current
study employs both types of questions to maximise their positives and minimise their
respective shortcomings. In particular, closed questions allowed the study to provide a
firm context to the mutability of respondents’ narratives as elicited by the open questions.
This way, it was possible to allow respondents to freely share their worldviews, while
using closed questions to both contextualise their narratives and cross-reference them
with contextual data.
Relevant variables were identified, and individual questions were formulated in order to
measure them fairly and answer the study’s research questions. In particular, the variables
that this study wanted to measure were age, country of residence, educational background,
language pair, professional status, confidence with technologies (translation-specific and
non), perceptions of literary translators’ roles and attitudes towards technologies. The
questionnaire consisted of 31 open and closed questions divided into six sections: (1)
Background information, (2) Language skills, (3) Professional practice, (4) Confidence
with technologies, (5) Open questions, (6) Final comments. The questionnaire can be
found in Appendix C. The closed questions’ aim was to collect easily quantifiable
information in a straightforward manner, in order to limit responses only when strictly
necessary, thus minimising the chance of influencing respondents. Closed questions
included those asking about age, academic qualifications, technology training,
membership of online communities, years of experience, professional and employment
status, and levels of confidence with technology. Open questions were employed when
it was deemed necessary to allow respondents to express their views as freely as possible,
e.g., when enquiring about their perceptions and attitudes. Open questions included those
asking about type of technology training, tools used, essential traits of the profession,
outsiders’ perceptions of the profession, attitudes towards technology, and appealing and
unappealing aspects of technology. In particular, open questions about perceptions of
role and attitudes towards technology in Section Five of the questionnaire were modelled
on Koskinen and Ruokonen (2017) by integrating aspects of their methodological
approach for similar scopes. In their study, participants were asked to write a love and/or
break-up letter about any aspect of the profession. As noted by Koskinen and Ruokonen
(2017), participants responded very positively to the method used, and the data was

75
retrospective and discursively constructed, allowing to gather insights that ‘can be
revealing in terms of long-term attitudinal factors’ (ibid.: 13). This discursive mode of
eliciting answers was deemed particularly fitting for literary translators, whose job is
often associated with creativity and writing. This being said, the current study opted for
a more direct approach by asking about specific aspects of the profession, however
introducing the questions with a prompt encouraging participants to express themselves
fully, and formulating questions in a way that was as general as possible while still
focusing on a specific aspect. A similar rationale was behind the choice of not defining
the term ‘technology’, nor asking about specific tools, mentioning only ‘general’ and
‘translation-specific’ technology when necessary and providing broad examples for both
with the sole purpose of making sure the distinction between the two was clear. This was
meant as a way for the researcher to take a step back and allow literary translators to
provide their definition of technology through their own mental associations, revealing
the tools they employ in their work, the technology they like and the one they do not and
why without unnecessary restrictions imposed by the researcher. In line with this study’s
objectives, the aim in doing so was to capture literary translators’ perceptions in the most
authentic form possible for the data collection method chosen.
This section has provided an overview of aspects of this study’s question design. The
mixed-methods approach was embodied in the questionnaire by the use of both closed
and open questions. Overall, closed questions helped construct respondents’ background
in an effective way, while open questions allowed to delve deeper into their worlds and
give space to their interpretations of it in terms of role and technology. Before reaching
its final stage, the questionnaire was first piloted. The piloting is detailed in Chapter 6.
5.3 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of the methodological approach and methods that
will be employed in this study. In particular, Section 5.1 has dealt with the
epistemological and ontological positions adopted, outlining the motifs behind the choice
of a mixed-methods approach and considering relevant methodological issues. This study
adopts an interpretivist and constructionist stance, using a mixed-methods approach and
aiming at results that are valid, reliable, and based on a balanced data set. Section 5.2 has
focused on survey research, presenting the overall method and the ways in which it is
used in this study. Its subsections have discussed issues and choices related to the

76
processes of sampling and question design. Finally, the next chapter will outline the
specifics of the pilot questionnaire conducted to test the survey design, presenting and
analysing its results.

77
Chapter 6: Pilot study
This chapter will first outline the study conducted to pilot the survey method. It will then
present the pilot questionnaire and its results and reflect on its implications for the
development of the final version of the questionnaire. To start with, a method should be
piloted to test the functionality and usability of the overall research design and make sure
that all relevant changes are made before sending out the final study (Fowler, 2002: 116;
McNeill and Chapman, 2005: 45; Bryman, 2008: 247-248). In the context of this project,
the pilot aimed at testing questions and instructions in terms of wording, comprehension
and adequacy to the objectives of the study. Moreover, the pilot study has been
envisioned as a way to preliminarily identify recurring themes and patterns in the answers
of participants to pinpoint relevant parameters and fine-tune the main questionnaire
accordingly.
The pilot was administered to a convenience sample. This is a type of non-probability
sample ‘that is simply available to the researcher by virtue of its accessibility’(Bryman,
2008: 183). More specifically, the pilot was sent to a total of 8 personal contacts working
as literary translators. The questionnaire was hosted on the free online survey platform
Surveyhero.com. The platform was chosen for its ease-of-use and convenience. In fact,
a free account allowed to pose the number of questions needed and provided basic
integrated analytics tools. Given the small number of participants, these features were
deemed suitable for the task at hand. Convenience sampling does not allow for
generalisation; however, the aim of the pilot was not to generalise, but rather ‘to measure
the range of ideas or opinions that people have or the way that variables seem to hang
together. For these purposes, people who are readily available (friends, co-workers) […]
may be useful.’ (Fowler, 2002: 10).
6.1 Pilot questionnaire
The questions were designed to be as unambiguous as possible. This has been achieved
by using concise wording and simple vocabulary to minimise the chance of
misunderstanding. Words that have strong connotations were also avoided, so not to
involuntarily lead the respondent towards one specific answer (McNeill and Chapman,
2005: 38). The pilot questionnaire consisted of 22 closed and open questions (see

78
Appendix B). Open questions aimed at letting respondents elaborate on some of the ideas
raised in the closed questions. In particular, the last two open questions asked respondents
to share details of their perceptions of role and attitudes towards technologies. The
questionnaire was divided into five main sections: demographic section, language skills,
professional status, familiarity with technology and open questions on role and
technology.
In the demographic section, respondents were asked about their age, country of residence,
academic qualifications in Translation and academic translation technologies training.
This, in order to then determine possible differences in attitudes towards technologies and
perceptions of the professional role among different age groups, countries and levels of
education/technology-specific training. The same reasons are behind the language skills
section, where respondents had to disclose their first language and language pair(s) they
work with. Similarly, levels of technology acceptance and role perceptions might be
influenced by professional status. For this reason, the third section of the pilot dealt with
information such as years of experience, self-definition of professional status (full-time
or part-time, freelance or employed, amateur/professional/volunteer/translation student).
Additionally, participants were asked to quantify the amount of literary translation
projects they work on in a year, as opposed to non-literary translation ones. Section four
dealt with levels of confidence with both general and translation technology. Here,
participants were also invited to list both general and translation technology tools they
use respectively in their literary and non-literary translation activity. Finally, as
mentioned earlier, section five consisted of two open questions aimed at eliciting personal
and emotional narratives of respondents’ profession in relation to their role in society and
their relationship with technology. In fact, these were operationalised with the three
research questions in mind, in the attempt to uncover (1) literary translators’ perceptions
of role, (2) their attitudes towards technology, and ultimately (3) the dynamic between
the two. In this respect, the nature of what the open questions were trying to uncover
proved particularly challenging in terms of bias. The questions were formulated using
language that was as neutral as possible to avoid influencing respondents. This being
said, the questions were meant to encourage participants to unveil their subjective reality
in their own terms (or at least with as little constraints as possible). For this reason, when
introducing the open questions section in the pilot, participants were encouraged to be as
creative as they wished and take this as their chance to be heard, with no word limit
imposed. As mentioned earlier (5.2.3), the two open questions were inspired by Koskinen

79
and Ruokonen (2017), whose participants responded very positively to being asked to
share their narratives of the profession. Since literary translation is prominently
associated with writing and creativity, it is expected the same will be true for this study,
with respondents reacting positively to the method and consequently being more willing
to respond to it. In particular, in line with this project’s overall stance, the aim is for
literary translators to feel they are the subject of the study rather than its object.
In the last question, all participants were asked to leave their details for potential follow-
up interviews/focus group. This is because the study was devised as a potentially two-
phase process comprising of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews with respondents.
The large number of respondents resulted in a comprehensive and rich data set, which
was deemed entirely appropriate for answering the research questions (see Chapter 7).
This being said, interviews could still be appropriate for a follow-up study aimed at
delving deeper into some of the issues raised by the current project, as noted in Section
9.2 on future research.
Finally, the questionnaire was preceded by an informed consent form, where participants
were made aware of the research topic, the fact that data would be confidentially and
anonymously stored, and the possibility to withdraw from the study at any time. Ethical
approval was granted by Heriot-Watt University. Results of the pilot study will be
analysed in the following sections.
6.2 Results and analysis
6.2.1 Respondents’ background
All eight respondents belonged to the 25-34 age group and had been practising literary
translation for up to five years. Half of respondents were residents of the UK, while the
other half resided in Italy. As far as their educational background is concerned, all of the
participants except one had a postgraduate degree in Translation, two of them at PhD
level and the other five at MA level. Half of them had received technology-specific
training as part of their academic qualifications. The training mostly refers to the use of
SDL Trados Studio, a CAT software.

80
All participants worked part-time as freelance literary translators. Only two of them
defined themselves as professionals (i.e., being paid for their work). The other six were
equally split between amateurs and volunteers. Additionally, of all the translation
projects they worked at in a year, an average of 25.6% were literary translation projects,
with only two participants working on more literary translation projects than non-literary
ones (respectively 80% and 70%).
When asked about confidence towards technology in section four of the questionnaire, all
respondents except one said they felt very confident when using general technology.
Interestingly, the same levels of confidence did not transpose to translation-specific
technology, where only two participants felt extremely confident and the rest oscillated
between not confident at all and moderately confident. Among the general technology
tools used by respondents in their literary translation activity, online dictionaries,
Microsoft Word, time management tools and spellcheckers stand out. On the other hand,
when questioned about the use of translation-specific technology in their literary
translation activity, two respondents mentioned CAT tools and terminology management
software, while all other participants said they used none. Interestingly, when looking at
tools employed in their non-literary translation activity, translation technology makes an
appearance in both questions about general and translation-specific technology. In
particular, four respondents said they used CAT tools in their non-literary translation
activity. Furthermore, CAT tools also make an appearance in the general technology
question, where TMs, CAT, Google Translate, and termbases appear next to corpora, the
internet, text-editing software, spellcheckers, time management apps, and online
dictionaries. This would suggest that not using translation-specific technology in literary
translation is a conscious choice, whereby familiarity with such tools in non-literary
translation does not affect their uptake in literary translation.
6.2.2 Perceptions of role
The first open question in Section five of the questionnaire asked respondents to think
about their role in society. It comprised three sub-questions and read as follows: Think
about your role as a literary translator. What would you say are the essential traits that
characterise your occupation? Do you think outsiders perceive your occupation the same
way as you do? If not, what do you wish they knew about it that they don’t know already
and that could maybe change their perceptions of literary translators’ occupation?

81
Answers to the first sub-question highlighted characteristics like patience, passion, ability
to self-reflect, creativity, having an open-mind and a vast knowledge of literature,
attention to details, thinking outside the box, and empathy as crucial to being a literary
translator. For instance, according to participant 4 some of the essential traits of the
profession are ‘patience, ability to self-motivate […], a nuanced understanding of both
target and source languages, as well as an understanding of the literary and social
context of the original. A passion for literature you translate and the readiness to
champion it. Ability to question own artistic decisions, as well as, at other times, to hold
firm to them’. Of a similar opinion is participant 5, who deems competence in both source
and target languages very important, and adds that ‘the translator has the responsibility
to reproduce the style of the author so that the readers in the TT [Target Text] can
experience the same aesthetic effects as the readers of the ST [Source Text]’. Participant
8 mentioned creativity as being the most relevant trait of their profession, defining it as
the main characteristic that differentiates it from non-literary translation. Creativity is
also explicitly mentioned by participant 2, who associates it with being open-minded and
having studied literature.
The link between literature, culture and literary translation recurs in several other
instances. In this regard, we have seen how participant 4 stressed the importance of
understanding the literary and social context of the source text. Furthermore, participant
3 defines ‘the translation of a literary text [as] the transposition of a world and a culture
into another one’, joining participant 2, who stated ‘you must have studied a language,
but also its literature and culture’ and participant 1, who lists ‘an excellent knowledge of
the source and target languages and cultures’ as ‘one of the key attributes in literary
translation’. Other key attributes mentioned by participant 1 are ‘close reading skills and
attention to detail […] thinking outside the box, and empathy with other writers and/or
characters’.
These answers become extremely interesting when compared to the amount of literary
translation carried out by the majority of respondents against the amount of non-literary
work they do. In fact, literary translation is mainly depicted as a noble activity requiring
a set of skills belonging to the sphere of art. For the majority of respondents, it appears
to be a matter of passion rather than work, and this is one of the reasons why they hold
their occupation in such a high regard. This is particularly evident when comparing the

82
discourse around literary translation with that around its non-literary counterpart, which
is depicted in opposite terms. This emerges more clearly from the following questions
on role.
When asked about how they think outsiders perceive their profession, all of the
respondents agreed with the fact that outsiders simply fail to understand the nuances and
complexity of the profession. Interestingly, technology makes an appearance in these
answers. In particular, participant 1 thinks outsiders ‘underestimate the complex thought
process that underlies literary translation, and language learning in general’ and thus
assume that ‘machines could do the job’. Complexity and technology also appear in
participant 2’s answer, that reads ‘I think people believe that translators could be easily
substituted with technology or (worse!) simply with Google Translate; they do not
perceive […] the complexity of this job’. Moreover, participant 4 thinks ‘there’s a lot of
mystique and misunderstanding surrounding translation in general and literary
translation in particular, which leads to a number of frequently stated clichés: from the
insistence that all translation is impossible to the idea that we’ll soon be replaced by
Google Translate anyway’. Some respondents suggested ways in which outsiders’
perception of literary translation could be changed. In particular, participant 7 thinks
literary translators ‘should have more visibility, be taken less for granted. Our names
should appear on the front cover of books or at least be mentioned in any review of the
work’. Of a similar opinion is participant 1, who thinks that translation events, articles
and books written by translators about their experience help making this professional
figure more visible. This being said, the majority of respondents mentioned a feeling of
helplessness in regard to outsiders, wishing people understood how unique and
irreplaceable the figure of the literary translator is. Participant 8 notices how ‘they
[outsiders] usually don’t understand the difference between us and a technical or legal
translator’, while participant 6 wishes ‘outsiders would learn about it [translation] and
stop playing at the translator, leaving it to professionals’.
Another recurrent outsider misconception is that knowing another language is all it takes
to be a translator. In this respect, participant 3 states: ‘outsiders do not know anything
about this activity. I would like them to understand that the translation of a literary text
is not just about turning words from a language to another’. According to participant 5,
they think that ‘anyone who is bilingual can do translation. Some of them think that
translation doesn’t take a lot of time’. In addition to this, participant 6 believes outsiders

83
ignore ‘the fact that translation has to do not only with lexis and grammar, but also with
translation strategies and techniques, as well as translation studies’. These statements
are particularly interesting in that they frame the lack of outsiders’ understanding of their
profession as an integral part of the overall devaluation of translation as a discipline and
profession. Here, literary translators emerge as misunderstood and not appreciated by
outsiders. The latter, in fact, do not seem to fully comprehend the nuances of the literary
translation activity and all the skills that translators value so much and that the literary
translation activity entails. This lack of understanding seems to isolate and frustrate
literary translators and contrasts sharply with the idea they have of their profession, as
depicted by their answers to the previous question.
6.2.3 Attitudes towards technology
The second set of open questions were on attitudes towards technology and read as
follows: Now think about the role of technology in your literary translation activity. What
is the dynamic between the role you described and said technology? Do you see this
dynamic changing in the future? Which aspects of technology do you find appealing and
which ones not so much?
When asked specifically about their attitudes towards technology, respondents showed
mixed-feelings and drew a clear-cut distinction between general and translation-specific
technology. More specifically, translation-technology was largely dismissed in all
answers, with responses mentioning either CAT tools or MT. Participants 8 and 4 report
not using translation software at all. Notably, participant 4 thinks that while ‘translation-
specific technology will continue to play a large role in commercial translation, I don’t
see it ever becoming a large part of literary translation’. Similarly, participant 2 does
not think ‘machine translation will ever be able to do the job, but there are certainly tools
that help human translators’.
Among the tools that respondents find most useful are corpora and the internet as a
research tool. Participant 6 thinks ‘that corpora are the best method to observe the
effective linguistic use of words’, while participant 5 mentions using a software to build
their own corpus of translations. The internet and Google in particular are mentioned
throughout as being ‘very convenient’. In this respect, participant 4 says: ‘I use the
internet a lot while translating, mainly to have access to a wide range of dictionaries and

84
thesauruses, and to see how other people translated certain phrases, as well as to keep
in touch with friends and colleagues’.
Generally, translators’ attitudes towards technology emerge as extremely complex, and
manifest in their contrasting viewpoints. For example, Participant 1 finds tools such as
glossaries and terminology tools to be extremely helpful. Conversely, MT is ‘less
appealing’ but can take care of ‘the more boring, mundane jobs’. Participant 3 thinks
that ‘technology can be useful just to speed up the first phase of translation, but then it
becomes quite useless’. On the other hand, Participant 4 observes: ‘I really appreciate
that technology allows me to check […] reference works more or less instantly, and I
hugely enjoy the contact to a network of translators that it enables. However, I feel like
in society at large there’s an increasing reliance on machine translation without […]
checking the accuracy of these translations, and this is something I find deeply
unsettling’. This seems to confirm the idea that translators are not against technology as
such (Koskinen and Ruokonen, 2017: 13), but against the kind of technology perceived
as attempting to steal the essence of literary translation, or hindering it by ignoring the
peculiarly human aspects of it, i.e., the essential traits of the profession outlined by the
respondents in the open questions concerning role.
In relation to the above, it would seem translators are not worried about technology taking
over their job or substituting them, nor are they openly against it because of this. On the
contrary, they seem to be relatively open to technology, provided this is useful to their
translation activity and does not negatively affect the essential traits they regard so highly.
Furthermore, respondents are not aware of what exactly is available, however they are
open to the possibility of learning to use new tools. In line with this, Participant 5 states:
‘some software makes me crazy’, however ‘I don’t know very much about what sort of
tools can help literary translators. If there are some good ones, I am truly willing to learn
and use them’. Additionally, Participant 8 hopes translators ‘will always have the choice
to work the way they prefer to work, with or without technologies’.
Finally, it is important to highlight the social side of technology that emerged from some
of the answers. Here, the idea is put forward of technology compensating for the feeling
of isolation that emerged earlier in the questionnaire. In particular, forums and online
communities allow literary translators to connect with their colleagues and form a sense

85
of belonging which is absent from the narratives around outsiders’ perceptions of the
profession.
Having presented and briefly discussed the pilot study’s results, the next section will offer
a reflection on the pilot as a means of fine-tuning the main questionnaire.
6.3 Implications for main questionnaire
The pilot study proved to be an effective way to test the questionnaire and offered a
moment to further reflect on the overall aims and objectives of the study. In particular,
the opportunity to test the process of using an online platform to host the questionnaire,
sending it out to participants, and analysing results allowed to gain preliminary insights
into specific trends related to role of literary translators and technology in literary
translation and pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire design itself.
These eventually informed its final version (see Appendix C).
The overall structure of the questionnaire remained virtually unchanged. In fact, the five
main sections were retained, with questions being grouped by topic, namely background
information, language skills, professional practice, confidence with technology and open
questions on perceptions of role and attitudes towards technology. A sixth section was
added to allow respondents to leave any final comments they might have had. Slight
changes were made to improve overall clarity of language. For instance, more
information was added to the informed consent form (i.e., specific time needed to
complete the questionnaire and further details on confidentiality and anonymity). The
question on respondents’ language pair was also clarified by specifying the language pair
format to use when answering. This was motivated by the higher number of respondents
expected, in that each respondent using a different format would have complicated the
classification of results. Wordy sentences were also modified to make questions clearer
and/or more concise. An example of this is Question 25, for which the relationship with
a previous question on role was made more explicit since it was not as clear in the pilot
version of the questionnaire.
The online survey platform hosting the questionnaire was also changed. In fact,
SurveyMonkey only allowed a limited number of responses and basic question design and
analytics tools. For this reason, the questionnaire was moved to the Online Surveys

86
platform (www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk), formerly known as BOS. This service did not limit
the number of respondents allowed, analytics tools such as graphs, tables and percentages,
and more options for question design. In this respect, the questionnaire formatting was
improved, e.g., Likert scales were added to questions on levels of confidence with
technology, which allowed for more accurate answers.
As far as the questions were concerned, some were added and others removed. For
example, it was deemed necessary to add a question on non-academic translation
technology training, whereby in the pilot respondents were only asked about their
academic training. Furthermore, after establishing the target group criteria, two specific
questions on membership of translation association and online communities were added
to the final version of the questionnaire. This, in order to account for any potential
imbalance that might have resulted from the sampling criteria. Moreover, the answer
‘Other’ and/or the possibility to justify one’s answer was added to several questions. For
example, the ‘Other’ option was allowed to the question on professional status to allow
for the possibility of nuance in the way literary translator see themselves as professionals.
Finally, a question asking for any further comments was added at the end of the
questionnaire to provide a space for translators to express any a posteriori views or
feedback on the questionnaire and its topic.
As mentioned earlier, the two final open questions consisted of three sub-questions each.
These were posed at the same time, and it was soon clear that they needed to be revised.
In fact, some of the sub-questions were entirely neglected by respondents, with them
focusing on answering only one or two of them or merging different concepts in the same
answer. Consequently, to avoid confusion and redundancy, the open questions on role
and technology were reformulated. More specifically, each sub-question was posed as a
stand-alone question, while language was also edited to be clearer and more concise.
This, in order to enhance questions’ effectiveness in eliciting answers that adhered to the
topic. A question was also added to the section about attitudes towards technology. This
was Question 26 on respondents’ feelings towards the relationship between literary
translation and technology. The question follows Question 25, where participants were
asked to describe said relationship. The second question was added to allow respondents
to further elaborate on their attitudes, whereas the first focused on describing the link
between their idea of the profession and technology, while the second centred around the
more emotional component of said relationship.

87
The pilot also highlighted some issues regarding sampling. In fact, convenience sampling
has produced a target group with an extremely homogeneous background and similar
answers. This confirmed the decision for the adoption of purposive sampling for the main
study (see Section 5.2.1), which allowed for a more balanced sample.
6.4 Conclusion
The current chapter has provided an opportunity to reflect on the use of a pilot study to
increase reliability and validity, and address potentially overlooked methodological
issues. All insights gained through the pilot have informed the final version of the
questionnaire used for the main survey, which is presented in the following chapter.

88
Chapter 7: Main questionnaire
This chapter presents, analyses and discusses the results of the main questionnaire. The
questionnaire was live on the Online Surveys (formerly BOS) platform for six weeks,
from 18 September 2018 until 31 October 2018. It was sent to a total of 13 UK translation
associations and 68 online communities. There were 398 respondents giving their
informed consent and progressing through the questionnaire; 150 of these were instances
of participants completing the questionnaire and submitting their responses. Our final
data set is thus composed of 150 responses.
The data analysis consisted of three main phases. The first stage aimed at highlighting
all broader themes emerging from the data via means of close reading and note-taking.
Several themes were assigned to each open question to then be refined and narrowed
down through a coding process. The results of this process can be seen in Section 7.1,
where data is presented. The coding process was supported by the use of NVivo, a
software package for qualitative and mixed-methods data analysis. The second phase
focused on extracting findings from all closed and open questions as taken individually.
This was based on patterns highlighted during the first phase of data analysis, themes
emerging from the literature review, and the overall scope of the research project at hand.
During the third stage, variables related to age, educational background and professional
status were analysed in conjunction with perceptions of role and attitudes towards
technology to delve deeper into the relationship between respondents’ background and
the way they approach their profession and technology. Results of this process will be
presented in Section 7.2. Furthermore, the analysis was documented in its entirety in a
research diary, where times, dates, actions taken, observations and notes were recorded
and repeatedly accessed throughout for the sake of transparency and consistency. The
recurring patterns that coding and analysis allowed to establish, organise and quantify
during data analysis laid the foundations for the presentation and interpretation of the data
to follow.
The results of the analytical process are hereby presented with the aid of graphs and
tables. All captions report the number of respondents to the question (n) and the number
of answers to the question (a), together with a frequency count and/or percentage for each
item presented. Where the frequency number and/or percentage exceeds 100% or the

89
total number of respondents (n), either one answer was assigned to more than one code
or the question allowed multiple choice. Where the category ‘Unassigned’ is present in
a table, this includes all answers that could not be assigned to a code because not
pertaining to the question, i.e., when a respondent offered a comment on a question but
did not directly answer it. This chapter is structured around the process of data analysis
in that the presentation, analysis and discussion of data is based on the information
available to the researcher during the stage of data analysis being reported in each section.
In this respect, Section 7.1 presents the data question by question, mirroring the
questionnaire’s six main sections: (1) Background information, (2) Language skills, (3)
Professional practice, (4) Confidence with technologies, (5) Open questions, (6) Final
comments. Results and issues emerging from this section are then reprised and elaborated
on in Section 7.2, which further zooms in on the data and introduces a new perspective
based on the analysis of the interrelation between various sets of open and closed
questions. Finally, Section 7.3 allows for a detailed discussion of the data analysis
findings, bringing together the main points that emerged and offering the basis for the
subsequent discussion and answering of the study’s research questions (Chapter 8).
Ultimately, the aim of this chapter is to present the data gathered and their analysis in an
ordered and structured manner, identifying and discussing trends uncovered by the
analysis, and anchoring their interpretation in the data itself.
7.1 Questionnaire data
This section will present and analyse the questionnaire data question by question. It is
made up of six sub-sections, following the questionnaire’s structure.
7.1.1 Section one: background information
The first section of the questionnaire allowed to obtain an overall picture of the
demographic and educational background of respondents by asking about their age,
country of work, academic background, technology-specific training received, and
whether they are members of a translation association and/or online community.

90
Figure 7.1 – Question 1: Age group (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 1 was a closed, required question that asked respondents to select their age group
by choosing between six options (Figure 7.1). All age groups are represented. Almost
one third of respondents (28%) belong to the 46-55 age group, closely followed by the
36-45 age group (22%). The two groups comprehensively amount for 50% of total
respondents.
Figure 7.2 – Question 2: Country of work (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 2 was an open, required question asking literary translators to indicate their
country of work (Figure 7.2). The largest number of respondents (24%) work in the UK,
a result in line with the sampling criteria of targeting UK-based translation associations.
The second most represented country of work is Italy (12%), closely followed by the USA
(11%) and Spain (8%). Given the non-geographically-specific nature of targeted online
communities, it is possible that the questionnaire has been forwarded and/or shared

91
locally among members of other online groups or associations. This would explain the
variety of countries represented in the results. Other countries with a number of
respondents of 5 or more are Croatia (8%), France (4%) and the Netherlands (3%). All
continents are represented in the results, although almost three quarters of respondents
(72%) work in Europe.
Figure 7.3 – Question 3: Academic qualifications in translation (n = 150, a = 163)
Academic qualifications
Count
Percentage
Master’s degree
53
35%
None
28
19%
Other
27
18%
Undergraduate degree
18
12%
PhD
11
7%
Undergraduate + Master’s degree
7
4%
Undergraduate + Other
2
1%
None + Other
1
1%
None + Undergraduate
1
1%
PhD + Other
1
1%
Undergraduate + PhD
1
1%
Total
150
100%
Table 7.1 – Question 3: breakdown of multiple choices (n=150, a=150)
Question 3 was a closed, multiple choice, required question that asked participants to
indicate their academic qualifications in translation. Figure 7.3 shows all answers for the
five choices presented to respondents, while Table 7.1 offers a more detailed breakdown
of multiple choices. More than 60% of respondents hold an academic qualification in
translation, with the majority indicating they have a Master’s degree (40%). Out of all
respondents, 9% selected multiple answers, and never more than two. More than a third
of people with an Undergraduate degree also hold a Master’s degree, a PhD, or have

92
passed a local translation examination. In one instance, a respondent ticked both ‘None’
and ‘Undergraduate degree’, which could be the result of a distraction-induced error, as
the question asked specifically for academic qualifications in translation.
Other academic qualifications
Count
Percentage
Other Postgraduate Degree
10
27%
Languages
3
Literature
2
Not Specified
2
Theology
1
Teaching
1
Translation (Master of Advanced Studies)
1
Other Undergraduate Degree
9
24%
Languages
5
Literature
2
Not Specified
1
Drama
1
Translation Examinations and Certificates
7
19%
Diploma in Translation
6
16%
Unassigned
3
8%
All But Dissertation (ABD)
2
6%
Language and Literature
1
Not Specified
1
Total
37
100%
Table 7.2 – Question 3.a: academic qualifications in translation – Other (n = 31, a = 37)
In this respect, respondents who selected ‘Other’ were asked to specify their answer in
Question 3.a. Around a third of responses mentioned diplomas in translation, translation
examinations and certificates, and a Master of Advanced Studies in Translation (a type
of postgraduate degree mainly addressed to working professionals) (Table 7.2), bringing
the overall number of respondents with a qualification in translation slightly over 70%.
Question 4 was a closed, required, Yes/No question asking participants to specify whether
they had received any translation technology-specific training as part of their academic

93
qualifications. Two thirds of respondents (66%) did not receive any translation
technology-specific training as part of their academic qualifications, 20% answered
‘Yes’, while 14% selected the option ‘Not applicable’.
Technology-specific training (academic)
Count
Percentage
Computer-Aided-Translation (CAT) Tools
20
57%
Unassigned
5
14%
Online research tools
3
8%
Corpora
2
6%
Localisation
2
6%
Subtitling
2
6%
Interpreting
1
3%
Total
35
100%
Table 7.3 – Question 4.a: Translation technology-specific training (part of an academic degree) – Other
(n = 29, a = 35)
Respondents who received translation technology-specific training were asked to specify
the type of training received in open and optional question 4.a. More than half of
responses mentioned training in CAT tools, while the rest was split almost equally among
corpus, localisation, subtitling and interpreting tools (Table 7.3).
Question 5 aimed to account for any translation technology-specific training received
outside of an academic degree; this was a required Yes/No question. Here, 25% of
respondents took part in translation technology-specific training outside of an academic
degree, while 75% did not.

94
Technology-specific training (non-academic)
Count
Percentage
Training Course
27
64%
CAT Tools
19
Subtitling
3
Terminology
2
Language Technology
2
Deep Learning and Machine Learning
1
Webinar
4
10%
Unspecified
3
CAT Tools
1
Unassigned
3
7%
Peer-training
3
7%
Self-training
2
5%
Unspecified
1
CAT Tools
1
Internship
2
5%
Unspecified
1
Translation Agency
1
CPD Course (online, unspecified)
1
2%
Total
42
100%
Table 7.4 – Question 5.a: Translation technology-specific training (outside of an
academic degree) (n = 37, a = 42)
Literary translators were asked to specify the type of training received in optional question
5.a. Similarly to question 4.a (Table 7.3), half of responses explicitly mentioned CAT
tools training in relation to dedicated training courses, self-training and webinars (Table
7.4).
Question 6 was a closed, required, Yes/No question asking literary translators whether
they hold a membership of a translation association. Two thirds of respondents (65%)
are members of a translation association, while the remaining 35% are not.

95
Type of association
Count
Percentage
Literary Translation
77
53%
General Translation and Interpreting
50
35%
Writing
7
5%
Specialised Translation and Interpreting
6
4%
Unassigned
4
3%
Total
144
100%
Table 7.5 – Question 6.a: Type of association (n = 98, a = 144)
Respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to question 6 had the option to specify the type of
association(s) they hold a membership of in corollary question 6.a (Table 7.5). In line
with the sampling criteria adopted and with the aim and scope of the study, slightly more
than half of respondents hold a membership of a literary translation association, while a
third are members of a general translation and interpreting association. The rest is split
among associations aimed at writers (and the publishing world in general) or at specific
branches of translation and interpreting (e.g., court interpreters, sworn translators,
audiovisual translation). Additionally, 34% of respondents hold a membership of more
than one association, with the minimum being two associations (24%) and the maximum
being four (7%).
Question 7 was a closed, required Yes/No question asking participants whether they are
members of online communities of translators. Only 12% answered ‘No’, while 88% of
respondents declared they are part of an online community. Similarly to the previous
question, results are in line with the sampling criteria, given that online communities were
one of the targeted groups. This being said, although the percentage of translation
association membership is also high, the almost totality of respondents are part of an
online community. The following question allowed to gain some insight into the type of
community respondents are part of.

96
Type of online community
Count
Percentage
Online Forum
86
35%
General T&I
48
Literary Translation
38
Social Media Group
79
32%
Facebook
57
General T&I
43
Literary Translation
14
Unspecified
11
General T&I
9
Literary Translation
2
LinkedIn
10
Unspecified
9
General T&I
1
Twitter
1
Unspecified
1
Mailing List
64
26%
Literary Translation
23
General T&I
20
Unspecified
15
Translation Studies
4
Writing
1
Comparative Literature
1
Unassigned
11
4%
Freelancing Platform
4
1%
Collective of Translators
2
1%
Chat Channel
1
1%
Total
247
100%
Table 7.6 – Question 7.a: Type of online community (n = 129, a = 247)
Out of the 132 respondents who are members of online communities, 129 agreed to
specify the name and/or type of said communities when prompted by optional, open
question 7.a. As per the sampling criteria chosen, online forums (35%), social media

97
groups (32%) and mailing lists (26%) were the most represented type of online
community (Table 7.6). Slightly more than 70% of social media groups is found on
Facebook. Where respondents specified the community’s focus, the sub-categories of
general translation and interpreting (121) and literary translation (77) were predominant.
7.1.2 Section two: language skills
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of two questions concerning,
respectively, respondents’ first language and language pair(s), and language direction(s)
they work with.
Figure 7.4 – Question 8: First language (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 8 was an open, required question enquiring about participants’ first language.
As per results concerning their country of work, 47% of respondents indicated their first
language as English (Figure 7.4). This is in agreement with the targeting of UK
translation associations, where a total of 5 English-speaking countries
1
are represented,
1
Australia, Canada, Ireland, USA and UK, as per the 2020 UK Home Office official list of English-
speaking countries.

98
making up 41% of respondents. Italian and Spanish are, respectively, the second and
third most represented languages.
Question 9 was a required open question asking literary translators to list their working
languages, indicating language pair(s) and language direction. Results have been grouped
according to three different parameters: (1) participants translating in or out of their first
language (Table 7.7), (2) participants’ language pairs (Table 7.8), and (3) languages into
which participants translate (Table 7.9).
Language Direction
Count
Percentage
Into first language
113
76%
Out of first language
35
23%
Unassigned
2
1%
Total
150
100%
Table 7.7 – Question 9: Working languages (language direction) (n = 150, a = 150)
As see in Table 7.7, the great majority of respondents translate into their first language,
while the remaining quarter translate out of their first language.

99
Language Pair
Count
Percentage
fr-en
30
9.9%
de-en
26
8.6%
en-it
16
5.3%
it-en
14
4.6%
en-es
13
4.3%
es-en
11
3.6%
en-fr
8
2.6%
fr-it
8
2.6%
en-de
8
2.6%
en-hr
7
2.3%
fi-en
6
2.0%
ar-en
6
2.0%
ja-en
6
2.0%
zh-en
5
1.7%
ru-en
5
1.7%
en-nl
4
1.3%
fr-de
4
1.3%
hr-en
4
1.3%
pl-en
4
1.3%
sv-en
4
1.3%
nl-en
4
1.3%
ca-es
4
1.3%
en-ca
4
1.3%
en-pl
3
1.0%
en-ar
3
1.0%
Unassigned
3
1.0%
fr-es
3
1.0%
de-hr
3
1.0%
en-pt
3
1.0%

100
de-es
3
1.0%
…
…
…
Table 7.8 – Question 9: Working languages (language pairs) (n = 150, a = 303)
The full table can be found in Appendix D.
As far as language pairs are concerned, the most frequent are fr>en and de>en. As
evidenced by the following Table 7.9, English is also the most common target language,
with almost half of the language combinations having it as a target language. This is in
line with data on first language and country of work, and with this study’s sampling
criteria, which mainly targeted UK and English-speaking literary translators.
Target
Language
Count
Percentage
en
94
48%
it
20
10%
es
16
8%
de
11
6%
fr
10
5%
hr
9
5%
nl
4
2%
pt
4
2%
ca
4
2%
pl
3
2%
ar
3
2%
fi
3
2%
ru
2
1%
el
2
1%
Unassigned
2
1%
th
1
1%
sr
1
1%
ro
1
1%
my
1
1%
hy
1
1%

101
cy
1
1%
asl
1
1%
sv
1
1%
no
1
1%
da
1
1%
Total
197
100%
Table 7.9 – Question 9: Working languages (target language) (n = 150, a = 197)
7.1.3 Section three: professional practice
The third section of the questionnaire consisted of six questions whose aim was to delve
deeper into literary translators’ professional experiences.
Figure 7.5 – Question 10: Years of experience (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 10 (closed, required) elicited data on respondents’ years of experience as literary
translators (Figure 7.5). Results are almost identical for literary translators with 1-5 and
over 20 years of experience, respectively 27% and 26% of all respondents. The three
middle categories, which span from 6 to 20 years of experience, present similar values,
with an average of 14% of total respondents each. Although to varying degrees, results
allow for a wide spectrum of years of experience to be represented, and thus for a
comprehensive comparison of perceptions of role and attitudes towards technology as
related to experience.
For Question 11 (closed, required), respondents could describe their literary translation
activity as full-time, part-time, or other. More than half of respondents (58%) indicated
they are part-time literary translators, while 27% work full-time and 15% chose the option
‘Other’.

102
Type of literary translation activity
Count
Percentage
Occasional/Ad-hoc basis
12
55%
Variable
8
36%
Retired
2
9%
Total
22
100%
Table 7.10 – Question 11.a: Type of literary translation activity – Other (n = 22, a =22)
All 22 (15%) participants who responded ‘Other’ specified their answer in open and
optional question 11.a (Table 7.10). More than half of these declared they work on
literary projects only when the opportunity arises (for example, when they can afford to
do so or on an ad-hoc basis when they are approached by a client). The 36% belonging
to the ‘variable’ category described themselves as full-time translators for whom literary
translation is one of many specialisations. For this reason, their status varies according
to the number of literary projects they receive, alternating periods of full-time and part-
time work. Finally, 2 respondents said they are currently retired.
Figure 7.6 – Question 12: Employment status (n = 150, a = 150)
In Question 12 (closed, required), literary translators could specify whether they are
working freelance, in-house, or as ‘Other’ (Figure 7.6). While 87% work as freelancers,
5% work in-house, and 7% chose to further describe their status in question 12.a (Table
7.11).

103
Employment status
Count
Percentage
Freelance
3
27%
Academic
3
27%
Project Manager
2
18%
Translation
1
Unspecified
1
Unassigned
2
18%
Not active at present
1
10%
Total
11
100%
Table 7.11 – Question 12.a: Employment status – Other (n = 11, a = 11)
All 11 respondents who answered ‘Other’ to Question 12, specified their answer in open
and optional Question 12.a (Table 7.11). Three participants defined themselves as
freelance translators, whereby literary translation is one of their specialisations. The rest
chose to indicate their main occupation (3 working in academia, and 2 as project
managers), while only one respondent is not active at present.
Type of Client/Employer
Count
Percentage
Publisher
76
40%
Agency
28
15%
Author
27
14%
Privates
24
13%
Unassigned
15
8%
Foundation/Public Institution
11
6%
Editor
6
3%
Colleagues
2
1%
Total
189
100%
Table 7.12 – Question 13: Type of client/employer (n = 130, a = 189)
Question 13 was an optional question asking participants to name and/or describe their
clients and/or employers. This, in order to form a clearer picture of some of the other
social groups involved in the profession as specified by literary translators (Table 7.12).
The vast majority of respondents (87%) provided an answer. Of these, more than a third

104
point at publishers as the primary social group from which literary translators obtain
work. Less frequently, respondents work with an agency or directly with clients; namely,
these are either authors, private individuals and organisations, or public institutions.
Figure 7.7 – Question 14: Literary translators’ status (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 14 was a closed, required question asking literary translators to further define
their professional status (Figure 7.7). A substantial majority of respondents (79%)
defined themselves as professional literary translators.
Table 7.13 – Question 14.a: Literary translators’ status (n = 9, a = 9)
Question 14.a gave respondents who chose ‘Other’ to Question 14 the possibility to
specify their answer (Table 7.13). Of the 9 respondents to this answer, 5 self-defined as
professionals, but chose ‘Other’ because they wished to use the free text field provided
to comment on the definition of ‘professional’ provided in the closed question (i.e., a
qualified and remunerated literary translator). In this respect, these respondents noted
how they are remunerated but do not hold any specific qualifications, while others have
qualifications and are remunerated, but wanted to offer a critique of their low pay, which
Literary Translators’ Status (Other)
Count
Percentage
Professional
5
56%
Amateur
1
11%
Unassigned
1
11%
Research Student in Translation
1
11%
Not active at present
1
11%
Total
9
100%

105
does not reflect their level of professionalism. By including these participants in the
professional category, its count reaches 83%.
% of literary projects/year
Count
Percentage
0-20%
39
26%
21-40%
8
5%
41-60%
16
11%
61-80%
27
18%
81-100%
58
39%
Unassigned
2
1%
Total
150
100%
Table 7.14 – Question 15: Percentage of literary projects/year (n = 150, a = 150)
Finally, question 15 (open, required) asked literary translators what proportion of their
work during the year consists of literary translation projects (Table 7.14). A first look at
the data highlights a possible mismatch between the number of full-time and part-time
literary translators and the amount of literary translation projects they work on in a year
(Table 7.14). In fact, respondents in the 81-100% band exceed the 27% of full-time
literary translators by 12 percentage points.
7.1.4 Section four: confidence with technologies
Section 4 of the questionnaire consisted of six questions aimed at uncovering
respondents’ level of confidence with both translation-specific technology and general
technology and what (if any) kind of technology they employ in both their literary and
non-literary translation activity. The first three questions focused on general technology
tools, while the other three focused on translation-specific tools. The definition of general
technology given to participants was that of ‘any technology tool that is not translation-
specific (e.g., online dictionaries, a time management app, a text-editor software, etc.)’,
while that of translation-specific tool was ‘any technology tool that is translation-specific
(e.g., Translation Memory systems, terminology management software, Machine
Translation Systems, etc.)’.

106
Figure 7.8 – Question 16: Confidence with general technologies (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 16 was a required Likert scale question that asked literary translators to indicate
their level of confidence with general technology tools. A third of respondents reported
they are ‘extremely confident’, while more than a third said they are ‘confident’ when
using general technology. Only 1% said this was not applicable to them, and 3% that
they were ‘not confident at all’. Overall, the level of confidence with general technology
is extremely high for all respondents, with almost 80% indicating they are either confident
or extremely confident (Figure 7.8).

107
General technology in literary translation
Count
Percentage
Online Dictionary
123
31%
Text-editing Software
58
14%
Internet search
57
14%
Digital Glossary/Terminology Database/Thesaurus
17
4%
Task-/Time-management App
15
4%
None
13
3%
Laptop/PC
11
2%
Office Suite Software
9
2%
Social Media/Online Communities
9
2%
Corpus Linguistics Tools
9
2%
Proofreading Software/Spellchecker
7
2%
Human Interface Device
7
2%
Translation Technology
7
2%
Email Service Provider
6
1%
Speech Recognition Software
6
1%
Smartphone or Tablet
5
1%
Internet Browser
5
1%
File Hosting and Sharing Service
5
1%
Document Viewer Software
5
1%
Desktop Publishing (DTP) Software
4
1%
Spreadsheet App
3
1%
Bookkeeping Software
3
1%
Video and Image Editing Software
3
1%
Alignment Software
2
1%
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Tool
2
1%
Web Hosting Service
2
1%
E-reader
2
1%
Camera
1
1%
Media Player Software
1
1%
Total
397
100%
Table 7.15 – Question 17: General technology in literary translation (n = 150, a = 397)

108
Question 17 was a required open question asking translators to list the general technology
tools they use (if any) in their literary translation activity (Table 7.15). The number of
answers recorded was 397. Online dictionaries top the list with 31% of occurrences,
followed by text-editing software and internet search, both with 14% of answers. Only
3% of respondents said they use no tools at all. While the first three categories were
mentioned by most respondents, Table 7.15 helps visualise the considerable variety of
other tools suggested by respondents. This offers an insight into translators’ varying
definitions of general technology, and the multitude of different tools some of them
employ to customise their workflow. In this respect, it is also worth noticing the
complexity spectrum on which these tools are found. In fact, while on one hand we find
basic hardware, such as human interface devices (the ones mentioned were mouse,
keyboard, screen, touchscreen, foot pedal), PCs, laptops, smartphones, etc., on the other
hand, there are more complex and specialised writing and reading aids (speech
recognition, proofreading software, e-readers) and tools for the processing of texts in
digital formats (OCR and alignment tools). Scattered along the spectrum are tools of low
to medium complexity, such as document viewers, communication tools (e.g., social
media and emails), and business management aids (bookkeeping, file/web hosting, task-
and time-management). Having said this, the whole range of tools mentioned above is
indicative of a remarkably different conception of what constitutes general technology
across the data set and what type of tools different respondents are familiar with or are
willing to adopt. The technological landscape of the translators who mentioned mouse
and keyboard might look widely different from the one faced by literary translators who
use specific text analysis or speech recognition software or from those who make use of
slightly fewer complex tools such as spreadsheets, social media and digital glossaries.
Notably, these results show a definite lack of consistency, with the exception of
practically unanimous agreement on online dictionaries, and a relative high degree of
consensus on text-editing software and internet search. Finally, it is worth mentioning
the seven responses referring to translation technology tools. While this might be
considered a distraction error, in that the question asked about general and not translation-
specific tools, it is still interesting to note that some respondents associated translation
technology to their literary translation activity. In particular, there were five instances of
CAT tools and two of MT. More data on the use of translation technology in participants’
literary translation activity will be provided in the following paragraphs in relation to
Table 7.17.

109
General technology in non-literary translation
Count
Percentage
Online Dictionary
97
26%
Internet Search
50
13%
Text-editing Software
48
13%
None
19
5%
Digital Glossary/Terminology Database/Thesaurus
16
4%
Social Media/Online Communities
16
4%
Translation Technology
13
3%
Task-/Time-management App
12
3%
Office Suite Software
10
2%
Not Applicable
10
2%
Laptop/PC
9
2%
Email Service Provider
9
2%
Proofreading Software/Spellchecker
7
2%
Human Interface Device
7
2%
Spreadsheet App
7
2%
Corpus Linguistics Tool
7
2%
Video and Image Editing Software
6
1%
Speech Recognition Software
5
1%
Internet Browser
5
1%
Smartphone or Tablet
4
1%
Document Viewer Software
4
1%
Computer Programming Tools
4
1%
Desktop Publishing (DTP) Software
3
1%
File Hosting and Sharing
2
1%
Bookkeeping Software
2
1%
Web Hosting Service
2
1%
Media Player Software
2
1%
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) Tool
1
1%
Camera
1
1%
Total
378
100%
Table 7.16 – Question 18: General technology in non-literary translation (n = 150, a = 378)

110
Question 18 was a required open question asking respondents to list the general
technology tools they use (if any) in their non-literary translation activity (Table 7.16).
The number of answers recorded was 378. Online dictionaries top the list here too with
26% of occurrences, five percentage points less than their literary translation counterpart.
Internet searches and text-editing software follow with 13% respectively, which is also
largely consistent with the previous question’s results. A slightly higher number of
responses for ‘None’ was registered here (5% vs 3% in literary translation). This piece
of data is complemented by the 2% who answered ‘Not applicable’, as they only translate
literature. Social media and online communities were mentioned almost double the
amount of times for non-literary translation, which leads to think participants might be
slightly more prone to participate in online discussions or using social media in relation
to their non-literary translation activity. It is also worth noting how e-readers and
alignment software appear as the only tools exclusive to literary translation, pointing at a
different way of processing literary and non-literary texts in digital formats. Conversely,
the categories ‘Computer programming tools’ and ‘Not applicable’ only appear for non-
literary translation. As far as the former is concerned, it is not clear in what way
programming relates to the translation activity as this was not specified by respondents.
The rest of the categories exhibit remarkably similar values for both literary and non-
literary translation. This is particularly true for hardware components (i.e., human
interface devices, laptops, PCs, smartphones, and tablets) and business management
applications (i.e., task- and time-management apps, file/web hosting services,
bookkeeping software). Ultimately, similarities are concentrated on the lower complexity
side of the spectrum, whereby more complex or specialised tools are exclusive either to
literary translation (e.g., alignment software, e-readers) or non-literary translation (e.g.,
programming). Overall, it would seem there are some basic general technology tools that
are common to both workflows, with respondents using them for both their literary and
non-literary translation activity, namely online dictionaries, corpora, Office suite
software, internet search, text-editing software, business management apps, social media,
online communities, emails, mobile devices and computers. Finally, as per the previous
question, some respondents mentioned translation-specific technology here. Out of the
13 instances, one referred to MT, one to localisation software, and the remaining to CAT
tools. The use of translation technology in participants’ non-literary translation activity
will be presented in more detail in the paragraphs relating to Table 7.18.

111
Figure 7.9 – Question 19: Confidence with translation technology (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 19 was a required, Likert scale question enquiring about respondents’ level of
confidence with translation-specific technology tools. While results for question 16 on
confidence towards general technology were markedly leaning towards either the
‘confident’ or ‘extremely confident’ positions, data on translation-specific technology
appears significantly more complex (Figure 7.9). In fact, a quarter of respondents
reported they are ‘not confident at all’ with translation technology, as opposed to 3% of
respondents for general technology. Moreover, 15% are, ‘slightly confident’, against the
4% for the same answer in Question 16. Similar values are registered for ‘fairly
confident’ (15% here, 13% in Question 16), while 22% of respondents are ‘confident’,
12% ‘extremely confident’. Values are halved for ‘confident’ and reduced by two thirds
for ‘extremely confident’ when compared with the previous question. In the same vein,
11% answered ‘not applicable’ versus 1% for Question 16, which is indicative of a greater
number of respondents who are not aware of or do not use translation technology tools.
Overall, these figures point towards a significantly greater lack of confidence towards
translation-specific tools when compared to general technology.

112
Translation technology in literary translation
Count
Percentage
None
107
71%
Translation Technology
43
29%
CAT Tools
38
25%
MT
10
7%
Terminology management tools
7
5%
Subtitling software
1
1%
Total
150 (56)
100% (38%)
Table 7.17 – Question 20: Translation technology in literary translation (n = 150, a = 163)
Question 20 was a required open question asking translators to list the translation
technology tools they use (if any) in their literary translation activity (Table 7.17). Out
of all 150 respondents, 29% use translation technology in their literary translation work.
A quarter of respondents mention using CAT tools. Four of these respondents also
described the specific ways in which they employ CAT tools in their literary translation
activity: one uses them to compile a first draft of the translation, one is practising using
them, another just purchased one and is learning how to use it, while another one, very
rarely, has to use a proprietary CAT tool when working with a particular agency.
Although they provide only a peek at literary translators’ use of CAT tools, these four
answers are interesting in that they offer a broad range of their usage. In particular, these
participants touch upon potential matters of interest for the study of the literary
translation-technology relationship, namely the need to adapt current translation
technology to the specificities of literary translation, the willingness to adopt certain tools,
and that uptake of translation technology might be due to clients’ requests rather than the
translator’s choice. MT was mentioned by 7% of respondents, with one specifying: ‘I did
ONCE feed a text through Google Translator and then edit it. I’m not sure I would do
that again’, which is interesting in itself, as a one-time use is considered enough to
mention it as an example of translation technology use in literary translation. Finally, 5%
of instances regarded terminology management tools and 1% subtitling software. In
regard to the mentions of translation technology in answers to previous Question 17
(Table 7.15), it is worth noting that the same respondents mentioned the same tools again
here, so these have not been added as extra responses.

113
Translation technology in non-literary
translation
Count
Percentage
None
76
51%
Translation Technology
64
43%
CAT Tools
54
36%
MT
16
11%
Terminology management tools
9
6%
Subtitling software
2
1%
Localization software
1
1%
Not applicable
8
5%
Unassigned
2
1%
Total
150 (168)
100% (55%)
Table 7.18 – Question 21: Translation technology in non-literary translation (n = 150, a = 168)
Question 21 was a required open question asking respondents to list translation
technology tools they use (if any) in their non-literary translation activity (Table 7.18).
Slightly more than half of respondents do not use translation technology in non-literary
translation, which is 20% less than for literary translation (Table 7.17 – Question 20:
Translation technology in literary translation (n = 150, a = 163)). The number of participants
using translation technology rises from 29% in literary translation to 43% in non-literary
translation. CAT tools are once again the most used type of translation technology, being
mentioned by 36% of respondents, slightly more than the 25% registered for literary
translation. The use of MT also sees an increase from 7% to 11%, while figures for
terminology management tools and subtitling software are virtually the same for both
literary and non-literary translation activity.
Overall, translation technology tools are more widespread in participants’ non-literary
translation workflows, with significantly more using CAT tools and slightly more using
MT. This being said, the range of tools employed in both literary and non-literary
translation does not vary (the only exception being one mention of localization software
in non-literary translation), meaning there are no tools exclusive to one or the other as
there were in the case of general technology tools (see previous analysis of questions 17
and 18 in this section). Finally, in regard to the mentions of translation technology in

114
answers to previous Question 18 (Table 7.16), it is worth noting that the same respondents
mentioned the same tools again here, so these have not been added as extra responses.
7.1.5 Section five: open questions
Section Five was the last section of the questionnaire, consisting of one closed and eight
open questions. These were aimed at uncovering literary translators’ perceptions of their
own role and their attitudes towards technology as related to their profession.
Essential traits
Count
Percentage
Writing Skills
55
14%
Creativity & Artistic Sensitivity
44
11%
Passion
32
8%
Subjectivity
27
7%
Relationship with Author
21
5%
Relationship with Source Text
21
5%
Language Skills
21
5%
Cultural and Literary Knowledge
21
5%
Comparison
with Non-Literary Translation
18
5%
Cultural bearing
18
5%
Reading Skills
17
4%
Freedom
15
4%
Hermeneutics
14
3%
Satisfaction & Reward
11
3%
Responsibility
10
3%
Pay
9
2%
Learning
9
2%
Pragmatism & Self-discipline
9
2%
Relationship with Target Context
9
2%
Isolation
7
2%
Research Skills
6
2%
Challenge
5
1%
Total
399
100%
Table 7.19 – Question 22: Essential traits (n = 150, a = 399)

115
Question 22 was a required, open question asking respondents to explain what it means
for them to be a literary translator, listing the essential traits that characterise their
occupation. Out of the 150 responses, a total of 399 instances of essential traits were
recorded and subsequently grouped in 22 categories (Table 7.19). Writing skills top the
list with 55 instances. Being able to write well in the target language is considered an
essential skill, whereby literary translation is described as either an activity that is
complimentary to writing, or as a form of re-writing itself. In this regard, when
addressing the differences between writing and translating literature, a respondent states
that being a literary translator means ‘being the same author of the book but dressed
differently’, while another one adds ‘it is writing without the drama’. Other respondents
seem to be divided between the idea of translators as writers or re-writers. In fact, for
some it is a matter of having ‘to be writers. We have to feel what the writers felt when
they wrote what we are translating’, and ‘being conscious of being a writer in the other
language’. Those among the respondents who are also authors seemed to concur, with
one in particular declaring: ‘I’m a poet first and […] I count literary translators amongst
my kin’. Conversely, another respondent believes literary translation ‘requires the
courage to […] rewrite the story’. Both views come together in a metaphor used by one
participant, who states: ‘[for me translating literature] means that I get to impersonate, as
an actor, the writers I admire (or not)’.
The second most represented category is that of creativity and artistic sensitivity, with 44
instances. Here, literary translation emerges as a creative process, requiring creative
effort and skills belonging to the sphere of art and artistic creation. To resume the
theatrical metaphor reported at the end of the previous paragraph, one respondent
described the literary translation process as being ‘purposefully creative - that is, the
translator is also being creative – and […] this requires a form of dramaturgy’. For
another participant, literary translation is ‘a re-creative occupation’, while a colleague
asserts that ‘specific to literary translation is the art of finding the right word or phrase’,
while another concludes: ‘you are essentially an artist yourself’.
The third place is occupied by the category ‘passion’ and its 32 instances, where literary
translators generally expressed their views on how their profession is a pleasurable
activity, something they love, enjoy, are passionate about and that is important to them as
individuals. In this regard, one respondent said: ‘[this] is the only "job" I can see myself

116
doing forever’, while other two declare: ‘it means everything to me, I would do it even if
I didn’t get paid for it’, and ‘it’s my raison d’etre’. Other instances in this category
accounted for a love of words, language, literature, writing and reading as being essential
traits of literary translators, together with a general sense of enjoyment in relation to the
profession.
The following category per number of instances recorded (27) is that related to
subjectivity. Here, respondents list a series of personality and character traits that they
believe make a good literary translator, and that are rather intrinsic to the individual as a
result of their personal experiences. These include qualities such as curiosity, dedication,
the ability to manage a business and being one’s own boss, flexibility, patience, open-
mindedness, and a talent for problem-solving.
The two following categories comprise, respectively, instances related to literary
translators’ relationship with the author of the source text, and with the source text itself,
accounting for 21 responses each. The prevailing sentiment is that of loyalty toward the
author’s style and voice, whereby ‘the translator needs to inhabit the world created by
the author and re-create it’ while coping ‘with any vision the writer has (or has not)’.
Similarly, the source text is seen as a limiting object deserving the translator’s allegiance
and respect, in a paradoxical relationship according to which translators ‘are prisoners of
a text yet free from it’. The translator’s task is that of conveying meaning, atmosphere,
and effects in the target culture, in order to ‘articulate the meaning and nuances of the
source text and author’s intention to almost perfection’.
Language skills are also considered essential (21 instances), as ‘bilingualism is simply a
given’. This being said, these are seen as fundamental skills generally needed by all
translators, independently from the object of their translations. Instead, peculiar to
literary translation (as evidenced by the 21 responses recorded) is a vast cultural and
literary knowledge in both source and target languages, which will help interpreting the
text and fulfil the ambition of being a ‘cultural explorer’.
This distinction between literary translation and other branches of translation has emerged
more clearly in the 18 instances where respondents compared literary and non-literary
translation traits, explicitly distinguishing between the two. Most responses in this
category highlight how literary translation is more interpretative by nature and thus allows

117
the translator more freedom in terms of time, space, and source text constraints. For
some, ‘non-literary translation is much more focused on expressing meaning than on the
act of expression’. Another respondent observes: ‘compared to "non-literary" […]
translators I have freedom, my subjectivity is an asset, my relationship with my source
text is complex’. Finally, one participant admits that ‘it [literary translation] is my
favorite part of my translation busines [sic]. It means being precise and creative at the
same time.’ This being said, a few respondents did not find there to be a difference
between the two, with one arguing that ‘both are about conveying what people want to
say to other people in a different language. It’s all getting the voice right, whether it’s a
book or a museum exhibit, a report or a catalogue.’.
Another quality that emerged as being peculiar to literary translators is that of being
bearers or mediators of culture. The literary translator is ‘by default an intercultural
mediator’ whose duty is to ‘bring stories to people who wouldn’t be able to read them’
otherwise. A defining part of their job is to break down cultural barriers and play a
fundamental role ‘in the development of civilization’ and ‘the promotion of culture’,
disseminating literature in the target language and allowing authors to cross borders and
access other worlds: it is ‘a very paradoxical job, and [it is] fundamental to humans, since
without translation we would be all estranged neighbours’.
The three categories ‘reading skills’, ‘freedom’ and ‘hermeneutics’ somehow interrelate,
and emerge from the data in similar proportions. More specifically, many respondents
find being an avid reader is essential for being a literary translator. Just as important is
the ability to interpret the text and go beyond the literal meaning of words. To read
attentively and grasp ‘not just the words, but the underlying emotion’ is paramount,
something another translator describes as a ‘willingness to read hermeneutically, with an
ear; [a] tolerance for ambiguity’. As anticipated above, literary translators seem to enjoy
‘a unique degree of freedom in the handling of language’. This is supposedly determined
by the hermeneutical and creative nature of literary translation itself, which allows to
interpret and rewrite the text. The only thing that truly seems to be able to limit this sense
of freedom is the impulse not to betray the author, and hence the source text.
Ranking lower but directly connected to passion and creativity is the category of
‘satisfaction and reward’. This refers to the satisfactory and rewarding feeling that
literary translators describe as a result of the translation activity. The idea is that, although

118
literary translation is often a difficult and complex endeavour, it rewards the translator
with the prize of increased knowledge, and with a sense of creating something new and
making an important contribution for the target culture: it is ‘the greatest challenge and
at the same time a source of the most pleasure and pride’. Freedom and reward, though,
do not come without responsibility. These originate mainly from having the courage to
make one’s own decisions in terms of text rendition, but become also an ethical
responsibility towards source and target contexts, ‘especially if it’s a text from an under-
represented/colonized/ minority population’.
Despite pay not being an object of questioning, nor the topic of the research project at
hand, it did surface consistently in relation to the other categories identified. Notably,
instances of low pay were found in oppositions to concepts such as hard work, passion,
and dedication. The overall attitude of respondents on the matter could be summarised
by the following quote:
It is challenging, fulfilling and all-absorbing work that I do for the love of it. The remuneration is
almost never commensurate with the time and effort put in. This is more than compensated for by
the satisfaction and pleasure it brings, and the opportunity to immerse oneself in two cultures as
well as two languages.
The last part of the quote links directly to the following category, ‘Learning’, whereby
literary translation has been described as a constant process of research and exploration
of cultures and languages, a continuous ‘mental exercise, a learning experience’.
Embarking on this journey also requires great amounts of ‘pragmatism and self-
discipline’ (the following category), particularly in the face of low pay and making the
right choices in order to respect the triad of author, source text and target audience.
Typically, relating to the target context includes eliciting the same response as the source
audience in the target audience, representing ‘both the author and the intended reader’.
The next category collected respondents’ views on isolation as an integral part of literary
translation, which is described as solitary work mostly done from home. This being said,
there are a few exceptions to this that are worth mentioning, especially in relation to
technology’s role. In fact, one participant emphasised how, in their experience,
‘translators no longer work in isolation, today any project involves a team […] Skype
helps us to stay connected’, while another translator detailed their experience of
collaborating with a native speaker when working out of their mother tongue, saying: ‘I
never see myself as working ‘solo’ as I do (at times) in many other aspects of my

119
professional life’. Here, technology is presented as an antidote to isolation and a means
for fostering communication and collaboration.
The second to last category stresses the importance of research skills for some translators,
which derives from an overall thirst for knowledge, but also from the constant need for
research as part of the translation process itself. Finally, with five occurrences, there is
the category devoted to literary translation as a challenge. Instead of being used as a
negative attribute, here ‘challenging’ becomes the centre around which most of the
satisfactory and rewarding feelings originating from practising literary translation
revolve: ‘it is a constant challenge but a very fascinating one’.
The traits described in the answers to question 22 are predominantly positive. Literary
translators emerge as artistic and creative figures who are passionate about their
profession. Literary translation is described as a gratifying endeavour, rewarding the
translator with knowledge and pride. Personal skills like dedication, curiosity and open-
mindedness underlie the belief that subjectivity plays a crucial role in balancing
translators’ sense of freedom and their reverence for the source text and its author.
Although complex and challenging, translating literature allows for a contribution to the
promotion and dissemination of culture, acting as a bridge in the process of human
development. The challenge is a positive one, fuelled by an incessant thirst for knowledge
and configured as a constant mental exercise and learning experience. Where literary
translation is free, expressive and complex, non-literary translation is constrained, centred
on meaning. Technology does not seem to have a place in the portrayal of literary
translator’s essence, begging the question of whether its absence is a sign of active
rejection. If technology does have a role in literary translation, what is its place in the
humanistic depiction provided by respondents? Interestingly, only two traits exhibit a
negative connotation, namely isolation and pay, and technology does get an explicit
mention only as far as the former is concerned, whereby it is said to facilitate
communication among colleagues and counteract the seclusion typical of the profession.

120
Outsiders’ perceptions
Count
Percentage
Unaware/Unappreciative
98
50%
General Public Opinions
21
11%
Artists/Educated People’s
Opinions
20
10%
High Status
17
9%
Low Status
14
7%
Invisibility
14
7%
It doesn’t concern them
11
6%
Total
195
100%
Table 7.20 – Question 23: Outsiders’ perceptions (n = 150, a = 195)
Question 23 was a required, open question asking respondents whether they thought
outsiders perceived literary translation the same way they did, and to justify their answer.
A vast majority of respondents (73%) think people outside the literary translation
profession do not perceive it the same way as they do. Particularly, they do not seem to
be aware of the creative aspect of it and the important role it plays in bridging different
cultures. Literary translators also think their job is perceived as a mechanical word-for-
word substitution, something that only a failed writer would do and a task that a machine
could easily replicate. This being said, 19% admitted they were not sure and did not feel
they could express an opinion on the matter, either because they do not feel the need to
think about it or because they believe everyone’s perceptions of other professions diverge
from the reality of professionals themselves. Finally, people who answered ‘Yes’ (8%)
typically expect authors, poets and well-read individuals to be able to grasp the
complexity of literary translation, as they tend to be considered equals. All three positions
are reported in Table 7.20 and discussed in more detail below through respondents’
words.
Exactly half of responses are concerned with the perception that outsiders are either
unaware or unappreciative of what being a literary translator really means. Specifically,
they think most people look at literary translation as a matter of word-for-word
equivalence, a mechanical task where the role of creativity is either underestimated or
entirely dismissed, where ‘translation is more like data entry than a creative pursuit’.
According to one respondent, ‘some see it as photocopying into another language’, while

121
others are made to feel as if they were ‘a walking phrase book’ or ‘[a dictionary] on two
legs’, but ‘they underestimate the talent involved. […] the ability to carry a text into
another language is not a question of knowing how to use a dictionary’. In this respect,
another respondent recounts:
I have more than once been asked if I use google [sic] in my work. I reply that I use it all the time
to research the information in the texts I’m working on, but I’m fairly certain that what they were
asking was whether I just plug my text into the google translator [sic] and then tidy up the
grammar or something.
Another idea emerging from the data is that the general public, or the average reader who
does not have any particular knowledge of other languages, is more likely to think of
translation as an easy task of word substitution:
the number of times I’ve had my own work explained to me ("Be careful with poetry! It’s hard to
get the meaning across!") or the inevitable Google Translate question, I don’t think people who
don’t translate (especially those who don’t speak other languages) understand exactly what it is.
It is worth noting how Google Translate is being mentioned without any prompting to
think about MT or technology in relation to this question, and how it is assimilated with
feeding the uneducated impression of translation as a mechanical task. Conversely,
educated people, artists and well-read individuals seem to be perceived as more inclined
to have a view of the profession which likens that of literary translators themselves: ‘I
think anyone who is engaged with literature understands the importance and significance
of the translator’s plight and contribution’. This being said, some respondents are of the
opinion that even authors, publishers or literary critics fail to comprehend the skill set
needed to be a literary translator and its fundamental role for culture. For one respondent,
‘even some highly educated non-linguists seem to think that a translation is in its essence
merely the source text made intelligible to them’. This being said, overall literary
translators expect that a higher degree of education or literacy leads to an increased
understanding of the profession.
As far as the perceived status of the profession is concerned, there seems to be no middle
ground, rather outsiders tend to either glamourize or criticise literary translators. In this
respect, 9% of responses registered the idea that literary translators are seen as powerful,
independent figures absorbed in a well-paid, creative, intellectually challenging task. For
one respondent, ‘very few people have any conception whatsoever about what is involved,
and if they do, it is likely to be romantic or skewed in other ways’, while another declared

122
that ‘generally they see it as glorified photocopying in another language’. This idea is
challenged by another 7% of responses, which depict literary translation as a ‘secondary,
derivative activity’, ‘an ancillary occupation’, a low-paid frivolous job made by people
who would rather be writers. According to one respondent, ‘it is generally regarded as
an amateur activity, as indeed is the writing of poetry, because of its marginal status as
economic capital’. Another, yet, recounts:
I am sure that my neighbours think I am a housewife, even my family believes mine isn’t a proper
job. When my mother had some health issues it was very normal that I was always available for
her. What if I had been a teacher or a doctor?
Connected to this view is the literary translators’ perception of being invisible to
outsiders. Their name often does not appear in book reviews or is not mentioned on the
cover, prompting thoughts such as ‘the translator is of no interest; they are a tool for
drawing back a veil, rather than the creator of a new veil’. Finally, 6% of responses
express the belief that outsiders simply do not think about translation, they ‘don’t give it
a second thought’ or ‘have any strong views about it’.
Outsiders’ perceptions as detailed by literary translators in question 23 appear to deprive
the image they painted of themselves of its most peculiar characteristics. The poetic
qualities previously attributed to literary translators are now demoted to automatic,
impersonal tasks. The figure that emerges is one of a detached, dispassionate
professional, whose job is easily replaceable. This seems to justify a perceived
patronising attitude on the part of the general public, epitomised by the ‘inevitable Google
Translate question’. In contrast with answers to question 22, technology is hereby
mentioned as an agent in the perception of translation as an effortless occupation. The
mechanicalness of word-for-word rendition noted by respondents becomes synonymous
with MT, and a vehicle for unappreciative sentiments. Technology emerged without
explicit prompting, emphasising its virtual absence in the previous question. As per
question 22, this seems to suggest a potential link between the way literary translators
perceive their role and their attitudes towards technology, whereby the two sometimes
overlap despite technology not being outwith the object of the question.

123
Wish to be perceived by outsiders
Count
Percentage
Awareness/Appreciation
68
43%
High Status
45
28%
I don’t care
18
11%
Educating the public/colleagues
15
10%
Visibility
12
8%
Total
158
100%
Table 7.21 – Question 24: Wish to be perceived by outsiders (n = 135, a = 158)
Question 24 offered the opportunity for respondents who answered ‘no’ to the previous
question to indicate how they wished outsiders would perceive them instead. This was
an optional open question and 135 people chose to answer it (Table 7.21).
The issue of outsiders’ awareness and appreciation returned, with almost half of
respondents wishing they could realise the complexities of literary translation, its
creativity and how essential it is for culture and society. In particular, some would like
for literary translation to be perceived as an art in its own right, ‘as an act of rewriting’.
Others ‘wish people could see the magic’, the amount of work and dedication that goes
into it. One respondent thinks: ‘it would help if they stopped acting like monkeys could
do our job’, while another one yearns to be seen ‘as someone who has a public
responsibility and whose work has to be appreciated’. In this regard, 45 responses
highlighted the wish it had a higher profile as a profession and would be valued more as
‘‘creative reverse engineering’ of the style and content of the source text’, and ‘a valid
cultural and artistic enterprise in its own right’.
As far as the status of the literary translator is concerned, some wish they would be seen
‘as intercultural problem-solvers who also are good writers’ and just generally wish
‘they’d realize it’s work, performed by people who need schedules, time, holiday, and
money for a living’. Some said they are not concerned with outsiders’ opinions, while
only caring for what the author, readers and publishers think. As one respondent puts it:
‘let them be wrong! We know what it’s all about, and that’s the most important thing!’.
Finally, some respondents wish the public would be educated on second-language
acquisition and the importance of reading, or that they would research information about

124
literary translation before talking about it. In relation to this point, 8% of responses
mentioned wishing people could pay more attention to the translator’s name and that one
of the more effective ways to donate more visibility to literary translators would be to
‘[debunk] sole-authorship’ and grant them the status of co-author.
Answers to Question 24 appear to reinvoke the image portrayed in Question 22. The
semantic field of art, passion and creativity returns, reflected in literary translators’ wishes
to be seen and understood. The desire for literary translation to be appreciated as a
complex, essential and ingenious endeavour is accompanied by a yearning for the
profession to be regarded as more than a hobby and be respected as such. This is also
linked to the question of visibility and co-authorship, whereby these are simultaneously
cause and effect of a deeper awareness and appreciation of literary translation itself. At
the heart of the way literary translators see themselves seems to lie a feeling of in-
betweenness and being misunderstood. At the two extremes are insiders’ and outsiders’
perceptions, the idea translators have of themselves and the way this is reflected in reality.
Technology seems to navigate this spectrum back and forth, but its role in respondents’
perceptions is still not clearly defined. The relationship between technology and literary
translators’ role in society emerges more clearly in the answers to the following set of
questions, which centre specifically on attitudes towards technology.
Relationship literary translation-technology
Count
Percentage
Ambivalent
36
24%
Helpful
36
24%
Less/Not Helpful for LT
23
15%
No Relationship
19
13%
Resistance
9
6%
Needed
8
5%
Minimal
8
5%
Imposed
5
3%
Harmonious
4
3%
No Idea
1
1%
Unassigned
1
1%
Total
150
100%
Table 7.22 – Question 25: Relationship between literary translation and technology (n = 150, a = 150)

125
Before being redirected to question 25, participants were invited to think about the role
of technology in their literary translation activity. Question 25 was a required open
question and asked literary translators to describe the relationship between the distinct
character they presented in Question 22 and technologies (Table 7.22).
The most frequent positions are ‘ambivalent’ and ‘helpful’, with 24% of occurrences
each. Respondents in the ‘ambivalent’ category describe the job as being more
demanding as a result of a closer relationship with technology. In fact, if on the one hand
technologies have made certain aspects of the process faster and easier, on the other hand
this has resulted in more pressure in the form of shorter deadlines and lower pay. This
ambivalence is also highlighted by some translators declaring they like and happily use
technology that helps with research, terminology or networking, but have mixed views
on translation-specific tools such as CAT tools and MT. In particular, they raised
concerns about the effects of such tools on some of the most personal aspects of literary
translation. Some believe they ‘discourage freedom in interpreting text on larger scales’,
while others think they make the more mechanical tasks easier, but should not affect
cognitive aspects of translation. One participant states: ‘sometimes I wonder how much
they interfere with my originality’; in this regard, the general feeling is that technology
tools are acceptable as long as they are a support and not a substitute for the translator,
and do not have any adverse effect on the process and product of translation.
The 24% that finds technology helpful for literary translation mentions corpus and text-
analysis tools, online search engines and dictionaries as extremely useful aids. Some use
CAT tools for compiling the first draft of a translation, while others mention seeing MT
and PE entering the future of the profession. One respondent states: ‘I have been learning
more about CAT tools and similar technologies, and am grateful for online dictionaries.
My feeling is that language is becoming, through technology, EVEN MORE communal,
which is wonderful’. Generally, it would seem technology is particularly welcome as a
support ‘with sorting thoughts, terminology, and other things you’d have to keep in your
head otherwise. A literary translator should think of their technology as their assistant’.
This being said, 15% view technology as less or not helpful at all for literary translation,
as ‘typically, software is not sensitive to subtleties, idioms, or irony’. It is worth noticing
how people in this category were referring specifically to translation technology, although

126
this was not mentioned anywhere in the question. In this regard, one respondent
remarked: ‘I have the impression those [translation technology tools] are for people in a
hurry. I work slowly and carefully’. On a similar note, 13% found there is no relation
whatsoever between their idea of being a literary translator and technology, as
‘technology has no soul’.
The 6% belonging to the ‘resistance’ category mainly recognised potential benefits of
using technology, but stated that they would not learn or start using it anytime soon:
‘technology can certainly be useful, but the human mind plays tricks that are even more
wonderful’. Similarly, the 5% in the ‘minimal’ category only employ technology in their
work on a need-to-need basis, trying to keep its use to a minimum. With the same
percentage, but opposite views, is the category ‘needed’, whose respondents think that
technology is now essential for translation. In particular, one mentioned how ‘technology
is strictly necessary in our job - I don’t see us going back to locking [ourselves] in our
offices surrounded by dictionaries’, while a colleague went as far as stating that
‘translation today cannot exist without technology’.
A small percentage (3%) feel that the relationship between being a literary translator and
technology is imposed from above, an ineluctable reality that cannot be escaped and to
which everyone needs to adapt: ‘if you don’t keep up with the times, they will run you
over’; not everyone likes it, but ‘unfortunately everything has gone digital now’. For
these 5 respondents, the relationship at hand comes out as ‘undefined, messy, threatening.
An imposition. Something I prefer not to think about, but realise I have to’. Finally, one
respondent declared they had no idea how to feel about it, while another 3% felt their
relationship with technology to be harmonious and complimentary to their definition of
what it means to be a literary translator.
Answers to Question 25 foreground the conflicting dynamic between technologies and
the quintessence of the literary translation activity as perceived by translators. Earlier
(Question 23), outsiders were depicted as being incapable of acknowledging the creative
side of literary translation. Understanding it as a mechanical task produces the idea that
machines can easily replicate it, questioning the role fulfilled by the human in the process.
Here, respondents do not reject altogether the existence of a mechanical side to literary
translation. However, these are only marginal aspects in their perceptions, something that
machines are welcome to handle if the reward for the humans involved is more space

127
being created for what they consider the fundamental, peculiar characteristics of literary
translation, namely creativity, originality, and personal skills that are unique to the
individual. Where an overall sense of fear, detachment and scepticism toward technology
started to emerge in Question 23 on outsiders’ perceptions, the idea that technology can
be useful is not refuted in answers to Question 24 on wish to be perceived by outsiders.
What is refuted is the conception that it can be a substitute instead of a helper, that it can
do instead of assist. In turn, this originates from the feeling that outsiders are either
convinced of this or trying to convince others, translators included, that this is in fact the
case. The ambivalence in literary translators’ answers to this question originates from the
perception that the traits that embody their profession are so peculiarly human that it
almost opposes the idea of technology tools encompassing them. With that said, could
literary translators’ less favourable attitudes towards technology be directed at
translation-specific tools in particular? Would a change in attitudes on their part reflect
on the industry as a whole, and vice versa, would a change in the way tools are developed
and introduced in the profession affect their attitudes? Could this improve or solve some
of the issues pertaining to role raised in open questions 22-24, such as perceived low
status, isolation and invisibility? And, finally, would a translation tool developed
specifically with literary translation in mind, and based on needs identified by the
professionals themselves encounter more favourable attitudes? In this regard, it is worth
noticing how the highest number of responses, together with ambivalent attitudes, depict
technology as helpful. This, as long as it preserves the essence of literary translation,
relieving translators from the most trivial tasks. When phrasing the question, the term
‘technologies’ was not further specified, allowing respondents to present their own
definitions of it. Interestingly, CAT tools and MT emerge more distinctively as
‘technology’. This is particularly true for literary translators who do not find translation
technology tools to be helpful, begging the question of whether the more negative
attitudes are reserved specifically for translation technology tools (CAT tools and MT in
particular) and not technology as such. If this were the case, a shift in attitudes could be
engendered by the development of translation technology tools that take into account the
peculiarities of literary translation as specified by professionals. The following question
will allow to further explore the literary translator-technology relationship.

128
Feelings towards technology
Count
Percentage
Positive
74
49%
Torn
30
20%
Negative
20
13%
Indifferent
9
6%
Not Relevant for LT
9
6%
Unsure
4
3%
Unassigned
3
2%
No Comment
1
1%
Total
150
100%
Table 7.23 – Question 26: Feelings towards technology (n = 150, a = 150)
Question 26 delved deeper into respondents’ particular feelings towards said relationship
by asking them to indicate their feelings towards the relationship between their idea of
literary translation and technology. This was also a required open question (Table 7.23).
Slightly less than half of respondents demonstrated positive feelings towards this
relationship. In particular, they said they felt lucky, comfortable, confident, happy,
grateful, relaxed and excited about it. The underlying sentiment for most of the answers
is originated by the conviction of not going to ‘be out of a job any time soon’.
Respondents in the second category account for 20% of the total and exhibit ambivalent
attitudes. Among the opposites, we find love and hate, gratitude and anxiety, again hate
and thankfulness. Others are ‘sad that paper is becoming obsolete – almost all my non-
work reading is on paper – but naturally the speed of access of electronic media is great
for productivity’. Some respondents are ‘uncomfortable about the rise of machine
translation’, or think it is ‘good in theory, but potentially abusive’. Again, there is a
sentiment that technology could indeed be an aid, but uncertainty about the future seems
to be fuelling resistance towards newer or translation-specific tools. In this regard, a
respondent notices how they could probably still do their job without using TM tools, but
not without the internet and online dictionaries. Similarly, another participant observed
that while appreciating technology that helps them staying in contact with colleagues by
creating ‘an online workspace where I can interact with others’, they tend to avoid CAT
tools as they are too ‘inflexible’ for literary translation.

129
The 13% who expressed overall negative attitudes, mainly show apprehension, sadness,
anger or uneasiness towards the future of the profession, particularly in relation to
translation technology. Notably, a respondent admits they are angry ‘about people’s
expectations: I should not be expected to use MT and if I am, I will probably leave the
job to someone else’ while another (belonging to the 56-65 age group) ‘fear[s] younger
colleagues, and the fact that our clients could prefer [new technologies] to me’.
Additionally, 6% of respondents feel, respectively, indifferent towards this relationship
or think it is not relevant at all for literary translation. The latter are of the opinion that
there is no reason to use it. In this respect, one respondent states: ‘the invention of any
tool should begin with a NEED by the professional – not a need by inventors to turn a
profit, often by persuading our clients, when these clients have little knowledge of our
field’. Another respondent states: ‘I don’t believe in machine translation as far as literary
translation is concerned’. The remaining 3% and 1% are either not sure about there being
a relation between literary translation and technologies or refused to comment on the
matter.
The prevailing attitude is a positive one that is confident in the belief that no technology
tool will substitute literary translators in the near future. It is worth noting how mentions
of translation technology tools become more numerous than in previous questions.
Answers to Question 26 almost exclusively identify translation-specific tools as
technology. This is even more evident in negative and torn attitudes, where the feelings
expressed are of apprehension, uneasiness, sadness and anger towards a future where the
translation industry’s expectations might result in the imposition of new unwanted
technologies or the exclusion of older professionals. MT in particular was mentioned in
relation to the idea that technology is not at all relevant for literary translation, as the two
rest on assumptions that are diametrically opposed. Appealing and unappealing aspects
of technology for literary translation start being mentioned in the answers, whereby the
split between translation-specific technology and other tools becomes increasingly
evident. The internet is praised as an almost indispensable tool for research and
networking. Conversely, TM tools, MT systems and CAT tools often come up as a source
of diffidence. Respondents’ hesitancy is rooted in uncertainty regarding the
consequences of future translation technology uptake in the industry. This will be further
detailed in the analysis of the following question, which specifically concerns the future
of the literary translation/technology relationship.

130
Future of literary translation-technology relationship
Count
Percentage
(I don’t know)
(55)
(37%)
Unpredictability
24
Introduction of new tools
13
I don’t know
9
It doesn’t concern me
8
Other colleagues’ opinions
2
Responses total
56
(No)
(51)
(34%)
Not Applicable to LT
28
No need for new tools
8
It doesn’t concern me
7
Introduction of new tools
4
Unassigned
4
No time to learn
1
Responses Total
52
(Yes)
(44)
(29%)
Introduction of new tools
23
Ineluctability
13
Unassigned
6
Not Applicable to LT
4
Academic Interest
2
Necessary
2
Worse Conditions
2
Responses Total
52
Total
160 (150)
(100%)
Table 7.24 – Question 27.a: Future of relationship literary translation-technology – Justification (n =
150, a = 160 (150))
Question 27, the only required closed question in Section Five, asked participants whether
they thought the relationship between literary translation and technologies would change
in the future. Results show an approximately similar distribution of responses. In fact,
while 56 (37%) chose the option ‘I don’t know’, 51 (34%) answered ‘Yes’ and 43 (29%)

131
‘No’. Respondents were asked to justify their answer in the following required open
question 27.a. Answers were first classified according to responses to question 27;
relevant categories were then identified for each of the three original answers given (Table
7.24).
People who answered ‘I don’t know’ to the previous question highlighted a feeling of
unpredictability as far as the future of literary translation in relation to technology is
concerned. Some mentioned the fear of not being able to cope with a new scenario, and
the hope the relationship will improve. Many discussed the potential place that MT and
Artificial Intelligence (AI) could have in literary translation in the future. The overall
attitude could be summarised by this quote from one of the participants:
Whether AI could come up with a literary text that was a pleasure to read, though, is far more
uncertain to my mind. Literary pleasure seems to me to be founded on literary experience, and
that both rely to a large degree on being/having a body, that body’s relationships to other bodies,
and a sensory existence generally.
MT and AI also had a place in the discussion on new tools that could be more widespread
in the future. Respondents in this category seemed to think that voice recognition might
be an option, while MT and AI might improve and ‘we may get to the point where one
can still be creative and use CAT and MT. In a generation, MT may be able to deal with
normal translation tasks’. A few participants were of the idea that this would not concern
them at all, mainly because they could not see themselves being literary translators for
much longer due to their age. Finally, some expressed the likelihood of starting to use
new tools in the future if colleagues ‘swore by such-and-such a piece of technology’,
while another respondent thought the relationship would ‘probably intensify as people
are becoming more and more focused on technology and lose sight of the art of
translation’.
Along the same line, but more conclusive, were the responses of people who answered
‘No’ to Question 27. Their attitudes were mainly based on the argument that technology
is not relevant for literary translation as such. In fact, according to them, machines cannot
create nor replace the human brain. The idea of machines not having a soul also returned
(see commentary to Question 25), with the conviction that no matter how far technologies
come, ‘cultural references are likely always to need a human eye’. A participant
summarises this overall attitude by recurring to the notion of voice:

132
translating as rewriting means recreating a voice, which I hear in my head when I read the original
and need to get as closely as possible into my translation. I’m not interested in using a machine
to do that, it would take the fun, interest, humanity and ultimately, I think, quality out of it.
In this category too, some translators admitted they were not concerned with future
changes related to technology as many believed nothing particularly significant would
happen during their lifetime. Other colleagues expressed their satisfaction with the
technology already at their disposal, voicing the belief that there is no need right now for
new tools. Conversely, a few mentioned they might add more tools to their workflow in
the future, while only one respondent voiced a concern related to not having time to invest
in learning how to use new technology tools.
Almost half the people who answered ‘Yes’ to Question 27 anticipated that technology
will play a bigger role in the future of literary translation. According to some, MT, AI
and PE will assume a more significant role, while more people will start using CAT tools
for their translation activity. As a result of this, many believe there will be more pressure
on translators, as deadlines will be shorter and the pay lower. This view is accompanied
by a sense of ineluctability, with one respondent being convinced that ‘most translation
will be done by machines. Literary translation will certainly be the last to go but it’s
hubris to think that it “can’t be done.”’. As per the previous category, here too a group
of responses mention that technology will surely advance, but that this will not be relevant
for literary translation, which will always need a human or for which current technology
is not ‘appropriate’. In the three last sub-categories, people respectively think that it will
be even more necessary to use technology in the future, that conditions for literary
translators will probably worsen due to PE, MT and CAT being used to lower fees and
reduce the amount of work available, and, finally, some noted the academic interest in
this field and think ‘this will feed through into the profession, which after all contains a
lot of academics who are also literary translators’.
Answers to Question 27 show a general consensus that technology will play an
increasingly bigger role in the future of literary translation. However, there is a sense that
literary translation is indeed ‘the last bastion of human translation’ (Toral and Way, 2014:
174). Reflecting this view is the standpoint that it is harder for technology to deeply affect
literary translation, be it positively or negatively, due to its prominent ‘human’ character.
While short-term changes are not expected nor feared, opinions on long-term changes are

133
sharper and more clear-cut on both sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, respondents
believe machines (MT, CAT and TM in particular) will never achieve a predominant role
in literary translation or will ever be able to translate literature. On the other hand, is the
people who think it naïve to act as if a shift in the relationship with technology is not due
to happen. Uncertainties arise in relation to the scale of changes and the way the process
will unfold, with some worrying about a worsening of work conditions for translators
similar to that occurred in the non-literary translation industry in recent years. This sense
of ineluctability is confronted at times by the conception (already referenced in Questions
25 and 26 on the relationship between literary translation and technology) that technology
as such is not useful nor compatible with the soulful, sensorial and culturally-rooted tasks
posed by literary translation. The majority of tools explicitly mentioned belong once
again to the category of translation technology (i.e., MT, PE, CAT tools), with the
exception of voice recognition and AI. These are perceived as the tools that will play the
most critical role in the future. The two following questions aim at clarifying what aspects
of technology literary translators find appealing or unappealing.
Appealing aspects of technology
Count
Percentage
Research
58
29%
Efficiency
33
16%
Assistance to human
27
13%
Accuracy & Consistency
24
12%
None
23
11%
Networking
14
7%
I don’t know
7
4%
Terminology Management
7
4%
Freedom
4
2%
Everything
4
2%
Total
201
100%
Table 7.25 – Question 28: Appealing aspects of technology (n = 150, a = 201)
Question 28 was a compulsory, open question asking participants to list appealing aspects
of technology as related to literary translation (Table 7.25). The most desirable feature
of technology as indicated by 58 responses is its ability to facilitate research. In particular,
the possibility to access an extensive amount of information rapidly and effortlessly via

134
the internet allows to access archives, consult books for reference, look up terms in online
dictionaries and thesauruses, find previous translations, search for pictures to clarify the
context, communicating with colleagues and native speakers to solve linguistic and
cultural dilemmas, and promoting the literary translation activity itself. Speed,
immediacy and ease of access to information seem to be considerably appreciated. As a
whole, appealing is ‘all of the technology that allows fast information retrieval and fast
working and reworking of texts’, plus ‘anything that allows the breadth and depth of
research needed for a good literary translation to be done from home’, while one
respondent states that ‘enhanced online research methods […] have changed the role of
the literary translator immeasurably’. As another respondent explains, while noting
appealing aspects of technology for literary translation:
If an author references an obscure classical text, I can have it on my screen in seconds. If they
mention a plant species, I can see photos of it in no time. If it’s not clear which species, the whole
of Chinese scholarship is condensed into searchable form in Baidu, to tell me which variants are
found in which geographical areas of China. The sheer speed with which I can research difficult
translation problems.
The topic of speed is also present in the category ‘efficiency’. Technology here is
appealing because it helps saving time by simplifying and speeding up certain aspects of
the job, such as research, typing and quality checking. While in the past ‘each mistake
was costly’, now technology streamlines the process, facilitating the management of
extensive volumes of information, shortening editing time and consistency. Dictation and
voice-recognition tools were mentioned in relation to typing speed, together with tools to
re-utilise parts of texts that have already been translated and autosuggest tools. A general
sense that technology supports a better use of time and that ‘it helps […] get the job done
efficiently’ was registered, whereby ‘translating without tools would be possible, but
slower and not so accurate’. Efficiency in terms of time also contributes to ‘reducing the
time spent doing mechanical tasks’. This observation is mirrored and rephrased in other
responses, where literary translators noted how technology is appealing because ‘it gives
me more time to focus on the creative part of my work’ and it ‘[takes] out the donkey
work, saving solutions to problems you have already solved’. Similarly, another
respondent states that the most appealing aspect of technology is:
The housekeeping aspect. Not having to retype what I have already translated when it re-occurs
is great. The fact that dictation software never misspells a word (though it often chooses the wrong
homophone), and the ability to select spell-checkers and grammar checkers for regional and
national language variants. These all free me to concentrate on the literary aspect of my work, but
allowing more time to do it.

135
This idea is also reprised in the ‘assistance to human’ category where responses were
grouped that describe technology as a means to compensate for certain human limitations
and allow oneself to concentrate on what are felt as the most authentic aspects of literary
translation. TM tools in particular seem to counterbalance the shortcomings of human
memory. In fact, these are ‘useful to remind the translator of previous renderings
(perhaps also the need to avoid them)’. As one respondent observes, ‘an extra, outside
‘memory’ is always helpful’, while another remarks: ‘I am quite forgetful, so this
[Translation Memory] is a big help’. Also related to memory is the enhanced ability to
document the translation process itself. For one respondent, for example, technology
allows to ‘document signed languages’, while another emphasises the gratification of
‘having a searchable record of my decision-making process’. Corpora are also mentioned
as a ‘powerful resource’, in that they help uncovering ‘patterns which close reading alone
can either only subjectively assess or not register at all, e.g., sentence length and
repetition’, while technology’s ‘capacity to see solutions to problems’ is also praised.
Tools that help achieve more focus and a greater degree of organisation by simplifying
the translation process are also welcomed. One respondent observed that an appealing
tool is ‘anything that helps me concentrate on translating instead of having to fiddle
around with complicated systems’, while another states: ‘I’m a very organised person. I
love the idea that technology will make me even more organised’. In addition to corpora
and TM tools, respondents have mentioned Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools,
dictating software and CAT tools as technology that is of assistance to their workflow.
The concept emerging from this category is that of technology as a material support to
the immaterial subjectivity of the literary translator, who is thus enhanced by it. One
respondent feels they are a better translator thanks to ‘the technological resources
available to me (online resources, translation software)’, while another remarks:
I would welcome technology that gave me better quality options that enabled me to make better
quality choices more effectively - quality being judged in my subjective experience of freedom and
self-expression, as reflected in how I achieve my objectives.
In respect to quality, 24 participants find technology desirable owing to the possibility to
achieve improved accuracy and consistency. TM tools were once again frequently
mentioned, together with concordance search tools, in relation to consistency checks. In
particular, TM tools help with recurrent translation issues and easily access previous
rendering of similar passages, facilitating the translator in deciding whether it is the case

136
to avoid or keep repetitions and ‘keep cohesion in terminology in long texts’. Also useful
are concordance searches to keep consistency in ‘characterisation/speech patterns’, with
one respondent noticing how it helps particularly when translating ‘sci-fi/fantasy series’
where consistency in terminology throughout the whole saga is as challenging as it is
paramount. Overall, technology that helps with spelling and grammar checks,
concordance, editing and proofreading is extremely appealing, in that it allows literary
translators to achieve higher quality more efficiently by ‘ensuring harmony and unity’.
Fewer mentions, but worth noticing nonetheless, are reserved for dictation tools, fact-
checking online, the use of translation tools for back translation to check that meaning
was not lost in more complex sentences, and for maintaining records of recurring names
and expressions.
Almost the same number of responses (23) were registered where participants stated no
aspect of technology is appealing to them. Following, are the 14 instances where
respondents acknowledged networking as an asset of technology. Networking is here
mediated mainly – if not solely, by the internet, that allows translators to communicate
with experts, colleagues and native speakers when looking for advice, support, or
collaboration, and in general to ‘check things with a broader audience’. The internet also
allows to ‘communicate directly with your audience and engage in marketing’ and
generally to promote literary translation, with one respondent commenting: ‘I really love
how communal it is’.
Out of 201 total instances, 7 were of respondents who replied ‘I don’t know’ to the
question, while 7 others highlighted the usefulness of building glossaries or using tools
for terminology management. The last two categories count 4 respondents each. In the
first one, freedom was mentioned in relation to being able to work and travel anywhere
or from the comfort of one’s own home, not having to carry around or rely too heavily on
physical materials. The last category comprises respondents who found everything about
technology to be appealing.
Overall, specific mentions of appealing tools included corpora, dictating and voice
recognition software, internet research, TM tools, concordance search, image search,
NLP tools, online dictionaries, word processors, Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
software, annotation tools, automatic suggestion, CAT, and tools for creating and
managing terminology.

137
In conclusion, one of the most appealing aspects of technology as related to literary
translation is the ability to swiftly access a great amount of information via the internet.
This includes online dictionaries and searches to clarify context or consult with experts,
native speakers or colleagues. Technology has also a desirable impact on efficiency, in
that it contributes to reducing time spent on activities such as typing and editing, while
keeping accuracy and consistency intact, if not improving it. It was noted how some
literary translators feel that technology helps them focusing on the more subjective and
‘immaterial’ tasks by handling the more mechanical ones, or ‘the housekeeping aspect’.
It was also observed how some described technology as a support in compensating for
shortcomings such as limitations of the human memory or achieving more focus and a
higher level of organisation, while easing the editing process. Mentions of technology
making the translator better or changing their role ‘immeasurably’ are also present.
Overall, the material support offered by technology to the more immaterial but most
appreciated aspects of literary translation appears to underlie the majority of perceptions
hereby presented. Human imperfections are balanced out by technology, which in turn
allows literary translators more time to dedicate to their creative endeavour. In this view,
technology tools appear able to bring to the fore the most peculiar, personal, subjective
and passionate side of translating literature as highlighted by Question 22.
Unappealing aspects of technology
Count
Percentage
Hindrance to human
41
25%
None
30
18%
Disruption & Loss of autonomy
27
16%
Others’ attitudes
21
12%
Usability & Access
17
10%
Inaccuracy & Inconsistency
9
5%
Everything
8
5%
Inefficiency
7
4%
I don’t know
4
2%
Alienation
4
2%
Unassigned
1
1%
Total
169
100%
Table 7.26 – Question 29: Unappealing aspects of technology (n = 150, a = 169)

138
Question 29 asked participants to list unappealing aspect of technology as related to
literary translation. Out of 169 total responses, 41 pointed to aspects of technology
constituting a hindrance to the human translator. In particular, where TM was seen as an
aid in Question 28, it is now referred to as a cause for ‘standardisation and
systematisation (when literary translation relies deeply on the translator’s
subjectivity/knowledge/background)’. In particular, it would cause memory to grow lazy,
in addition to promoting lack of originality in the text. A fear of ‘being machinist’ or for
the text to ‘become stilted if the CAT or MT is used beyond a first draft or as more than
a memory aid’ is present throughout these answers. This mainly originates from the fact
that the way in which the text is segmented by TM tools is felt to be constraining. In a
similar way, the idea that options presented by these tools could lead to a homogeneity of
outcomes emerges. In this respect, one respondent noticed how the resulting
impoverishment of literature could reflect on culture too, while another remarks: ‘I doubt
we’d agree on a voice’.
Starker comments were made in relation to MT and AI, as they are perceived as an attempt
at replacing translators entirely. Attitudes alternate between fear and scorn. On one hand,
there is the threat of ‘becoming useless and jobless’, and the fright that ‘it [technology]
might do us out of a job someday’. This is rooted in the unappealing ‘possibility that
AI/MT will be given more to do, so cutting out the human’, with automation dictating the
way forward for literary translators and potentially ‘lowering standards and lowering
fees’. On the other hand, there is a feeling that ‘nothing can replace the true soul exposed
on a piece of paper’. A respondent declares: ‘the thought of machine translated literature
makes me shudder - no matter the progress in AI develompment [sic] or similar advances,
I still believe in the poet translating poetry’. The concept of machines speaking another
language as being an unpleasant characteristic of technology is also present. In particular,
one respondent finds unappealing ‘technology that tries to bypass the human
understanding of language and its nuances in order to save costs’, while another focuses
on having to adapt to the language of the tools and the feeling of anxiety that this causes:
‘when I can’t find answers - I stress over this. I want to get past this so I can begin to
reconstruct in my own language’.
The wish for translators to be perceived by outsiders as more than operators of a word-
for-word substitution expressed in Question 24 returns here in different form. The

139
unappealing aspect of technology is not the tools themselves, but the ‘attempts to push
the boundaries of technology within an essentially contemplative profession which
requires an unfashionable degree of isolation and respect for experience’. Other
unappealing aspects that were mentioned related to poor user interface, spending long
hours sitting in front of a screen, and the use of technology seen as a waste of one’s time.
Also mentioned was the risk of normalising translations due to the possibility of receiving
online criticism for one’s work, the loss of importance of minority languages subsequent
to the spread of translation technology tools focusing only on major languages, and the
promotion of ‘asynchronous work at the expenses of live collaboration’.
Out of 169 responses recorded, 30 were of individuals who found nothing unappealing
with technologies. Following, are 27 instances pointing to technology as a source of loss
of autonomy and disruption to the translation process. Freedom is constrained by
‘anything that feels it can do my job for me’. Functions such as TM, autocorrect,
automatic suggestions and word replacement seem to foster repetitions and
standardisation, instilling a fear of technology as a hindrance to the creative process. ‘It
is important for the translator to creatively find and understand the word and context’,
and tools that automate or dictate the process can impede it or be a source of distraction
and loss of focus. The longing for autonomy as a central and appealing trait of the
profession seems to be threatened by technology, with one respondent stating: ‘I don’t
want a machine singing my part of the duet for me’. A respondent finds technology to be
unappealing for its ‘pervasive, ubiquitous, interrupting’ character. This is occasionally
embodied by the text flow being broken up by the way most translation technology tools
segment it, ‘hiding where paragraphs break and making context a little harder to detect’.
Regarding TM tools, someone notices that ‘technology can be misleading sometimes. A
silly mistake in a TM can disseminate freely and infect a long and cared for text’.
As briefly anticipated above, some of the ideas expressed in Question 24 on the wish to
be perceived by outsiders return here in other but similar form. In particular, previously
expressed thoughts on outsiders’ perceptions of literary translation are here transposed
into a technological context. The key point is that, while the general public and the
industry seem to be certain of the ability of machines to carry out translation tasks, literary
translators seriously doubt and reject this hypothesis. In this view, what is unappealing
is

140
not the technology itself, but people’s attitude towards it: the idea that technology will replace
people in literary translation. I don’t believe that can ever happen, but the amount of time I’ve
spent explaining that to people has been exhausting.
The idea of replacement is accompanied by that of translators becoming outdated,
‘leading publishers to think that all they need is a good translation tool and a skilled
editor!’. In this respect, a respondent remarks how the most unappealing aspect of
technology is indeed ‘all the talk by technology buffs who claim that my art/profession
will be obsolete; the glorification of technology and the disdain for the added
knowledge/ability one needs for book translations’. MT in general and Google Translate
in particular receive specific mentions in relation to ‘the general [perception] that Google
Translate or a machine can translate anything as well as a human translator’, and the
‘implicit trust people and companies place in it’. All of the above engenders a fear of
other’s misuse and misunderstanding of technology tools that will cause a worsening of
conditions in the profession. In particular, respondents are worried about shorter
deadlines, higher expectations from publishers and an overall lowering of standards and
fees. Again, the uneasiness is generated not by technology itself, but by the possible
consequences of a third party’s erroneous exploitation of said tools.
Mentions of unappealing user interface return in relation to issues of usability and
accessibility of technology in literary translation. Particularly, respondents reported an
‘interface concern’, while one specifically observed how the currently predominant
mouse-oriented user interface design is far less appealing than a keyboard navigation one.
Other aspects of usability related to long hours spent in front of a computer and ‘obscure
file formats or USB sticks’ used by clients and colleagues. Other concerns were raised in
connection with how accessible software is in terms of costs and learning curve. Some
noticed that ‘it costs money and time to stay up to date with the latest technology’, and
that this can result in the translator struggling, especially for ‘those applications which
require professional help or knowledge’. Others commented on not being acquainted
with the range of options available, while for one respondent ‘everything that’s so
complicated it takes more time and effort than actually translating’ was unappealing.
In the previous question, 24 instances were noted of tools helping with maintaining
accuracy and consistency. In the question at hand, 9 responses indicate the opposite, with
some technology fostering inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Automatic translation,
automated suggestions and TM can be misleading, and errors can easily propagate. The

141
conviction that ‘a machine will never be able to interpret literature in the same way a
human being can’ recurs, reinforced by the idea that ‘less effort means poorer results’.
The subsequent four categories see 8 instances of respondents declaring they find
everything unappealing about technology. A total of 7 responses indicate technology as
a cause of inefficiency. This is mainly because of continuous input and consequent
distraction, the time involved in learning how to use the tool, the extensive amount of
information to deal with and the slowing down of work in case of erroneous suggestions
or low-quality sources of information. Finally, 4 responded ‘I don’t know’, while the
same number of instances pointed to a feeling of alienation in relation to spending too
much time in front of a computer, asynchronous work encouraged by technology instead
of live collaboration and leaving minority languages out of the conversation.
Among the unappealing tools mentioned throughout the answers to Question 29 there are:
client’s platform for taking bids, project management software, MT (Google Translate in
particular), CAT, TM tools, and generally all tools that in the respondents’ eyes aim at
substituting the human translator.
Question 29 allowed to explore unappealing aspects of technology as related to literary
translation and reported by literary translators participating in the questionnaire. The
majority pointed at technology tools being a hindrance to the human translator. In fact,
these can lead to standardisation and systematisation, rendering the translation a
mechanical act where originality is impeded, and the outcome impoverished. MT and AI
are also seen as the epicentre of the threat of translators being replaced by machines. This
is counterbalanced by the conviction that literary translators cannot be entirely replaced,
which constitutes an unappealing aspect of technology, exacerbated by outsiders’
opinions on the matter. These are not shared by literary translators, for whom the idea of
technology translating literature is improbable, if not absurd. Nonetheless, they are upset,
distressed and exhausted by outsiders’ comments on the latest technology, and by the
threat of imposition of such tools by other industry stakeholders, which could result in a
lowering of standards and pay. Furthermore, technology is seen as disruptive to the
translation process and the autonomy of the translator, who has to navigate through a
great deal of information and external directives in the form of automated suggestions or
recycled translations. These can cause inaccuracies and inconsistencies, as well as
inefficiency due to costs of buying and time dedicated to learning how to use the tools.

142
Once again, the focus seems to be almost exclusively on translation-specific technology
and the impact it has on both process and outcome, whereby general technology is
virtually innocuous and tends to be helpful, especially with the more mechanical aspects
of the profession. The following quote, although referring specifically to MT,
summarises the prevailing position of literary translators towards unappealing aspects of
technology:
I refuse to use machine translation (I have been asked to do so in commercial jobs) because it
removes my own individuality and creativity, and I would oppose its introduction in literary
translation. Indeed I am aiming to move more towards literary translation to outrun its
introduction in the commercial translation industry.
Having presented and analysed results for Section Five, the chapter will now delve into
the last part of the questionnaire, consisting of final comments and consent for follow-up
contact.
7.1.6 Final comments and consent for follow-up contact
Before submitting their answers, participants had the opportunity of leaving any final
comments they might have had regarding the questionnaire or its subject matter in
question 30. Out of the 150 respondents, 68 left a comment. This was then followed by
question 31, a Yes/No question asking literary translators for their consent for follow-up
contact during a possible second stage of data collection. More than half of all
respondents agreed to be contacted for follow-up (55%).
Many of the final comments offered further insight into the motivations and feelings of
respondents concerning their participation in this research project. Even if only a few,
some expressed the opinion that research into literary translation and technology is not
needed. For example, one respondent thinks ‘it makes no sense [for anyone with]
experience as a literary translator to even entertain this idea’. What makes such remarks
particularly interesting is the fact that, despite considering this line of research as
superfluous, their authors still went on to complete the questionnaire, offering their
insights on the topic. This suggests that for these respondents, the relationship between
literary translation and technology is indeed worth investigating, even if this need only
manifests for them on a subconscious level, while on the surface they are prompted to
reject this relationship. Another reason for this might be the need to talk about the
profession, regardless of the context in which this happens. Also interesting is the fact

143
that technology is being perceived as the predominant subject of the questionnaire instead
of its relationship to literary translation.
Many other commenters said they were interested in the topic and in knowing the findings
of the questionnaire, deeming it important to talk about it and be given the opportunity to
share their narratives. In particular, one respondent found it ‘very enriching to discuss
about [the] profession’.
For other respondents, question 30 became a place to further reflect on the use of
technology in literary translation. One respondent in particular praises online dictionaries
and forums as ‘the most valuable technological advance since [starting out]’, together
with the Internet as a research tool and word processing, which ‘revolutionised writing’.
At the same time, they admit not feeling ‘[disadvantaged] by not using translation
technology’, but also ‘not knowing enough about how they might make [someone] more
efficient in [their] work’. Another respondent reflects on coming to literary translation
via commercial translation, wondering if their ‘answers are skewed by not really seeing
a distinction between the two’, and they add: ‘I would guess that this means I use
technology in literary translation more than translators who do not come from a
background in commercial translation’. One participant wonders whether the same
questions about technology are posed to writers, adding that ‘the idea of using technology
to create what is basically a human presence – a voice – is quite odd, whether in writing
or translating. It’s like asking a robot to create a person’. In this respect, another
respondent hopes ‘the human soul will not go digital in its entirety’. Finally, one person
reflects on the fact that there are many sub-categories to literary translation, and tools
such as TMs could indeed ‘be more helpful in translating certain types of texts in certain
language pairs’, than just be applied indiscriminately to literary translation as a whole.
Lastly, some comments critiqued certain aspects of the questionnaire. In particular, some
highlighted the lack of definitions for the terms ‘literary translation’ and ‘technology’.
Especially regarding the latter, one respondent states it ‘might be wiser to discuss the
relation to specific forms of technology rather than the abstract idea of it’. As specified
in Section 5.2.3, this concept was intentionally left without an explicit definition to allow
participants to assign their own meanings to it, giving them space to elaborate on their
definition of technology in the questionnaire. Other criticism related to the topic itself,
with one respondent noting how ‘focus seems very much on technology, rather than

144
creative practice’, and another one urging to ‘start thinking about translation instead of
its tools’. In this regard, one participant wonders ‘why not ask about remuneration, trade
unions, exploitative clients? As if they didn’t exist and never impinged in translators’
livelihoods’. As the research topic was clearly stated both in the questionnaire title,
description and participants recruitment posts/emails, these beliefs could be considered
as an extension of these respondents’ attitudes towards technology, whereby according to
them it has no place in literary translation, nor is it a topical enough issue to be worth of
research.
Overall, all comments provided a useful opportunity for growth and reflection in terms
of research practice. Regardless of the nature of comments, answers to Question 30
highlighted that such conversations around literary translation and its future in relation to
technology are deeply felt as necessary. In fact, although some raised doubts about the
usefulness of investigating this topic, they all completed the questionnaire and had
something to say about the relationship between technology and literary translation, while
many were openly thankful for the opportunity to share their views of the profession.
Finally, looking at comments proved an enriching experience that informed data analysis
and allowed to take advantage of a variety of different perspectives on both the topic and
the questionnaire structure. Furthermore, it highlighted how this topic can have political
valence in the literary translation profession, thus reinforcing the idea underlying this
research project that having a discussion around these issues is indeed useful and
necessary. Opposite viewpoints on the need for such a study complemented the
ambivalent attitudes which emerged from the questionnaire in relation to literary
translation and technology. Ultimately, they reflected the complex reality of being a
literary translator in times of profound societal and professional change.
7.2 Cross-referenced data
The sections above have provided a question-by-question outline of questionnaire results
and their analysis. Data presented and observations made will now be complemented by
the presentation and analysis of cross-referenced data. In particular, the current section
will first establish the profile of the average respondent as emerging from previous
analysis. It will then relate this to different data subsets, and different subsets to each
other. The aim is to answer some of the questions raised during prior analysis and to
further uncover respondents’ narratives via establishing links between results. This

145
section and the previous one will form the basis for an informed discussion of the
questionnaire data analysis that is to conclude this chapter (Section 7.3).
Half of respondents belong to the 36-55 age range, with almost three-fourths working in
Europe, the majority being based in the UK and 47% indicating English as their first
language. Overall, 63% hold an academic qualification in translation, but only 20% has
received translation technology training as part of said qualification. Of all respondents,
25% received translation technology training outside of an academic degree. A total of
65% are members of a translation association, and 88% of an online community. As far
as employment status is concerned, 58% work part-time (versus 27% full-time), and 87%
are freelancers, with almost half of respondents (43%) working for publishers and editors.
Half of respondents are split between having 1-5 years of experience (27%) and over 20
years of experience (26%). When asked about confidence with general technology, 43%
stated they were confident and 35% extremely confident with general technology, but
only 22% felt confident when using translation-specific technology, with the highest
percentage pointing to 25% of respondents not feeling confident at all. Online
dictionaries top the list of general technology tools used by participants in both their
literary and non-literary translation activities, with 32% and 27% of instances
respectively. Slightly more than 70% do not use translation technology in their literary
translation activity, versus 51% in non-literary translation. Similarly, the number of
respondents using CAT tools decreased from 36% in non-literary translation to 25% in
literary translation. When asked about the essential traits of their profession, literary
translators’ list was topped by good writing skills, creativity and passion, with 73%
believing outsiders do not perceive them the same way. Half of these stated that outsiders
are unappreciative or unaware of what it means to be a literary translator, and 43% wished
they could show appreciation and awareness. As far as technology is concerned, 49%
felt positive about the relationship between literary translation and technology, although
when asked specifically about the role of technology in literary translation, 24% found it
helpful, while the same number showed ambivalent attitudes, with 15 respondents stating
it is less or not helpful for literary translation, and 13% reporting no relationship at all
between the two. Participants were also asked about the future of said relationship, with
34% saying that it will not change in the future, 29% saying it will, and the remaining
37% being not sure. Finally, the most appealing aspects of technology recorded related
to helping with research, efficiency, assistance to human, accuracy and consistency, and
networking. Oppositely, technology was perceived to be unappealing when it constituted

146
a hindrance to the human, when it disrupted the translation process or signified a loss of
autonomy for the translator, or in relation to other people’s opinions about it and issues
of usability and access. Having summarised major trends found in the data set, it is now
time to proceed towards a more complex analysis of the correlations that emerged among
relevant data subsets in relation to perceptions of role, attitudes towards technology, and
the relationship between the two.
7.2.1 Perceptions of role
The present section aims at having an in-depth look into respondents’ perceptions of role
as related to other factors, namely age, educational background and professional status.
This is to broaden the relevant context and further inform the discussion and answering
of this thesis’ research questions. The analysis hereby presented will be based on notions
inferred from the questionnaire data, and particularly by perceptions of role as described
by answers to Question 22 on literary translators’ essential traits, Question 23 on
outsiders’ perceptions of the literary translation profession and Question 24 on literary
translators’ wishes to be perceived by outsiders.
7.2.1.1 Role and age
This section will look at the interplay between role and age. In particular, it will show
how age relates to essential traits (7.2.1.1.1), outsiders’ perceptions (7.2.1.1.2) and
respondents’ wish to be perceived by outsiders (7.2.1.1.3).
7.2.1.1.1 Age and essential traits
Data from Question 1 on respondents’ age was firstly cross-referenced with data from
Question 22, with a particular focus on the four main essential traits as mentioned by
respondents, i.e., ‘Writing Skills’, ‘Creativity’, ‘Passion’ and ‘Subjectivity’ (Table 7.19).
First of all, the 18-25 age group is the only one in which creativity, writing skills, and
subjectivity are never mentioned. Instead, the majority focuses on the literary translator
as a bearer of culture (22%) and as having to be as faithful to the source text and as
accurate as possible (22%). For the 26-35 age group, writing skills (17%) and creativity
(10%) are central to being a literary translator. Being moved by passion, assuming the

147
role of bearer of culture, reproducing the same effects of the source text and being clearly
distinct from non-literary translation are all also prominent in the 26-35 group, each
accounting for 8% of the whole age category make-up. Creativity is the most important
trait for those aged 36-45 (13%), closely followed by writing skills (12%), passion (10%)
and subjectivity (9%). The 46-55 register a high level of respondents in the writing skills
(14%) and creativity (13%) categories, with 6% each in subjectivity, freedom and cultural
knowledge categories. This age group also shows the lowest percentage overall for
passion (4%). Moving on to the 56-65 bracket, again the highest percentage is registered
for writing skills (18%); this is also the highest percentage for this category across all age
groups. ‘Creativity’, ‘Cultural knowledge’, and ‘Relationship with author’ follow with
9% each, while passion registers the second lowest value after the 46-55 category with
only 8% of respondents indicating it as an essential trait. Finally, the Over 65s are the
only category in which passion is valued above all else with 16% of this age group
mentioning it. This is closely followed by writing skills with 14%. Creativity, cultural
bearing and language skills all come next accounting each for 8% of participants over 65
years old.
In summary, writing skills are the most essential trait across all categories in virtually the
same way, the only exception being the 18-25. Interestingly, the ones who mention
passion the most are at the antipodes of the age ranges, them being the Over 65 with 16%
and the 18-25 group with 11% of instances in their age group. In this respect, while no
significant differences were found among different age brackets for each essential trait
category, those aged 18-25 showed that the youngest respondents associate being a
literary translator with the categories ‘Cultural bearing’, ‘Relationship to source text’,
‘Cultural knowledge’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Language skills’ and ‘Comparison with non-literary
translation’ more than all other age groups. Similarly, another striking difference related
to age is the low rates of respondents indicating passion as an essential trait in those aged
46-55 (4%) and 56-65 (8%), despite this being the third category overall and registering
high percentages across all age brackets. Results show that passion is indeed a constant
across all ages, however it tends to drop in respondents aged 46+ only to slowly resurface
around those aged 55+ and peak in respondents over 65. This suggests passion is valued
the most among the youngest and the oldest translators, tending to be increasingly
revalued later in one’s career as a literary translator. Most essential traits are largely
consistent among all groups, and age surfaces as a discerning factor only in the youngest
respondents aged 18-25. In this respect, it is worth noting how the 18-25 age group also

148
had the lowest number of respondents in total (4%), which decreases their chances of
mentioning a more varied set of essential factors. Subjectivity is also an area which does
not concern 18-25s, while it is a constant in all older age groups, peaking in the 36-45s
(9%) and Over 65s (10%).
Ultimately, what emerges overall is the similarity of answers across all age ranges: all
literary translators agreed on a harmonious description of their professional persona.
Their sense of identity surfaces clearly and sharply regardless of age.
7.2.1.1.2 Age and outsiders’ perceptions
Answers to Question 23 offered an overall coherent picture of the way literary translators
feel they are being perceived by outsiders. It should be recalled that 8% think outsiders’
and literary translators’ points of view coincide (‘Yes’), 19% are not sure (‘Not Sure’)
and 73% agree outsiders unquestionably see the literary translation profession differently
(‘No’). Having noted that, there were slightly sharper age-related differences than with
the previous question. Notably, 17% of the 18-25s and 14% of the 26-35s answered
‘Yes’, while values decreased in older age groups to 10% for the 46-55s, 7% for the 56-
65s, 5% for the Over 65s, and 3% for the 36-45s. The 26-35 and 36-45 age ranges register
the highest uncertainty, with 27% and 29% of ‘Not Sure’ answers respectively, while the
18-25s are the only ones to register no uncertainty at all. For 83% of them, it is clear
outsiders and literary translators hold a different view of the latter’s profession.
Percentages of ‘No’ answers were similar for the 46-55 (81%), 56-65 (78%) and Over 65
(74%) age groups. A considerable variation in this trend can be observed for the 26-35
and 36-45 categories, of which 59% and 68% respectively answered ‘No’, compensating
for the high levels of uncertainty observed.
Generally, the three oldest age groups (46+) show relatively consistent results for all three
answers, with low levels of uncertainty, high figures for ‘No’ and low percentages for
‘Yes’. The age group that most resembles this pattern is the youngest, 18-25, which is
markedly divided between ‘Yes’ (17%) and ‘No’ (83%), displaying no signs of
uncertainty whatsoever. Conversely, the two remaining age brackets on the younger side
of the spectrum, 26-35 and 36-45, reveal similar values for the ‘Not Sure’ and ‘No’
answers. As seen in the previous paragraph on essential traits and age, the youngest

149
respondents share more insight with those belonging to the oldest age groups than the
middle age-ranges.
7.2.1.1.3 Age and wish to be perceived
Finally, answers to Question 24 were cross-referenced with respondents’ age, with an eye
to uncovering potential relations between age and the wish to be perceived by outsiders.
The only group to show a more peculiar pattern is the 46-55 one. In fact, they seemed to
be more concerned with visibility (16%), while those aged 18-25 and 26-35 never
mention it, and all other age groups show percentages between 5-6%. The 46-55s are
also the only group where the majority is concerned with being perceived as having a
high status (41%) instead of being shown awareness and appreciation from outsiders
(36%) like the other age groups. In fact, the ‘Awareness/Appreciation’ category is where
all age groups except 46-55 are concentrated, from a minimum of 33% in the 18-25s to a
maximum of 50% in the Over 65s. The 26-35, 36-45, and 56-65 age brackets oscillate
between 45-47%. The Over 65s are the only group where no one is concerned with
educating the public, with the 18-25s at the opposite end with 33%, virtually double the
15%, 11% and 16% of the 26-35, 36-45 and 56-65 groups. A very low percentage of 56-
65s (9%) is concerned with high status, which in turns constitutes 17% of those aged 18-
25, 25% of the 26-35s, 32% of the 36-45s, 41% of the 46-55s and 33% of the Over 65s.
The cross-reference data hereby presented provides an indication of what is valued more
by which group. However, it does not allow to draw significant conclusions in terms of
age. In actual fact, only isolated cases drift from certain patterns. In particular, the 46-
55s stand out for prioritising high status above all else and being particularly concerned
with visibility. Once again, although quantities might slightly differ from one category
to the next, answers are qualitatively similar, and, when taken together, they promote the
same version of facts, creating the impression of an established, well-formed, coherent
sense of self which is irrespective of age.
7.2.1.2 Role and educational background
A similar analysis was performed on the intersection between respondents’ perceptions
of role (questions 22, 23, and 24) and their educational background, namely using results

150
from Question 3 on academic qualifications in translation. The following sub-sections
will deal with the relation between type of degree and essential traits (7.2.1.2.1),
outsiders’ perceptions (7.2.1.2.2), and participants’ wish to be perceived by outsiders
(7.2.1.2.3).
7.2.1.2.1 Type of degree and essential traits
To start with, results are consistent for all types of translation degrees as far as essential
traits are concerned. ‘Writing skills’ is confirmed here as the most mentioned category
for all five answers to Question 3 (‘None’, ‘Undergraduate’, ‘Master’s’, ‘PhD’, and
‘Other’). Respondents holding a PhD focus more than anyone else on ‘Creativity’ and
‘Writing skills’ (17% respectively). No one in the group mentions passion, and
subjectivity is at 3%. For people with no academic degree in translation, ‘Writing skills’
top the list with 16%, followed by ‘Passion’ with 13% – which is also the highest value
across all respondents, and subjectivity with 11%. Those with an undergraduate degree
prioritise the same traits: 16% writing skills, 10% subjectivity, 10% passion. For those
with a Master’s, values for subjectivity are halved to 5%, while creativity is more
prominent with 10%, and passion is represented by 9% of instances in the whole group.
Generally, those with no degree value passion more than those with an academic
qualification in translation. This being said, they share the same views of participants
with an undergraduate degree in terms of essential traits, whereby they both prioritise
writings skills, passion and subjectivity in practically equal measure. Those with a
postgraduate degree appeared to value creativity more than others. Nonetheless, all
participants agree on ‘Writing skills’ being the most defining trait for a literary translator.
7.2.1.2.2 Type of degree and outsiders’ perceptions
When looking at Question 23, all respondents agree 50-53% on outsiders being unaware
or unappreciative of their profession, with the only exception being those with an
undergraduate degree (39%). In fact, a majority of graduate literary translators are
particularly concerned with the ideas of educated people (22%) and the general public
(17%) having different perceptions of literary translation, and with the concept of the
invisibility of the translator (13%). Only 4% build their discourse around the idea of
being perceived as a high-status professional by outsiders. This topic is instead more

151
present in those without an academic qualification in translation (16%) and those with a
Master’s degree (10%). Those who completed a PhD did not mention high status at all,
referring to the notion of literary translation as a perceived low status profession instead
(11%). This concept is reprised by respondents from all educational backgrounds: 4% of
graduates, 7% in the Master’s category and 9% of those without a degree in translation.
22% of those with a PhD think the general public misunderstands their literary translation
activity, followed by graduates (17%), those with a Master’s (10%), and 3% of the people
with no academic qualifications in translation.
Overall, when answering Question 23 on whether they thought outsiders perceived the
literary translation profession in a different way, respondents with no degrees in
translation showed the highest levels of uncertainty (30% answered ‘Not Sure’), and the
lowest percentage of ‘No’ answers (59%) among all groups. Uncertainty among people
with academic qualification in translation remained between 15-19%, while those
thinking there is a clear distinction in perceptions between literary translators and
outsiders are 67% of graduates, 75% of Master’s graduates and 77% of PhD graduates.
To summarise, results show the higher the academic degree in translation, the more
respondents feel misunderstood by outsiders. The cross-referenced data presented above
has highlighted an interesting opposition between those with a PhD and those with no
academic qualifications. In fact, while the former proportionally focus more than any
other group on literary translation perceived as a low status profession, the latter do
exactly the opposite, presenting the highest concentration of answers pointing to outsiders
perceiving literary translation as a high-status profession instead. The origins of this trend
are not clear. This being said, the lack of academic degrees in translation can be linked
to more uncertain but also more positive opinions regarding outsiders’ perceptions.
Oppositely, those with a doctorate present a more disillusioned attitude and a higher
degree of certainty in regard to how outsiders perceive their profession.
7.2.1.2.3 Type of degree and wish to be perceived
All different educational backgrounds also agreed as far as Question 24 on the wish to be
perceived by outsiders was concerned. The majority wished outsiders developed more
awareness of the profession, with percentages ranging 40-47%, and that literary
translation could be perceived as a high-status profession by 25-36% across all groups.

152
Overall, results are consistent across all educational backgrounds as far as perceptions of
role are concerned. In particular, all respondents agree on writing skills being essential
for literary translators. This being said, those with postgraduate degrees seem to
appreciate creativity more than passion and subjectivity, which are qualities mentioned
more by those without an academic qualification in translation or with an undergraduate
translation degree. When discussing outsiders’ perceptions of their profession, literary
translators agree on their lack of awareness and appreciation. Graduates place
considerable emphasis on issues of invisibility, and on the differing opinions of the
general public and educated people. The notion of literary translation as a low status
profession is reprised by all respondents irrespective of their educational background, and
so is the view that the general public is not interested in the profession. All educational
background categories also share the same wish for outsiders to develop more awareness
of literary translation and for it to achieve a higher professional status.
7.2.1.3 Role and professional status
An analysis of results will now be provided to account for the relationship between
respondents’ perceptions of role and their professional status. In particular, Questions
22, 23, and 24 will be cross-referenced with results from Question 11 on type of
translation activity (full-time or part-time), Question 12 on employment status (freelance
or in-house), and Question 14 on self-defined status (professional, volunteer, amateur, or
trainee).
7.2.1.3.1 Type of translation activity and essential traits
To begin with, it is worth recalling that 58% of participants work part-time, while 27%
are full-time literary translators. When linking age and essential traits, a few differences
between part-time and full-time literary translators start to emerge. While values for
‘Writing Skills’ and ‘Creativity’ are similar for both full-time and part-time respondents
(14% and 11% respectively), the same cannot be said for ‘Passion’ and ‘Subjectivity’. In
fact, passion appears almost double the times for part-time literary translators (10%) than
for full-time ones (6%), pointing to the fact that for those who practise translation part-
time, passion assumes an even more central role. The opposite is the case for subjectivity,
which appears slightly more than twice as many times for full-time literary translators

153
(11%) than for part-time (5%) ones. Pay is also mentioned more in the full-time literary
translators’ discourse (5%) than in that of part-time participants (1%). More valued to
part-time literary translators are ‘Language Skills’ (6%) and ‘Cultural Knowledge’ (7%)
which account, respectively, for 2% and 1% of their full-time counterpart.
In summary, the part-time discourse centres more on passion, language skills, and cultural
knowledge, whereas their full-time counterparts focus more on discussing freedom as
related to the target text, and issues of pay. Both types of literary translators agree on all
other essential traits, making the link between the differences identified and respondents’
part-time or full-time status even more direct.
7.2.1.3.2 Type of translation activity and outsiders’ perceptions
As far as outsiders’ perceptions are concerned (Question 23), only 2% of full-time literary
translators think they share the same conception of their profession with outsiders, against
10% of part-time literary translators. In line with this, levels of uncertainty diminish by
one third for those who work full-time (14% versus 21% of part-time respondents). Those
who stated that outsiders perceive literary translation in a different way than professionals
are 83% of full-time and 69% of part-time respondents.
The interrelation of the two subsets shows how full-time literary translators have a firmer
stance regarding outsiders’ misunderstanding of the profession. Nevertheless, both full-
time and part-time participants contribute almost in equal parts (52% and 50%
respectively) to the first of the seven categories previously identified (Table 7.20), where
outsiders are depicted as unaware and unappreciative of the literary translation profession.
In this regard, it is worth noting how all categories of outsiders’ perceptions appear in
similar proportions in both groups, with the only exceptions being ‘Invisibility’ and
‘Perceived low status’. The former is mentioned 3% in full-time literary translators
versus 8% in answers from part-time literary translators. Likewise, instances of perceived
low status are slightly lower in full-time respondents (5%) when compared to their part-
time counterpart (9%). The value is similar to the latter when looking at ‘Perceived high
status’ for part-time translators (8%), while it doubles for full-time respondents (10%).
Results show full-time literary translators enjoying a higher status among outsiders – or
at least they perceive themselves to be highly regarded more than their part-time

154
counterparts do. This is in line with data from the earlier cross-examination of Question
22 and Question 11, where full-time translators appeared to focus significantly more on
issues of low pay and on the relevance of subjectivity than their part-time colleagues,
who, in turn, place more emphasis on passion and cultural knowledge and what
distinguishes literary translation from all other types of translation. For full-time
translators, sustained by the perception of maintaining a higher status in society, these
qualities recede into the background. On the contrary, part-time translators’ discourse
relies more on asserting the unique mix of knowledge and skills a literary translator must
have, in an attempt to affirm their status and position in society, which in their perception
is not adequately recognised by outsiders.
7.2.1.3.3 Type of translation activity and wish to be perceived
The position just outlined above is partly supported by results from Question 24 on how
respondents wished to be perceived by outsiders. Here, 13% of part-time translators focus
on the wish that the general public would educate itself, read more and do more research
about the task of translation and what it entails, against 8% of full-time literary translators.
Percentages are also slightly higher for part-time respondents concerning the wish to be
perceived as higher-status professionals, which accounts for 32% of all part-time
translators’ answers and 26% of full-time translators. This being said, both full-time and
part-time translators wish outsiders would generally show more awareness (48% and 40%
respectively).
7.2.1.3.4 Employment status and essential traits
Participants’ perceptions of role were also cross-referenced with Question 12, in order to
establish any links between how literary translators construct the discourse around their
own profession and whether they work freelance or in-house. It is useful to recall that
out of all 150 respondents, 88% were freelancers, while 5% worked in-house and 7%
defined their status as ‘Other’ (Figure 7.6).
In proportion, in-house translators mentioned the topic of isolation as related to their
literary translation profession (11%) significantly more than their freelance colleagues
(1%). This being said, in-house translators did so either in neutral terms or to say that
isolation is increasingly less, as ‘today any project involves a team’. Conversely,

155
although freelancers refer to isolation less than other essential traits, they do so in relation
to solitude as being intrinsic to the job itself. Only one freelancer states: ‘I never see
myself as working ‘solo’ as I do (at times) in many other aspects of my professional life’,
referring to working with native speakers when translating out of their native language.
Similarly, in-house translators are more focused on hermeneutics (11% against 3% for
freelancers) and pragmatism (5% against 2% for freelancers), and less on creativity (5%
against 11% for freelancers). Where the same essential traits were mentioned by both in-
house and freelancers, these appeared in similar proportions for both. There were
instances of essential traits only being mentioned by freelancers: these have not been
included in the analysis as the extremely small number of total in-house respondents (8)
when compared to freelancers (131) would justify a wider range of responses from the
latter.
Results from the interrelation of Question 22 and Question 12 hint at certain differences
in the way freelance and in-house literary translators prioritise the essential traits of their
profession. Notably, in-house translators feel less isolated than their freelancing
colleagues. Concurrently, freelancers put more emphasis on creativity, while for in-house
translators having pragmatic and hermeneutic skills is more important. No other trends
were found pointing towards the two groups perceiving their role in a significantly
different manner.
7.2.1.3.5 Employment status and outsiders’ perceptions
No significant trends emerged when analysing Question 23 as related to Question 12,
whereby both freelancers and in-house literary translators present similar views on
outsiders’ perceptions of their role. Indeed, 75% of both freelancers and in-house
translators think outsiders definitely hold a different view of their profession than them
(‘No’), 19% of freelancers and 25% of in-house declared their uncertainty on the matter
(‘Not sure’), while 6% of freelancers and none of in-house translators believe outsiders
and literary translators see the profession in the same way (‘Yes’). Regarding the ‘Yes’
percentages just mentioned, it is worth recalling that the number of respondents was
significantly lower in the case of in-house translators, making the low number of ‘Yes’
responses understandable in terms of proportions.

156
7.2.1.3.6 Employment status and wish to be perceived
More noticeable differences were observed between in-house and freelance literary
translators when analysing Question 12 and Question 24 in connection to each other.
More specifically, in-house translators put equal emphasis on wishing the general public
were more appreciative of the literary translation profession and educated itself more
about it (43% for both categories), while they make no mention of the wish to be more
visible or achieve a higher professional status, which can be a reflection of a more stable
working position. On the contrary, while the value for the category of appreciation is
only one percentage point lower for freelancers (42%), they place greater focus on the
wish to be perceived as a high-status professional by outsiders, with 30% of instances
devoted to this category. The issue of visibility is also present here, albeit represented by
only 9% of responses. The same value is reserved for the category ‘Educating the public’,
which instead was the first-ranking category for in-house translators (43%), together with
‘Awareness/Appreciation’. Percentages for ‘I don’t care’ are similar, 11% and 14% for
freelancers and in-house, respectively.
Both freelancers and in-house literary translators wish outsiders would be more
appreciative of the profession. Nevertheless, in-house translators are more preoccupied
with wishing the public were more educated on the matter than with visibility or high
status, which is one of the major points raised by freelancers. This shows that, although
literary translators perceive their profession as underappreciated, issues of visibility and
status have a stronger impact on freelancers as a professional group, which, in turn, are
the substantial majority of the sample. In fact, whereby in-house translators enjoy a more
stable position, issues of status are not as prominent in their discourse.
7.2.1.3.7 Self-defined professional status and essential traits
Question 22 was analysed in conjunction with Question 14, as to uncover potential
patterns in terms of connections between respondents’ narratives of their role and the
professional title they attribute to themselves. In fact, Question 14 allowed participants
to self-define their professional status by choosing between the following: ‘Professional’,
‘Volunteer’, ‘Amateur’, ‘Trainee’, or ‘Other’. The vast majority of respondents identified
as professional literary translators (79%), while the rest self-defined as amateurs (8%),
other (6%), volunteers (5%), and trainees (2%).

157
Trainees registered the lowest number of responses, which were all distributed among the
essential traits’ categories of ‘Cultural bearing’, ‘Creativity’, and ‘Writing Skills’, with
33% each. This is also the highest number of instances for the category ‘Creativity’
across all answers; amateurs followed with 22%, volunteers with 14% and professionals
with 10%. Professional literary translators also mentioned the widest variety of traits,
thus partly justifying the lower percentage for this category. In fact, they were the only
ones to refer to freedom, pay, pragmatism, reading skills, relationship with the source text
and the sense of responsibility coming with the task of translation. Amateurs placed the
most emphasis on creativity, writing skills and cultural knowledge, while volunteers
stress the comparison between literary and non-literary translation in the greatest
proportion (21% against the professionals’ 3%, who were also the only other group to
mention this). With 119 respondents out of 150, professionals offer a more in-depth
insight into the peculiarities of being a literary translator. However, this results in a
dilution of mentions across all essential traits categories, explaining the lower percentages
in some of the instances mentioned above. Having said that, it is still possible to gain a
clear sense of what traits each group considers the most defining.
Ultimately, the figure of the trainee emerges as the most idealistic, seeing literary
translators as bearers of culture and creativity as a fundamental characteristic, but
anchoring this view in having excellent writing skills. Amateurs are also found valuing
creativity (22%) and cultural knowledge (13%), also being the only ones apart from
professionals to mention hermeneutics (4%) and passion (9%). Interestingly, volunteers
are the ones focusing more on distinguishing literary from non-literary translation (21%).
This category is then followed by creativity and learning with 14% each, both plausible
sources of motivation for someone whose literary translation activity is voluntary.
Finally, professionals concentrate mainly on writing skills (14%), creativity (10%), and
passion (9%) with all other categories oscillating between 1% and 7%. Creativity is
greatly valued by all groups, irrespective of the way they define their literary translation
activity, and the same is true for writing skills. These two categories form the common
ground for all literary translators.

158
7.2.1.3.8 Self-defined professional status and outsiders’ perceptions
A similar trend to the one seen above can be observed in relation to Question 23, where
the common ground is in the unawareness and unappreciative attitudes of outsiders. In
fact, this constitutes the totality of instances related to trainees. Volunteers position
themselves 67% in the ‘Unaware/Unappreciative’ category, and 17% in the ‘General
Public’s Opinions’ and ‘Educated People’s Opinions’ categories. Amateurs and
Professionals present once again some similarities, in that they are the only ones
spreading across all categories identified. It is worth noticing how the second most
mentioned category for amateurs is that of ‘Perceived low status’ (17%). This is
interesting mainly because they were defined in the questionnaire as people for whom
translation was not their main occupation, and thus could be considered an in-between
category, with one foot in and the other outside the literary translation world, offering an
insider perspective concurrently informed by an outsider perception. For professionals,
instead, 51% of instances belong to the unaware/unappreciative category, followed by
11% ‘General Public’s Opinions’, 10% ‘Perceived high status’, and 9% ‘Educated
People’s Opinions’. This is in line with overall results of the questionnaire.
7.2.1.3.9 Self-defined professional status and wish to be perceived
The observations made above are further confirmed by the analysis of Question 24 on the
wish to be perceived by outsiders. In fact, the majority wishes for increased outsiders’
awareness for all groups except volunteers, who wish the public would educate itself
instead. Amateurs are 31% concerned with literary translators being perceived as a high-
status profession, which is in line with their perceived low status highlighted for the
previous question. Once again, professionals and amateurs share similar views, in that
28% of professionals wish literary translation could be seen as a high-status profession.
Overall, professionals offer the most all-around and detailed picture of the profession,
with amateurs being the group sharing the most similarities with them. These constitute
an interesting case due to their in-between position, in that they are practising translators
but have a main occupation outside of the world of translation. Although they defined
themselves as such, they virtually share their sense of identity with professional literary
translators. Their self-assigned subordinate position only transpires from their efforts to
distinguish literary from non-literary translation.

159
Having established that the majority of respondents are freelance and part-time, and
having defined amateur translators as individuals for whom literary translation is not their
main activity, the qualitative similarity of professionals and amateurs becomes even more
apparent: literary translators’ perceived identity reaches beyond professional status to
encompass a larger sense of who a literary translator is.
7.2.1.4 Summary of perceptions of role
This section has provided a discussion of respondents’ perceptions of role as related to
age, educational background and professional status. Perceptions of role included literary
translators’ definition of their own role, their views on outsiders’ perceptions of it and
how they wished to be perceived by outsiders instead.
To begin with, age does not seem to affect literary translators’ definitions of their role,
with participants from all age brackets offering a coherent picture of the profession’s
essential traits. This being noted, age did play a more central role as far as outsiders’
perceptions are concerned. In fact, those aged 46+ displayed higher levels of certainty
regarding the fact that outsiders do not perceive literary translation the same way as they
do. These were only matched by 18-25s, while the other respondents offered more
uncertain views on the matter. However, no significant insight can be inferred in relation
to age affecting perceptions of role. On the contrary, respondents provide an overall
unique and coherent image of the profession without any meaningful differences in terms
of age.
For educational background too, all participants agree on the main essential traits, with
only minor differences being identified with respect to other categories. Participants with
a degree in translation show lower levels of uncertainty in relation to outsiders’
perceptions than people with no academic qualifications, although they all agree on how
they wished outsiders perceived them.
Slightly more differences emerged in relation to professional status. In particular, full-
time literary translators perceived the profession as more highly regarded than their part-
time colleagues. This informs different discourses for both parties, whereby full-time
respondents concentrate more on issues of pay and subjectivity, while part-timers focus

160
on passion, language skills and cultural knowledge, in what appears as a stronger need to
affirm their status. This is further validated by their greater desire to be perceived as high-
status professionals when compared to full-time participants. As far as freelancers and
in-house translators are concerned, the former are more preoccupied with issues of
visibility and high status than their colleagues. They both share the same views on
essential traits of the profession and the wish that outsiders would develop more
awareness of it in order to appreciate it more. Self-defined professional translators offer
the most complete image of the literary translation activity, sharing some perceptions and
opinions with amateurs. While trainees have a more idealised view of the profession,
volunteers focus mainly on learning, creativity, and the difference between literary and
non-literary translation. Writing skills and creativity unite all groups, and so does the
perception that outsiders are unappreciative of the effort literary translation entails.
Having provided a further analysis of perceptions of role in relation to age, educational
background and professional status, the chapter will now proceed with the analysis of
respondents’ attitudes towards technology as informed by their answers to the
questionnaire.
7.2.2 Attitudes towards technology
The present section will deal with respondents’ attitudes towards technology as related to
age, educational background, professional status, technology training and confidence
with technology. In particular, the analysis and discussion will be based on Question 25
on the relationship between literary translation’s essential traits and technology, Question
26 on how respondents feel about this relationship, Question 27 on the future of said
relationship, and Questions 16 and 19 on confidence with general and translation-specific
technology. Furthermore, the relationship between levels of confidence with technology
and literary translators’ attitudes towards technology will be presented and analysed.
7.2.2.1 Attitudes towards technology and age
This section will focus on the relationship between participants’ age and questions 25,
26, 27, 16 and 19, with each being the subject of one of the following five sub-sections.

161
7.2.2.1.1 Age and essential traits-technology relationship
First of all, participants’ age has been analysed in terms of the relationship between
technology and how they defined their role. Answers to Question 25 formed the basis for
the analysis and discussion that follows. At this stage, it is worth recalling that 24% of
all respondents were found to be ambivalent towards the relationship between the
essential traits they attributed to the literary translation profession and technologies
(Table 7.22). The same amount of responses pointed to technologies being helpful for
literary translators, followed by 15% thinking they were less or not helpful for literary
translation and 13% stating there is no relationship whatsoever between the two.
The 18-25 age group is the one with the most clearly positive outlook on the interplay
between technology and literary translation. In fact, 50% thought technology to be
helpful, while the rest described the relationship between the two as harmonious (25%)
and necessary (25%). Accounts for other age brackets are slightly more varied. Most of
those aged 26-35 show ambivalent attitudes (38%), while the rest is divided between
technology being helpful (21%), and less or not helpful at all (17%). The 36-45s also
focus on the same three areas, with the largest percentage thinking technology is helpful
(28%), closely followed by ambivalent positions (25%), while 13% think it is less or not
helpful at all for literary translation. The same three categories also contribute to most of
the 46-55 age bracket’s discourse. In particular, 27% present ambivalent attitudes, 23%
find it helpful, 11% less or not helpful at all, while 14% believe there is no relationship
whatsoever between literary translation and technology. This belief grows to 23% for
those aged 56-65, followed by 20% believing technology is less or not helpful, 13%
finding it helpful, and another 13% thinking the relationship is there, but is minimal.
Finally, 30% of those Over 65 think technology is helpful, 25% have ambivalent opinions,
20% find it less or not helpful, and 15% believe there is no relationship at all.
Interestingly, the ‘No Relationship’ category barely appears in respondents below 45
years of age (it does not appear at all in the 18-25 group), but occurs for all 46+
respondents: 14% for 46-55, 23% for 56-65, and 15% for Over 65. This goes to show
that it is easier for older literary translators to envision technology as something
completely outside of the realm of translation than for younger respondents, the only age
group with a quarter of responses indicating technology is necessary for literary
translation. In fact, the 18-25s stand out for their almost 100% optimistic outlook.

162
Oppositely, the 56-65 age group showed the least positive sentiments towards technology,
with the lowest percentages across all age categories for both ambivalent attitudes (7%)
and the ‘Helpful’ category (13%). Indeed, the majority of their discourse was
concentrated in the categories of no relationship between literary translation and
technology (23%) and technology being less or not helpful (20%), which were also the
highest values in these categories across all ages. In between these two opposite poles
we find those aged 26-35 leading with their ambivalent position (38%), but remarkably
similar in attitudes to the 36-45. The age brackets 18-25 and 56-65 provide the most
coherent picture, although of opposite stances. The 46-55 and Over 65 age groups also
present some similarities, especially regarding the overall increase in negative attitudes.
However, where those Over 65 present more balanced views across the categories
‘Ambivalent’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Less or not helpful’ and ‘No relationship’, the 56-65 group
clearly points towards technology having very little to do with literary translation overall.
On the whole, results show similar attitudes in the categories ‘Ambivalent’, ‘Helpful’ and
‘Less or Not Helpful for LT’ for those aged 26-35, 36-45, 46-55 and Over 65. The only
exception being the simultaneous raise of the number of respondents hinting at there being
‘No Relationship’ between literary translation and technology in all age brackets over 46
years old. The 18-25 and 56-65 categories represent the two antipodes, with those aged
18-25 being markedly positive about technology in literary translation and those in the
56-65 group being the most discouraging.
7.2.2.1.2 Age and literary translation-technology relationship
These observations are further confirmed when looking at data from Question 26 on
feelings towards the relationship between technology and literary translation. In
particular, 18-25s’ feelings are 80% positive (the highest value for ‘Positive’ across all
ages) and 20% negative, with no instances of ambivalence being registered. Instead, the
26-35 group has the highest proportion of overall respondents in the ‘Torn’ category
(32%), confirming their mostly ambivalent positions. Nevertheless, 55% are positive
about the technology and literary translation relationship, while only 5% show negative
attitudes and 9% think it is not relevant for literary translation. Again, those aged 36-45
and 46-55 show almost identical attitudes, with 21% each being torn, 15% and 14%
indicating negative attitudes and 47% and 49% expressing positive feelings towards
technology, respectively. Values for those Over 65 slightly differ from the other age

163
groups, in that 59% has positive feelings towards the technology/literary translation
relationship, 12% is torn, 18% expressed negative feelings, while 12% are indifferent.
The 56-65 age group confirms its strikingly different opinions when compared to other
age brackets, with the lowest percentage overall for positive attitudes (42%) and the
highest for thinking technology is not relevant to literary translation at all (12%). The
rest is divided between being indifferent (12%) and torn (19%). This keeps the 56-65 at
opposites with the 18-25, while all other categories sit in the middle with virtually similar
values for positive, negative and torn attitudes.
7.2.2.1.3 Age and future of literary translation-technology relationship
Question 27 asked participants whether they thought the relationship between literary
translation and technology would change in the future, and results were very similar for
all answers, with 37% choosing ‘I don’t know’, 34% ‘No’, and 29% ‘Yes’.
Those aged 18-25 offer again the most clear-cut attitude, with 67% answering ‘Yes’, 17%
‘No’, and 17% ‘I don’t know’. Once more, the 56-65 age bracket represents an anomaly,
in that it has the highest number of ‘No’ (41%) and ‘Yes’ (33%) answers, and the lowest
of ‘I don’t know’ (26%). Similar values are registered for all other age groups. In
particular, literary translators who answered ‘I don’t know’ are between 38-47%, with
32-35% for ‘No’, and 21-33% for ‘Yes’, and belong to the age brackets 26-35, 36-45, 46-
55, and Over 65.
7.2.2.1.4 Age and confidence with general technology
Having looked at attitudes towards the relationship between literary translation and
technology, this section will now proceed to the discussion of the interrelation between
confidence with technology – explored in questions 16 and 19 of the questionnaire, and
age. As far as the former is concerned, overall levels of confidence with general
technology were high, with 44% of respondents stating they are confident with general
technology, 35% that they are extremely confident, 13% fairly confident, 4% slightly
confident, 3% not confident at all, and 1% said the question was not applicable.
‘Confident’ respondents formed the majority of all age groups with the exceptions of
those aged 46-55, 48% of whom stated they feel extremely confident when using general

164
technology. Almost half of the Over 65s is confident (42%), with the rest being 26%
extremely confident and only 6% being not confident at all. The 18-25 age bracket
presents the highest percentage of confidence across all groups, with 67% saying they are
confident, 17% declaring they are extremely confident and no one asserting they are not
confident at all. The second most confident group is the 26-35s with 59% and an almost
double figure (32%) of extremely confident respondents when compared to the 18-25
group. Similar values can be observed for those aged 36-45, of which 53% are confident
and 32% extremely confident, while no one is not confident at all. The number of
extremely confident people in the 56-65 group is also similar (33%) while 41% are
confident and 15% fairly confident. As mentioned above, almost half of 46-55-year-olds
are extremely confident (48%), with 26% saying they are confident and 15% fairly
confident. Ultimately, there are no significant differences in confidence with general
technology, as numbers keep stable across all age brackets, decreasing only slightly for
respondents over 56.
7.2.2.1.5 Age and confidence with translation-specific technology
Results vary greatly when measuring age in relation to confidence with translation
technology. Overall, results are extremely more varied: 25% are not confident at all, 22%
are confident, 15% slightly confident, 15% fairly confident, 12% extremely confident,
and 11% answered ‘Not applicable’.
When looking individually at each age group, levels of confidence drop drastically for all
of them. Those aged 18-25 are still the most confident respondents; however, when
compared to general technology, their confidence is halved to 33%, while the ‘Not
Confident at All’ rises from 0% to 17%, and the ‘Extremely Confident’ stays at 17%. The
26-35 group’s levels of confidence are more than halved from 59% to 27%, while those
who are extremely confident go from 32% to 23%, the slightly confident rise from 0% to
14% and the not confident at all go from 5% to 18%. Percentages for the answer ‘Not
Confident at All’ also raise dramatically for age groups 36-45, 46-55, 56-65 and Over 65,
going, respectively, from 0% to 32%, 2% to 24%, 7% to 26% and 5% to 21%.
Consistently with this, drastic decreases can be observed in levels of confidence for those
over 36. The 36-45, 46-55, 56-65 and Over 65 age groups go, respectively, from 53% to
29%, from 26% to 24%, from 41% to 7% and from 42% to 16%. Similarly, answers for

165
‘extremely confident’ decrease, respectively, as follows: from 32% to 3%, from 48% to
10%, from 33% to 15% and from 26% to 16%.
Thus, confidence with general technology cannot be directly linked to confidence with
translation technology as far as age is concerned, meaning that being confident with
general technology does not necessarily transpose to the translation technology domain.
This being said, the relation between age and levels of confidence is sharper here than in
the previous instance, whereby the 18-25 age group offers the higher rates of overall
confidence and the Over 65 the lowest. Overall, confidence levels for translation
technology drop and non-confidence levels increase across all age groups. However, the
trend highlighted is more significant for participants over 36, where differences between
confidence and non-confidence become more blurred.
7.2.2.2 Attitudes towards technology and educational background
This section will deal with the interrelation between attitudes towards technology and
educational background of respondents. In particular, it will look at whether and how
levels of confidence with general and translation-specific technology (Questions 16 and
19) and attitudes towards technology as related to literary translation (Questions 25 and
26) change according to whether participants have an academic qualification in
translation and have received translation technology training. The analysis will be based
on answers to Question 3 on type of academic qualification in translation, Question 4 on
academic translation technology training, and Question 5 on non-academic translation
technology training.
7.2.2.2.1 Type of degree and confidence with general technology
First of all, the type of academic qualification (Question 3) was cross-referenced with
levels of confidence with general technology (Question 16). It is worth recalling that the
majority of all 150 respondents felt 43% confident and 35% extremely confident with
general technology.
Values are consistent with main results for all academic degrees, in that the majority of
all respondents in all categories felt confident and extremely confident. In particular,
those with a PhD in translation are the most ‘Confident’ with 62%, followed by 23%

166
being ‘Extremely Confident’. The other three categories’ levels of confidence oscillate
between 38-47%, the lowest value belonging to the graduates. In fact, while all academic
categories are mainly split between confident and extremely confident, those with an
undergraduate degree in translation present the same percentage for people who are
extremely confident and those who are fairly confident, 24% respectively, and the highest
for those who are not confident (14%). Somewhat similar are the attitudes of those with
no academic degree in translation, who are 43% confident and 36% extremely confident,
however 11% is slightly confident, 7% fairly confident and 4% is not confident at all.
Respondents with an undergraduate degree and those with no academic qualifications in
translation are the only ones belonging to the ‘Not Confident’ category and form the
biggest proportion of slightly confident (no academic degree) and fairly confident (both)
respondents.
Results above suggest a directly proportional relation between levels of academic
qualification (or absence of it) and confidence with general technology, whereby the most
qualified respondents also show greater levels of confidence.
7.2.2.2.2 Type of degree and confidence with translation-specific technology
Looking at Question 19 has allowed to observe the behaviour of the same respondents in
relation to translation-specific technology. Trends are consistent with those observed so
far for those with no translation degrees and those with an undergraduate degree as related
to the answers ‘Confident’ (14% and 19% respectively) and ‘Extremely Confident’ (7%
and 10% respectively). Furthermore, graduates and those with no translation degree
present, respectively, the first (38%) and second (11%) highest values in the ‘Fairly
Confident’ category. This being said, levels of no confidence raise for all respondents,
erasing any directly proportional relationship highlighted for the previous question. In
fact, the highest numbers of respondents who are not confident at all either have no
academic qualification in translation (32%) or a PhD (31%, the same number of
‘Confident’ answers). The lowest values belong to those with a translation undergraduate
or Master’s degree – 19% and 18% respectively. For the same two categories, values are
high for ‘Slightly Confident’, which contribute 10% to graduates’ responses and peak at
22% for those with a Master’s degree. Thus, trends for confidence with translation
technology are partly consistent with those for general technology, in that confidence

167
raises for those with a Master’s and a PhD and lowers for those with no degree or an
undergraduate.
In summary, levels of confidence generally drop for all categories. This being said, a
higher number of ‘Confident’ and ‘Extremely Confident’ responses can still be linked to
having a postgraduate qualification in translation at Master’s or PhD level. Whether these
results are at all related to having received translation technology training will be explored
later on in this section (see Section 7.2.2.3). Having presented the link between
educational background and confidence with technology, observations on the relationship
between educational background and attitudes towards technology will now be presented.
7.2.2.2.3 Type of degree and essential traits-technology relationship
First of all, it is worth recalling the main categories that emerged from the analysis of
Question 25 on the relationship between essential traits and academic qualifications:
ambivalent (24%), helpful (24%), less/not helpful for LT (15%), and no relationship
(13%).
Attitudes of those without a translation degree are mainly divided between technology
being helpful (25%) and less or not helpful at all for literary translation (25%), while the
rest thinks there is no relationship at all between the two (21%) and others are ambivalent
(14%). Graduates are once again the ones who present the most coherent image in terms
of relationship between essential traits and technology, with most of them thinking there
is no relationship at all (30%), 22% saying technology is helpful, 17% finding it less or
not helpful for literary translation, and another 17% showing ambivalent attitudes. A
more varied outlook is offered by those with a Master’s degree, whereby 31% is
ambivalent, 22% find technology helpful, 11% less or not helpful, and 11% show feelings
of resistance towards technology in literary translation, where respondents acknowledge
technology could be useful but actively choose not to use it. The number of ambivalent
opinions decreases significantly for those with a PhD (7%), whose answers point more
towards technology being less or not helpful for literary translation (21%), there being no
relationship between the two (14%), those who think the relationship is there but minimal
(14%) and those who think it is helpful (14%). Graduates and those with no academic
qualifications show similar attitudes for all four main categories (‘Ambivalent’, ‘Helpful’,
‘Less or Not Helpful’, and ‘No Relationship). Similarly, literary translators with a

168
Master’s degree offer the most varied account, however they are prevalently ambivalent
and find technology helpful. Conversely, those with a PhD are more inclined to think of
technology as something having little or nothing to do with literary translation.
7.2.2.2.4 Type of degree and literary translation-technology relationship
When asked about their feelings towards this relationship in Question 26, most PhD
graduates showed a positive attitude, while 23% said they were indifferent to it. Positive
attitudes also prevail for the other three categories (‘None’, ‘Undergraduate’, ‘Master’s’),
oscillating between 46-50%. For negative attitudes, values range between 12-14% for
everyone except the PhD category, which is at 8%. This is also the only category who is
not torn at all, against the 31% of those with a Master’s, 21% of respondents with no
translation degree, and 9% of graduates. Interestingly, graduates also present the highest
value for ‘Not Relevant for Literary Translation’ (14%).
Thus, Question 26 highlights congruent results as related to literary translators’ feelings
towards technology and their academic degree. The majority presents positive attitudes,
while the rest is divided between negative and torn attitudes. The only anomaly is the
PhD category, which is notably positive about this relationship, while the rest is
indifferent towards it. This is in line with results from the previous question, in that those
with a PhD think that technology has little or nothing to do with literary translation, and
the positivity in their attitudes can be attributed to this sentiment.
7.2.2.3 Attitudes towards technology and translation technology training
This section will now go on to analyse the relationship between attitudes towards
technology and translation technology training, both academic and non-academic, as
indicated by Questions 4 and 5. Of a total of 150 respondents, 20% reported having
received translation technology training as part of their degree. More than half of this
training (60%) happened as part of a Master’s degree, 17% as part of an undergraduate
degree and 3% as part of a PhD.

169
7.2.2.3.1 Academic translation technology training and confidence with general
technology
When looking at confidence with general technology, those who received academic
translation technology training were slightly more confident than those who did not. In
particular, the former were 57% confident, and 33% extremely confident. Conversely,
literary translators who did not receive academic translation technology training were
41% confident, 34% extremely confident and 17% fairly confident. Percentages for ‘Not
Confident’ were between 2-3%. This suggests that academic translation technology
training, although only slightly, influences the increase in levels of confidence with
general technology.
7.2.2.3.2 Academic translation technology training and confidence with translation
technology
The values above change significantly when looking at Question 19 on confidence with
translation-specific technology. In fact, respondents who received academic training
were 43% confident, 20% extremely confident, 20% fairly confident, 13% slightly
confident, and only 3% not confident at all. On the other hand, participants who did not
receive academic training presented an average of 16% per answer, with a peak of 29%
for ‘Not Confident’. This indicates that, unlike confidence with general technology,
receiving translation technology-specific training during an academic degree significantly
affects levels of confidence with said technology, in that the majority of respondents is
either confident or extremely confident using it.
7.2.2.3.3 Academic translation technology training and essential traits-technology
relationship
When looking at answers to Question 25 on the relationship between essential traits of
being a literary translator and technology, we go back to see similar results among all
categories. Nonetheless, defining differences can be observed in relation to the two
opposite views of (1) technology being necessary and (2) not being relevant at all for
literary translation. In particular, 10% of those who received academic training on
translation technology think that technology is necessary, against 3% of their counterpart.
Oppositely, 11% of those without academic training think there is no relationship at all
between technology and literary translation, versus 7% of those with academic training.

170
As far as the other categories are concerned, respondents with academic training tend to
present slightly higher percentages than their colleagues in the following areas:
respectively, 30% and 23% for ‘Helpful’, 27% and 24% for ‘Ambivalent’, 17% and 12%
for ‘Less or Not Helpful’. Therefore, academic translation technology training also has
a bearing on the way literary translators relate to technology, in that they deem it more
necessary than their colleagues, are more likely than them to refute the idea that there is
no relationship whatsoever between the two and tend to consider it more helpful.
7.2.2.3.4 Academic translation technology training and literary translation-
technology relationship
The above-mentioned is also reflected in results from Question 26, whereby people who
received training have far more positive attitudes towards technology than their
counterparts. In particular, 70% believe the relationship between literary translation and
technology to be a positive one, against 45% of respondents without academic training.
The latter presents higher levels of torn feelings towards this relationship with 27%, while
for people with academic training the category is represented by 7% of respondents. Both
subsets of respondents present similar percentages in terms of negative attitudes, these
being 11% and 13% for people with and without academic training, respectively.
Here, too, having received academic training links to decisively more positive attitudes
towards technology in literary translation, while people without academic training are far
more likely to show mixed feelings about it.
7.2.2.3.5 Non-academic translation technology training and confidence with general
technology
An analysis will now be carried out in relation to non-academic translation technology
training as uncovered by Question 5 and respondents’ attitudes towards technology. First
of all, levels of confidence with technology have been cross-referenced with data on non-
academic translation technology training. Data from Question 16 on general technology
shows similar results for both those who undertook non-academic training and those who
did, suggesting there is no relationship between the two as far as general technology is
concerned. In particular, both groups display high levels of confidence, with 47% and
37% of those who received non-academic training feeling, respectively, confident and
extremely confident towards general technology. The proportions for the same categories

171
in respondents who did not undertake non-academic translation technology training are,
respectively, 42% and 35%.
7.2.2.3.6 Non-academic translation technology training and confidence with
translation technology
As per the previous analysis of academic technology training, values for Question 19 on
confidence with translation technology differ widely from those of Question 16 on
confidence with general technology. In fact, 33% of those who did not undertake non-
academic training are not confident at all with translation technology, while no one from
those who received training felt a total lack of confidence. Oppositely, 34% of those who
received training said they were confident, and 16% extremely confident with translation
technology. For those without training, confidence levels are almost halved at 18%, while
11% felt extremely confident.
The trend observed for the previous question can be reprised here, in that receiving
translation technology training appears to be directly linked to significantly higher levels
of confidence.
7.2.2.3.7 Non-academic translation technology training and essential traits-
technology relationship
When looking at non-academic translation technology training (Question 5) and attitudes
towards technology as expressed by Question 25 on the relationship between essential
traits and technology, values do not differ significantly according to having or not
received translation technology training. The main difference in this case regards the
percentage of ambivalent attitudes, which is 32% for those with training and 20% for
those without. Other than that, all major categories share similar percentages for both
respondents with and without training: 20% and 25% for ambivalent, 17% and 14% for
less or not helpful, 10% and 13% for no relationship at all.
7.2.2.3.8 Non-academic translation technology training and literary translation-
technology relationship
Unlike trends observed previously in relation to academic translation technology training
and feelings towards the literary translation-technology relationship (Question 26), no

172
significant differences could be found in relation to non-academic translation technology
training (Question 5) and Question 26. The majority of respondents have positive
attitudes, followed by torn and negative attitudes. Percentages for those who received
non-academic training and those who did not are respectively: 54% and 49% for
‘Positive’, 23% and 19% for ‘Torn’, 13% and 14% for ‘Negative’.
As the data shows, figures are slightly higher for positive and torn attitudes in those who
received training, which highlights a directly proportional relation, although minimal,
between non-academic translation-technology training and positive attitudes towards
technology and literary translation. This being said, the relationship is far less evident
than that highlighted earlier for academic translation technology training, which goes to
show how academic training has a particularly strong influence on literary translators’
attitudes towards technology. This is true for both levels of confidence with translation
technology and feelings towards the literary translation-technology relationship.
7.2.2.4 Attitudes towards technology and professional status
The current section will now examine the influence of professional status on respondents’
attitudes towards technology. In particular, results from Question 11 on type of literary
translation activity, Question 12 on employment status and Question 14 on self-defined
professional status will be cross-referenced with data on literary translators’ levels of
confidence with and attitudes towards technology.
7.2.2.4.1 Type of literary translation activity and confidence with general technology
When looking at Question 16 on confidence with general technology in relation to
Question 11, it is clear that being a full-time or part-time literary translator does not
impact how confident with general technology one is in any significant way. It is useful
to recall that the majority of all respondents felt either confident or extremely confident;
in particular, full-time literary translators were 44% confident, 41% extremely confident,
and 10% fairly confident. Values are slightly lower for part-time literary translators, who
are 43% confident, 33% extremely confident, and 15% fairly confident. As far as the
‘Not Confident at All’ answer is concerned, no full-time translator chose it, while 3% of
part-time translators did. This shows that part-time translators are slightly less confident

173
than their full-time colleagues, but not in such a way as to establish a meaningful link
between type of literary translation activity and confidence with general technology.
7.2.2.4.2 Type of literary translation activity and confidence with translation
technology
Results showed that levels of confidence with translation technology are generally lower
and less uniform than those for general technology (Section 7.1.4). This paragraph looks
at how data on being a full-time or part-time literary translator interacts with levels of
confidence with translation technology, also drawing a comparison with results from the
previous paragraph.
When compared with confidence with general technology, percentages for ‘Extremely
Confident’ are more than halved to 14% and 13% for full-time and part-time translators,
respectively. In a similar way, 27% of full-time and 21% of part-time respondents said
they are ‘Confident’, while 16% each is ‘Fairly Confident’. Some dissimilarities among
the two types of literary translation activity emerge with the ‘Slightly Confident’ and ‘Not
Confident’ answers. While full-time translators are 8% slightly confident and 30% not
confident at all, part-time literary translators are 17% slightly confident and 22% not
confident at all.
In line with all previous observations made, levels of confidence with translation
technology decrease substantially when compared with confidence with general
technology. In this specific case, they do so in virtually equal measure for both full-time
and part-time respondents. This being said, full-time translators are slightly more
assertive in declaring they are not confident at all with translation technology than their
part-time counterparts.
7.2.2.4.3 Type of literary translation activity and essential traits-technology
relationship
Having looked at confidence with technology as related to being a full-time or part-time
literary translator, the discussion will now continue by examining the latter in relation to
respondents’ attitudes towards technology, as based on answers to Question 25
(relationship between essential traits of literary translation and technology). The analysis

174
will centre on the four main categories that emerged from previous analysis (Section
7.1.5): ‘Ambivalent’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Less or Not Helpful’, and ‘No Relationship’.
While results for the category ‘Ambivalent’ are similar for both full-time and part-time
literary translators – 25% and 22% respectively, a trend starts to emerge among part-
timers pointing towards them being less inclined to refer to technology in literary
translation as helpful than their full-time colleagues. Particularly, values are almost
halved for the ‘Helpful’ category, to which 35% of full-time translators belong against
19% of part-time translators. A smaller divide is present for the category ‘Less or Not
Helpful’; here, 19% of part-time translators belong to this category versus 10% of their
full-time counterparts. Similarly, 11% of part-time respondents state there is no
relationship whatsoever between technology and literary translation, while the same is
true for 8% of full-time translators. Additionally, full-time respondents’ discourses tend
to revolve more around the idea of technology being necessary for literary translation
(10%), while only 4% of part-time translators think the same.
Results suggest that the more one’s professional activity is devoted to literary translation,
the more the relationship with technology is seen as necessary, somehow inevitable, but
mostly helpful. This being said, more than half of this study’s participants (58%) are
part-time literary translators, which means their views on technology as less or not helpful
for literary translation have definitely a bearing on overall findings on attitudes towards
technology. This must be taken into consideration, together with the fact that, regardless
of being full- or part-time, the majority of respondents still presented ambivalent attitudes.
7.2.2.4.4 Type of literary translation activity and literary translation-technology
relationship
No such differences as the ones detailed above can be observed as far as Question 26 on
feelings towards the literary translation-technology relationship is concerned. In fact, the
majority of both full-time and part-time literary translators share positive feelings towards
it (58% and 51%, respectively), while the rest are torn (23% and 20%) or have negative
attitudes towards it (15% and 13%).

175
Thus, the type of literary translation activity does not seem to have any bearings on
respondents’ feelings towards the relationship between literary translation and
technology.
7.2.2.4.5 Employment status and confidence with general technology
The section will now proceed to analyse the ways in which Question 12 on employment
status and respondents’ confidence with and attitudes towards technology interrelate.
As far as confidence with general technology is concerned, freelancers are 44% confident,
36% extremely confident, and 12% fairly confident, while only 2% are not confident at
all. In-house translators are 50% confident, 25% extremely confident, and 25% fairly
confident; no one declared not being confident at all. Although at a first glance
freelancers would seem slightly more confident than their in-house colleagues, it is worth
remembering that the number of in-house translators (8) is extremely low when compared
to freelancers (131), so this might have had a bearing on the final figures, number/type of
answers given, and consequent distribution of answers. With this in mind, levels of
confidence do not differ significantly between in-house and freelancers, which are mainly
confident or extremely confident about it.
7.2.2.4.6 Employment status and confidence with translation technology
As previously seen, levels of confidence with translation technology are far more varied
and spread across all answers than those for general technology. In this particular case,
while levels of no confidence are similar for both freelancers (23%) and in-house
translators (25%), the rest of the latter are mainly concentrated in the ‘Confident’ (38%)
and ‘Fairly Confident’ (25%) categories. On the contrary, freelancers are 20% confident,
15% fairly confident, 14% extremely confident and 17% slightly confident.
Here, too, the wider variety of answers for freelancers could be due to the low number of
respondents in the in-house category, who, although being more ‘Confident’, have no
instances of ‘Extremely Confident’, as it is the case with freelancers. Taking this into
account, together with the answers available for analysis, it is thus not possible to
establish a clear-cut relationship between respondents’ employment status and confidence
with translation technology.

176
7.2.2.4.7 Employment status and essential traits-technology relationship
Employment status has then been analysed in relation to Question 25 on the relationship
between essential traits and technology. The largest part of in-house translators think of
technology as helpful (33%). The rest are equally divided among those who think it is
imposed upon literary translators, less or not helpful for them, and those with ambivalent
attitudes (17% each). Conversely, most freelancers can be located in the ‘Ambivalent’
category with 24%, closely followed by those who think technology is helpful for literary
translation (23%); 14% think technology is less or not helpful for literary translation,
while 12% believe there is no such relationship at all. In-house translators tend to think
technology is more useful for literary translation than their freelancer counterparts. In
fact, the latter show more ambivalent attitudes, and although the majority believe
technology to be helpful, there are relevant instances of respondents in the ‘Less or Not
Helpful’ and ‘No Relationship’ categories.
7.2.2.4.8 Employment status and literary translation-technology relationship
The above-mentioned is even more evident when looking at cross-reference results from
Question 26 and Question 12, in that 100% of in-house translators show positive attitudes
towards said relationship. Oppositely, 47% of freelancers show positive attitudes, 23%
are torn, while 13% have negative attitudes towards the literary translation-technology
relationship. Again, when reading the results, it is worth keeping in mind that data is
based on only 8 in-house respondents against 131 freelancers.
7.2.2.4.9 Self-defined professional status and confidence with general technology
Finally, this section will explore the potential link between literary translators’ self-
defined professional status as expressed in Question 14, and confidence with and attitudes
towards technology. First of all, it is worth noticing how the link between professionals
and amateurs returns here (see Section 7.2.1.2). In this particular instance, it is
exacerbated by the relationship with confidence with general technology. In particular,
the two show similar values for ‘Confident’ and ‘Extremely Confident’. Self-defined
professional literary translators are 40% confident, 38% extremely confident and 13%
fairly confident, while amateurs are 42% extremely confident, 33% confident, and 8%

177
fairly confident. Conversely, trainees are equally split between confident, extremely
confident and fairly confident (33% each). Volunteers are the most confident of all in
proportion, with 71% indicating they are confident, while the rest are either extremely or
fairly confident (14% each). Overall, all categories are confident with general
technology, with volunteers being the most confident of all. Similarities emerge for
professionals and amateurs, who are confident, extremely and fairly confident virtually
in equal measure.
7.2.2.4.10 Self-defined professional status and confidence with translation technology
Consistently with the main data set, when looking at Question 19, levels of confidence
drop for translation technology across all professional status categories. This being said,
trainees show once again an equal distribution of respondents, this time among the
categories ‘Confident’, ‘Extremely Confident’, and ‘Not Confident at All’ (33% each).
All other categories are 17-23% ‘Confident’, with the ‘Fairly Confident’ category peaking
at 40% for amateurs and 33% for volunteers. The remaining 33% of volunteers are not
confident at all with translation technology, similarly to the 30% value for amateurs. Only
professionals and amateurs were extremely confident with 10-11%, while professionals
show the most varied range of attitudes, spreading across all categories with an average
value of 16% for all six answers. The majority were 23% confident and 20% not
confident at all.
Comprehensively, no category of self-defined employment status emerges as particularly
confident or not confident with translation technology, making it challenging to determine
any associations between the two variables.
7.2.2.4.11 Self-defined professional status and essential traits-technology relationship
Looking at Question 25 on the relationship between essential traits and technology,
trainees and volunteers are the ones who offer a more definite image of their attitudes. In
particular, trainees are equally split among those who think the relationship is harmonious
and those who deem technology to be helpful for literary translators. Volunteers are also
equally split across ‘Helpful’, ‘Imposed’, ‘Minimal’, ‘No Relationship’ (20% each), thus
tending to have more unfavourable attitudes towards technology in literary translation.
Amateurs are mostly found in the ‘No Relationship’ category with 33% and the ‘Helpful’

178
category with 17%. Professionals offer once more the most varied set of results, with the
majority being 25% ambivalent, followed by 22% ‘Helpful’, 16% ‘Less or Not Helpful’,
and 11% ‘No Relationship’. Trainees excluded, overall values are mainly concentrated
in the ‘No Relationship’ and ‘Helpful’ categories, revealing the contradictory attitudes of
all respondents towards technology, regardless of how they define their employment
status.
7.2.2.4.12 Self-defined professional status and literary translation-technology
relationship
Moving on to Question 26 on feelings towards the literary translation-technology
relationship, all translators are mainly positive about it, with trainees being 100%
allocated to this category. Volunteers follow with 67% being positive, and the rest is
equally divided between ‘Indifferent’ and ‘Negative’ with 17% each. Professionals are
46% positive, 26% torn and 14% negative. They are also the only ones appearing in the
‘Torn’ category. Finally, amateurs are 55% positive, 18% think technology is less or not
relevant for literary translation, while the remaining 9% are indifferent, negative and
unsure. Overall, what emerges more evidently are the all-around positive attitudes
towards the literary translation-technology relationship for all self-defined professional
statuses.
7.2.2.5 Confidence with technology and attitudes towards technology
Having looked at how professionals’ background and attitudes towards technology relate
to each other, the chapter will now analyse the relationship between confidence with
technology and respondents’ attitudes towards it. In particular, data hereby presented
results from cross-referencing questions 16 and 19 on confidence with general and
translation-specific technology with questions 25 (relationship between essential traits of
literary translation and technology) and 26 (feelings towards the technology-literary
translation relationship). The section comprises two sub-sections focusing respectively
on Question 25 and Question 26, and their relation to levels of confidence with
technology.

179
7.2.2.5.1 Confidence with technology and essential traits-technology relationship
Looking at data for confidence with general technology and answers to Question 25
allowed to establish a directly proportional relationship between levels of confidence and
less favourable attitudes towards technology. In fact, the more confidence levels go up,
the more respondents are likely to think of technology as helpful or at least adopt an
ambivalent position towards it. More specifically, 80% of those with no confidence at all
with general technology thought there was no relationship between technology and
literary translation, while the remaining 20% said it is less or not helpful for literary
translation. The majority of those who are fairly confident is also located in the ‘No
relationship’ and ‘Less or Not useful for LT’ categories (24% each), while 19% are
‘Ambivalent’, and 10% think technology is helpful. Oppositely, those who are
‘Confident’ and ‘Extremely Confident’ present more favourable attitudes, and in virtually
the same proportions, respectively: 26% and 24% ‘Ambivalent’, 28% each ‘Helpful’,
14% and 13% ‘Less or Not Helpful for LT’.
The directly proportional relationship is maintained for confidence with translation
technology, although it becomes more evident for higher levels of confidence. In fact,
44% of those who are ‘Extremely Confident’ find technology to be helpful, while 19%
think the relationship between it and literary translation is harmonious, and another 19%
shows ambivalent attitudes; 6% think there is no relationship between the two.
Additionally, 40% of those who are ‘Confident’ have ambivalent attitudes, while 30%
think of technology as helpful and 10% as less or not helpful for literary translation; no
one thinks there is no relationship between the two. Although respondents are less evenly
distributed here than for general technology, it is still possible to link less favourable
attitudes to lower levels of confidence. In particular, those who are not confident at all
mostly think there is no relationship between technology and literary translation (24%).
The remaining belong to the categories ‘Helpful’ (18%), ‘Less or Not Helpful for LT’
(13%), and ‘Ambivalent’ (13%). Those who are slightly confident show for the most part
ambivalent attitudes (25%), while 18% thinks technology is less or not helpful, 14% finds
it helpful, and 11% believes there is no relationship between the two. Interestingly,
although the directly proportional relationship is preserved, responses are more varied.
Particularly, ambivalent narratives rise in number when compared to general technology,
highlighting how the overall sense of dubiousness surrounding confidence with
translation technology reflects on respondents’ attitudes.

180
7.2.2.5.2 Confidence with technology and literary translation-technology
relationship
The trend highlighted above is partly confirmed when looking at confidence with general
technology and respondents’ feelings towards the literary translation-technology
relationship in Question 26. More precisely, 63% of those who are confident have
positive feelings, while 12% is torn. Almost half of those who were extremely confident
also show positive feelings (47%), while 31% is torn and 16% has negative feelings. This
value doubles for those who are slightly confident, 33% of whom have negative feelings;
the same percentage can be observed for both the ‘Positive’ and ‘Torn’ categories. A
sharper distinction emerges from respondents who are not confident at all, 75% of whom
think technology is not relevant for literary translation, while the remaining 25% state
their feelings of indifference towards it.
The directly proportional trend observed up until now reverses when looking at
confidence with translation technology and its relation to answers to Question 26. In fact,
feelings are markedly positive for all respondents, however with peaks still being
observed for those who are more confident with translation technology. In particular,
82% of those who are ‘Extremely Confident’ are also ‘Positive’, while the remaining 18%
is torn. Of those who are ‘Confident’, 58% have ‘Positive’ feelings, 15% are torn, and
another 15% has negative feelings about technology in literary translation. Of those who
are ‘Slightly Confident’, 57% are in the ‘Positive’ category and 22% in the ‘Torn’
category. The ‘Fairly Confident’ are almost equally split between ‘Positive’ (32%) and
‘Torn’ (36%), with 9% showing negative feelings and 9% stating technology is not
relevant for literary translation. Interestingly, those who are ‘Not Confident at All’ with
translation technology position themselves on the most varied spectrum of feelings
towards the technology-literary translation relationship. Most of them are still positive
(33%), closely followed by those who expressed negative feelings (22%); then there are
19% who are torn, and 11% who are, respectively, indifferent and think that technology
is not at all relevant in literary translation.
What at first glance would appear as a trend reversal, is indeed in line with previous
analysis results. In fact, data hereby presented points to the fact that neither attitudes
towards technology nor levels of confidence play a central role in affecting literary

181
translators’ feelings about the technology-literary translation relationship. More
specifically, whether they reported being confident or not with translation technology, the
majority of respondents felt either positive or torn, neutralising the directly proportional
relationship between the two variables. This being said, it is worth noting how the only
data not in line with this trend is that related to respondents who indicated not being
confident at all, who are also the ones showing more negative feelings. This would
suggest the association between being the least confident and increased negative feelings
towards technology is being retained. Likewise, the highest levels of confidence with
translation technology maintain the association with more positive attitudes, with the
more prominent variations (when compared to the same data for general technology)
being seen in the intermediate levels of confidence (‘Fairly’ and ‘Slightly Confident’).
This points towards higher levels of uncertainty as related to confidence with translation
technology not being reflected by feelings towards such technology, which are, in
contrast, mainly polarised between positive and torn.
7.2.2.6 Summary of attitudes towards technology
This section has discussed respondents’ attitudes towards technology as related to age,
educational background, translation technology training, professional status, and
confidence with technology. Attitudes towards technology included literary translators’
responses on the relationship between technology and their role, and their levels of
confidence with technology.
As far as age is concerned, the 18-25 age group has the most positive relationship with
technology, while the most negative attitudes belong to the 56-65 age bracket. All other
age categories show similar attitudes towards technology, being virtually equally
distributed between positive, negative and torn attitudes. Overall, participants aged over
46 are more inclined to think there is absolutely no relationship between literary
translation and technology. The most confident with translation technology were the
youngest respondents (18-25), while the least confident were the oldest (Over 65).
Generally, levels of confidence with translation technology decrease more significantly
for those aged over 36. Age does not seem to have a bearing on levels of confidence with
general technology.

182
Respondents’ educational background could be directly linked to levels of confidence
with both general and translation technology, in that the more qualified were also the most
confident. Attitudes towards technology were mainly positive, irrespective of level of
education. The only exception was registered in the PhD category, which was more
inclined than the others to either think of technology as unrelated to literary translation or
show indifference towards it.
Respondents with academic translation technology training are significantly more
confident with translation technology. They also tend to consider technology as more
helpful and necessary for literary translation and overall have more positive attitudes
towards it than their colleagues. Those with non-academic training also showed higher
levels of confidence with translation technology. Having received non-academic
translation technology training was also linked with more positive attitudes, although the
relation between the two was less prominent than with academic training.
No meaningful relationship between being a part-time or a full-time literary translator
and levels of confidence with technology was registered. This being said, part-time
literary translators found technology to be less or not helpful, as opposed to full-time
literary translators, who tend to see it as helpful and necessary. As far as employment
status is concerned, freelance and in-house literary translators show similar levels of
confidence with technology. However, those working in-house showed exclusively
positive attitudes towards technology, while freelancers were more ambivalent.
Respondents’ self-defined professional status had no bearing on confidence with
technology and attitudes towards technology.
Finally, respondents who were the most confident with technology also showed more
positive attitudes, while those with less or no confidence were more likely to think of
technology as not helpful or irrelevant for literary translation. Having an academic
qualification in translation was also linked to a higher degree of confidence with
technology.
To conclude, the youngest respondents seem more open about technology being a part of
literary translation and are also more confident with translation technology. Overall, both
academic and non-academic translation technology training led to more positive attitudes
towards technology, and higher levels of confidence. Furthermore, employment and

183
professional status have no significant bearing on neither confidence with nor attitudes
towards technology.
7.3 Synthesis of results
The chapter has thus far provided an outline of the main data set by presenting and
analysing the questionnaire’s results. The main data set was first presented question by
question (Section 7.1). Subsequently, various data subsets were interlinked as to further
uncover and analyse respondents’ narratives on role and technology (Section 7.2). The
present section aims at synthesising and discussing this project’s results organically by
producing a systematic illustration of findings as evidenced by data. This will form the
basis for the answering of this thesis’ research questions and its conclusions that are to be
found in the next chapter. Literary translators’ role as emerging by their personal
narratives will be discussed first (7.3.1); a section on their attitudes towards technology
will follow (7.3.2). Finally, initial observations on the dynamic between the two will be
uncovered (7.3.3).
7.3.1 Who are literary translators?
The first part of the discussion will delve deeper into the image of literary translators as
emerging from the data. In particular, it will bring to the surface the deeply personal layer
of their professional selves, and it will root their figure in a position of misunderstanding
and in-betweenness in relation to the external world.
7.3.1.1 The personal is professional
Participants’ answers to the questionnaire covered a wide variety of issues related to
literary translators’ role in society, their personal, professional and educational
background, and how they relate to technology. When specifically looking at how they
depicted their role in society, it appears evident that respondents share a common vision
of what being a literary translator entails. In fact, the image that emerges from the data
is that of a strong sense of identity, which although taking a variety of different forms in
the answers, nonetheless reflects back a coherent whole. It is as if, just like pieces of a
puzzle, all respondents come together from different backgrounds and experiences to
form one organic picture of their personal and professional world. In fact, we have seen

184
how overall age does not impact the way literary translators describe their profession. In
the same way, having or not a degree in translation does not determine significant
differences in perceptions of role, and the same is true for professional status. Despite
there being some differences in what essential traits each group prioritises according to
their age, educational background and professional status, there is one idea that persists
throughout, namely that being a literary translator is something deeply related to
respondents’ personal spheres. In a way, who literary translators are as professionals
cannot be separated from who they are as a person: while it might not be a ‘raison d’etre’
for everyone, the description of the profession is rich in emotive language and the line
between qualities necessary to be a literary translator and those belonging to personal
character is often blurred. For example, one respondent states:
I am an anarchist and an internationalist. Being a freelance translator is an occupation that more
or less squares with my convictions. A translator - particularly a literary one - needs to be able
to ‘listen’, to empathise, to reflect, to weigh up, and in the end to make a whole chain of decisions.
Often, participants’ descriptions of their profession become a description of who they are
as a person, as per the literary translator just quoted. To be a literary translator you have
to be a ‘bit of a loner, work from home, have to love the books’, and ‘a bit of a Jack of all
trades (while hopefully not being a ‘master of none’ at the same time), being able to self-
motivate and be disciplined’. From the range of different qualities that make up their
narratives, being and becoming a literary translator is so intrinsically personal that it is
indeed a sum of personal experiences and backgrounds, which makes each of them unique
and irreplaceable. It is this non-replicable je ne sais quoi that informs ‘a free, highly
creative, and unique profession for talented people’. The notion of talent recurs in several
instances as fundamental, in that ‘nothing can help the absence of inborn or acquired
feeling for the subtleties of a given [literary] text’, or as another respondent puts it, ‘you
should be well versed in modern world literature, even though I feel that you can do this
job (to a certain extent) even without it’. This concept is also often conveyed using the
metaphor of acting. As one respondent puts it: ‘I see some value in expressing the act of
literary translation in the form of performance art, in particular, as a form of acting’.
Generally, the higher degree of artistic sensitivity that is felt necessary to perform literary
translation is expressed in terms of possessing creative qualities. This talent, sensitivity
and propension towards art also forms the grounds for distinguishing literary translation
from other forms of translation: ‘there’s both more creativity and more hermeneutical
analysis needed in literary translation projects, as well as a unique degree of freedom in

185
the handling of language’. This attitude is simultaneously sustained and reinforced by
the reiteration of concepts related to the semantic field of passion and enjoyment. Some
describe it as a ‘hobby’, while many state that ‘you should also genuinely enjoy playing
with language’. The necessity of a love for words, learning and literature is also strongly
present. This way, the realm of concrete competencies in which writing, reading,
language and research skills reside, is brought in the realm of personal qualities in the
name of passion. Contextually, passion stands next to and in opposition with discourse
related to low pay and status. In this regard, one respondent notices: ‘I get the impression
from chatting with translator colleagues that literary translation is perceived as low paid
and that contracts are hard to obtain, so a labour of love rather than a serious
professional choice’. References to pay are not predominant, and yet they are poignant
when they occur, especially in relation to the semantic field of love, passion and artistic
sensitivity: ‘you do it for the prestige and the love of it. The pay is contemptible’, while
another translator states ‘sadly, I don’t have enough time to do literary translation full-
time, as it doesn’t pay the bills’. The link between the two is seen particularly as far as
respondents’ wish to be perceived by outsiders is concerned. In particular, one wishes
for outsiders to ‘see to it as a PROPER job and that clients would PAY decently’, while
another states that ‘they don’t see any value in paying more for quality or better
creativity’. Particularly in relation to outsiders, literary translators’ narrative around pay
and low status, when seen in light of essential traits as primarily personal traits, appears
to justify a sense of superiority directed at anyone who is not a literary translator. But
what exactly does it mean to be a literary translator? According to one respondent, ‘you
don’t have to make a living off of it to be one, there is little difference between a
professional and a talented amateur’. Literary translators’ professional identity
somehow escapes a univocal definition, but somewhat paradoxically, all respondents
seem to have clear in mind who belongs to the group and who does not. It is a place
somewhere far from the more material aspects of the profession, or where at least these
become themselves immaterial, laying the foundations for that ‘last bastion of human
translation’ (Toral and Way, 2014: 174) in which participants seem to seek refuge. At
the same time, the discourse around personal qualities (creativity, artistic sensitivity and
passion in particular) as professional qualities sets literary translators in a self-constructed
position of superiority as opposed to more practical aspects, which determine the low
status of the profession as perceived and caused by others. Continuing doing this job
despite the poor professional conditions equals performing an act of courage, almost
heroic, a form of resistance in the face of a world who does not appreciate nor value ‘a

186
fundamental cultural associate or factor that bridges the world better than any
transportation tool’. This sentiment will be the object of the following section, which
discusses the position of literary translators in society as related to outsiders.
This section has highlighted how the professional discourse of literary translators is
deeply intertwined with their personal narratives. In particular, we are confronted with a
strong sense of identity and belonging to a group independently from age, professional
and education backgrounds. This points to the fact that being a literary translator cannot
be strictly confined by anything material such as qualifications and professional status.
In fact, there is really no difference between amateurs and professionals as long as they
share the same essential characteristics. Some examples of these are artistic sensitivity,
a talent for words, a passion for literature, the ability to play a role as an actor would.
Being a literary translator is hard to define, and it is so because it is hard to reduce a
unique and irreproducible mix of backgrounds and experiences to a univocal definition.
Furthermore, the discourse around passion is often accompanied by reflections on the low
status of the profession, which seems to justify a sense of superiority especially as far as
outsiders’ perceptions of it are concerned. These will now be explored in more detail in
the following section.
7.3.1.2 Literary translators as misunderstood
We have previously seen how half of total respondents think outsiders are unaware and
unappreciative. In particular, they fail to appreciate all the qualities that together depict
the professional figure of the literary translator as highly linked to an individual, unique
persona. Outsiders’ opinions are exacerbated by their idea of translation as a ‘simple
words substitution’. Only an elected few understand what literary translation entails, and
these are not the general public. This way, the idea is reinforced that literary translators
form an exclusive group to which only individuals sharing the same type of personal
sensitivities belong. According to respondents, this often ‘depends on their
understanding of language’, as ‘most readers do not understand the importance of
literary translation, especially if they are monolingual’. Not understanding language
leads them to ‘think that translation is more like data entry than a creative pursuit’.
Consequently, one of the wishes is for ‘people to realise that translation is an art, not
just a technical skill’. Outsiders fail to grasp the very essence of literary translation. Even
when they glorify literary translation, they do not seem to do so for the right reasons, their

187
ideas being ‘romantic or skewed’. Even if rare, this glorification is something translators
reject. With this narrative too, the literary translator places themselves in a superior
position. In fact, if on one hand they wish to be seen by outsiders ‘the way they see actors
or music conductors’, on the other hand they are not interested in the general public
achieving this understanding, with one stating: ‘I only care that my clients understand,
they and the authors I work with. Most of them do.’. Misunderstanding appears as
somewhat necessary in order for literary translators to maintain their status, to live up to
their self-constructed image of what being a literary translator really means. If the general
public were to really comprehend the essence of literary translators, the very aura
surrounding their role’s narratives would disappear. In this sense, belonging to a
community becomes extremely important, since only those who identify as literary
translators seem to be able to understand all different facets of the profession. In this
regard, it is worth recalling that a striking majority of respondents is either a member of
a translation association or an online community, in particular 65% are members of a
translation association, while 88% belong to an online community. The need to
communicate with peers is also highlighted by the mention of networking as an appealing
aspect of technology, and one of the most appreciated together with the sense of
commonality it helps develop. Overall, being able to easily communicate with their peers
functions as an antidote to a pervasive misunderstanding, and consequently as a means of
keeping their status, defining the borders of their identity, who belongs to the group and
who does not. This also allows to reinforce, construct and echo their narrative. This
being said, it also constitutes a way for literary translators to stay in touch with their
clients and perform any marketing activity as related to their literary translation work. It
is worth noticing how, both in regard to networking and to outsiders’ perceptions of
translation as a mechanical activity, machines slowly enter literary translators’ discourses
on role. In particular, they take the form of MT, exemplified by ‘the inevitable Google
Translate question’. More insight on this will be provided later on in the section of this
chapter dedicated to discussing issues related to technology (7.3.2).
Once again, age is not a discerning factor for both outsiders’ perceptions and wish to be
perceived by outsiders. If anything, respondents prove once more that, despite different
backgrounds, they share the same sense of identity and belonging. This is also true for
educational background, which does not significantly affect the description of outsiders’
perceptions and the wish to be perceived by them. Finally, the discrepancy between the
idea literary translators have of themselves and the one they actually project on the world,

188
or that the world reflects back to them, is central to the feeling of in-betweenness that also
emerges from the findings. This will be the object of further discussion in the following
section.
7.3.1.3 Literary translators as in-between
Findings highlight participants locating themselves at the intersection of the translation
and the art worlds, setting up the premise for their positioning in a place of in-
betweenness. In fact, the more they self-construct a coherent image of their identity, the
more this clashes with the ‘outside’ world. However, this paradoxical trait seems itself
to be an intrinsic quality of living culture and society as a literary translator. All
respondents contribute to the portrayal of literary translators by each providing a different
side of their lives and professional experiences. This being said, the different aspects all
converge to create an organic, consistent and collective image of the profession. Literary
translators are writers, artists, creators by their own admission, yet they are invisible.
They are passionate, dedicated, knowledgeable bearers of culture, yet they have no
significant place in the economic landscape. They are hermeneutically free, yet they are
prisoners of the text. As we have seen in the two preceding sections, the semantic fields
of artistic creation, passion and reward constantly and consistently clash with those of
unappreciation, marginality and mechanicalness. This is exacerbated by reported
outsiders’ opinions of the profession, where the sphere of dedication and sensitivity is
momentarily erased to leave space for that of misunderstanding and unawareness. The
few exceptions to this are reserved to figures that take on similar traits, such as writers,
poets, colleagues, and people with sophisticated literary taste. These are also the only
social groups that preserve an aura of trustworthiness, limiting the sense of diffidence
reserved to the topic of technology that will be detailed in the subsequent section. Being
a literary translator is a blessing and a curse. It is a beautifully described effort which is
‘fundamental to humans’, but that often goes unnoticed, if not unappreciated. Another
layer of in-betweenness is added when the discourse centres on literary translators as
cultural bridges, whereby they are in-between two cultures by definition. The relationship
to writing is also a complex one which grants this sense of being in-between; in one
respondent’s words: ‘we are prisoners of a text yet free from it, we are not writers yet we
do write. Its [sic] a very paradoxical job’. This directly intertwines with the dyadic
relationships author-translator, source language/culture/text-target language/culture/text;
one participant summarises it as follows:

189
as a translator, I believe that my essential qualities are the ability to compromise between my
style of writing and my worldview and those of the writers I am translating. […] I love being in
the in-between zone where the two (or more...) languages overlap, half-way between the text and
the not-so-final result of my work.
Finally, as related to personality, one respondent mentions ‘being a literary translator is
a bit like having two personalities; I feel my French self conveys emotions, situations,
events, into an English that I recognise’.
To conclude, adding a layer of complexity to the already multifarious image of literary
translators is their keen sense of feeling in-between. This manifests in multiple ways and
at different levels of both personality and professional skills. However, in what ways
does this character relate to technology? The following sections will attempt a discussion
of respondents’ attitudes towards technology as emerging from the questionnaire’s
results, to subsequently relate these to the literary translator character that emerged from
the current discussion.
7.3.2 The good, the bad, and the tech
The discussion will now proceed to bring to the fore specific aspects of respondents’
attitudes towards technology as emerged from data analysis. In particular, it will add a
further dimension to positive and negative aspects of technology as reflected by
respondents’ narratives (7.3.2.1 and 7.3.2.2). The comparison between general and
translation-specific technology will also be a topic of discussion (7.3.2.3).
7.3.2.1 The good side of technology
Previous analysis of the data set has allowed to uncover respondents’ attitudes towards
technology as related to their literary translation activity. This section will delve deeper
into positive attitudes that emerged overall, in the attempt to frame them with a view to
which characteristics of technology literary translators find useful in relation to their
professional activity and why. The discussion will address appealing aspects and specific
tools that were mentioned, and how attitudes towards technology interact with age,
educational background, and professional status.

190
Questions which enquired about participants’ feelings and views regarding the
relationship between literary translation and technology highlighted how many find it
helpful (24%) and demonstrate positive attitudes towards it (49%). Particularly
appreciated was the possibility to have immediate access to a vast amount of information.
As a whole, speed, efficiency and facilitation of mechanical tasks were often mentioned
as advantages of using technology in literary translation. Being able to swiftly research,
check and share information and terminology proves to be fundamental, and so the ability
to reduce the time spent carrying out quality assurance tasks, such as editing and
proofreading, or even typing. Another crucial aspect of technology in literary translation
relates to networking, in that technology helps with marketing and promotion of services,
talking and negotiating with clients, and exchange translation doubts and experiences
with colleagues. Technology as positively seen by respondents also compensates for
human shortcomings, especially in relation to memory, by retaining ‘things you should
keep in your head otherwise’ and helping with ‘sorting thoughts’. Similarly, by ‘[taking]
out the donkey work’ technology helps with concentrating on translation proper, assisting
the human in their literary translation endeavours. All of the above returns consistently
throughout the questionnaire results, and in particular when dealing with appealing
aspects of technology, which respondents noted as being namely related to the realm of
research, efficiency, assistance to human, accuracy and consistency, and networking.
These results are also reflected in the specific type of tools mentioned, whereby 35%
referred to online dictionaries, terminology databases and thesauruses, and 15%
mentioned text-editing software and internet search, respectively. The discourse of
literary translators around positive aspects of technology principally revolves around
what has been termed here as general technology tools. General technology tools are
gladly employed to take care of the less translation-specific tasks, e.g., typing,
researching, networking. However, while 71% state they do not use any translation-
specific technology, 25% of respondents mention the use of CAT tools in their literary
translation activity, with no additional information being given (but none being solicited
by the question either) as to how these are employed. This appears as an anomalous piece
of data, which somewhat lives in isolation when being looked at in light of less favourable
attitudes towards technology and translation technology in particular. In fact, while
Question 18 points towards a high level of diffusion of CAT tools among literary
translators, results in other relevant areas of the questionnaire testify to the contrary. The
distinct relationship between general and translation-specific technology will be further
addressed in Section 7.3.2.3, while Section 7.3.2.2 will delve deeper into the relationship

191
between negative attitudes and translation-specific tools. For the moment, it suffices to
say that the 49% who expressed positive attitudes towards technology roots these in the
idea that translation-specific tools will not be able to substitute the literary translator, at
least not any time soon. The positive feelings expressed in this regard are of being lucky,
comfortable, grateful, relaxed and excited about technology in literary translation.
Considering this, when the substitutive element (be it perceived of real) of certain
technologies is taken out of the equation, more space is left in respondents’ discourses for
technology to assist literary translators. Results also point towards age and educational
background as being important – although not determining, factors in literary translators’
shaping of their attitudes towards technology. In this respect, the positive discourse
represents the majority in all age groups, however it is particularly prevalent in the
youngest respondents aged 18-25, where it makes up 80% of their discourse. This reflects
also on levels of confidence with technology, whereby the 18-25 group is overall the most
confident for both general and translation-specific tools. Furthermore, trends have been
observed as far as educational background is concerned, in that the most qualified
respondents are also the most confident with general technology, while those with a
postgraduate degree are the most confident with translation-specific technology. Notably,
those who received academic translation-technology training are significantly more
confident with translation technology and are more likely to think of technology as helpful
and necessary for literary translation. Attitudes towards technology are thus partly
dependent on social and cultural factors such as age and educational background. What
the data suggests is that familiarity with technology and knowledge of it allows for higher
levels of confidence and more positive attitudes to be developed. In practice, this could
translate into professionals being less prone to accept narratives of substitution, according
to which the machine prevails on the human or will be at some point in the future. This
is further supported by data on in-house translators, who have proven more confident with
translation technology and think of it as more helpful and relevant for literary translation
than their freelance colleagues. In fact, while freelancers have more freedom in choosing
their workflow and tools to employ, in-house translators might be more accustomed to
specific tools or the use of technology in general, as they need to follow their employer’s
workflow model.
Data shows that what makes technology particularly appealing is its ability to compensate
for human shortcomings, especially by generally improving efficiency, allowing to
research vast amounts of information, saving time spent on more ‘mechanical tasks’, and

192
communicating with clients and colleagues. Thus, technology helps, supports, and
enhances the literary translator, allowing them more time and capacity to concentrate on
the task of translation itself. Overall, what underlies respondents’ positive attitudes is a
focus on enhancement as opposed to substitution: technology is there to help and not to
hinder the translation activity. This is also reflected in the way age, educational
background and professional status affect attitudes towards technology. In fact, people
who are more accustomed to technology in general (e.g., younger respondents and in-
house translators) and those who have received academic technology training seem to be
more prone to think of technology as helpful and supportive of the literary translation
activity, and are more confident in relation to both general and translation-specific tools.
This confidence allows for a more relaxed approach to the use and adoption of technology
and relevant views on it; a comparison with negative attitudes and what these entail will
be provided in the following Section 7.3.2.2. The type of technology that is mentioned
in the instances hereby taken into consideration is one that helps the human and makes
up for their shortcomings while at the same time preserving their most peculiar traits. The
main focus here is on specific traits of both humans and machines and on preserving and
enhancing both. Notably, the type of technology that is more suited for this is of the
general type instead of technology-specific tools. The relationship between attitudes and
type of technology tools will be further explored in Section 7.3.2.3. The bottom line is
that technology is associated with positive attitudes when it embodies a way to enhance,
sustain and support the literary translator, in a manner that preserves and is harmonious
with what qualifies as essentially human traits at the heart of literary translators’
narratives of their own job. The happy marriage between literary translation and
technology is already a reality for some respondents, and it will be in the future for others,
envisioning a state of things where materiality is welcome to support immateriality in
literary translation. This particular concept will be further unpacked in Section 8.3.
Trends have also been observed in relation to negative attitudes towards technology,
which will be the subject of the subsequent section.
7.3.2.2 The bad side of technology
While almost half of all respondents showed positive attitudes towards technology in
literary translation, 13% expressed negative attitudes and 6% thought it not to be relevant
at all for literary translation. These are the narratives on which this section will be centred.

193
It is worth recalling that when specifically prompted to compare literary translators’
essential traits and technology, 15% thought technology to be less or not helpful for
literary translation, 13% saw no relationship whatsoever between the two, while 6%
showed resistance towards the idea of technology being used in literary translation, and
3% thought this was imposed and not the result of an informed choice. Notably, the
discourse around unappealing aspects of technology centres on this being a hindrance to
both the human and the process of translation, an imposition from above that is
incompatible with the very essence of literary translation. In particular, hindrances are
embodied by the inflexibility of certain technology such as CAT tools, and by their
interference with freedom, creativity, originality and cognition; such technologies are
seen as unnecessary disturbances which actively affect the literary translation workflow.
The (potential) results of technology use in literary translation are errors, inaccuracies,
and an overall impoverishment of the translated text, in which language becomes stilted
or mechanical. If in the previous section we have seen how positive attitudes tend to stem
from the perception of technology as enhancement, here negative attitudes mainly spring
from the feeling of there being an attempt at replacing literary translators. In this regard,
many have mentioned how, as a result of the introduction of technology in translation,
clients have higher expectations, especially in terms of turnaround times, while at the
same time standards and fees are being lowered as a consequence of the widespread
illusion that new technologies can somehow succeed in the task of translation. This
narrative strand comprises mentions of low levels of usability of most tools, the steep
learning curve to master them, the impossibility to handle language specificities such as
idioms and irony, and by the vivid impression that literary translators are not asking for
the inclusion of more technology in their workflow, rather this is an imposition from the
outside. In particular, other social groups’ narratives are being superimposed on literary
translators’ own narratives of their own profession and the role that technology plays in
it. In this respect, the section of the questionnaire on outsiders’ perceptions is where
respondents’ specific mentions of translation technology first start to emerge more
pronouncedly. CAT tools and MT emerge more clearly as technology, while AI
particularly features in relation to the future of technology in literary translation, pointing
towards these as the translation-specific tools that are the most compelling in literary
translators’ narrative of their negative attitudes towards technology. Translation
technology is where literary translators’ worry, indifference, doubt and distrust all
converge, signposting the disjunction between what has been termed in this thesis as
general and translation-specific technology. CAT, MT and AI are intrinsically

194
incompatible with literary translation as defined by the essential traits provided in
Question 22. Overall, they are not helpful, they have ‘no soul’, yet their ascent seems
ineluctable for reasons that are far from clear. In fact, the 13% who expressed overtly
negative attitudes regarding the literary translation/technology relationship were
apprehensive, sad, angry, uneasy, or uncertain. The latter was especially true in relation
to the future of this relationship, whereby technology is seen as potentially abusive or
threatening for the literary translator. It is worth recalling that freelancers are more
negative in this sense than their in-house colleagues, and the same occurs for part-timers
as opposed to full-time literary translators. If we take freelancing and being part-time as
intrinsically precarious, then we can establish a relationship between the latter and
negative attitudes towards translation-specific technology. Notably, a higher degree of
precariousness is related to more unfavourable perceptions of technology. The fact that
unfavourable attitudes find their basis in the idea of technology as a substitute for the
human, idea which is perceived as being imposed from the outside, adds a further layer
of complexity to this observation, suggesting that the less precarious are also the less
worried about their jobs being taken away from them as a result of technology
development and/or adoption. The degree to which in-house translators are more familiar
with technologies in their daily working lives still needs to be ascertained; a higher degree
of familiarity could help to explain whether, by being more accustomed to translation
technology, in-house translators are less likely to develop negative opinions about it. This
being said, the directly proportional relationship previously established between
translation technology training and confidence with translation technology (Sections
7.2.2.3.2 and 7.2.2.3.6) would suggest that a similar relationship could exist between
using translation technology at work and showing more favourable attitudes towards it.
This is further validated by results indicating that those who are more confident with
translation technology are also more positive about it, and that not receiving translation
technology training can be linked to more negative attitudes towards the literary
translation-technology relationship. Age also has a bearing on the way respondents see
technology in literary translation, whereby the most unfavourable narratives belong to
those over 46 years of age.
In the context of this study, negative attitudes towards technology are rooted in the idea
that technology is (1) a hindrance and interference to humans and the process of
translation, (2) imposed from the outside with the (3) aim of replacing the human
translator. In this respect, the technology which respondents refer to when expressing

195
their unfavourable attitudes is translation-specific technology – particularly CAT, MT
and AI. The more professionally precarious and those who received less training in
translation technology also emerge as the most vulnerable to developing unfavourable
attitudes towards technology, from which it can be inferred that negative attitudes are
inversely proportional to familiarity with or knowledge of translation technology.
Similarly, lack of confidence with technology reflects in less positive attitudes. In this
respect, more training in translation-specific tools could improve levels of confidence and
thus attitudes towards technology in literary translation, allowing for a more optimistic
and relaxed view of the future of the profession, for both freelance and in-house
translators. This trend appears to be already in the process of being reversed, with
younger generations generally presenting higher levels of confidence with technology
and having received more academic training. Confidence with technology, training, age
and employment status all have a bearing on negative attitudes. The way in which literary
translators perceive technology is deeply related to outsiders’ conception of it. In fact,
they are heavily involved in the framing of technology (and more specifically, translation
technology) as something incompatible with the most peculiarly human traits pertaining
to literary translation, and thus imposed from those who do not really comprehend the
peculiarities of the literary translation profession, i.e., outsiders. This will be the subject
of a more detailed discussion in Section 8.2.
One thing that is clear from comparing the discussions of positive and negative attitudes
towards technology is that there are stark differences between the two, and some are
directly opposed to one another. Namely, where the positive discourse revolves around
technology as enhancement and support to the human translator, the negative narratives
hinge on the concepts of hindrance, disruption and disturbance to the most human aspects
and the process of translation. One of the main reasons for this has been identified in the
type of technology respondents are referring to in the two instances. Notably, where
enhancement is perceived to come from general technology, hindrances are perceived to
be borne out of tools that are specifically designed with the translation task in mind. In
view of this, the polarisation between enhancement and hindrance in participants’
answers is only apparent, in that they constitute indeed two complimentary sides of the
same type of vision. In fact, literary translators as depicted by the data at hand are not
averse to technology as such. On the contrary, they welcome certain tools while being
resistant to others. More specifically, the tools which inspire the most negative attitudes
appear to clash in nature with the essential traits attributed to literary translation by

196
respondents themselves. This opposition brings to the fore the deep connection between
role and technology, which will be further observed in Section 7.3.3. An in-depth
comparison and discussion of general and translation-specific technology as based on
literary translators’ narratives will now be offered in the following section.
7.3.2.3 General vs translation technology
The two previous sections have highlighted how general and translation-specific
technology can be consistently and respectively linked to positive and negative attitudes
towards technology. The current section will further explore this notion by discussing
the specific ways in which this contraposition emerges from the data.
We have seen earlier (Section 7.3.2.1) how general technology tools are seen by
respondents as helpful, supportive and enhancing in relation to their literary translation
activity. Conversely, translation-specific tools were perceived as imposed, hindering,
aimed at substituting the human, and as incompatible with or not helpful for literary
translation (Section 7.3.2.2). In other words, while general tools allow literary translators
to enjoy the benefits of technology while retaining their most essentially human traits,
translation technology threatens to eclipse what constitutes the very essence of literary
translation as depicted by respondents themselves. In the questionnaire, this opposition
is made explicit by answers such as ‘general tech is very helpful but I don’t use
translation-specific tech’, or ‘I use the ones [tools] that are useful (online dictionaries,
corpus dictionaries, etymological dictionaries) but TM is not helpful’. Particularly, by
leaving the definition of technology in the questionnaire as open as possible, respondents
were encouraged to provide their own definition of it in relation to their professional
activity. This allowed for the duality of attitudes towards general and translation-specific
technology to emerge organically: ‘technology helps a lot (dictionaries, grammar
resources, etc.), but also there is a trap of falling into a routine (CAT tools, danger of
using the same phrases, paying less attention to the text)’. In this respect, another
respondent states: ‘I make extensive use of general technologies and find them very
helpful to the work’, while ‘judging from the keywords freedom, subjectivity, and
complexity, these seem to be antithetical to the current state of translation technology’.
Notably, when referring to general tools, respondents tend to limit their comments to
denoting their qualities and describing their use. Oppositely, for translation technology

197
the discourse often adopts a moral tone, more deeply related to the essence of literary
translation and that often goes beyond the practicalities of the work. As one participant
puts it, ‘technology can help translation. CAT and MT can’t help translation. […]
Technology can be helpful in more mundane ways as in optimising word processing,
collaborating through platforms that allow real-time collaboration etc.’. Similarly,
another respondent listed quick access to information, the search function in documents
and terminology management tools as examples of helpful technology for the literary
translator, to then conclude with: ‘conversely, translation memory tools that divide a text
on a sentence-by-sentence basis discourage freedom in interpreting text on larger scales
[…] at some expense to the overall picture’. Once again, the juxtaposition of general and
translation technology exemplified by the quotes above is one that emerges naturally in
literary translators’ narratives. This being said, these quotes grant access to a deeper level
of interpretation, whereby the resulting dichotomy sees general technology tools being
presented in qualitative and descriptive terms as being at the service of the translator,
assisting them in their professional activity: their agency is submitted to the human one.
Oppositely, the language used in relation to translation technology tools depicts them as
purposefully attempting at substituting the human or, in the best-case scenario, disrupting
the flow of the translation process.
This being said, when specifically looking at mentions of translation technology, some
answers suggest the association between negative attitudes and translation technology
does not necessarily preclude translators’ willingness to adopt such tools. In particular,
the data about to be discussed below points towards the fact that any technology is
welcome, as long as it helps ‘craft the best literary texts’ possible. Furthermore, evidence
is present that literary translators are somewhat open to the possibility of using
translation-specific tools; however, they either do not possess the knowledge necessary
to adopt them or are not willing to adopt them in their current status.
While more positive attitudes towards general technology clearly emerged from the data,
some answers add a layer of complexity to the duality that has been highlighted in
previous sections (7.3.2.1 and 7.3.2.2). In particular, when asked about the relationship
between their definition of literary translation and technology (Question 25), some
respondents pointed out how they are not partial to one specific type of technology, as
long as the tool proves to be useful. In this regard, one respondent states:

198
I use technologies to support my own intellectual and linguistic skills. Using translation memory
software helps me focus on particular segments of text, and using online dictionaries and other
resources helps me research background information and make sure I’m getting things right.
Similarly, another participant says: ‘It’s useful to make CAT tools work for me, to see how
I have translated the same word or phrase previously’. Here, general and translation-
specific technology are on the same level, and they work together to respond to the
specificities of literary translation. The literary translator is also free to tweak or adopt
specific functions according to their needs. However, the question remains of why the
vast majority of respondents associate negative feelings to translation technology in
literary translation. A possible answer could be the lack of knowledge or familiarity with
such technology. This is suggested by responses such as ‘I have heard that CAT tools
can help by building a vocabulary list of repeated phrases in a translation. That appeals
to me but I don’t know how to use it.’. In fact, participants often express their wish of
using more technology in their work, but not being able to do so for lack of knowledge,
training or will to learn new tools. In this respect, it is worth recalling that 75% of
respondents indicated they did not partake in any translation technology-specific training,
and of those with academic qualifications, 66% did not receive any translation
technology-specific training as part of their degree. Thus, the lack of awareness of the
tools available and how to use them could have a significant impact on attitudes towards
said tools and their adoption in the literary translation workflow. One respondent
summarises this as follows:
I think translation today cannot exist without technology. […] But at the same time, I suppose
that literary translators are still not to [sic] much used to using specific translation technologies
in their work as translators in other translation fields are (they probably can’t even imagine
working today without CAT tools etc.). There could probably be some CAT tools designed to
help specifically literary translators, but I’m not sure of that yet. I have heard of people using
Google Translate and post-editing for parts of literary texts, which sounds unthinkable to me.
But the current form of some language pairs in GT might change my mind (thinking of neural
machine translation).
Answers such as this one call for a fruitful collaboration between developers and
practitioners to craft tools that are indeed designed for the specificities of literary
translation as reported by participants. Furthermore, they highlight the need for more
training involving the use of technology for translation, be it academic or not.
All of the above is particularly relevant if we also account for the fact that many
respondents found translation technology tools to be appealing. In this respect, it is worth
noting that questions 28 and 29, respectively on appealing and unappealing aspects of

199
technology, is where the polarisation between attitudes towards general and translation-
specific technology emerges more explicitly. For this reason, the following paragraphs
will discuss first appealing and then unappealing aspects of translation technology as
indicated by answers to questions 28 and 29. This, in order to determine whether the link
established earlier between general tools and positive attitudes, and translation tools and
negative attitudes is justified in light of respondents’ discourse around appealing and
unappealing aspects of translation technology.
Firstly, Questions 28 saw 17% of total responses (26 out of 150) expressly mentioning
translation technology tools as appealing. The almost totality of them (19) specifically
refer to TM. Notably, the most attractive characteristics of translation technology in these
instances relate to consistency, time-efficiency, terminology management and support to
the human mnemonic capability. As one respondent puts it, ‘an extra, outside ‘memory’
is always helpful’. Particularly appreciated is the concordance feature, through which
users can look for terms that have been previously translated. This is convenient ‘for
checking consistency in characterisation/speech patterns’, and it ‘helps a lot for sci-
fi/fantasy series’. Generally, ‘saving solutions to problems you have already solved’
allows to keep consistency while also being time-efficient. One respondent states: ‘I
enjoy having a searchable record of my decision-making process. And the way
translation software lets me use my time better’. Saving time is also a recurrent theme in
this set of answers, whereby speed is mainly related to saving ‘a great deal of searching
through already-translated text’, while ‘consistency checks […] could shorten editing
time’. Additionally, participants praised translation software’s function of building
glossaries and having automated suggestions based on these presented to the translator
while working. ‘I am particularly enamored of the terminology tools built in to most
translation memories’, one respondent said, while highlighting the appealing aspect of
‘finding and storing words – I’ve always loved dictionaries’. The last observation is
peculiar in that it assimilates translation-specific tools to general tools, and particularly
the tool that is the most used by respondents: the dictionary. Similarly, another participant
appreciates the opportunity to create lists of terms that ‘are not to be found in the
dictionary, and have those pop up whenever the term is found’; the same respondent adds:
‘I am quite forgetful, so this is a big help’. Here, not only translation technology tools
are likened to general tools, but it is also clear from the answers that TMs in particular
are generally seen as compensating for the shortcomings of human memory, while
allowing time-efficiency to be achieved when trying to maintain consistency throughout

200
a literary text via functions such as concordance search, glossary-building and automatic
suggestions. Once again, positive attitudes can be linked to technology perceived as
enhancement; in this particular case, contrary to what was observed in previous sections,
it is two specific types of translation technology that are perceived as appealing, and these
are TMs and glossaries/terminology management tools. This suggests that literary
translation presents precise needs that translation technology has to address if it wants to
appeal to literary translators. At the same time, it reinforces the idea that literary
translators are not averse to technology as such; oppositely, they welcome those tools
they perceive as helpful, whether more generic or translation-specific. In connection to
this, the lack of knowledge of such tools paired with curiosity also emerges. For example,
one answer reads: ‘software for creating glossaries is probably something I should
investigate’. Adding to observations made earlier in this section, the need for training is
hereby identified in relation to terminology tools and how to apply these to literary
translation. Finally, it is worth noticing that MT received one mention, when one
respondent asserted:
After encountering a long-winded sentence or paragraph in a literary text, especially when
written decades ago […], I often put my translation through a translating programme to produce
a back translation - I find it helps to make sure that the convoluted sentences have been ironed
out without losing meaning.
This seems to indicate that even MT could be welcomed in literary translators’
workflows, however in ways that are different – if not diametrically opposed – to those
envisioned by other stakeholders; in this instance, MT would not be used to translate, but
rather after the translation has been completed, as a quality-assurance tool. The section
will now proceed to discuss unappealing aspects of technology as related to translation-
specific tools to further uncover the relationship between these and negative attitudes
towards technology.
Question 29 on unappealing aspects of technology saw 38% of responses explicitly
mention translation technology as unappealing. This is slightly more than double the
occurrences in answers on appealing aspects of technology, which is in line with the
correlation found previously between negative attitudes and translation-specific
technology. While appealing aspects of translation technology were associated almost
entirely with TM tools, here 54% of unappealing aspects as related to translation
technology refer to MT (this is 20% of total answers to Question 29). The following
paragraphs will discuss the correlation between such tools and respondents’ attitudes

201
toward technology, in order to complexify the notion that literary translators’ negative
attitudes towards technology can be consistently and exclusively associated with
translation technology tools.
To begin with, the answers hereby considered were prevalently concerned with
translation technology as a hindrance to the human. In particular, tools aimed specifically
at translation disrupt or inhibit the translation process, whereby there is ‘a danger of using
the same expressions/words too often’, ‘CAT tools and suchlike break up the flow of a
text and make you think more rigidly’, and ‘lack of originality in CAT translations’.
Attitudes such as the ones just presented point towards translation technology as an agent
of standardisation; as one respondent states: ‘text can become stilted if the CAT or MT is
used beyond a first draft or as more than a memory aid’. The idea of recycling previous
translations is here presented as something in contrast with the same idea of originality
and creativity needed in literary translation. This is in total opposition to attitudes
expressed in relation to appealing aspects of translation technology, whereby the tools
embodied a helpful, external, additional memory to the human one. Similarly, the type
of segmentation used in CAT tools does not ‘allow […] to think about the text as a whole’,
as it ‘breaks up the flow of the text […] making context a little harder to detect’.
Furthermore, one participant notes how propagation of mistakes in TM could be
problematic, as ‘a silly mistake in a TM can disseminate freely and infect a long and cared
for text’. Finally, it is worth noticing the unappealing effects that translation technology
has on cognitive aspects related to exercising creativity. For example, one respondent is
‘afraid that if a translation memory suggests ready-made options’ they will not ‘use
[their] brain to look for more creative solutions to translation problems’. Where earlier
automated suggestions were cited among the most appealing aspects of translation
technology, in this context they assume the role of distractors. As an example, one
respondent states: ‘when working with e.g., Trados, I am not as focused as I would be
when working simply in MS Word. Autocorrect/glossary/memory functions often offer
fast and easy solutions, and not necessarily the best ones’. Ultimately, negative attitudes
highlighted earlier are hereby confirmed and linked more specifically to translation
technology, which in this view is inadequate for the task of translating literature. One
participant summarises this with the following: ‘I see much of the technology as being a
word substitution that takes away from the need to artfully turn a phrase over and over
until it is right, accurate and artful’. Question 29 also saw more responses focusing
explicitly on MT. ‘I find the idea of machine translation off-putting’ says one respondent,

202
with many others replicating this feeling, and another literary translator stating that what
is unappealing about technology is ‘the possibility that AI/MT will be given more to do,
so cutting out the human’. This being said, some respondents, although acknowledging
MT progress, still condemn its application to the literary translation world, for example:
‘MT […] developments are fascinating. But I can’t at the moment see its appeal for
actually doing a translation’, and again ‘the thought of machine translated literature
makes me shudder - no matter the progress in AI development or similar advances’.
Notably, responses such as the ones just mentioned reveal a form of prejudice toward
MT, which can be traced back to two main recurrent themes: lack of knowledge of the
tools themselves and a rejection of the narrative that surrounds translation technology. In
regard to the former, when looking at unappealing aspects of translation technology one
literary translator states ‘I don’t really understand what’s available’, while another one
asserts ‘I hate “tools”: it takes me longer to figure out how they work than to use them’.
As far as the impact of the discourse surrounding translation technology on literary
translators’ attitudes is concerned, many mention being worried and/or annoyed by things
such as ‘the implicit trust people and companies place in it [Google Translate and
Machine Translation technology]’. Overall, ‘misuse, [and] misunderstanding of
technology tools’ is presented as a driver behind finding translation tools unappealing.
These views do not appear in contrast to appealing aspects of technology discussed
earlier. This is because, in this instance, rejection of technology tools does not seem to
stem from the tools themselves, but from their misconstruction, which is enforced by
outsiders.
After having discussed in more detail the meanings attached by literary translators to
translation technology in terms of appealing and unappealing aspects, the assumption
made earlier in this chapter that, typically, general technology is associated with more
positive attitudes than translation technology seems to be confirmed. This being said, the
elements discussed here allowed to add a layer of complexity to this inference, especially
when considering positive aspects of translation technology as opposed to its negative
aspects as mentioned by participants. Indeed, the fact itself that most aspects are
perceived as both appealing and unappealing (e.g., automated suggestions as both
supportive tool and source of disruption to the translation flow) reveals that, although
leaning towards the association of negative attitudes and translation technology, results
are in fact positioned on a continuum where adoption and acceptance of translation
technology is dependent on certain factors. These factors have been identified in the data

203
as 1) technology training and specific knowledge of tools, 2) narrative surrounding tools
use and development, and 3) tools not catering to the specific needs of literary translators.
Thus, the necessity for more technology training, the need to change the discourse
produced by outsiders around tools catered to translators, and the lack of a technology
developed specifically with literary translation in mind are identified. Consequently, a
fruitful collaboration between literary translators and outsiders (e.g., tools developers,
publishing houses, translation companies, clients…) could help remove the feeling of
tools being imposed on professionals, improve working conditions, and possibly support
literary translators’ workflows in a way that is enhancing rather than hindering.
7.3.3 The role-technology interplay
Section 7.3 has offered a discussion of the main themes emerging from data analysis in
relation to role and technology. More specifically, it has first presented a comprehensive
image of contemporary literary translators as emerging from respondents’ narratives.
Subsequently, it has examined participants’ attitudes towards technology, looking
particularly at positive and negative attitudes, and the interplay between general and
translation-specific technology. The present and final subsection will elaborate on the
interrelatedness of role and technology in literary translation. More specifically, it will
deal with how the way literary translators perceive themselves relates to how they feel
and think about technology in their profession.
To start with, all respondents offer a coherent picture of the literary translator figure,
independently of age, educational background and professional status. Furthermore, the
boundaries between personal and professional attributes is often blurry, whereby
professional skills and competencies are often to be complemented by certain personal
character traits. In this view, being a literary translator means possessing quintessentially
human qualities, according to what appears as a deeply personal portrait of the profession.
In these narratives, no hint at technology can be found, suggesting its relationship to
literary translators’ role is virtually non-existent, or at least not essential in the eyes of
participants.
Following this, it has been observed how this type of personal narrative implies a level of
misunderstanding on the part of outsiders, who are also seen as the perpetrators of things
such as low pay and low status. This being said, the stark opposition between outsiders’

204
perceptions of what being a literary translator entails and what it really means for
translators themselves is in itself a way of sustaining the latter’s narrative. The impression
is formed that were outsiders to comprehend all its facets, its very relevance would
dissolve. For this reason, the feeling of belonging to a community of colleagues becomes
extremely important for literary translators, to both sustain and reinforce the image of the
profession of which they are the gatekeepers. In this context, technology surfaces as a
facilitator, in that it helps fostering communication among colleagues and networking
with clients, thus keeping the community alive, consolidating its boundaries, and echoing
their own narrative of their role.
Another aspect highlighted by the data discussion relates to the position of in-
betweenness assumed by literary translators. The overarching opposition is one between
their self-perceived identity and the outside world, whereby a narrative centred on
passion, dedication, creativity, artistic sensitivity and reward is often met by one of
unawareness, disregard and invisibility. Additionally, an internal conflict unfolds in
relation to the specificities of the translation process, and in particular to the relationship
between source and target language, culture and text, and writing and translating. Against
this background, technology emerges as both an agent of bridging and widening these
gaps. In particular, technology which is perceived as enhancing and supporting becomes
helpful in narrowing the gaps related to the translation process, e.g., online research to
bring the source and target cultures together, online communication to connect with the
author where possible, or with other translators to ask for advice. Conversely, technology
that is perceived as hindering, imposed, and as attempting to replace translators tends to
widen these gaps. Particularly, it does so by reinforcing outsiders’ idea that translation is
a mechanical activity and thus translators can easily be substituted by it. Accepting this
kind of tools would mean accepting outsiders’ interpretations of literary translation and
would be a threat to the retention of its peculiar character as perceived and described by
literary translators. In this case, technology threatens to push literary translators away
from the image they have of themselves and their job.
Following on from this, a relationship emerges between technology, translators’ role in
society and, more widely, the way they perceive their professional selves. In fact, while
technology seemingly has no place in participants’ own narrative of themselves, a link
starts to form when looking at how literary translators relate to the outside world. In
particular, on one hand technology facilitates forming a sense of belonging, and thus helps

205
to sustain the image literary translators have of themselves. On the other hand,
technology is perceived as supporting the discourse of outsiders, who liken translation to
a mechanical act that can be easily reproduced by a machine. Notably, tools are perceived
as enhancing when they are in line with literary translators’ role in society and the way
they perceive themselves. Oppositely, they are considered as hindering when they are
felt to promote an image of translation and translators that is far from professionals’ lived
truth.
It is worth noting that the relationship between role and technology complicates when the
act of translation itself is brought into play. In particular, we have seen earlier how less
favourable attitudes are associated with technology intended to specifically carry on
translation tasks. At the same time, participants were more likely to have favourable
attitudes towards technology and higher levels of confidence the more technology
training they had had. With this in mind, the interplay between humans and technology
in literary translation seems to rest on two main assumptions, namely 1) technology
viewed as enhancing also sustains and reinforces literary translators’ perceptions of their
own role, and 2) technology viewed as hindering widens the gap between how literary
translators perceive themselves and the outside world. This way, the type of technology
that enters literary translators’ workflow and the way it does so becomes particularly
important, in that it is deeply intertwined with how literary translators perceive
themselves. How literary translators perceive themselves determines if and what
technology they adopt or reject. In turn, the type of technology and the discourse
surrounding it influences the way literary translators relate to the outside world and the
technology itself. In light of this, and in line with observations made at the end of Section
7.3.2, technology training and a collaborative approach between all social groups
involved become crucial should a change of narrative be deemed necessary. Once again,
the importance of training and knowledge of technology tools, the involvement of
translators in the development of this tools, and finally the discourse surrounding them
emerge as fundamental elements in the discussion of the interplay between humans and
technology in literary translation.
7.4 Conclusion
This chapter has presented, analysed, and discussed results of a questionnaire
administered to 150 literary translators. Results were firstly introduced and analysed

206
question by question, following the order of the five main sections of the questionnaire
(Section 7.1). The following section then presented results of cross-referenced variables
(Section 7.2). Both sets of data were discussed as a whole in the final section, where
results were summarised, and further observations and prompts illustrated (Section 7.3).
This final discussion helps foregrounding the next chapter, which will focus on relating
findings of this study with state-of-the-art literature and the answering of this thesis’
research questions.

207
Chapter 8: The literary translation age
Having presented and analysed this study’s results, it is now time to contextualise them
by revisiting the concepts that form the basis of this thesis. One of the premises of this
project concerns the ‘sense of confusion’ engendered by what Cronin has termed ‘The
Translation Age’ (Cronin, 2013). In the current socio-cultural landscape, translation is
inherent to society: everything is translated or in the process of being translated. The
figure of the translator and its role in this paradigm shift starts then to be questioned. A
consequence of this is that the encounter between materiality and immateriality cannot be
further delayed (Littau, 2016). The new positioning of tools as equally participating in
the production of translation further complicates the narrative surrounding humans. In
fact, it highlights the need for an in-depth analysis of how translators’ set of values and
sense of self shape and in turn are shaped by the material.
Moreover, the review of the literature has shown how translators’ identities are often
understudied and tend to present a conflicting mix of attitudes towards themselves as part
of an occupational group and the outside world. Overall, translation professional status
is deeply linked to how translators see themselves and the world. More specifically, while
translators highly value their own work, translation as a profession maintains a low status,
epitomised by low pay and feelings of unappreciation. Literary translators appear to be
further removed from both their professional context and the outside world, in that they
perceive their own status as high and adopt different strategies of improvement than their
colleagues in other branches of translation. In fact, while translators tend to focus on
improving professionalisation, literary translators tend to emphasise individuality,
creativity and intellectual skills (Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger, 2008). Ultimately, literary
translators are characterised by a sense of otherness and being in-between which affects
both how they position themselves in society and approach their work.
As far as their relationship to technology is concerned, issues of dehumanisation and
devaluation have been highlighted (O’Brien, 2012), with Koskinen and Ruokonen (2017)
noting that translators are not indeed averse to technology as such, which warrants for
further investigation of where these contrasting feelings originate from. In the case of
literary translation, the review of the literature highlighted a discrepancy between
research and practice. In particular, while the encounter between literary translation and

208
technology appears to be minimal in practice, research is increasingly focusing on ways
to implement translation technologies in the literary translation workflow, particularly in
the form of MT and PE. This is despite literary translators perceiving translation
technology as inappropriate or research highlighting how the MT+PE workflow might be
infeasible for the task of literary translation (Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2018). Overall,
translators tend not to be included in the tools design process, which is often at the basis
of their negative attitudes towards such technology.
In light of the above, this project had at its core the exploration of literary translators’
positioning in the current socio-technological climate. In particular, it aimed at exploring
literary translators’ ways of self-imaging and putting these in relation to how they view
technology. This is based on the assumption that, in a world where translation has
pervaded virtually all aspects of life and where translators position themselves as crucial
yet ignored creators of value, it would be counter-productive to separate the two when
trying to reassess the position of the translator in an increasingly technologized world. In
order to study how materiality and immateriality interact to dynamically construct the
socio-cultural landscape of contemporary literary translation, the study adopted SCOT as
a conceptual framework (Pinch and Bijker, 1984). The framework refutes technological
determinism and instead believes technological innovations are borne out of a dialectic
of variation and selection engendered by different social groups’ interpretations of an
artefact. The concepts of relevant social groups, interpretative flexibility, stabilisation
and closure mechanisms are all fundamental to the study of technological innovation.
This project focused on one social group in particular – literary translators, with the aim
of addressing their lack of inclusion in the discourse around technology. It did so
proactively, in order to potentially identify avenues for stabilisation and closure.
According to the literature, the way forward for HCI in translation is the symbiosis
between the material and immaterial (O’Brien, 2012; Littau, 2016), which could
ultimately foster a new form of humanity and a new way of translating (Cronin, 2013;
Large, 2018).
The study’s results have uncovered respondents’ attitudes towards technology and their
perceptions of their own role, with the ultimate aim of unveiling the dynamic interplay
between the two. What emerged is that literary translators present an overall coherent
picture which is independent of their background. In their view, personal and professional
skills are deeply intertwined, to the point that often the lines between them are extremely

209
blurred. This being said, literary translation escapes a univocal definition, at the same
time avoiding the constraints of professionalisation. In fact, this appears as part of their
strategy of status improvement, whereby they see outsiders’ views of the profession as
diametrically opposed to their reality. By avoiding canonical paths of professionalisation,
they keep in control of their field. External narratives of literary translation as a low status
profession are thus counteracted by ad-hoc constructed personae (Sela-Sheffy, 2008).
Literary translators are in-between by definition.
Findings also show attitudes towards technology are more positive than negative. A
polarisation between general technology tools and translation-specific ones is
highlighted. Generally, tools that are perceived as assisting and enhancing the human are
welcomed. Oppositely, tools that aim at performing the translation task are perceived as
hindering and can be linked to the more negative attitudes. Another othering aspect of
translation technology lies in its focus on productivity, reduction of costs and lowering of
standards, which appears to centre clients, researchers and developers instead of
translators. Ultimately, respondents welcome tools they perceive as helpful and that
honour the specificities of literary translation. Moreover, belonging to the 18-35 age
bracket, having an academic qualification in Translation, being familiar with tools and
having received translation technology training have all been linked to more positive
attitudes.
Finally, when looking at the interplay between role and technology, results show a dual
relationship: on one hand, technology supports a sense of belonging and reinforces
positive perceptions of role. Conversely, technology perceived as hindering is seen as
widening the gap with the outside world, in that it reinforces outsiders’ narratives of
literary translation as a low status profession. Ultimately, the solutions identified are the
promotion of (1) a fruitful collaboration between literary translators and outsiders where
tools are not imposed, (2) attention to working conditions, and (3) support of the literary
translation workflow in enhancing rather than hindering ways. In this respect, findings
indicate that role is deeply intertwined with literary translators’ self-image.
This chapter will present the thesis’ main contributions by discussing the findings in the
context of its theoretical framework and review of the literature. More specifically, it will
first elaborate on literary translators’ unique status and its in-betweenness. It will do so
by drawing a comparison with relevant literature on translator status, paying particular

210
attention to differences and similarities with non-literary translation. The chapter will
then move on to discuss the discrepancy between research on technology and literary
translators’ needs as inferred from their narratives. It will do so by applying the SCOT
framework to pinpoint interpretative flexibility among all relevant social groups,
ultimately challenging the idea of MT+PE as a suitable workflow for literary translation.
In this respect, enhancement will be established as the link between materiality and
immateriality in literary translation. Finally, the chapter will put forward proposed
closure mechanisms as informed by the thesis findings and contextualised by the relevant
literature on the future of HCI in translation.
8.1 A constant state of otherness
In Chapter 2, this study set out to define immateriality and materiality Littau (2016). The
study has then assimilated the concept of immateriality to that of literary translators’
perceptions of their own identity, and that of materiality to technology and their attitudes
towards it.
To begin with, respondents’ narratives of their roles and identities as literary translators
have allowed to address the lack of clarity surrounding literary translators’ status. The
‘Geist – spirit, mind, soul’ (Littau, 2016: 82) of literary translators is unique both among
society and other translators. This uniqueness finds its basis in the paradoxical nature of
their status and identity, whereby literary translation eludes a univocal definition, and yet
all those who belong to it clearly inhabit the same semantic spheres of definition. At first
glance, the way they characterise themselves is somewhat similar to the overall portrait
of translators offered by the review of the literature. In fact, respondents offer a positive
portrayal of their role. Literary translation is rewarding, a source of satisfaction, a result
of vocation and a mix of expertise and personal skills. Furthermore, the profession is
generally discussed in enthusiastic terms. These findings closely mirror translator status
as reported by the literature (Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger, 2008; Katan, 2009; Ferreira-
Alves, 2011; Sela-Sheffy, 2015; Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018). The same happens
when relating translators’ self-image to the overall status of the profession. The literature
highlighted the contradictions translators have to navigate when superimposing the idea
they have of themselves with that of the outside world. In fact, they are often met with
indifference and their expertise is rarely acknowledged, which both causes and
contributes to translation’s low professional status (Dam and Zethsen, 2016). In this

211
thesis, the differences between internal and external views of the profession has been
measured by asking participants to share their perceptions of how others see them.
Firstly, findings confirmed literary translators as in-between figures, constantly torn
between authorship and invisibility, creativity and mechanicalness, passion and lack of
economic worth, freedom and constraints. The way literary translators see themselves
through strangers’ eyes reveals a deeply rooted sense of marginality and
misunderstanding. It is precisely here that their sense of self resides, at the centre of two
diametrically opposed perceptions. It is also here that their self-image starts to stray from
that of their non-literary translation colleagues. According to Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger
(2008), translators adopt ‘strategies of status improvement’ (ibid.: 85) to counterbalance
external narratives of low status. These go on to inform the way they see and promote
themselves. Nonetheless, literary translators distinguish themselves from the rest of their
colleagues in that their strategies are often based on their own individuality, intellectuality
and creativity (ibid.). Their otherness is indeed validated by their peers, who think of
them as enjoying the highest status among all translators. Plus, unlike their colleagues,
literary translators’ constructed image is not affected by pay despite having the lowest
levels of retribution (Ruokonen and Mäkisalo, 2018: 11, 14). What might seem like a
small difference is indeed what positions literary translators in a different realm than their
counterparts. Sela-Sheffy (2005) sublimates these dissimilarities by remarking how
literary translators’ discourses exist in a more abstract dimension in which more technical
aspects are often overlooked. Indeed, our findings confirm this and show literary
translators as effectively removed from materiality. Nowhere in their descriptions of the
professions’ essential traits are to be found mentions of technology or other tools. Their
whole discourse revolves around spirituality, soul, experience, talent. These are all
vaguely defined and yet so poignantly depicted. Participants confirm the notion of
literary translators building ad-hoc personae to escape the crippling account of their
profession proposed by society, and to subsequently attain prestige. They are indeed
custodians of language, importers and innovators of culture, and artists in their own right
(Sela-Sheffy, 2008). In their hands is the responsibility for entire cultural systems and on
themselves is the moral duty of experiencing, learning, creating. What clearly emerges
from the findings is the face of a peculiar and defiant immateriality which is immutable
in the face of the Translation Age paradigmatic shift. Literary translators come together
as a group to defend the uniqueness of a myriad of different socio-cultural backgrounds
all converging towards the same mission and driven by the same vocation. Every
fragment of their colourful voices organically joins to form one big, coherent mosaic.

212
Notwithstanding the similarities shared with their colleagues, literary translators appear
as further removed from the outside world: they are in-between among the in-betweeners,
other among the othered. This peculiar position they adopt allows them to escape any
notion of standardisation. This way, they can project their own professional standards in
the form of unspoken rules and a non-replicable je ne sais quoi. Perpetuating this image
is perpetuating the feeling of misunderstanding on which it is based. The paradoxical
nature of literary translators’ self-image presupposes misrepresentation and devaluation
for them to be able to constantly reaffirm who they are. Being ‘other’ is a necessary
condition for both affirming their identities and protect them in the face of an outside
world perceived to constantly undermine their sense of self.
While materiality was virtually absent from narratives of role, it started making an
appearance in participants’ narratives of how outsiders perceive them. These were then
complemented by their recounting of attitudes towards technological tools. Having
looked at defining immateriality as related to literary translators, the next section will link
these to the depiction of materiality in this study, providing connections to the wider
research and socio-technological context.
8.2 A mutual controversy
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings of the current study relates to how
participants’ attitudes towards technology are overwhelmingly positive. This confirms
Koskinen and Ruokonen’s (2017) notion of translators not being averse to technology as
such. Assuredly, this also bears the question of where in this narrative the controversial
relationship with technology arises. In this respect, findings have shown that a first
answer can be found in the differentiation of general and translation-specific tools. In
fact, general technology tools are significantly linked to positive attitudes. These are seen
as assisting the literary translator and helping them keeping consistency and accuracy,
and swiftly researching references and terms. At the same time, they increase speed and
efficiency and allow to gain control of the process. In this view, general technology tools
are in harmony with the character of literary translators’ self-image as portrayed in this
study. More specifically, general tools support the immaterial element and are thus not
perceived as threatening nor received with scepticism. Conversely, translation
technology appears to reinforce feelings of insecurity and defensiveness. By betraying
the very essence of literary translation, tools such as CAT and MT are directly opposed

213
to translators’ views of their profession. In this respect, descriptions of translation
technology often mimic the language used to describe outsiders’ attitudes. In fact, such
technology is perceived as imposed from the outside, something ineluctable, and yet
hardly inescapable. Whereby the immaterial fundamentally coincides with the very
essence of literary translators, the material that attempts to perform literary translation is
actively rejected and dismissed.
In light of the above, it is worth remembering that the discourse around technology in
literary translation is often accompanied by narratives of substitution, in that translation
technology is mainly presented, developed and studied with cost- and time-reduction in
mind. When looking at findings through the SCOT lens, interpretative flexibility is
immediately evident. Notably, there is a discrepancy between the focus of research on
literary translation and technology and literary translators’ practice as emerging from this
study. In fact, we have seen in Section 4.4 how research has almost exclusively focused
on the application of MT and PE to the literary translation workflow. This being said,
our findings show that 71% of respondents use no translation technology tools at all in
their literary translation activity, while only 7% mention MT as a tool they employ in
their work. Results are further corroborated by Slessor (2019), according to whom
literary translators use very little translation technology, and even when they do, they do
not necessarily use it for the purpose the tool was originally intended for, rather adapting
it to the specificities of literary translation. The conflict arising from the two different
interpretations of tools is thus clear, and it highlights a significant inconsistency between
the object of research and the actual needs of literary translators. In terms of SCOT, the
proactive approach that has been adopted has allowed to identify the controversy in the
technological trajectory of literary translation described above. In order to solve this
controversy, the different social groups involved would need to come together and devise
a closure mechanism to be able to reach stabilisation. At the moment, research discourse
is evidently removed from literary translators’ realities. In particular, it hinges on issues
of productivity and savings, but fails to account for literary translators’ practical needs or
even involve them in the conversation. Notable exceptions to this are Moorkens et al.
(2018), Slessor (2019), Youdale (2019), Kenny and Winters (2020), Youdale and
Rothwell (forthcoming) (see Section 4.4), which indicate a shift towards approaches
centered on literary translators is likely to be seen in the near future. Finally, the SCOT
lens adopted here has uncovered that other social groups’ views appear to trample those
of the group which, it could be argued, is the one that is most affected by such narratives.

214
If we add to this previous observations on the low status of the profession, outsiders’
misunderstanding, and the peculiar position literary translators adopt among their
colleagues, they now appear even further isolated from their social, cultural and
technological surroundings.
At this point, the interplay between materiality and immateriality in this context would
seem counterintuitive, and the relationship between the two compromised. However, it
is worth recalling that the relation between literary translators’ role and materiality is not
at all straightforward. In fact, it is a complex and layered issue that warrants for nuance.
A glimpse of this can be seen in the ambivalent attitudes towards technology and in its
appealing aspects as reported by 24% of respondents. In this respect, although the
association between positive attitudes and general technology, and negative attitudes and
translation technology has been evidenced, some results point towards aspects of
translation technology that are not thought of as antithetical to literary translation. In
particular, TM tools have been repeatedly indicated as a support to the fallibility of human
memory, and as helpful in dealing with recurrent translation and consistency issues. For
this reason, a more productive way of reframing the discourse around materiality in
literary translation would be to focus on concepts of enhancement (Youdale, 2019), and
on alternative ways tools can be applied to specific circumstances (Youdale and Rothwell,
forthcoming), as opposed to the more sterile dichotomy of good and bad tools. More
specifically, including translators’ perceptions and attitudes in the discourse would most
likely cause it to depart from solutions centred around reducing costs and saving time,
which are often associated by translators with the concepts of devaluation,
dehumanisation and lowering of professional standards. In other words, the current study
suggests that a tools development process in which the voices of literary translators are
heard is more likely to result in technology that is received as enhancing. In turn, not
only would literary translators be more willing to adopt such tools regardless of them
being general or translation-specific (and thus enhancing both quality and productivity),
but this would also promote a positive change in the profession, whereby at the moment
there seems to be fixed positions and very minimal dialogue happening. Taking into
account translators’ voices would be the much-needed shift to kickstart the conversation
and enter the Translation Age with a stable interplay of materiality and immateriality.
This being said, the study, reassessment, reintroduction and evaluation of materiality in
the literary translation technology discourse cannot happen in a void. More precisely, it

215
needs to consider the peculiarity of the literary translator profile, as it has emerged from
this thesis. In particular, the way translators see themselves is deeply intertwined with
how they relate and react to external circumstances. We have seen how literary
translators’ immaterial profile can be seen as a direct consequence of how the world sees
the profession. In the case of translation technology in particular, the narrative
surrounding it seems to replicate that of outsiders, thus triggering feelings of rejection,
defensiveness or simply being overlooked. This is in line with the theoretical premise of
materiality and immateriality mutually shaping each other in a non-hierarchical
dialectical interplay. In Littau’s words, ‘we cannot think without tools or outside of them’
(Littau, 2016: 84). Currently, technology seems to inhabit two opposite places at the
same time, a position epitomised by respondents mixed views on it. In this respect,
technology appears to both bridge and widen the gaps from which literary translators’
state of in-betweenness originates. On one hand, translation technology threatens to push
literary translators away from their self-constructed image of a rewarded and creative
professional whose work is fundamental to the cultural system(s) they belong to. Instead,
it appears to promote an idea of mechanicalness which is consistently found in outsiders’
narratives of the profession, whereby translation is assimilated to a rather straightforward
operation of word substitution. On the other hand, technology allows literary translators
to achieve higher levels of quality and efficiency, and assumes the role of supporter of
their persona. In particular, communication technology allows practitioners to reinforce
and promote this image, to find support in colleagues and peers, and facilitate
communication with clients, existing or potential. The situation is thus two-fold: on one
side we have tools perceived as enhancing by working alongside translators to sustain and
reinforce their perceptions of role, while on the other we find technology perceived as
hindering, in that it is seen as aligning with the outsider worldview, thus further promoting
a climate of imbalance between materiality and immateriality. If one thing is clear, it is
that literary translators want to feel in control of the translation process and, to a certain
extent, this is a fundamental condition of their very professional essence. It is then
fundamental to keep the balance between material and immaterial elements if a
sustainable and fruitful collaboration between the two is to be hoped and achieved. As
highlighted in the previous paragraph, the findings have identified the notion of
enhancement as the link between the two, and the need to re-centre literary translators as
a social group for a shift in conversation to happen. In regard to this, the next section will
delve deeper into stabilisation and closure mechanisms that have been identified in order
to address this shift in the future.

216
8.3 The way forward
The previous section has highlighted technology’s potential to support the immateriality
of the translation process. Furthermore, we have seen how technology is important to
form a sense of community and sustain the image literary translators have of themselves.
At the same time, some tools are perceived as having the potential to impact the act of
translation itself and thus the character of the literary translator by indulging outsiders’
perspectives and opposing views of translation. Nonetheless, research has focused
primarily on the application of MT and PE to the literary translation workflow,
tendentially overlooking practitioners’ needs. In fact, tools like MT are mostly seen as
antithetical to being a literary translator. In addition to practical aspects of the tools, the
discourse surrounding their development and adoption has also been established as a
cause of negative and ambivalent attitudes among respondents. The narratives of both
research and outsiders bring the already isolated figure of the literary translator to feeling
further misunderstood and removed from the conversation.
Given the controversy arising from ambivalent positions surrounding technology, its
increasing role in society, the research focus on translation technology, and the prevalent
role of subjectivity and creativity in literary translation, the aim in rebalancing the
immateriality-materiality interplay should be that of incorporating technological
innovations without compromising literary translators’ character and status. In this
regard, Slessor (2019) identifies a desire for more training in specialised technologies and
recommends revising technology training for literary translators to account for their
peculiar needs. Furthermore, he suggests that including them in the conversation could
lead to ‘make their peace with the computer age’ (ibid.: 250). This study’s findings
largely support this claim, having established in the analysis discussion the need for more
technology training. Furthermore, our data shows that receiving technology training
increases confidence with technology. Additionally, those who underwent training were
more prone to think of technology as helpful and necessary. Familiarity and knowledge
thus lead to more positive attitudes and confidence. In light of this, lack of knowledge
and training is hereby identified as one of the main elements of the socio-technological
controversy in literary translation. Adding to this, are the specific needs of literary
translators not being met, outsiders’ discordant views, and the misalignment of research
focus and practitioners’ perceptions of role. Therefore, an effective closure mechanism

217
should primarily account for the lack of technology training, and support a change of
narrative through the involvement of literary translators in the process of tools research
and development. Ultimately, what is needed is to establish a fruitful collaboration
among all parties involved that has at its core the enhancing and empowering of literary
translators through the interplay with materiality. This objective seems even more
feasible to achieve in the near future when considering the more positive attitudes shown
by this study’s youngest respondents.
As highlighted by the review of the literature, very recent attempts have been made to
address the development of technology as a support to the figure of an enhanced
translator. In particular, Lommel (2017) proposes the concept of augmented translation
as a way for translators to gain back control of the translation process via using AI, TM
and adaptive MT. Here, although the focus is still on translation technology, the narrative
around such tools slightly shifts to leave more space for the translator’s decisional power.
Taking a completely different approach is Youdale (2019) who devises the CDR approach
specifically targeting literary translation. He combines close and distant reading, text-
visualisation tools and corpus linguistics techniques, proving how this workflow indeed
enhances the process of literary translation from both a creative and efficiency standpoint.
Based on the findings from this thesis, the approach suggested by Youdale (2019) might
be too complex at this stage, especially given that between 65-75% of respondents did
not undertake any translation technology training, and only 1-2% of tools mentioned are
corpus linguistics and text-visualisation tools. Nevertheless, Youdale’s project (2019)
highlighted a fundamental aspect of the future of CALT and that is an explicit focus on
human enhancement. Our findings point towards online dictionaries, text-editing
software, online research, glossaries, terminology tools and databases as the preferred
general technology tools. Ultimately, the ideal tool is one that facilitates research, speeds
up quality assurance tasks, and assists with terminology management and consistency.
As far as translation technology is concerned, while 71% indicated they employ none,
25% indicated they use CAT tools, and TM in particular, with segmentation being the
main drawback of this type of tool. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the TM-
inclusive approach suggested by Youdale and Rothwell (forthcoming) in the case of
retranslation. Here, TM becomes a tool to project the translator in a new dimension where
all previous translations of a text are co-present, thus allowing them to gain new insight
into both the text and the new retranslation.

218
What is clear from the current study is that collaboration is key to allow for a ‘harmonious
co-existence’ (Alonso and Vieira, 2017: 353) between humans and technology in literary
translation. Our findings are in line with Cronin’s suggestion (2013) to employ ‘convivial
tools’ as defined by Illich (1975). These are tools that value individual freedom and work
with the human, not instead of them. In this view, the user has complete control over the
tool, together with the choice of using them or not, making space for their empowerment.
The concept behind conviviality is also one that goes along with the idea of a new
humanity resulting from a renewed exchange with materiality. In a world where literary
translators can count on tools to perform the more mechanical tasks, it is reasonable to
believe that new space will become available for the nurturing and thriving of creativity
and subjectivity. In other words, materiality has the potential to become the catalyst for
the figure of a new, enhanced literary translator. The challenge is now to find all the new
ways in which literary translation can exist in the future and devising new workflows that
preserve and enhance its profound humanity.
8.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter has provided a discussion of the main findings and contribution
of this thesis. In particular, literature’s findings on translator status as in-between have
been corroborated. This being said, our findings show literary translators as further
removed from both their colleagues and the wider socio-cultural context. They are other
among the othered. A discrepancy between the focus of most current research on
translation technology solutions centred on time and cost savings and literary translators’
needs as expressed in their own narratives has also emerged. Furthermore, it has been
established that the study of materiality in contemporary literary translation cannot
happen without considering the peculiarity of its practitioners’ immaterial persona.
Enhancement has been identified as the necessary focus for a productive, inclusive and
sustainable conversation around technological innovation in literary translation. In this
respect, conviviality has been suggested as the most suitable closure mechanism to
achieve stabilisation in the controversy arising from relevant social groups’ different
interpretations of technology. Ultimately, dialogue, inclusion, and a shift in the narrative,
research and development surrounding tools could lead to the figure of an enhanced and
empowered literary translator who navigates the Translation Age with purpose.

219
The chapter that follows moves on to conclude this thesis by answering this study’s
research questions and providing suggestions for further research.

220
Chapter 9: Conclusion
Technology, translation-specific or not, will remain a central shaping force in
translators’ work for the foreseeable future. The better we understand all of the factors
that affect translators’ willingness and ability to adapt to changing technology,
the better we understand professional translation practice.
(Koskinen and Ruokonen, 2017: 23)
This study first set out to identify the positioning of literary translators in the
contemporary ever-evolving socio-technological paradigm. In particular, it addressed the
lack of research focus on human issues deriving from the interaction between literary
translators and technology. Furthermore, it answered the call for the reintroduction of
material elements in the study of translation (Littau, 2016) and the need to address the
‘sense of confusion’ surrounding the translator as a professional figure (Cronin, 2013).
The focus was specifically on practitioners’ personal narratives of their profession in
terms of the role they occupy in society and how they feel technology plays into that. In
order to do this, an interpretivist, constructionist and mixed-methods methodological
approach was adopted. Data was collected via means of a questionnaire, and the 150
responses received were then collected, analysed, and discussed in this thesis. The SCOT
framework (Pinch and Bijker, 1984) was employed to both complement the overall
theoretical framework and inform the results analysis.
The research question that directed the study was: ‘what is the dynamic between humans
and technology in literary translation?’. This was complemented by two sub-questions
aimed at facilitating the answering of the main question by eliciting more detailed
information on role and technology. These were: ‘how do literary translators perceive
their role in society?’, and ‘what are their attitudes in relation to technology?’.
Additionally, the research process was aided by the formulation of three main objectives,
whose fulfilment both allowed and complemented the answering of the research
questions. These were:
a. To empower the professional figure of the literary translator by centring their
attitudes and perceptions.
b. To establish how literary translators’ interpretations of their profession contribute
to the social construction of technology, and whether any conflicts are present with the
other social groups involved.

221
c. To relate the findings to the wider socio-cultural context of The Translation Age
and the reintroduction of materiality in the translation discourse in order to devise a more
productive, inclusive and sustainable way forward for literary translators.
The first sub-question on role allowed to gain insight into how literary translators perceive
themselves as professionals. In particular, findings highlighted a strong sense of identity
that was independent of age, educational background and professional status. This also
transcended the professional sphere, whereby most of the qualities used to describe
literary translators’ role were indeed personal traits. At the same time, while offering a
coherent image of the profession, literary translators also escape a univocal definition of
it. In fact, by joining the personal and the professional, they avoid being tied to more
circumscribing factors such as qualifications and professional status. Interestingly, their
self-image stands in direct opposition to the way they feel outsiders perceive them. More
specifically, being misunderstood is a necessary condition for maintaining literary
translators’ self-image. In fact, respondents’ narratives of passion, creativity and artistic
sensitivity as essential to literary translation are counterbalanced by those of outsiders,
who, according to participants, see it as a straightforward, mechanical task requiring
minimal effort, and that could thus be easily undertaken by machines. This conflict with
the outside world contributes to situating literary translators in a place of in-betweenness.
In addition to being in-between languages, cultures and texts, literary translators also
struggle between the positive image they hold of themselves and the low status assigned
to their profession. They are artists, mediators, creatives, and find their work rewarding,
and yet they are invisible, unappreciated, marginal and receive low pay and status.
As far as the second sub-question is concerned, their attitudes towards technology proved
extremely complex. On one hand, participants appreciated improvements in speed,
efficiency, accuracy and consistency as a result of using technology. They also welcomed
the capacity to easily network with colleagues and clients, to quickly research terms and
references online, create and consult terminology lists and using text-editing software.
Overall, they valued technology tools they perceived as enhancing their existing abilities
rather than attempting at substituting them. Furthermore, having received more
technology training resulted in more positive attitudes and higher levels of confidence
with both general and translation-specific tools. On the other hand, tools such as MT,
and AI in general, were regarded as inflexible, incompatible with the very essence of
literary translation, and as interfering with creativity and originality. More ambivalent

222
attitudes were reserved for CAT tools and TM. Most negative attitudes could be linked
to the feeling of being replaced by machines and causing both standards and pay to be
lowered. Typically, positive attitudes could be linked to general technology, while
negative attitudes to translation-specific tools. This being said, lack of technology
awareness and training did affect negative attitudes, together with the type of narrative
surrounding certain tools and whether they were perceived to be compatible with the
specificities of the literary translation activity.
Findings on perceptions of role and technology allowed to answer the question on the
dynamic between the two in literary translation. In particular, technology emerged as
deeply intertwined with how literary translators perceive themselves in society. In this
respect, the ambivalence in attitudes highlighted in relation to technology could be traced
back to a dichotomy of enhancement and hindrance. In fact, enhancing tools respect and
preserve literary translators’ essential traits, while hindering tools centre outsiders’
narratives of the profession instead of literary translators’, and thus contradict their
professional vision and mission. Translation technology tends to coincide with features
that are seen as incompatible with literary translation, and thus tools such as CAT and
MT are frequently dismissed. Additionally, technology both exemplifies and reinforces
feelings of misunderstanding and in-betweenness. For example, on one hand it bridges
the gap between literary translators and other social groups by allowing them to network
and promote the image they constructed for themselves. On the other hand, technology
threatens to promote other social groups’ image of the profession over that of literary
translators themselves. For instance, it does so by encouraging the idea of translation as
a mechanical substitution of words which can easily be executed by an MT system.
Ultimately, perceptions of role and technology in the current socio-technological
landscape are profoundly interlaced, and where enhancing tools sustain and reinforce
perceptions of role and feelings of belonging, hindering ones are felt as widening the gap
between literary translators and the outside world by promoting an outsider view of the
profession.
Relating the findings to the wider research context has allowed to highlight their
implications for the study of literary translation and technology. In particular,
respondents’ character as emerging from the questionnaire largely coincided with
previous literature on the topic (Sela-Sheffy, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2015, 2016; Sela-Sheffy
and Shlesinger, 2008; Voinova and Shlesinger, 2013; Sapiro, 2013; Georgiou, 2018). In

223
addition to this, the focus on outsiders allowed to further pinpoint their position in society
as part of a broader whole contributing to the increasing technologisation of the
profession. In this respect, literary translators’ self-image emerged as profoundly
removed from the sphere of materiality, which at times appeared incompatible with the
(immaterial) nature of being a literary translator. This helped to uncover the divergence
between research focus and practitioners’ needs. In particular, the idea that translators
might not be averse to technology as such (Koskinen and Ruokonen, 2017) was
confirmed. However, research has tended to focus on introducing MT and PE in literary
translation workflows with time and cost savings in mind, while respondents indicated a
preference for TM tools and more general technology that would help them increase the
efficiency and quality of their work. Overall, enhancement has been found as the one
characteristic overriding the general/translation-specific tool dichotomy in participants’
narratives. Given the interdependent relationship between literary translators’ role and
their attitudes towards technology, it is essential to involve both insights on their self-
imaging strategies and the concept of enhancement in the study and development of the
material. This, in order to promote a balanced, fruitful, sustainable, and welcomed
approach to technological innovation in the field of literary translation. Additionally,
findings imply that technology training and knowledge of tools are a central part of
literary translators’ negative interpretations of technological innovation. In this respect,
looking at results through the SCOT lens has helped determining that rethinking the
discourse around technology in translation and providing more opportunities for
translators to learn about available tools will prove fundamental to the resolution of this
socio-technological controversy. Finally, convivial tools as defined by Illich (1975) have
been put forward as the most suitable to achieve stabilisation and closure in the process
of introducing new tools in literary translation workflows. This point will be further
unpacked in9.1, where ideas for future research will be explored.
Having summarised this thesis’ findings and highlighted their main implications, the
chapter will proceed with a reflection on the current study’s significance and suggestions
for future work.
9.1 Significance and future work
The study contributed to the field of Translation Studies, and in particular to its emerging
branch dedicated to the study of literary translation and technology. More specifically, it

224
has done so by fulfilling the objectives set at the beginning of this thesis (see Chapter 1).
In fact, the study has supported the empowerment of literary translators by centring their
narratives of their profession and technology, bringing perceptions of role and attitudes
towards technology together for the first time. Additionally, it has shed new light on
literary translators’ interpretations and how they contribute to the social construction of
technology in their profession, highlighting interpretative flexibility in relation to other
social groups involved. It has done so by borrowing the SCOT framework from the STS
field, adapting it and applying it to the study’s theoretical framework and data analysis.
In this regard, it has raised questions about current research focusing mainly on
introducing MT and PE in the literary translation workflow. Furthermore, it has looked
at possible closure mechanisms that would account for the reintroduction of materiality
in the literary translation discourse and the overall socio-cultural context epitomised by
the Translation Age, in order to formulate a productive, inclusive and sustainable way
forward for the profession and its practitioners.
Regarding the possible closure mechanisms for the introduction of technological
innovation in literary translation, the development and adoption of convivial tools has
been suggested as the most suitable one. These are tools that value and enhance
individual freedom (Illich, 1975). Given the lack of involvement and technology training
of literary translators, the narrative surrounding technology being at odds with their
idealised personae, and the contrasting interpretations of all relevant social groups, a
convivial tool in this context would be one that contributes to changing the narrative
surrounding technology, that enhances literary translators and supports their self-image,
and that is the fruit of dialogue between developers and users.
In light of the significance of this study, future work could firstly undertake an in-depth
investigation of other social groups’ narratives and how they compare or differ from those
of literary translators, which was not possible in this case due to the current study’s time
constraints (see Section 3.4). Furthermore, in-depth interviews could be conducted with
participants to delve deeper into some of the issues that were raised (e.g., how they use
existing translation technology tools for literary translation, what functions they would
like to see in a tool developed specifically for literary translation, what strategies they
would adopt to change outsiders’ perceptions of the profession, etc.). As far as the
questionnaire design is concerned, there were no questions on specific tools. Rather, the
terms employed in the questionnaire in relation to technology (‘general technology’ and

225
‘translation-specific technology’) were intentionally broadly defined. This, to allow for
both the exploratory nature of the study and for respondents’ narratives to be as free as
possible from constraints imposed by the researcher. As a result of this, data collected on
type of tools used was extremely varied. This being said, results can now be used as a
basis for future studies on specific tools and their usage, which will in turn be informed
by practitioners’ direct experiences of their profession. For example, some respondents
indicated using CAT or MT in their literary translation activity, but few details were
provided by respondents as to the specific ways in which they are used. In this respect,
it could be interesting to discover whether there are alternative ways in which these could
indeed be employed in literary translation workflows or adapted and integrated in a new
convivial tool. Moreover, future studies could focus on designing and developing one or
more tools that integrate convivial features and are informed by literary translators’
narratives of enhancement, going beyond the MT+PE duality. Another point that would
need to be explored is in what ways the insights gained by this study could be transposed
into technology training aimed specifically at literary translators, with particular focus on
the language used to promote and teach technology tools in view of the need to change
the discourse surrounding them to improve acceptability. Finally, Section 3.2 noted some
of the criticism directed at the SCOT framework hinged on its similarity to political
pluralism. In particular, Russell (1986) and Winner (1993) underline the risk of
neglecting certain social groups and ignoring how power relations affect the process of
technological innovation. For this reason, future work could account for power imbalance
issues in literary translation and technology, e.g., by focusing on the systematic exclusion
of literary translators from their own profession’s development in terms of technological
innovation and/or employing labour theories, as suggested by Russell (1986).
9.2 Final remarks
This study first set out to embark on a journey into literary translators’ worldviews in a
way that was as valid, reliable and balanced as possible. This thesis is a testament to that
research journey. In it are the reasons, the ways, the outcomes, and the constraints that
informed it. Literary translators’ struggles emerged clearly, and so did the way to a future
that accounts for both material and immaterial elements to coexist harmoniously. The
thesis began with a quote from Octavio Paz (1979) mentioning the destruction of the
illusion of safety in a world that was once united by translation. This being said, he then
goes on to state that:

226
There is not nor can there be a science of translation, although it can and should be studied
scientifically. In the same way that literature is a special function of language, translation is a
special function of literature. And as for translation by machine? When those devices succeed in
real translation, they will be performing a literary operation; they will do nothing less than what
translators are doing now, and that is literature. Translation is a task in which the translator’s
initiative is the decisive factor (along with the essential linguistic erudition), whether we speak of
a machine programmed by a man [sic] or a man [sic] surrounded by dictionaries. (Paz, 1979: 16)
In line with its paradoxical nature, translation can thus be both cause and remedy,
whereby it makes the fragmentation visible, and yet it holds the power to resolve it. In
the same way, this study has shown that while literary translators need to retreat to their
bastion to uphold their self-image, only leaving it to participate in the discourse around
the place of their profession in contemporary society could break the cycle of conflicting
interpretations surrounding technological innovation. In fact, findings indicate that in
order to move the profession towards a new way for literary translation to exist through
technology (as suggested by Parrish (2015) for poetry) dialogue, training, and a general
shift in the narrative need to happen. Ultimately, it is by promoting collaboration between
all relevant stakeholders and proactively incorporating literary translators’ narratives of
their own profession that the figure of a new, enhanced and empowered literary translator
can emerge head held high from the confusion of the (Literary) Translation Age.

227
References
Alonso, E. and Vieira, L. N. (2017) ‘The Translator’s Amanuensis 2020’, The Journal
of Specialised Translation, (28), pp. 345–361.
Austermühl, F. (2001) Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Bassnett, S. (2016) ‘Response by Bassnett to “Translation and the materialities of
communication”’, Translation Studies, 9(1), pp. 109–113.
Besacier, L. and Schwartz, L. (2015) ‘Automated Translation of a Literary Work: A
Pilot Study’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for
Literature. Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.
114–122.
Bowker, L. (2015) ‘Computer-aided Translation: Translator Training’, in Chan, S. (ed.)
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 88–104.
Braun, S., Davitti, E. and Dicerto, S. (2018) ‘Video-Mediated Interpreting in Legal
Settings: Assessing the Implementation’, in Napier, J., Skinner, R., and Braun, S. (eds)
Here or there: research on interpreting via video link. Washington DC: Gallaudet, pp.
144–179.
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burgess, R. G. (1993) Research Methods. Nashville: Tomas Nelson.
Buzelin, H. (2005) ‘Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could
Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies’, The Translator, 11(2), pp.
193–218.
Cadwell, P. et al. (2016) ‘Human Factors in Machine Translation and Post-Editing
Among Institutional Translators’, Translation Spaces, 5(2), pp. 222–243.
Chan, S. (ed.) (2015) Routledge encyclopedia of translation technology. London; New
York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Cronin, M. (2003) Translation and Globalization. London: Routledge.
Cronin, M. (2013) Translation in the Digital Age. London: Routledge.
Cronin, M. (2017) ‘Response by Cronin to “Translation and the materialities of
communication”’, Translation Studies, 10(1), pp. 92–96.
Dam, H. V. and Zethsen, K. K. (2011) ‘The Status of Professional Business Translators
on the Danish Market: A Comparative Study of Company, Agency and Freelance
Translators’, Meta, 56(4), pp. 976–997.
Dam, H. V. and Zethsen, K. K. (2016) ‘“I think it is a wonderful job”. On the Solidity
of the Translation Profession’, The Journal of Specialised Translation, (25), pp. 174–
187.

228
Doherty, S. (2016) ‘The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product
of Translation’, International Journal of Communication, 10, pp. 1–23.
Ferreira-Alves, F. (2011) ‘Job Perceptions, Identity-Building and Interpersonal
Relations among Translators as a Professional Group in Northern Portugal’, ILCEA,
(14), pp. 1–15.
Forcada, M. L. (2017) ‘Making sense of neural machine translation’, Translation
Spaces, 6(2), pp. 291–309.
Fowler, F. J. (2002) Survey research methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
SAGE.
Fulford, H. and Granell-Zafra, J. (2005) ‘Translation and Technology: a Study of UK
Freelance Translators’, The Journal of Specialised Translation, (4), pp. 2–17.
García, I. (2015) ‘Computer-aided translation: systems’, in Chan, S. (ed.) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, pp. 68–87.
Genzel, D., Uszkoreit, J. and Och, F. (2010) ‘“Poetic” Statistical Machine Translation:
Rhyme and Meter’, in Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing. EMNLP 2010, Cambridge, MA: Association for
Computational Linguistics, pp. 158–166.
Georgiou, N. (2018) ‘Regarding Symbolic Capital: Poetry Translators from Modern
Greek into English’, HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business,
(58), pp. 99–115.
Greene, E., Bodrumlu, T. and Knight, K. (2010) ‘Automatic Analysis of Rhythmic
Poetry with Applications to Generation and Translation’, in Proceedings of the 2010
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP 2010,
Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 524–533.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. (1989) ‘Toward a Conceptual
Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs’, Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255–274.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA, US: SAGE, pp. 105–117.
Guerberof Arenas, A. (2013) ‘What Do Professional Translators Think about Post-
editing?’, The Journal of Specialised Translation, (19), pp. 75–95.
Hale, S. and Napier, J. (2013) Research Methods in Interpreting: a Practical Resource.
London: Bloomsbury.
Hammersley, M. (2011) Methodology: Who Needs It? Thousand Oaks, CA, US: SAGE.
Illich, I. (1975) Tools for Conviviality. Glasgow: Fontana.
Jänis, M. (1996) ‘What Translators of Plays Think About Their Work’, Target, 8(2), pp.
341–364.

229
Jones, R. and Irvine, A. (2013) ‘The (Un)faithful Machine Translator’, in Proceedings
of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences,
and Humanities. Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 96–
101.
Katan, D. (2009) ‘Occupation or Profession: a Survey of the Translators’ World’,
Translation and Interpreting Studies, 4(2), pp. 187–209.
Katan, D. (2017) ‘Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey of the
Great Divide’, HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business,
22(42), pp. 111–153.
Kay, M. (1997) ‘The Proper Place of Men and Machines in Language Translation’,
Machine Translation, 12(1), pp. 3–23.
Kenny, D. (2017) ‘Introduction’, in Kenny, D. (ed.) Human Issues in Translation
Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 1–7.
Kenny, D. and Winters, M. (2020) ‘Machine Translation, Ethics and the Literary
Translator’s Voice’, Translation Spaces, 9(1), pp. 123–149.
Kosick, R. (2016) ‘Response by Kosick to “Translation and the materialities of
communication”’, Translation Studies, 9(3), pp. 314–318.
Koskinen, K. and Ruokonen, M. (2017) ‘Love Letters or Hate Mail? Translators’
Affective Responses to Technology’, in Kenny, D. (ed.) Human Issues in Translation
Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 8–24.
Lagoudaki, E. (2006) ‘Translation Memories Survey 2006: Users’ Perceptions Around
TM Use’, in. Translating and the Computer 28, London, pp. 1–29.
Large, D. (2018) ‘Could Google Translate Shakespeare?’, In Other Words, 2019(52),
pp. 79–95.
LeBlanc, M. (2017) ‘‘I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should We Blame Translation
Technologies or Shifting Business Practices?’, in Kenny, D. (ed.) Human Issues in
Translation Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 45–62.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
SAGE.
Littau, K. (2016) ‘Translation and the Materialities of Communication’, Translation
Studies, 9(1), pp. 82–96.
Littau, K. (2017) ‘Response by Littau to the Responses to “Translation and the
materialities of communication”’, Translation Studies, 10(1), pp. 97–101.
Lommel, A. (2017) How AI Will Augment Human Translation. Common Sense
Advisory, pp. 1–9.
Luker, K. (2008) Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-
glut. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matthews, B. and Ross, L. (2010) Research Methods. New York: Longman.

230
McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media. London: Routledge.
McNeill, P. and Chapman, S. (2005) Research methods. 3rd edition. Oxon: Routledge.
Meister, L. (2018) ‘On methodology: How mixed methods research can contribute to
translation studies’, Translation Studies, 11(1), pp. 66–83.
Melby, A. K. (1983) ‘The Translation Profession and the Computer’, CALICO Journal,
1(1), pp. 55–57.
Mitchell, C. (2010) ‘Translation and Materiality: The Paradox of Visible Translation’,
Translating Media, 30(1), pp. 23–29.
Mitchell, C. and Raley, R. (2018) ‘Translation–Machination’, Amodern, (8). Available
at: https://amodern.net/article/amodern-8-translation-machination/. Last accessed:
14/03/2021.
Moorkens, J. et al. (2018) ‘Translators’ Perceptions of Literary Post-editing Using
Statistical and Neural Machine Translation’, Translation Spaces, 7(2), pp. 240–262.
Moorkens, J. and O’Brien, S. (2017) ‘Assessing User Interface Needs of Post-editors of
Machine Translation’, in Kenny, D. (ed.) Human Issues in Translation Technology.
London: Routledge, pp. 109–130.
Murchú, E. P. Ó. (2019) ‘Using Intergaelic to Pre-translate and Subsequently Post-edit a
Sci-fi Novel from Scottish Gaelic to Irish’, in Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary
Machine Translation Workshop. Dublin, Ireland: European Association for Machine
Translation, pp. 20–25.
O’Brien, S. (2012) ‘Translation as Human–Computer Interaction’, Translation Spaces,
1, pp. 101–122.
O’Hagan, M. (2016) ‘Response by O’Hagan to “Translation and the materialities of
communication”’, Translation Studies, 9(3), pp. 322–326.
O’Hagan, M. (2017) ‘Deconstructing Translation Crowdsourcing with the Case of a
Facebook Initiative: a Translation Network of Engineered Autonomy and Trust?’, in
Kenny, D. (ed.) Human Issues in Translation Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 26–
45.
Oliver, P. (2010) Understanding the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
SAGE.
Olohan, M. (2011) ‘Translators and Translation Technology: the Dance of Agency’,
Translation Studies, 4(3), pp. 342–357.
Olohan, M. (2017) ‘Technology, Translation and Society: a Constructivist, Critical
Theory Approach’, Target, 29(2), pp. 264–283.
Olohan, M. (2019) ‘Sociological Approaches to Translation Technology’, in O’Hagan,
M. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology. London: Routledge,
pp. 384–397.

231
Parrish, A. (2015) ‘Exploring (Semantic) Space With (Literal) Robots’. Eyeo Festival
2015. Available at: https://vimeo.com/134734729. Last accessed: 14/03/2021.
Paz, O. (1979) ‘Translation: Literature and Literality’, Translation Review. Translated
by L. Tuttle, 3(1), pp. 13–19.
PETRA-E (2016) ‘Framework of Reference for the Education and Training of Literary
Translators’. Available at: https://www.petra-education.eu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/29/2016/06/EN.pdf. Last accessed: 14/03/2021.
Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E. (1984) ‘The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or
How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each
Other’, Social Studies of Science, 14(3), pp. 399–441.
Rothwell, A. (2009) ‘Translating “Pure Nonsense”: Walter Benjamin Meets Systran on
the Dissecting Table of Dada’, Romance Studies, 27(4), pp. 259–272.
Ruokonen, M. and Mäkisalo, J. (2018) ‘Middling-status Profession, High-status Work:
Finnish Translators’ Status Perceptions in the Light of Their Backgrounds, Working
Conditions and Job Satisfaction’, The International Journal of Translation and
Interpreting Research, 10(1), pp. 1–17.
Russell, S. (1986) ‘The Social Construction of Artefacts: a Response to Pinch and
Bijker’, Social Studies of Science, 16(2), pp. 331–346.
Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. (2014) Research Methodologies in Translation Studies.
London: Routledge.
Sapiro, G. (2013) ‘Translation and Identity: Social Trajectories of the Translators of
Hebrew Literature in French’, TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, 26(2), pp. 59–
82.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2005) ‘How to Be a (Recognized) Translator: Rethinking Habitus,
Norms, and the Field of Translation’, Target, 17(1), pp. 1–26.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2008) ‘The Translators’ Personae: Marketing Translatorial Images as
Pursuit of Capital’, Meta, 53(3), pp. 609–622.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2010) ‘“Stars” or “Professionals”: the Imagined Vocation and
Exclusive Knowledge of Translators in Israel’, MonTi: Monografías de Traducción e
Interpretación, (2), pp. 131–152.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2015) ‘Profession, Identity, and Status’, in Angelelli, C. V. and Baer,
B. J. (eds) Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge, pp. 131–145.
Sela-Sheffy, R. (2016) ‘Elite and Non-elite Translator Manpower: the Non-
professionalised Culture in the Translation Field in Israel’, The Journal of Specialised
Translation, (25), pp. 54–73.
Sela-Sheffy, R. and Shlesinger, M. (2008) ‘Strategies of Image-making and Status
Advancement of Translators and Interpreters as a Marginal Occupational Group: a
Research Project in Progress’, in Pym, A., Shlesinger, M., and Simeoni, D. (eds)
Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–90.

232
Sinclair, J. (2004) ‘Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good Practice’.
Available at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~martinw/dlc/chapter1.htm. Last accessed:
14/03/2021.
Slessor, S. (2019) ‘Tenacious Technophobes or Nascent Technophiles? A survey of the
Technological Practices and Needs of Literary Translators’, Perspectives, 28(2), pp.
238–252.
Sun, S. (2015) ‘Survey-based Studies’, in Angelelli, C. V. and Baer, B. J. (eds)
Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge, pp. 269–279.
Taivalkoski-Shilov, K. (2018) ‘Ethical Issues Regarding Machine(-assisted) Translation
of Literary Texts’, Perspectives, 27(5), pp. 689–703.
Taivalkoski-Shilov, K. (2019) ‘Free Indirect Discourse: an Insurmountable Challenge
for Literary MT Systems?’, in Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary Machine
Translation Workshop. Dublin, Ireland: European Association for Machine Translation,
pp. 35–39.
Tezcan, A., Daems, J. and Macken, L. (2019) ‘When a “Sport” is a Person and Other
Issues for NMT of Novels’, in Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary Machine
Translation Workshop. Dublin, Ireland: European Association for Machine Translation,
pp. 40–49.
The European Commission Representation in the UK, the Chartered Institute of
Linguists (CIOL) and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) (2017) UK
Translator Survey: Final Report. Available at:
www.ciol.org.uk/sites/default/files/UKTS2016-Final-Report-Web.pdf. Last accessed:
14/03/2021.
Toral, A. and Way, A. (2014) ‘Is Machine Translation Ready for Literature?’, in
Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 36. Translating and the Computer 36,
London, pp. 174–176.
Toral, A. and Way, A. (2015a) ‘Machine-assisted Translation of Literary Text: a Case
Study’, Translation Spaces, 4(2), pp. 240–267.
Toral, A. and Way, A. (2015b) ‘Translating Literary Text between Related Languages
Using SMT’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for
Literature. Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, Denver,
Colorado, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 123–132.
Toral, A. and Way, A. (2018) ‘What Level of Quality Can Neural Machine Translation
Attain on Literary Text?’, in Moorkens, J. et al. (eds) Translation Quality Assessment:
from Principles to Practice. New York: Springer, pp. 263–287.
Toral, A., Wieling, M. and Way, A. (2018) ‘Post-editing Effort of a Novel with
Statistical and Neural Machine Translation’, Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 5(9), pp.
1–11.
Vieira, L. N. (2020) ‘Automation anxiety and translators’, Translation Studies, 13(1),
pp. 1–21.

233
Voigt, R. and Jurafsky, D. (2012) ‘Towards a Literary Machine Translation: the Role of
Referential Cohesion’, in Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT 2012 Workshop on
Computational Linguistics for Literature. Montréal, Canada: Association for
Computational Linguistics, pp. 18–25.
Voinova, T. and Shlesinger, M. (2013) ‘Translators Talk about Themselves, Their Work
and Their Profession: the Habitus of Translators of Russian Literature into Hebrew’,
TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, 26(2), pp. 29–57.
Williams, J. and Chesterman, A. (2002) The Map: a Beginner’s Guide to Doing
Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Winner, L. (1993) ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social
Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 18(3), pp. 362–378.
Wolf, M. (2007) ‘Introduction: the Emergence of a Sociology of Translation’, in Wolf,
M. and Fukari, A. (eds) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 1–36.
Youdale, R. (2019) Using Computers in the Translation of Literary Style: Challenges
and Opportunities. London: Routledge.
Youdale, R. and Rothwell, A. (forthcoming) ‘Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT)
tools, translation memory and literary translation’, in Deane-Cox, S. and Spiessens, A.,
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Memory. London; New York: Routledge.

234
Appendix A
Target Groups
UK Associations
1. Association of Translation Companies (ATC)
https://atc.org.uk/
2. British Comparative Literature Association (BCLA)
https://bcla.org/
3. British Council’s Literature
https://literature.britishcouncil.org/
4. Chartered Institute of Linguistics (CIOL)
https://www.ciol.org.uk/
5. English PEN
https://www.englishpen.org/
6. Free Word Centre
https://freeword.org/
7. Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI)
https://www.iti.org.uk/
8. Literary Translation Centre of The London Book Fair
https://hub.londonbookfair.co.uk/tag/literary-translation-centre/
9. Literature Across Frontiers
https://www.lit-across-frontiers.org/
10. Poetry Book Society
https://www.poetrybooks.co.uk/
11. The Association of Welsh Translators and Interpreters (CROESO)
https://www.cyfieithwyr.cymru/en/
12. The Finnish-English Literary Translation Cooperative
https://feltcooperative.org/
13. The Translators Association (TA)
https://societyofauthors.org/Groups/Translators

235
Online Communities
Mailing lists
1. CenTras Translation News
transinter@ucl.ac.uk
2. Cultural Translation
Cultural-translation@jiscmail.ac.uk
3. Lantra-l
lantra-l@segate.sunet.se
4. Stage Translation Research Adaptation Group (STRAP)
Strap@jiscmail.ac.uk
5. Translating Cultures
translatingcultures@jiscmail.ac.uk
6. TRANSLATIO
translatio@jiscmail.ac.uk
7. Translation Studies Mailing List
translation-studies@listserv.manchester.ac.uk
Online forums and communities
8. Biblit / Biblitiana
https://biblit.groups.io/g/Biblit
9. Centre for the Art of Translation
https://www.catranslation.org/contact/
10. Emerging Translators Network (ETN)
https://emergingtranslatorsnetwork.wordpress.com/
11. English-Spanish Translator Forum
http://www.english-spanish-translator.org/
12. National Centre for Writing
https://nationalcentreforwriting.org.uk/
13. Proz.com
https://www.proz.com/
14. Rosetta-l
https://groups.google.com/g/rosetta-l/about?pli=1

236
15. The Open Mic Forum
https://forum.theopenmic.co/
16. Translation Commons
https://translationcommons.org
17. Translation Directory Forum
https://www.translationdirectory.com/forum/
18. Translators’ Café
https://www.translatorscafe.com/
19. Us & Them Reading
http://usandthemreading.com/about/
Facebook groups
20. Arabic <> English Literary Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arabengliterarytranslators/
21. Edinburgh Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/596142234063161/?ref=br_rs
22. Freelance Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/freelancetranslators/?ref=br_rs
23. Interpreters and Translators Network
https://www.facebook.com/groups/interpretersnetwork/about/
24. Interpreters and Translators Scotland
https://www.facebook.com/groups/interpretersandtranslatorsscotland/?ref=br_rs
25. Jobs for all translators of the world
https://www.facebook.com/groups/479548112209303/?ref=br_rs
26. Languages.com – Translation Help
https://www.facebook.com/groups/300627683372564/
27. Literary Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/7467854481/?ref=br_rs
28. Poetry Translation
https://www.facebook.com/groups/935675383205644/
29. Technophile Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/technophile.translators/
30. Translation and Interpreting Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Interpreting.and.Translation/?ref=br_rs

237
31. Translation Jobs and Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/324595034315152/?ref=br_rs
32. Translation Jobs
https://www.facebook.com/groups/382500065438/?ref=br_rs
33. Translation Tools
https://www.facebook.com/groups/newtranslationtools/
34. Translation, Interpreting, Subtitling & Literature
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1490103564584999/?ref=br_rs
35. Translators and Interpreters (Proz.com)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ProZcom/
36. Translators and Interpreters in UK
https://www.facebook.com/groups/208937012450346/
37. Translators Forum
https://www.facebook.com/groups/715246625330927/?ref=br_rs
38. Translators
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2386437010/about/
39. Worldwide Translation and Interpretation Jobs
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1505947069701584/about/
Facebook pages
40. Authors and Translators
https://www.facebook.com/Authors-Translators-141017179406068/?ref=br_rs
41. Birmingham Centre for Translation
https://www.facebook.com/birminghamtranslation/
42. English PEN Writers in Translation
https://www.facebook.com/englishpenwritersatrisk
43. European School of Translation
https://www.facebook.com/est.fan.page/
44. FIT – International Federation of Translators
https://www.facebook.com/FIT.InternationalFederationofTranslators/?ref=br_rs
45. JOSTrans – The Journal of Specialised Translation
https://www.facebook.com/JoSTrans-The-Journal-of-Specialised-Translation-
157288517646914/?ref=br_rs

238
46. Kaffeehouse.com – Home for Literary Translation
https://www.facebook.com/kaffeehouse/?ref=br_rs
47. Laertes, a press for literary translation
https://www.facebook.com/Laertes-a-Press-for-Literary-Translation-
1442194822696742/?ref=br_rs
48. Language+ Literary Translation
https://www.facebook.com/languageplustranslations/
49. Modern Poetry in Translation
https://www.facebook.com/MPT.Magazine/?ref=br_rs
50. New Voices in Translation Studies
https://www.facebook.com/newvoicesints/?ref=br_rs
51. Norwich Papers – New Perspective in Translation
https://www.facebook.com/UEANorwichPapers/?ref=br_rs
52. Poetry Translation Centre
https://www.facebook.com/poetrytranslation/?ref=br_rs
53. Poets and Writers
https://www.facebook.com/pg/poetsandwriters/posts/?ref=page_internal
54. SOAS – Centre for Translation Studies
https://www.facebook.com/SOASCTS/?ref=br_rs
55. The Art of Literary Translation
https://www.facebook.com/TheArtOfLiteraryTranslation/?ref=br_rs
56. The Center for the Art of Translation
https://www.facebook.com/center.for.translation/?ref=br_rs
57. The Society of Authors
https://www.facebook.com/TheSocietyofAuthors/?ref=br_rs
58. Translation and Interpreting at London MET
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Translation-and-Interpreting-at-LondonMet-
218551601490701/posts/?ref=page_internal
59. Translation Studies at Glasgow
https://www.facebook.com/pg/translationstudiesatglasgow/posts/?ref=page_inter
nal
60. Translation
https://www.facebook.com/translationallovertheworld/?ref=br_rs

239
61. Translators do it better
https://www.facebook.com/Translators-do-it-better-
119197518093158/?ref=br_rs
62. Translators Looking for Translation Work and Jobs
https://www.facebook.com/TranslatorsLookingForTranslationWorkAndJobs/?re
f=br_rs
63. Trinity Centre for Literary and Cultural Translation
https://www.facebook.com/TCLCTdublin/?ref=br_rs
64. Trinity Journal of Literary Translation
https://www.facebook.com/TrinityJOLT/?ref=br_rs
65. Volunteer Translation Opportunities
https://www.facebook.com/VolunteerTranslation/?ref=br_rs
LinkedIn groups
66. Freelance Translators Lounge
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/135360/about
67. Language Network
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/112247/about
68. Literary Translators – Translation
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4204672/about
69. Professional Translators and Interpreters (Proz.com)
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/138763/about
70. The Presence Group – Interpreters & Translators Worldwide
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4224047/about
71. Translation Commons
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6920987/about

240
Appendix B
Pilot Questionnaire
1. Demographic section
1.a – Please indicate your age:*
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46-55
e. 56-65
f. Over 65
1.b – Please indicate your country of residence: *
______________________________________
1.c – What academic qualifications in Translation do you hold? *
You can select multiple options.
a. None
b. Undergraduate degree
c. Master’s degree
d. PhD
e. Other (please specify) ________________
1.d – Did you receive any technology-specific training as part of your academic
qualification(s)? *
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not applicable
1.e If you answered yes to the previous question, please specify the kind of
technology-specific training you received as part of your academic qualification(s):
(optional)
____________________________________________________________

241
2. Language Skills
2.a – Please indicate your first language: *
______________________________________
2.b – Please indicate the language pair(s) you work with: *
If you list more than one, please use a comma to separate each language pair.
______________________________________
3. Professional status
3.a - How long have you been practising as a literary translator? *
a. Less than 5 years
b. 6-10 years
c. 11-15 years
d. 16-20 years
e. Over 20 years
3.b - Would you describe your literary translation activity as: *
a. full-time
b. part-time
3.c – Are you: *
- a freelancer
- an employee
3.d – Please name and/or describe your clients/employers: (optional)
______________________________________
3.e – How would you describe your status as literary translator? *

242
a. amateur literary translator
b. professional (paid) literary translator
c. volunteer (unpaid) literary translator
d. translation student
e. Other (please specify) ________________
3.f – Now think about all (both literary and non-literary) translation projects you
work at in a year. How many of them would you say are literary translation
projects (use a percentage value between 0% and 100% where 0% is none of them
and 100% is all of them)? *
0% --------------------------------------------- 100%
4. Confidence with technologies
4.a – On a scale from 0 to 10 (where 0 indicates you have no confidence at all and
10 indicates extreme confidence), how confident are you when using technology in
general? *
0 ------------------------------------- 5 --------------------------------- 10
Not confident at all fairly confident extremely confident
4.b – What (if any) general technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use
in your literary translation activity? *
By ‘general technology tool’, we mean any technology tool that is not translation-
specific (e.g., the internet, a time management app, a text-editor software etc.).
Please use a comma to separate any item you wish to list here.
If you think you don’t use any general technology tool in your literary translation
activity, please type ‘none’ in the text-box below.
______________________________________________________________________
____
4.c - What (if any) general technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use
in your non-literary translation activity?

243
______________________________________________________________________
____
4.d – On a scale from 0 to 10 (where 0 indicates no confidence at all and 10
indicates extremely confident), how confident are you when using translation
technology in general? *
0 ------------------------------------- 5 ------------------------------- 10
Not confident at all fairly confident extremely confident
4.e – What (if any) translation technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you
use in your literary translation activity? *
By ‘translation technology tool’, we mean any technology tool that is translation-
specific (e.g., CAT tools, terminology management software, Machine Translation etc.).
Please use a comma to separate any item you wish to list here.
If you think you don’t use any translation technology tool in your literary translation
activity, please type ‘none’ in the text-box below.
______________________________________________________________________
____
4.f - What (if any) translation technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you
use in your non-literary translation activity?
______________________________________________________________________
____
5. Open Questions
Answer the following questions being as creative as you want.
There is no word limit (it can be a sentence or a full page), take it as your chance to be
heard.
5.a – Think about your role as a literary translator.
What would you say are the essential traits that characterise your occupation?
Do you think outsiders perceive your occupation the same way as you do?
If not, what do you wish they knew about it that they don’t know already and that
could maybe change their perceptions of literary translators’ occupation? *

244
5.b – Now think about the role of technology in your literary translation activity.
What is the dynamic between the role you described and said technology?
Do you see this dynamic changing in the future?
Which aspects of technology do you find appealing and which ones not so much? *
6. Are you willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview/focus group? *
YES/NO
If yes, please leave your e-mail address and/or phone number below:
_________________________________________________________

245
Appendix C
Main Questionnaire
Literary translators’ perceptions of their roles and attitudes towards technology in
contemporary society
Page 1: Informed Consent
Please read carefully the information provided below.
You are being invited to participate in a research study titled ‘Literary translators’
perceptions of their roles and attitudes towards technology in contemporary society’.
This study is being conducted by Paola Ruffo as part of her PhD project under the
auspices of the Centre for Translation & Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS) and
the Department of Languages & Intercultural Studies (LINCS) at Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK.
The purpose of this research study is to develop a deeper understanding of the human
and technological factors at play in the field of literary translation by giving literary
translators the opportunity to share their personal narratives of (1) their role in
contemporary society and (2) their attitudes towards technologies.
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online
questionnaire. This questionnaire will ask about your professional status and use of
technology in your work. The questionnaire will typically take between 15 and 30
minutes to complete. It is possible to save your answers and return to them later by
clicking on the ‘Finish later’ button at the bottom of the page.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any
time. Any information that you provide in this study will remain confidential and
anonymous.
As the researcher, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have concerning
my research project. If you have any questions during, between, or after your
participation, please send an email to: pr25@hw.ac.uk
By clicking ‘Next’, you confirm that (1) you are at least 18 years old, (2) have read
and understood the above information and (3) give your consent to voluntarily
participate in this study.
Thank you for taking the time to participate!
Paola Ruffo
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, UK

246
Page 2: Background Information
1. Please select your age group: *Required
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Over 65
2. Please indicate your country of work: *Required
_________________________________________
3. What academic qualifications in Translation do you hold?
You can select multiple options. * Required
None
Undergraduate degree
Master’s degree
PhD
Other
3.a. If you selected Other, please specify:
__________________________________
4. Did you receive any translation technology-specific training as part of your academic
qualification(s)? *Required
Yes
No
Not applicable
4.a. If you answered ‘yes’ to the previous question, please specify the kind of

247
technology-specific training you received as part of your academic qualification(s):
__________________________________________
5. Did you receive any other translation technology-specific training that was not part of
an academic course (such as professional development course, webinar, etc.)?
*Required
Yes
No
5.a. If you answered ‘yes’ to the previous question, please specify the kind of
technology-specific training you received:
_________________________________
6. Are you a member of any translation associations? *Required
Yes
No
6.a. If you answered ‘yes’ to the previous question, please specify which translation
association(s) you are a member of
___________________________________________
7. Are you a member of any translators’ online communities (these include mailing lists,
forums, social media groups, etc.)? *Required
Yes
No
7.a. If you answered ‘yes’ to the previous question, please specify which/what type of
online communities you are a member of:
_______________________________________
Page 3: Language Skills

248
8. Please indicate your first language: *Required
__________________________________
9. Please indicate the language pair(s) and language direction you work with:
Please use the format ‘LANX>LANY’ *Required
____________________________________
Page 4: Professional Practice
10. How long have you been practicing as a literary translator? *Required
Less than a year
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
Over 20 years
11. Would you describe your literary translation activity as: Required
Full-time
Part-time
Other
11.a. If you selected Other, please specify:
__________________________________
12. Are you: *Required
A freelance literary translator
An in-house literary translator
Other

249
12.a. If you selected Other, please specify:
_________________________________
13. Please name and/or describe your clients/employer:
__________________________________
14. How would you mainly describe your status as literary translator? *Required
professional (qualified and remunerated)
volunteer (qualified and not remunerated/pro bono work)
amateur (translation is not your main field of occupation)
trainee (still undertaking training)
Other
14.a. If you selected Other, please specify:
__________________________________
15. Now think about all (both literary and non-literary) translation projects you work at
in a year. How many of them would you say are literary translation projects (please use
a percentage value between 0% and 100%)? *Required
____________________________________________
Page 5: Confidence with technologies
16. Please indicate below your level of confidence with general technology tools:
By ‘general technology’, we mean any technology tool that is not translation-specific
(e.g., online dictionaries, a time management app, a text-editor software etc.). *Required
How confident are you when using general technology?
Not confident at all
Slightly confident
Fairly confident
Confident
Extremely confident

250
Not applicable
17. What (if any) general technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use in
your literary translation activity?
By ‘general technology’, we mean any technology tool that is not translation-specific
(e.g., online dictionaries, a time management app, a text-editor software etc.). If you
don’t use any general technology tool in your literary translation activity, please type
‘none’ in the text-box below. *Required
_________________________________________
18. What (if any) general technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use in
your NON-literary translation activity?
By ‘general technology’, we mean any technology tool that is not translation-specific
(e.g., online dictionaries, a time management app, a text-editor software etc.). If you
don’t use any general technology tool in your literary translation activity, please type
‘none’ in the text-box below. *Required
_________________________________________
19. Please indicate below your level of confidence with translation technology tools:
By ‘translation technology’, we mean any technology tool that is translation-specific
(e.g., Translation Memory systems, terminology management software, Machine
Translation etc.). *Required
How confident are you when using translation technology?
Not confident at all
Slightly confident
Fairly confident
Confident
Extremely confident
Not applicable
20. What (if any) translation technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use
in your literary translation activity?
By ‘translation technology’, we mean any technology tool that is translation-specific
(e.g., Translation Memory systems, terminology management software, Machine

251
Translation etc.). If you don’t use any translation technology tool in your literary
translation activity, please type ‘none’ in the text-box below. *Required
_______________________________________________
21. What (if any) translation technology tools (hardware and/or software) do you use
in your NON-literary translation activity?
By ‘translation technology’, we mean any technology tool that is translation-specific
(e.g., Translation Memory systems, terminology management software, Machine
Translation etc.). If you don’t use any translation technology tool in your literary
translation activity, please type ‘none’ in the text-box below. *Required
_______________________________________________________
Page 6: Open questions
What follows is a series of open questions on your role as literary translator and on
technology as related to your literary translation activity. There is no word limit, so feel
free to express yourself fully on the issues below
Think about being a literary translator...
22. What does being a literary translator mean to you; what would you say are the
essential traits that characterise your occupation as being distinct from all others?
*Required
___________________________________________
23. Do you think people outside the profession perceive literary translation the same
way as you do? Please justify your answer. *Required
____________________________________________
24. If not, how do you wish people outside the profession would perceive literary
translation?
_____________________________________________
Now think about the role of technology in your literary translation activity...

252
25. As a translator with the distinct literary character you described above (Q22), how
would you describe the relationship between your idea of being a literary translator and
technologies? *Required
___________________________________________
26. How do you feel about this relationship? *Required
__________________________________________
27. Do you see this relationship changing in the future? *Required
Yes
No
I don’t know
27.a. Please justify your answer: *Required
__________________________________________
28. Which aspects of technology as related to literary translation do you find
appealing? *Required
_________________________________________
29. Which aspects of technology as related to literary translation do you find
unappealing? *Required
_________________________________________
Page 7: And finally...
30. If you have any final comment or suggestion regarding the questionnaire and its
subject matter, please write them below:
___________________________________________
31. The next stage of the research process will consist of contacting literary translators

253
to have a more in-depth discussion on some of the issues raised in the questionnaire.
Are you willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview? *Required
Yes
No
31.a. If yes, please leave your e-mail address and/or phone number below:
__________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the questionnaire! To submit your
answers, click on the ‘Finish’ button.
Page 8: Final page
Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire!
If you have any questions or would like more information about the study, please send
an e-mail to pr25@hw.ac.uk

254
Appendix D
Table 7.8 – Question 9: Working languages (language pairs) (n = 150, a
= 303)
Language Pair
Count
Percentage
FR-EN
30
9.9%
DE-EN
26
8.6%
EN-IT
16
5.3%
IT-EN
14
4.6%
EN-ES
13
4.3%
ES-EN
11
3.6%
EN-FR
8
2.6%
FR-IT
8
2.6%
EN-DE
8
2.6%
EN-HR
7
2.3%
FI-EN
6
2.0%
AR-EN
6
2.0%
JA-EN
6
2.0%
ZH-EN
5
1.7%
RU-EN
5
1.7%
EN-NL
4
1.3%
FR-DE
4
1.3%
HR-EN
4
1.3%
PL-EN
4
1.3%
SV-EN
4
1.3%
NL-EN
4
1.3%
CA-ES
4
1.3%
EN-CA
4
1.3%
EN-PL
3
1.0%
EN-AR
3
1.0%
Unassigned
3
1.0%
FR-ES
3
1.0%
DE-HR
3
1.0%
EN-PT
3
1.0%
DE-ES
3
1.0%
DE-IT
2
0.7%
SR-EN
2
0.7%
EN-EL
2
0.7%
FR-HR
2
0.7%
HR-DE
2
0.7%
EN-RU
2
0.7%
EN-FI
2
0.7%
FR-PT
2
0.7%
ES-IT
2
0.7%
PT-EN
2
0.7%
ES-CA
2
0.7%
FR-NL
1
0.3%

255
CY-EN
1
0.3%
EN-CY
1
0.3%
MK-EN
1
0.3%
PT-IT
1
0.3%
KO-EN
1
0.3%
SV-NL
1
0.3%
FR-AR
1
0.3%
AR-FR
1
0.3%
HY-EN
1
0.3%
EN-HY
1
0.3%
ASL-EN
1
0.3%
EN-ASL
1
0.3%
MY-EN
1
0.3%
EN-MY
1
0.3%
EN-TH
1
0.3%
EL-EN
1
0.3%
ES-HR
1
0.3%
FI-HR
1
0.3%
FI-SR
1
0.3%
HR-FI
1
0.3%
HR-RU
1
0.3%
RU-HR
1
0.3%
AR-FI
1
0.3%
FR-FI
1
0.3%
EN-SV
1
0.3%
IT-SV
1
0.3%
NO-FR
1
0.3%
EN-RO
1
0.3%
RO-EN
1
0.3%
HU-EN
1
0.3%
SV-HR
1
0.3%
SL-DE
1
0.3%
HE-NL
1
0.3%
LA-PT
1
0.3%
SV-IT
1
0.3%
IT-NO
1
0.3%
NO-IT
1
0.3%
EN-NO
1
0.3%
FR-EL
1
0.3%
ES-EL
1
0.3%
CA-EN
1
0.3%
CA-PT
1
0.3%
CA-FR
1
0.3%
FR-CA
1
0.3%
ZH-CA
1
0.3%
ZH-ES
1
0.3%
FY-EN
1
0.3%
EN-DA
1
0.3%
DE-DA
1
0.3%
IT-DA
1
0.3%

256
SV-DA
1
0.3%
SV-FI
1
0.3%
PT-FR
1
0.3%
PT-ES
1
0.3%
ES-PT
1
0.3%
IT-ES
1
0.3%
IT-CA
1
0.3%
DE-CA
1
0.3%
Total
303
100%

257