AI-Based processing of poetic language and human translation in literary contexts

Rashad Ahmed; Abdu Alkadi; Jamal Kaid  Mohammed Ali

doi:10.29038/ahm

Authors

Rashad Ahmed Jacksonville State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7834-2148
Abdu Alkadi * University of Bergen, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-7507
Jamal Kaid Mohammed Ali University of Bisha, Saudi Arabia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3079-5580

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/ahm

Keywords:

ChatGPT, language processing, machine translation, literary translation

Abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to redefine the boundaries of linguistic research, this study examines the extent to which machine translation (MT) and AI tools can go beyond literal meaning, push beyond surface-level syntax and semantics to process context-sensitive issues in literary translation. While traditional MT systems such as Google Translate and Microsoft Translator are optimized for direct source-to-target mapping, AI language models like ChatGPT represent a broader category of tools designed for general-purpose language generation, including but not limited to translation. Using a 14-line Arabic poem, translations were generated by three MT systems, one AI model (ChatGPT), and two certified human translators. These outputs were evaluated against ten linguistic and stylistic dimensions: punctuation, layout, rhyme, mood, theme, logico-semantics, transitivity, field, tenor, and mode. The six translation versions were compared using a framework grounded in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). The analysis also considers how humans process cognitive-linguistic features when rendering poetic language. Results indicate that ChatGPT outperformed both MT systems and human translators in structural and semantic coherence, as well as in preserving poetic features such as rhyme and mood. However, all automated systems struggled with context-rich dimensions like tenor and mode, underscoring the enduring value of human interpretive depth. The findings highlight the potential of AI language models to complement, rather than replace, human expertise in literary translation and advocate for hybrid approaches that integrate computational efficiency with poetic language and cultural sensitivity.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the human translators who contributed to this study by translating the selected poem from Arabic into English. We equally thank the two translation experts who contributed to the analysis of translations. Their careful attention to linguistic nuance and cultural context played a significant role in comparing the machine-generated and human-produced translations. The authors are thankful to the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at the University of Bisha for supporting this work through the Fast-Track Research Support Program.

Disclosure Statement

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Abdu Alkadi *, University of Bergen, Norway

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

References

Almaktary, H. (2022). A poetic approach to teaching English: Personal account. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 1(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v1i2.23

Alowedi, N. A., & Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H. (2023). Artificial intelligence-based Arabic-to-English machine versus human translation of poetry: An analytical study of outcomes. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33, 1523–1538. https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.800

Blum-Kulka, S. (2004). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 1–15). Routledge.

Cercone, N., & Murchison, C. (1985). Integrating artificial intelligence into literary research: An invitation to discuss design specifications. Computers and the Humanities, 19(4), 235–243. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200023

Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). The false promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html

Correa-Díaz, L. (2024). Poetry and artificial intelligence. In S. Weintraub & L. Correa-Díaz (Eds.), Latin American digital poetics (pp. 37–54). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26425-2_3

Farghal, M., & Haider, A. S. (2024). Translating classical Arabic verse: Human translation vs. AI large language models (Gemini and ChatGPT). Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), Article 2410998. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2410998

Halliday, M. A. K. (1956). The linguistic basis of a mechanical thesaurus. Mechanical Translation, 3(3), 81–88.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756

Hamat, A. (2024). The language of AI and human poetry: A comparative lexicometric study. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 30(2), Article 01. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2024-3002-01

Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00140

Horbach, A., Pehlke, J., & Laarmann-Quante, R. (2023). Cross-lingual content scoring in five languages using machine-translation and multilingual transformer models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34, 795–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00370-1

Lee, S. M. (2023). The effectiveness of machine translation in foreign language education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(1–2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1901745

Luo, X. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the crisis of translation. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 5(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2018.1456440

Macken, L., Prou, D., & Tezcan, A. (2020). Quantifying the effect of machine translation in a high-quality human translation production process. Informatics, 7(2), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7020012

Maučec, M. S., & Donaj, G. (2019). Machine translation and the evaluation of its quality. In A. Sadollah & T. S. Sinha (Eds.), Natural language processing: New approaches and recent applications (pp. 1–24). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89063

Musaad, M. M. A. M., & Al Towity, A. A. (2023). Translation evaluation of three machine translation systems, with special references to idiomatic expressions. Journal of Educational Sciences and Human Studies, 29, 678–708.

Organ, A. (2023). Attitudes to the use of Google Translate for L2 production: Analysis of chatroom discussions among UK secondary school students. The Language Learning Journal, 51(3), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1892171

Paterson, K. (2023). Machine translation in higher education: Perceptions, policy, and pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 14(4), Article e738. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.738

Sahari, Y., Al-Kadi, A., & Ali, J. (2023). A cross-sectional study of ChatGPT in translation: Magnitude of use, attitudes, and uncertainties. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52, 2573–2592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10031-y

Sebo, P., & de Lucia, S. (2024). Performance of machine translators in translating French medical research abstracts to English: A comparative study of DeepL, Google Translate, and CUBBITT. PloS one, 19(2), e0297183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297183

Škobo, M., & Petričević, V. (2023). Navigating the challenges and opportunities of literary translation in the age of AI: Striking a balance between human expertise and machine power. Društvene I Humanističke Studij, 2(23), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.51558/2490-3647.2023.8.2.317

Tianrui, M. (2024). Poetry and translation as bridges: Exploring Nizar Qabbani’s translation theory. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 11(1), Article 2298551. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2298551

Visby, M. (2020). The future relationship of literary translation and AI: Reflections from CEATL president. Counterpoint, 4, 28–31.

Wang, Y. (2023). Artificial intelligence technologies in college English translation teaching. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 52, 1525–1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-09960-5

Xiao, K., & Muñoz, R. (2020). Cognitive translation studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 19, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v19i0.559

Yuhan, N., Zhylin, M., Antonyuk-Kyrychenko, S., Popova, N., & Harbar, M. (2024). Cognitive aspects of translation: The latest research in psycholinguistics and cognitive science. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(4), Article 6367. https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i4.6367