Cover not available

Article published In: Babel
Vol. 67:1 (2021) ► pp.75–98

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Critical theory of technology and actor-network theory in the examination of techno-empowered online collaborative translation practice

TED Talks on the Amara subtitle platform as a case study

 | National Taiwan University
Published online: 2 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00206.kun
Abstract
While “turns” in translation studies have long been embracing the theoretical complexity integrated into the discussion of various translation phenomena, the theorisation of the use of technology and its impact on translation remain under-represented in scholarly literature of the field (. 2016. “Massively Open Translation: Unpacking the Relationship between Technology and Translation in the 21st Century.” International Journal of Communication 101: 929–946.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This article considers the influence of technology on translation and reflects on the question as to how the interactive relationship between technology and translation may be theoretically conceptualised. Taking an approach informed by sociological theory, this article combines critical theory of technology (CTT) and actor-network theory (ANT) to examine the relationship between technology and translation, as well as the translation players involved. With the advent of Web 2.0, techno-empowered collaborative translation in the online TED Talks environment using Amara subtitling platform becomes a useful locale for discussion. Through a participant-observation approach, that is, with the author’s experience in the online translation environment, this article aims to explore how the technological elements in translation often described as “emergent property from new forms of translation practice” (Cronin, Michael. 2010. “The Translation Crowd.” Revista Tradumàtica 81: 1–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 1) may offer critical insights from an epistemological perspective, especially the reciprocity between technology and its users.
Résumé
Alors que les grands “tournants” de la traductologie ont longtemps englobé la complexité théorique inhérente à l’explicitation des divers phénomènes de traduction, la théorisation de l’utilisation de la technologie et de son impact sur la traduction restent trop peu représentées dans la littérature scientifique (. 2016. “Massively Open Translation: Unpacking the Relationship between Technology and Translation in the 21st Century.” International Journal of Communication 101: 929–946.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Cet article examine l’influence de la technologie sur la traduction et chercher à savoir comment la relation interactive entre la technologie et la traduction peut être conceptualisée théoriquement. Adoptant une approche fondée sur la théorie sociologique, cet article combine la théorie critique de la technologie (CTT) et la théorie de l’acteur-réseau (ANT) pour examiner la relation entre la technologie et la traduction, ainsi que les principaux acteurs impliqués dans la traduction. Avec l’avènement du Web 2.0, la mise en place par le site des TED Talks d’une forme de traduction collaborative technicisée grâce à la plateforme de sous-titrage Amara offre une solide base de discussion. Par le biais d’une approche d’observation participante, c’est-à-dire en prenant en compte l’expérience de l’auteur dans l’environnement de traduction en ligne, cet article vise à explorer la manière dont les éléments technologiques de la traduction souvent décrits comme des “propriétés émergentes des nouvelles formes de pratique traductologique” (Cronin, Michael. 2010. “The Translation Crowd.” Revista Tradumàtica 81: 1–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 1) peuvent offrir des aperçus critiques d’un point de vue épistémologique. Et, plus particulièrement, en ce qui concerne la réciprocité entre la technologie et ses utilisateurs.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Critical theory of technology and its conceptualisation
  • The concept of actor-network theory as linking mechanism
  • Web 2.0 and collaborative translation practice: Architect of participation, collective intelligence and affordances
  • TED Talks using amara translation platform as a case study
    • The production network from where it all started
    • Technical architecture in shaping the translation practice: Infinitude and utility
    • The technically built-in translation reality and the need of human-technology interaction
  • Implications and concluding remarks
  • References
References (45)
References
Amara. 2019. “About Amara.” Accessed 20 April 2019. [URL]
Amara Editor User Interface. 2019. “Amara Editor.” Accessed 10 May 2019. [URL]
Amara User Platform. 2019. “Find Your Team.” Accessed 31 May 2018. [URL]
Amara User Platform Messages. 2019. “Message Center.” Accessed 6 April 2019. [URL]
Amara User Platform of TED. 2019. “TED.” Accessed 22 April 2019. [URL]
Amara User Platform of Udacity. 2019. “Udacity.” Accessed 20 April 2019. [URL]
Boulos, Maged N. Kamel, and Steve Wheelert. 2007. “The Emerging Web 2.0 Social Software: An Enabling Suite of Sociable Technologies in Health and Health Care Education.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 24 (1): 2–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buzelin, Hélèn. 2005. “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Independent Publisher in the Networks of Translation.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 19 (1): 135–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2010. “The Translation Crowd.” Revista Tradumàtica 81: 1–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, Rayna. 2011. “Anime Fandom and the Liminal Spaces between Fan Creativity and Piracy.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 14 (5): 448–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew. 1990. “The Critical Theory of Technology.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 1 (5): 17–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview.” Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (1): 47–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “A Critical Theory of Technology.” Thesis Eleven. 1381. 635–663. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew, and Sara M. Grimes. 2013. “Critical Theory of Technology.” In SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research, edited by Sara Price, Carey Jewitt, and Barry Brown, 121–129. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flew, Terry. 2008. New Media: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyde, Adam. et al. 2011. Open Translation Tools (Floss Manual). [URL]
Jansen, Dean, Aleli Alcala, and Francisco Guzman. 2014. “Amara: A Sustainable, Global Solution for Accessibility, Powered by Communities of Volunteers.” In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Development Methods for Universal Access, edited by Constantine Stephanidis and Margherita Antona, 401–411. Cham, CH: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Francis. 2009. “Embassy Networks: Translating Post-War Bosnian Poetry into English.” In Agents of Translation, edited by John Milton and Paul Bandia, 301–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozinets, Robert. 2010. Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kung, Szu-Wen. 2016. “Audienceship and Community of Practice: An Exploratory Study of Chinese Fansubbing Communities.” Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 3 (3): 252–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “A Sociological Turn to Research of Chinese Translation Practice: With Reference to the Translation Production of Harry Potter.” In Routledge Handbook of Chinese Translation, edited by Chris Shei and Zhao-Ming Gao, 189–204. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 47 (4): 369–381.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Kwei-Jay. 2007. “Building Web 2.0.” Web Technologies 401: 101–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacArthur Foundation. 2019. “About Us.” Accessed 10 April 2019. [URL]
Kelly, Nataly, Rebecca Ray, and Donald A. DePalma. 2011. “From Crawling to Sprinting: Community Translation Goes Mainstream.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 101: 75–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kockaert, Hendrik, and Julia Makoushina. 2008. “Zen and the Art of Quality Assurance: Quality Assurance Automation.” In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Translating and the Computer Conference Information: Translating and the Computer, 1–9. London: ASLIB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marginal Revolution University. 2019. “Learn Economics, Understand Your World.” Accessed 2 April 2019. [URL]
McLoughlin, Catherine, and Mark J. Lee. 2007. “Social Software and Participatory Learning: Pedagogical Choices with Technology Affordances in the Web 2.0 Era.” In ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning Proceedings, 664–675. Singapore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Northcut, Kathryn M. 2007. “The Relevance of Feenberg’s Critical Theory of Technology to Critical Visual Literary: The Case of Scientific and Technical Illustrations.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 37 (3): 253–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako. 2011. “Community Translation: Translation as a Social Activity and Its Possible Consequences in the Advent of Web 2.0 and Beyond.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 101: 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Massively Open Translation: Unpacking the Relationship between Technology and Translation in the 21st Century.” International Journal of Communication 101: 929–946.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olovan, Maeve. 2014. “Why Do You Translate? Motivation to Volunteer and TED Translation.” Translation Studies 7 (1): 17–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, David. 2014. “Using Non-Professional Subtitling Platforms for Translator Training.” Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione [International journal of translation] 151: 129–144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Participatory Culture Foundation. 2019. “PCF Missions.” Accessed 3 April 2019. [URL]
Surowiecki, James. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. London, UK: Little Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TED.com. 2018. “Ideas Worth Spreading.” Accessed 30 May 2018. [URL]
TED Guidelines. 2018. “TED Guidelines.” Accessed 4 April 2018. [URL]
TED Translators. 2019. “TED Translators.” Accessed 10 April 2019. [URL]
Udacity. 2018. “Udacity.” Accessed 20 April 2019. [URL]
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, Michaela. 2007. “Introduction.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Yang, Wenting, Ricardo Muñoz Martín & Xiangling Wang
2025. Individual metacognition in technology-assisted collaborative translation: comparing higher- and lower-achieving teams. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
Lan, Xing, Ying Xi & Wuping Cai
2024. 2024 International Conference on Integrated Intelligence and Communication Systems (ICIICS), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Minhui & Tianze Duan
2024. Networking in online collaborative translation. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 22:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Angelucci, Margherita, Harrison Marshall, Meriem Tebourbi, Joshua Paolo Seguin, Delvin Varghese, Patrick Olivier & Tom Bartindale
2023. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2023. A Missing Link?. In Translaboration in Analogue and Digital Practice [Transkulturalität – Translation – Transfer, 57], ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Karakanta, Alina & David Orrego-Carmona
2023. Subtitling in transition. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Zheng, Binghan, Jinquan Yu, Boya Zhang & Chunli Shen
2023. Reconceptualizing translation and translators in the digital age: YouTube comment translation on China’s Bilibili. Translation Studies 16:2 ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue