Article published In: Translation Spaces
Vol. 12:1 (2023) ► pp.74–96
How production and distribution processes shape translations in organisations
A material perspective
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
This article was made Open Access under a CC BY 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the author.
Published online: 10 May 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.22038.haa
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.22038.haa
Abstract
The Finnish Tax Administration’s OmaVero (OV) e-service is an example of an organisational software development and text production process in which translation plays a significant role. In this article, the concept of materiality is utilised to analyse how aspects of the wider process affect the form and content of OV translations. A distinction is made between the translations’ production and distribution process, the effects of the former being manifested mainly through the use of digital translation tools and those of the latter through the conventions of OV software development. A material analysis reveals a conflict in how these two processes treat language as a textual element: the production process downplays and obscures the connection between language content and its textual environment, while the distribution process attaches great importance to this relationship. This demonstrates how a material perspective can introduce useful nuance into analyses of textual communication processes in translation studies.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Case description: The Finnish Tax Administration’s translation activities and OmaVero translation processes
- 3.Applying materiality to translation theory and OV translation practice
- 3.1Basic principles of materiality in semiotics and textual theory
- 3.2Material model of the translation process
- 3.3OV translation’s production process and distribution process
- 3.4Digital texts and tools as part of OV translating
- 4.Effects of OV translations’ production and distribution processes reflected in OV translation examples
- 4.1OV translation solutions motivated by the production process
- 4.2OV translation solutions motivated by the distribution process
- 4.3OV translation solutions motivated by the interaction of the production and distribution processes
- 4.4Insights from a material analysis
- 5.Conclusion: Applying materiality in future translation research
- Acknowledgements
References
References (35)
Armstrong, Guyda. 2016. “Response by Armstrong to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies 9 (1): 102–106.
Bateman, John A., Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala. 2017. Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brannen, Mary Yoko, Rebecca Piekkari, and Susanne Tietze. 2014. “The Multifaceted Role of Language in International Business: Unpacking the Forms, Functions and Features of a Critical Challenge to MNC Theory and Performance.” Journal of International Business Studies 45 (5): 495–507.
Buzelin, Hélène. 2005. “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218.
Calvo, Elisa. 2015. “Scaffolding Translation Skills through Situated Training Approaches: Progressive and Reflective Methods.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 306–322.
Coldiron, A. E. B. 2016. “Response by Coldiron to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies 9 (1): 96–102.
García, Álvaro Marín. 2021. “Bridging the Epistemological Gap: Issues in CTS Knowledge Application to Training.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 462–481.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 2004. Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Haapaniemi, Riku. 2023. “Translation as meaning-construction under co-textual and contextual constraints: A model for a material approach to translation.” Translation Studies, 1–17.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2020. “The ‘Technological Turn’ in Translation Studies: Are We There yet? A Transversal Cross-Disciplinary Approach.” Translation Spaces 9(2): 314–41.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. 2008. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Littau, Karin. 2016. “Translation and the materialities of communication.” Translation Studies 9 (1): 82–96.
. 2022. “Media, materiality and the possibility of reception. Anne Carson’s Catullus.” In Unsettling Translation. Studies in Honour of Theo Hermans, edited by Mona Baker, 125–141. London and New York: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus. 2019. A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. London: Routledge.
Martín de León, Celia, and Alba Fernández Santana. 2021. “Embodied Cognition in the Booth: Referential and Pragmatic Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 277–306.
Montgomery, Scott L. 2009. “English and Science: Realities and Issues for Translation in the Age of an Expanding Lingua Franca.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 111: 6–16.
Nieminen, Tommi. 2017. “Joukkoistetun kotoistamisen luonteesta kääntämisenä [Crowdsourced localisation as translation]”. MikaEL 101: 88–100.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 11: 101–122.
Peirce, Charles Sanders, et al. 1994. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charlottesville: Intelex.
Pettersson, Anders. 2017. The Idea of a Text and the Nature of Textual Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2021. “Assessing Practices in Institutional Translation and Interpreting.” In Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 1–7. New York: Routledge.
Pym, Anthony. 2004. The Moving Text: Localization, Translation, and Distribution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2007. “Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation.” Target 19 (2): 271–294.
. 2011. “What Technology Does to Translating.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 3(1): 1–9.
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Translated by Christiane Nord, 2013. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler. 2013. “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 21: 151–182.
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević (ed.). 2019. Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl. 2021. “Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 478–499. London: Routledge.
. 2022. “Praxis and Process Meet Halfway: The Convergence of Sociological and Cognitive Approaches in Translation Studies.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 14(2): 32–49.
Ruokonen, Minna, and Minna Hjort. 2019. “O Translator, Where Art Thou? In-House Translators’ Physical Location and Organisational Position.” VAKKI Publications 101: 95–108.
Sannholm, Raphael. 2021. Translation, Teamwork, and Technology. The Use of Social and Material Scaffolds in the Translation Process. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Teixeira, Carlos S. C., and Sharon O’Brien. 2017. “Investigating the Cognitive Ergonomic Aspects of Translation Tools in a Workplace Setting.” Translation Spaces 6(1): 79–103.