1887
Volume 67, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The emergence of crowdsourcing has opened up novel ways to initiate, produce and deliver translations in our digitally connected world. New practices and processes brought up by these phenomena have undeniably impacted different collectives with an interest in translation, such as language service providers (LSPs), professionals, and Translation Studies (TS). It has also been argued that crowdsourcing can impact public perceptions of translation, rising ethical concerns, issues related to the visibility of translation, or whether everyone can potentially translate (McDonough-Dolmaya 2012). This paper analyzes its potential impact on the realm of professional translation, an issue raised several years ago by a European Union Commission publication (2012, 37–38). It critically analyzes whether the much-feared socioeconomic and socio-professional impact on working conditions of professionals is underway or not. It represents an attempt at charting the potential influence of crowdsourcing on the profession through a critical review of existing literature and industry publications.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00230.jim
2021-09-22
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonini, Rachele, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi
    eds. 2017Non-professional Interpreting and Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.129
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.129 [Google Scholar]
  2. American Translators Association
    American Translators Association 2009 “Head of the Largest Translators’ Organization Blasts LinkedIn CEO for ‘Thoroughly Unprofessional Practices.’” atanet.org/pressroom/linkedIn_2009.pdf
  3. Anastasiou, Dimitra, and Rajat Gupta
    2011 “Comparison of Crowdsourcing Translation with Machine Translation.” Journal of Information Science37 (6): 637–659. 10.1177/0165551511418760
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511418760 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowker, Lynn
    2019 “Fit for Purpose Translation.” InHandbook of Translation Technology, edited byMinako O’Hagan, 435–468. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑27
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-27 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brabham, Daren
    2013Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9693.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9693.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brabham, Daren C.
    2017 “Crowdsourcing.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Chichester, West Sussex and Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc052
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc052 [Google Scholar]
  7. Camara, Lidia
    2015 “Motivation for Collaboration in TED Open Translation.” International Journal of Web-Based Communication11 (2): 210–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cronin, Michael https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.100 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013Translation in the Digital Age. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DePalma, Donald
    2015 “CSOFT Swipes Left for Translation, Right for the Source to Mobilize Translation.” Common Sense Advisory Publications. www.commonsenseadvisory.com/Default.aspx?Contenttype=ArticleDetAD&tabID=63&Aid=36417&moduleId=390
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DePalma, Donald, and Nataly Kelly
    2011 “Project Management for Crowdsourced Translation: How User-Translated Content Projects Work in Real Life.” InTranslation and Localization Project Management: The Art of the Possible, edited byKeiran Dunne and Elena Dunne, 379–408. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xvi.19dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xvi.19dep [Google Scholar]
  12. Desilets, Alain, and Jaap van de Meer
    2011 “Co-Creating a Repository of Best-Practices for Collaborative Translation.” Linguistica Antverpiensia10: 11–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Díaz-Cintas, Jorge
    2015 “Technological Strides in Subtitling.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology, edited bySin-Wai Chan, 632–643. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Díaz Cintas, Jorge, and Pablo Muñoz Sánchez
    2006 “Fansubs: Audiovisual Translation in an Amateur Environment.” Journal of Specialised Translation6: 37–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Drugan, Joanna
    2013Quality in Professional Translation. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ELIA
    ELIA 2017 “Expectations and Concerns of the European Language Industry.” EUATC European Union Association of Translation Companies. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017_language_industry_survey_report_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. European Commission
    European Commission 2011 “Crowdsourcing Translation: Studies on Multilingualism and Translation.” Brussels: Directorate General of Translation. ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/publications/studies/crowdsourcing_translation_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. FIT
    FIT 2015 “FIT Position Statement on Crowdsourcing of Translation, Interpreting and Terminology Services.” FIT. www.fit-ift.org/?page_id=4355
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Flanagan, Marian
    2016 “Cause for Concern? Attitudes Towards Translation Crowdsourcing in Professional Translators’ Blogs.” Journal of Specialised Translation25: 149–173. www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_flanagan.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gambier, Yves
    2012 “Denial of Translation and Desire to Translate.” Vertimo Studijos5: 9–29. 10.15388/VertStud.2012.5.10556
    https://doi.org/10.15388/VertStud.2012.5.10556 [Google Scholar]
  21. García, Ignacio
    2017 “Translation in the Cloud Age: Online Marketplaces.” Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business56: 59–70. 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97202
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97202 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2015 “Cloud Marketplaces: Procurement of Translators in the Age of Social Media.” Journal of Specialised Translation23: 18–38. www.jostrans.org/issue23/art_garcia.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Görog, Attila
    2014 “Quantification and Comparative Evaluation of Quality: The TAUS Dynamic Quality Framework.” Tradumatica12: 443–454. revistes.uab.cat/tradumatica/article/view/n12-gorog2/pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gouadec, Daniel
    2007Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.73
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.73 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010 “Quality in Translation.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, vol.1, edited byYves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 270–275. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.1.qua1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.qua1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Grbić, Nadja, and Pekka Kujamäki
    2018 “Professional vs. Non-professional: How Boundary Work Shapes Research Agendas in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” InMoving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited byHelle V. Dam, Matilde N. Brøgter, and Karen K. Zethsen, 113–131. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315121871‑8
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315121871-8 [Google Scholar]
  27. He, Tianxiang
    2017Copyright and Fan Productivity in China. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6508‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6508-8 [Google Scholar]
  28. Howe, Jeff
    2008Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu, Chang,
    2011 “The Value of Monolingual Crowdsourcing in a Real-World Translation Scenario: Simulation Using Haitian Creole Emergency SMS Messages.” InProceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/monotrans/publications/wmt11monotrans.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2014 “Crowdsourced Monolingual Translation.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction21 (4): 1–35. 10.1145/2627751
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2627751 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao
    2017 “Introduction.” InTranslation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology, edited byArnt L. Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 1–14. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.133.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.133.001int [Google Scholar]
  32. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
    2013 “Crowdsourcing, Corpus Use, and the Search for Translation Naturalness: A Comparable Corpus Study of Facebook and Non-Translated Social Networking Sites.” TIS: Translation and Interpreting Studies8: 23–49. 10.1075/tis.8.1.02jim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.1.02jim [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017aCrowdsourcing and Collaborative Translations: Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.131
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.131 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017b “How Much Would You Like to Pay? Reframing and Expanding the Notion of Translation Quality Through Crowdsourcing and Volunteer Approaches.” Perspectives25 (3): 478–491. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1285948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1285948 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2017c “Mobile Apps and Translation Crowdsourcing: The Next Frontier in the Evolution of Translation.” Tradumática14: 75–84. revistes.uab.cat/tradumatica/article/view/167/pdf_31
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Katan, David
    2009 “Occupation or Profession: A Survey of the Translators’ World.” Translation and Interpreting Studies4 (2): 187–209. 10.1075/tis.4.2.04kat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.4.2.04kat [Google Scholar]
  37. Kelly, Nataly
    2009 “Freelance Translators Clash with LinkedIn over Crowdsourced Translators.” Common Sense Advisory. www.commonsenseadvisory.com/Default.aspx?Contenttype=ArticleDetAD&tabID=63&Aid=591&moduleId=391
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2013 “There Is Big Money in Crowdsourcing – or Is There?” Common Sense Advisory. www.commonsenseadvisory.com/default.aspx?Contenttype=ArticleDetAD&tabID=63&Aid=3023&moduleId=390
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kelly, Nataly, Rebeca Ray, and Donald DePalma
    2011 “From Crawling to Sprinting: Community Translation Goes Mainstream.” Linguistica Antverpiensia10: 45–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lommel, Arle,
    2014 “Multidimensional Quality Metrics MQM: A Framework for Declaring and Describing Translation Quality Metrics.” Tradumatica12: 455–463. revistes.uab.cat/tradumatica/article/view/n12-lommel-uzskoreit-burchardt/pdf10.5565/rev/tradumatica.77
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.77 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lommel, Arle
    2018 “Metrics for Translation Quality Assessment: A Case for Standardizing Error Typologies.” InTranslation Quality Assessment: From Principle to Practice, edited byJoss Moorkens, Sheila Castilho, Federico Gaspari, and Stephen Doherty, 109–128. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91241‑7_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luz Nuno, Silva, and Paulo Novais
    2014 “A Survey of Task-oriented Crowdsourcing.” Artificial Intelligence Review44 (2): 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lykourentzou, Ioanna, Vassillis-Javed Khan, Konstantinos Papangelis, and Panos Markopoulos
    2019 “Macro Task Crowdsourcing: An Integrated Definition.” InMacro task Crowdsourcing, edited byVassillis-Javed Khan , 1–13. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑12334‑5_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12334-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Massida, Serenella
    2015Audiovisual Translation in the Digital Age: The Italian Fansubbing Phenomenon. London: Palgrave McMillan. 10.1057/9781137470379
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137470379 [Google Scholar]
  45. McDonough-Dolmaya, Julie
    2012 “Analyzing the Crowdsourcing Model and Its Impact on Public Perceptions of Translation.” The Translator182: 167–191. 10.1080/13556509.2012.10799507
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10799507 [Google Scholar]
  46. McDonough-Dolmaya, Julia, and Maria Sanchez
    2019 “Characterizing Online Social Translation.” Translation Studies12 (2):129–138. 10.1080/14781700.2019.1697736
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1697736 [Google Scholar]
  47. Moorkens, Joss, Sharon O’Brien, and Joris Vreeke
    2016 “Developing and Testing Kanjingo: A Mobile App for Post-Editing.” Tradumatica14: 58–65. revistes.uab.cat/tradumatica/article/view/168/pdf_2310.5565/rev/tradumatica.168
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.168 [Google Scholar]
  48. Morera-Mesa, Aran, John J. Collins, and David Filip
    2014 “Selected Crowdsourced Translation Practices.” InProceedings of ASLIB Translating and the Computer35. https://bit.ly/2TrFMEE
    [Google Scholar]
  49. O’Brien, Sharon
    2012 “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation.” Journal of Specialised Translation17: 55–77. www.jostrans.org/issue17/art_obrien.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Brien, Sharon, and Reinhard Schäler
    2010 “Next Generation Translation and Localization: Users Are Taking Charge.” InProceedings from Translating and the Computer Conference, 17–18. doras.dcu.ie/16695/1/Paper_6.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  51. O’Hagan, Minako
    2011 “Introduction: Community Translation: Translation as a Social Activity and Its Possible Consequences in the Advent of Web 2.0 and Beyond.” Linguistica Antverpiensia10: 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Orrego-Carmona, David
    2015 “The Reception of (Non)Professional Subtitling.” PhD Diss., University Rovira I Virgili, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Persaud, Ajax, and Sharon O’Brien
    2017 “Quality and Acceptance of Crowdsourced Translation of Web Content.” International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction13 (1): 100–115. 10.4018/IJTHI.2017010106
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2017010106 [Google Scholar]
  54. Popović, Maja
    2018 “Error Classification and Analysis for Machine Translation Quality Assessment.” InTranslation Quality Assessment, edited byJoss Moorkens , 129–158. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91241‑7_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_7 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ray, Rebecca, and Natalie Kelly
    2011Crowdsourced Translation: Best Practices for Implementation. Lowell, MA: Common Sense Advisory.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Raymond, Eric S.
    2001The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Sebastopol: O’Reilly and Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Christina Pein-Weber
    2016 “Mutual Dependencies: Centrality in Translation Networks.” The Journal of Specialised Translation25: 232–253. www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_risku.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. TAUS [Google Scholar]
  59. Valli, Paola
    2015 “Disrupt Me (Not).” Keynotes 2015 A Review of the TAUS October Events, 46–54. https://www.taus.net/blog/disrupt-me-not
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Way, Andy
    2020 “Machine Translation: Where Are We at Today?” InThe Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited byErik Angelone , 311–332. New York: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350024960.0018
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350024960.0018 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zaidan, Omar, and Chris Calliston-Burch
    2011 “Crowdsourcing Translation: Professional Quality from Non-Professionals. InProceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 1120–1129. www.cs.jhu.edu/%7Eozaidan/AOC/turk-trans_Zaidan-CCB_acl2011.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zwischenberger, Cornelina
    2021 “Online Collaborative Translation: Its Ethical, Social, and Conceptual Conditions and Consequences.” Perspectives. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00230.jim
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00230.jim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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