Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285



The translation production team that consists of a translator and a reviser can be investigated as a specific kind of (sub)system of socially distributed cognition, a cognitive dyad; this system is defined as only including the translation professionals who are directly involved in the drafting of the translation. Based on interviews with translation professionals, I argue that this fine-tuned cognitive dyad gets its form not only as a result of its participants’ characteristics, but also under the influence of other factors, some of which vary from one project to the next, leading to the flexible formation of the reviser’s task in particular. The three most important project-specific influencing factors are the text genre, the translator’s experience and competence, and the client’s needs and requirements. While genre and the client’s needs and requirements seem to have a markedly similar impact, mainly influencing the internal task configuration of the cognitive dyad, the translator’s experience and competence often leads to non-revision. Trust is an important element in this process.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Abdallah, Kristiina
    2012Translators in Production Networks: Reflections on agency, quality and ethics. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/10694
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdallah, Kristiina, and Kaisa Koskinen
    2007 “Managing Trust: Translating and the network economy”. Meta, 52 (4): 673–687. 10.7202/017692ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/017692ar [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfer, Alexa
    2017 “Entering the Translab: Translation as collaboration, collaboration as translation, and the third space of ‘translaboration’”. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (3): 275–290. 10.1075/ttmc.3.3.01alf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.3.01alf [Google Scholar]
  4. Brunette, Louise, Chantal Gagnon & Jonathan Hine
    2005 “The GREVIS Project: Revise or court calamity”. Across Languages and Cultures6 (1): 29–45. 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chesterman, Andrew
    1997Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers
    1998 “The Extended Mind”. Analysis581: 7–19. 10.1093/analys/58.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dawson, Michael R. W.
    2013Mind, Body, World: Foundations of cognitive science. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gallotti, Mattia, and Chris D. Frith
    2017 “Social Cognition in the We-Mode”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences17 (4): 160–165. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hernández Morin, Katell
    2009aLa révision comme clé de la gestion de la qualité des traductions en contexte professionnel [Revision as a key to managing translation quality in a professional context]. Doctoral thesis, Université Rennes 2. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00383266
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009b “Pratiques et perceptions de la révision en France [Practices and perceptions of revision in France]”. Traduire (Paris)2111: 58–78. 10.4000/traduire.368
    https://doi.org/10.4000/traduire.368 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hutchins, Edwin
    1995aCognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1995b “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds”. Cognitive Science19 (3): 265–288. 10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Korhonen, Annamari
    2021 “From Language Check to Creative Editing: Exploring variation in the revision stage of the LSP workflow”. InTranslation Revision and Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes. Edited byMaarit Koponen, Brian Mossop, Isabelle S. Robert & Giovanna Scocchera, 131–147. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Korhonen, Annamari & Maija Hirvonen
    2021 “Joint Creative Process in Translation: Socially distributed cognition in two production contexts”. Cognitive Linguistic Studies8 (2): 251–276. 10.1075/cogls.00078.kor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00078.kor [Google Scholar]
  15. Krüger, Ralph
    2016 “Situated LSP Translation from a Cognitive Translational Perspective”. Lebende Sprachen61 (2): 297–332. 10.1515/les‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mossop, Brian
    2014Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed.Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315767130
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767130 [Google Scholar]
  17. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2016 “Reembedding Translation Process Research: An Introduction”. InReembedding Translation Process Research. Edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.01mun [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Looking toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies”. InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJohn W. Schwieter & Aline Ferreira, 555–572. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch30
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2021 Situated cognition. InHandbook of Translation Studies, vol51. Edited byYves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, 207–212. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.5.sit1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.5.sit1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Nurminen, Mary
    2020 “Raw Machine Translation Use by Patent Professionals: A case of distributed cognition”. Translation, Cognition & Behavior3 (1): 100–121. 10.1075/tcb.00036.nur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00036.nur [Google Scholar]
  21. Perry, Mark
    1999 “The Application of Individually and Socially Distributed Cognition in Workplace Studies: Two peas in a pod?” Proceedings of European Conference on Cognitive Science, Siena, Italy: 87–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pleijel, Richard
    2021 “Translation Teams as Cognitive Systems: Archival Material, Cognitive Artifacts, and Group-Level Cognitive Processes”. Cognitive Linguistic Studies8 (2): 307–327. 10.1075/cogls.00080.ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00080.ple [Google Scholar]
  23. Pym, Anthony
    2004 “Propositions on Cross-Cultural Communication and Translation. Target16 (1): 1–28. 10.1075/target.16.1.02pym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16.1.02pym [Google Scholar]
  24. Rasmussen, Kirsten Wolch & Anne Schjoldager
    2011 “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies”. The Journal of Specialised Translation151: 87–120. https://www.jostrans.org/issue15/art_rasmussen.php
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Risku, Hanna
    2009Translationsmanagement: Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter [Translation management: Intercultural specialized communication in the information era]. 2nd ed.Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014 “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes”. InMinding Translation, ed. byRicardo Muñoz Martín, special issue ofMonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación: 331–353. 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.11
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.11 [Google Scholar]
  27. Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl
    2021 “Translation and Situated, Embodied, Distributed, Embedded and Extended Cognition”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byFábio Alves, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 478–499. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Risku, Hanna & Regina Rogl
    2022 “Praxis and Process Meet Halfway: The convergence of sociological and cognitive approaches in Translation Studies”. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research14 (2): 32–49. 10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a03
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a03 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sannholm, Raphael
    2021Translation, Teamwork, and Technology: The Use of Social and Material Scaffolds in the Translation Process. Stockholm: Stockholm University. urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-197921
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schnierer, Madeleine
    2019Qualitätssicherung. Die Praxis der Übersetzungsrevision im Zusammenhang mit EN 15038 und ISO 17100 [Quality assurance. The practice of translation revision in connection with EN 15038 and ISO 17100]. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 10.26530/OAPEN_1007768
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_1007768 [Google Scholar]
  31. Uotila, Anna
    2017 Revision and Quality Assurance in Professional Translation: A Study of Revision Policies in Finnish Translation Companies. Master’s Thesis, University of Tampere. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201712202991
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2020 “Translaboration: Exploring Collaboration in Translation and Translation in Collaboration”. Target32 (2): 173–190. 10.1075/target.20106.zwi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20106.zwi [Google Scholar]

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