1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The advent of AI-supported, cloud-based collaborative translation platforms has enabled a new form of online collaborative translation – ‘concurrent translation’ (CT). CT refers to commercial translation performed on such platforms by multiple agents (translators, editors, subject-matter experts etc.) simultaneously, via concurrent access. Although the practice has recently gained more ground, research on CT is scarce. The present article reports on selected key findings of a study that investigates translators’ experiences with CT via a survey of 804 professional translators working in CT mode across different commercial platforms. Despite the affordances such as peer learning, positive competition, speed, flexibility of the volume of work and working time, and reduced responsibility and reduced stress, CT workflow comes with its substantial challenges such as time pressure, negative competition, reduced self-revision and research, all of which result in quality compromised for speed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.22027.gou
2023-01-10
2024-02-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdallah, K.
    2014 “Social Quality: Key to Collective Problem Solving in Translation Production Networks” InTranslation, Quality, Costs, edited byG. Ločmele and A. Veisbergs, 5–18. Riga: University of Latvia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alfer, Alexa
    2017 “Entering the Translab.” Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (3): 275–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andriessen, E. J. H.
    (2003) Working with groupware. Understanding and Evaluating Collaboration Technology. London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4471‑0067‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0067-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. CIOL- Chartered Institute of Linguistics & Institute of Translation and Interpreting
    CIOL- Chartered Institute of Linguistics & Institute of Translation and Interpreting 2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and Interpreters. https://docplayer.net/14742908-2011-rates-and-salaries-survey-for-translators-and-interpreters.html. AccessedApril 2022.
  5. Cordingley, Anthony, and Cèline Frigau Manning
    2016 “What is Collaborative Translation?” InCollaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the Digital Age, edited byAnthony Cordingley and Cèline Frigau Manning, 1–30. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Courtney, Jennifer and Phelan, Mary
    2019 ‘Translators’ experiences of occupational stress and job satisfaction’, Translation and Interpreting, 11(1), pp.100–113. 10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a06
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a06 [Google Scholar]
  7. CSA Research
    CSA Research 2020 “The State of the Linguist Supply Chain: Translators and Interpreters 2020” (January 2020), Hélène Pielmeier and Paul O’Mara.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CSA Research
    CSA Research 2021 “Collaborative Translation Platforms: The Reality of Sharing Language Projects” (May 2021), Alison Toon and Hélène Pielmeier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dam, H. V. and Zethsen, K. K.
    2016 ‘“I think it is a wonderful job” on the solidity of the translation profession’, Journal of Specialised Translation, (25), pp.174–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. L.
    1991 “Groupware: Some issues and experiences.” Communications of the ACM34(1): 38–58. 10.1145/99977.99987
    https://doi.org/10.1145/99977.99987 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fırat, Gökhan
    2021 “Uberization of Translation: Impacts on Working Conditions.” The Journal of Internationalization and Localization (JIAL)8 (1): 48–75. 10.1075/jial.20006.fir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.20006.fir [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuks, H., Raposo, A., Gerosa, M. A., Pimental, M. and Lucena, C. J. P.
    2008 “The 3C Collaboration Model.” InEncyclopedia of E-Collaboration, edited byNed Kock, 637–644. Hershey and New York. 10.4018/978‑1‑59904‑000‑4.ch097
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-000-4.ch097 [Google Scholar]
  13. García, Ignacio
    2015 “Cloud Marketplaces: Procurement of Translators in the Age of Social Media.” Journal of Specialised Translation (23): 18–38. www.jostrans.org/issue23/art_garcia.pdf. AccessedDecember 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 “Translating in the Cloud Age: Online Marketplaces.” HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, (56): 59–70. 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97202
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97202 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodman, L. A.
    1961 “Snowball sampling.” The annals of mathematical statistics321: 148–170. 10.1214/aoms/1177705148
    https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gough, Joanna and Katerina Perdikaki
    2018 “Concurrent Translation – Reality or Hype?” InTranslating and The Computer401, AsLing Proceedings, 79–88. London. 15–16 November 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gough, Joanna
    2018 “Concurrent Translation – Pedagogical Implications”. PP Presentation, 1st APTIS Conference, Birmingham. 23 November 2018.
  18. 2019 “Concurrent Translation – implications for translation process, product and the human translator”. PP Presentation, LECTIS Seminar Series, Leicester. 07 November 2019.
  19. Inbox Translation-Freelance translator survey
    Inbox Translation-Freelance translator survey 2020 Key findings & demographics: From business practices to rates, everything you wanted to know about your peers. https://inboxtranslation.com/resources/research/freelance-translator-survey-2020/AccessedApril 2022.
  20. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
    2017Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations: Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.131
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.131 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kreutzer, Julia
    (2022) ‘Quality at a Glance: An Audit of Web-Crawled Multilingual Datasets’, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 101, pp.50–72. 10.1162/tacl_a_00447
    https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00447 [Google Scholar]
  22. Moorkens, Joss
    2020a “A Tiny Cog in a Large Machine: Digital Taylorism in the Translation Industry.” InTranslation Spaces: Fair MT – Towards Ethical, Sustainable Machine Translation, 9 (1): 12–34. John Benjamins. 10.1075/ts.00019.moo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00019.moo [Google Scholar]
  23. 2020b ‘Comparative satisfaction among freelance and directly-employed Irish-language translators’, Translation and Interpreting, 12(1), pp.55–73. 10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a04
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a04 [Google Scholar]
  24. Morera Mesa, Aram, John J. Collins, and David Filip
    2013 “Selected Crowdsourced Translation Practices.” InProceedings of ASLIB Translating and the Computer 34. https://www.mt-archive.info/10/Aslib-2013-Morera-Mesa.pdf. AccessedDecember 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nimdzi Language Technology Atlas
    Nimdzi Language Technology Atlas 2022https://www.nimdzi.com/language-technology-atlas/AccessedOctober 2022.
  26. O’Brien, Sharon & Schäler, Reinhard
    2010 “Next generation translation and localization: Users are taking charge.” InProceedings of Translating and the Computer 32. London: Aslib.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Brien, Sharon
    2011 “Collaborative Translation.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, edited byYves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 17–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.2.col1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.col1 [Google Scholar]
  28. O’Hagan, Minako
    2009 “Evolution of user-generated translation: Fansubs, translation hacking, and crowdsourcing.” The Journal of Translation and Localisation11: 94–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2011 “Community Translation: Translation as a Social Activity and Its Possible Consequences in the Advent of Web 2.0 and Beyond.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 101. 10.52034/lanstts.v10i.275
    https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v10i.275 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruokonen, M. and Mäkisalo, J.
    (2018) “Middling-status profession, high-status work: Finnish translators status perceptions in the light of their backgrounds, working conditions and job satisfaction”, Translation and Interpreting, 10(1), pp.1–17. 10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a01
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a01 [Google Scholar]
  31. TAUS
    TAUS 2020 Real-time Translation Analytics. Translation Automation User Society. Accessed10 February 2022. https://www.taus.net/data/dqf
  32. Trzeciak-Huss, Joanna
    2018 “Collaborative Translation.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation (1st ed.), edited byWashbourne, K., & Wyke, B. V., 10.4324/9781315517131‑30
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315517131-30 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vieira, Lucas Nunes, Valentina Ragni, and Elisa Alonso
    2021 “Translator autonomy in the age of behavioural data.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior. 10.1075/tcb.00052.nun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00052.nun [Google Scholar]
  34. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2021 “Online collaborative translation: its ethical, social, and conceptual conditions and consequences.” Perspectives30(1): 1–18. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.22027.gou
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ts.22027.gou
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