Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X



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.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Armstrong, Guyda
    2016 “Response by Armstrong to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies9 (1): 102–106. 10.1080/14781700.2015.1101710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2015.1101710 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateman, John A., Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala
    2017Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110479898
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110479898 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Studies45 (5): 495–507. 10.1057/jibs.2014.24
    https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.24 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buzelin, Hélène
    2005 “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator11 (2): 193–218. 10.1080/13556509.2005.10799198
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799198 [Google Scholar]
  5. Calvo, Elisa
    2015 “Scaffolding Translation Skills through Situated Training Approaches: Progressive and Reflective Methods.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer9 (3): 306–322. 10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103107
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1103107 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coldiron, A. E. B.
    2016 “Response by Coldiron to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies9 (1): 96–102. 10.1080/14781700.2015.1085433
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2015.1085433 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronin, Michael
    2013Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. García, Álvaro Marín
    2021 “Bridging the Epistemological Gap: Issues in CTS Knowledge Application to Training.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies8 (2): 462–481. 10.1075/cogls.00086.gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00086.gar [Google Scholar]
  9. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich
    2004Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1080/14781700.2022.2147988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2022.2147988 [Google Scholar]
  11. Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
    2020 “The ‘Technological Turn’ in Translation Studies: Are We There yet? A Transversal Cross-Disciplinary Approach.” Translation Spaces9(2): 314–41. 10.1075/ts.19012.jim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.19012.jim [Google Scholar]
  12. Kirschenbaum, Matthew G.
    2008Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Littau, Karin
    2016 “Translation and the materialities of communication.” Translation Studies9 (1): 82–96. 10.1080/14781700.2015.1063449
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2015.1063449 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2022 “Media, materiality and the possibility of reception. Anne Carson’s Catullus.” InUnsettling Translation. Studies in Honour of Theo Hermans, edited byMona Baker, 125–141. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003134633‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134633-12 [Google Scholar]
  15. Marais, Kobus
    2019A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Martín de León, Celia, and Alba Fernández Santana
    2021 “Embodied Cognition in the Booth: Referential and Pragmatic Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies8 (2): 277–306. 10.1075/cogls.00079.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00079.mar [Google Scholar]
  17. Merrell, Floyd
    2000Change through Signs of Body, Mind and Language. Prospect Heights: Waveland.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Montgomery, Scott L.
    2009 “English and Science: Realities and Issues for Translation in the Age of an Expanding Lingua Franca.” The Journal of Specialised Translation111: 6–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nieminen, Tommi
    2017 “Joukkoistetun kotoistamisen luonteesta kääntämisenä [Crowdsourced localisation as translation]”. MikaEL101: 88–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Brien, Sharon
    2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces11: 101–122. 10.1075/ts.1.05obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.05obr [Google Scholar]
  21. Peirce, Charles Sanders,
    1994The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charlottesville: Intelex.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pettersson, Anders
    2017The Idea of a Text and the Nature of Textual Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/fillm.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fillm.7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Prieto Ramos, Fernando
    2021 “Assessing Practices in Institutional Translation and Interpreting.” InInstitutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited byFernando Prieto Ramos, 1–7. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pym, Anthony
    2004The Moving Text: Localization, Translation, and Distribution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.49
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.49 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007 “Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation.” Target19 (2): 271–294. 10.1075/target.19.2.07pym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.2.07pym [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research3(1): 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
    1984Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Translated byChristiane Nord 2013 Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler
    2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces21: 151–182. 10.1075/ts.2.08ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.2.08ris [Google Scholar]
  29. Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević
    (ed.) 2019Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.105
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.105 [Google Scholar]
  30. Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl
    2021 “Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byFabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 478–499. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2022 “Praxis and Process Meet Halfway: The Convergence of Sociological and Cognitive Approaches in Translation Studies.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research14(2): 32–49. 10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a03
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a03 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruokonen, Minna, and Minna Hjort
    2019 “O Translator, Where Art Thou? In-House Translators’ Physical Location and Organisational Position.” VAKKI Publications101: 95–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sannholm, Raphael
    2021Translation, Teamwork, and Technology. The Use of Social and Material Scaffolds in the Translation Process. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Short, T. L.
    2007Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511498350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498350 [Google Scholar]
  35. Teixeira, Carlos S. C., and Sharon O’Brien
    2017 “Investigating the Cognitive Ergonomic Aspects of Translation Tools in a Workplace Setting.” Translation Spaces6(1): 79–103. 10.1075/ts.6.1.05tei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.05tei [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