Cover not available
Part of
Translation Practice in the Field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes
Edited by Hanna Risku, Regina Rogl and Jelena Milosevic
[Benjamins Current Topics 105] 2019
► pp. 105–122

Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice

According to the International Ergonomics Association, a focus on organizational ergonomics recognizes that people work within socio-technical systems that encompass tools, equipment, and computer interfaces as well as other actors in their professional environment and networks. In recent research, we have started investigating such socio-technical factors from an ergonomic perspective. Observations at professional workplaces, responses to questionnaires, and in-depth interviews with translators suggest that their perceived self-determination is more important to the success of socio-technical change than the technological developments themselves. A lack of involvement in decision-making at the workflow level may explain why so many translators have been resistant to taking new technology on board. We discuss how a feedback culture could mitigate many socio-technical issues by giving translators a voice in change and empowering them to contribute to organizational learning and growth.

Keywords: organizational ergonomics, socio-technical systems, translation practice, translation constraints, workplace, situated cognition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Translating as an activity situated in a socio-technical system
  • 3.Constraints on the situated activity of professional translation
    • 3.1Constraints identified in commentaries and interviews (CTP project)
    • 3.2Constraints identified in survey responses (ErgoTrans project)
  • 4.Organizational ergonomics of professional translation
    • 4.1Organizational ergonomic issues identified in the survey (ErgoTrans project)
    • 4.2Organizational ergonomic issues identified in interviews (ErgoTrans project)
      • 4.2.1Positive, negative, and stressful aspects
      • 4.2.2Self-determination
      • 4.2.3Motivation and feedback
  • 5.Directions for change
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.105.06ehr
References
Bundgaard, Kristine, Tina Paulsen Christensen, and Anne Schjoldager
2016 “Translator-Computer Interaction in Action – An Observational Process Study of Computer-Aided Translation.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 106–130. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Canfora, Carmen, and Angelika Ottmann
2015 “Risikomanagement für Übersetzungen [Risk Management for Translations].” trans-kom 8 (2): 314–346. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Chesterman, Andrew
2013 “Models of What Processes?” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 155–168. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy, and David J. Chalmers
1998/2010 “The Extended Mind.” In The Extended Mind, edited by R. Menary, 27–41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Dam, Helle V., and Karen Korning Zethsen
2016 “ ‘I Think It is a Wonderful Job.’ On the Solidity of the Translation Profession.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 174–186. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Dresing, Thorsten, and Thorsten Pehl
2011 Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen [Practical Manual for Transcription. Rules, Software, and Practical Instructions for Qualitative Researchers]. Marburg. Accessed May 8, 2013. [URL].
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” In Minding Translation, guest edited by R. Muñoz, 355–383. Special Issue 1 of MonTI. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Gary Massey, Ursula Meidert, Silke Neumann, and Heidrun Becker
2016 “An International Survey of the Ergonomics of Professional Translation.” ILCEA Revue 27. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
2013 “Indicators of Translation Competence: Translators’ Self-Concepts and the Translation of Titles.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1): 103–131. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2014a “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in Professional Translation.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by J. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2014b “Translators and Machines: Working Together.” In Man vs. Machine? Vol. I, edited by W. Bauer, B. Eichner, N. Keßler, F. Mayer, and J. Ørsted, 199–207. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.Google Scholar
Elia
2016 Expectations and Concerns of the European Language Industry. EUATC European Union of Associations of Translation Companies. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Hollnagel, Erik, and David D. Woods
2005 Joint Cognitive Systems. Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin
1995 “The Organization of Team Performances.” In Cognition in the Wild, edited by E. Hutchins, 175–228. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
ISO 17100
2015 Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Karamanis, Nikiforos, Saturnino Luz, and Gavin Doherty
2011 “Translation Practice in the Workplace. Contextual Analysis and Implications for Machine Translation.” Machine Translation 25 (1), 35–52. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija, and Kaisa Koskinen
eds. 2010 Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Krüger, Ralph
2016 “Contextualising Computer-Assisted Translation Tools and Modelling Their Usability.” trans-kom 9 (1): 114–148. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Lukumbu, Béatrice
2016 Ergonomic Translation. Eine Untersuchung zur Ergonomie am Übersetzerarbeitsplatz am Beispiel eines Schweizer Übersetzungsbüros [Ergonomic Translation. An Investigation of the Ergonomics of a Translator’s Workplace Using the Example of a Swiss Translation Agency]. Master’s thesis, Zurich University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
Menary, Richard
2013 “The Extended Mind.” In Encyclopedia of the Mind, edited by H. Pashler, 336–339. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by G. M. Shreve, and E. Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Situating Translation Expertise: A Review with a Sketch of a Construct.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by J. Schwieter, and A. Ferriera, 3–21. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016 “Processes of What Models? On the Cognitive Indivisibility of Translation Acts and Events.” Translation Spaces 5 (1): 145–161. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Nardie, Bonnie A.
1996 “Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, edited by B. A. Nardie, 35–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1: 101–122. DOI logo.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Megan Connolly, and Marcel Hasler
2017 “Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 56: 145–162. doi:DOI logo.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2011 “Translators and Translation Technology: The Dance of Agency.” Translation Studies 4 (3): 342–357. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 1–9. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
2013 “Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age.” Meta 58 (3): 487–503. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2015 “Translating as Risk Management.” Journal of Pragmatics 85: 67–80. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Riegler, Alexander
2002 “When is a Cognitive System Embodied?” Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 339–348. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2002 “Situatedness in Translation Studies.” Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 523–533. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Robbins, Philip, and Murat Aydede
2009 The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rothlin, Philippe, and Peter R. Werder
2008 Boreout! Overcoming Workplace Demotivation. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, et al.
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” [Discourse Analytical Transcription System 2 (GAT2)] Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zu verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Shreve, Gregory M.
2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Text Encoding Initiative
2008 TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Toudic, Daniel, and Guillaume de Brébisson
2011 “Poste du travail du traducteur et responsabilité: une question de perspective.” [The Translator’s Job and Responsibility: A Question of Perspective] ILCEA Revue 14. Accessed January 3, 2017. [URL].
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Pan, Qi & Weiqing Xiao
2024. Revisiting risk management in online collaborative literary translation: ethical insights from the Chinese context. The Translator 30:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Ruokonen, Minna & Elin Svahn
2024. What do we know about translators’ job satisfaction?. Translation Spaces DOI logo
Schlager, Daniela & Hanna Risku
2023. Contextualising translation expertise. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:2 ► pp. 230 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.