Cover not available
Part of
Field Research on Translation and Interpreting
Edited by Regina Rogl, Daniela Schlager and Hanna Risku
[Benjamins Translation Library 165] 2025
► pp. 226–251

Chapter 10
Revision files as cognitive ethnographic data

Artefact analysis of file and software features combined with systemic functional discourse analysis

ORCID logo | Tampere University
I apply artefact analysis and systemic functional discourse analysis as independent but complementary methods to examine revision files exported from Trados Studio translation software. The methods are intended to be used as part of cognitive ethnographic investigations of professional translation contexts and the distributed cognitive systems that exist in those contexts. The artefact analysis spotlights how the affordances of the files influence the cognitive work. Comments added to the revised texts inform us of how the translator and reviser as translation process participants position themselves in the cognitive system, and an analysis of shifts at the thematic, ideational and interpersonal levels of translational meaning-making show how they distribute the cognitive labour and direct their individual cognitive focus.
Keywords: cognitive translation studies, cognitive ethnography, distributed cognition, artefact analysis, systemic functional linguistics, translation revision, cognitive collaboration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Description of data and the two methods
    • 2.1The data
    • 2.2The artefact analysis method
    • 2.3Discourse analysis using systemic functional linguistics
      • 2.3.1SFL as the tool of analysis
      • 2.3.2Description of the discourse analysis procedure
  • 3.Outcomes of the methodological tests
    • 3.1Artefact analysis
    • 3.2The communication contained in the revision files
      • 3.2.1The comments as interaction
      • 3.2.2Systemic functional analysis of metafunctional shifts as indications of distributed cognitive labour
  • 4.Discussion
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (36)
References
Banks, David. 2019. A Systemic Functional Grammar of English. A Simple Introduction. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borghi, Anna M. (2018) 2021. “Affordances, Context and Sociality.” Synthese 199: 12485–12515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, and Ivan Panović. 2014. Working with Written Discourse. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Shukun, Winfred Wenhui Xuan, and Hailing Yu. 2022. “Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics in Translation Studies. A Research Synthesis.” Babel 68 (4): 517–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58 (1): 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cosentino, Erica. (2019) 2021. “Artifacts and Affordances.” Synthese 198 (Suppl. 17): 4007–4026.Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [The Big Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Halliday, Micheal A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammar. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill-Madsen, Aage. 2020. “SFL and Descriptive Translation Studies: Systemic-Functional Grammar as a Framework for the Analysis of Shifts in Translation.” Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication 10: 143–169.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2006. “Text and Context in Translation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 1995a. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995b. “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds.” Cognitive Science 19: 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization. 2015. ISO 17100 Translation Services — Requirements for Translation Services.Google Scholar
Kim, Mira, and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2015. “Introduction.” Target 27 (3): 335–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Mira, Jeremy Munday, Zhenhua Wang, and Pin Wang (eds). 2021. Systemic Functional Linguistics and Translation Studies. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Annamari. 2022. “When and How to Revise? Building a Cognitive Dyad of Translator and Reviser through Workflow Adjustment.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5 (2): 165–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Annamari, and Maija Hirvonen. 2021. “Joint Creative Process in Translation: Socially Distributed Cognition in Two Production Contexts.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2008. Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Translatorial Linguistic Ethnography in Organizations.” In Understanding Multilingual Workplaces: Methodological, Empirical and Pedagogic Perspectives, ed. by Sierk Horn, Philippe Lecomte, and Susanne Tietze, 60–77. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lueger, Manfred. 2000. Grundlagen qualitativer Feldforschung: Methodologie — Organisierung — Materialanalyse [Foundations of Qualitative Field Research: Methodology — Organisation — Materials Analysis]. Wien: WUV. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Timothy. 2007. “Managing Risks and Resources: A Down-to-Earth View of Revision.” JoSTrans 8: 57–63.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya, and Marvin Lam. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2020. Revising and Editing for Translators. 4th edition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Evaluation in Translation. Critical Points of Translator Decision-Making. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Systemic Functional Linguistics as a Framework for the Analysis of Translator/Interpreter Intervention.” In Systemic Functional Linguistics and Translation Studies, ed. by Mira Kim, Jeremy Munday, Zhenhua Wang, and Pin Wang, 83–98. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve. 2021. Translation and Practice Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perry, Mark. 1999. “The Application of Individually and Socially Distributed Cognition in Workplace Studies: Two Peas in a Pod?” Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Cognitive Science, ed. by Sebastiano Bagnara, 87–92. Siena, Italy.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 2009. Translationsmanagement: Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter [Translation Management: Intercultural Specialized Communication in the Information Age]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sannholm, Raphael. 2021. “Translation, Teamwork, and Technology: The Use of Social and Material Scaffolds in the Translation Process.” Dissertation, Stockholm University. [URL]
Sannholm, Raphael, and Hanna Risku. 2024. “Situated Minds and Distributed Systems in Translation. Exploring the Conceptual and Empirical Implications.” Target 36 (2): 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shore, Susanna. 1992. “Aspects of a Systemic-Functional Grammar of Finnish.” Dissertation, Macquarie University.
. 2020. Lauseita ja vesinokkaeläimiä. Perinteisestä funktionaaliseen lauseoppiin [Clauses and Platypuses. From Traditional to Functional Syntax]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Geuchte, Sofie, and Leona Van Vaerenbergh. 2016. “Text Creation in a Multilingual Institutional Setting.” Translation Spaces 5 (1): 59–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar