Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation Spaces
Vol. 12:1 (2023) ► pp.45–73

Concurrent translation on collaborative platforms

ORCID logo | University of Surrey
ORCID logo | University of Surrey
ORCID logo | University of Surrey
ORCID logo | University of Surrey

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.

Keywords: Collaborative translation, concurrent translation (CT), cloud-based translation, translation workflows, translation platforms
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Methodology
    • Data analysis
    • Sample profile
  • Findings
    • Platforms used in CT
    • Communication on platforms
    • Time spent on CT
    • Nature of tasks in CT
    • Translators’ experiences with concurrent translation (CT)
    • Affordances introduced by concurrent translation
    • Issues with concurrent translation
    • Consequences of the issues associated with concurrent translation
  • Limitations
  • Conclusion and discussion
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.22027.gou
References
Abdallah, K.
2014 “Social Quality: Key to Collective Problem Solving in Translation Production Networks” In Translation, Quality, Costs, edited by G. Ločmele and A. Veisbergs, 5–18. Riga: University of Latvia Press.Google Scholar
Alfer, Alexa
2017 “Entering the Translab.” Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (3): 275–290.Google Scholar
Andriessen, E. J. H.
(2003) Working with groupware. Understanding and Evaluating Collaboration Technology. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CIOL- Chartered Institute of Linguistics & Institute of Translation and Interpreting
2011 Rates and Salaries Survey for Translators and Interpreters. [URL]. Accessed April 2022.
Cordingley, Anthony, and Cèline Frigau Manning
2016 “What is Collaborative Translation?” In Collaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the Digital Age, edited by Anthony Cordingley and Cèline Frigau Manning, 1–30. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Courtney, Jennifer and Phelan, Mary
2019 ‘Translators’ experiences of occupational stress and job satisfaction’, Translation and Interpreting, 11(1), pp. 100–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CSA Research
2020 “The State of the Linguist Supply Chain: Translators and Interpreters 2020” (January 2020), Hélène Pielmeier and Paul O’Mara.Google Scholar
2021 “Collaborative Translation Platforms: The Reality of Sharing Language Projects” (May 2021), Alison Toon and Hélène Pielmeier.Google Scholar
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
Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. L.
1991 “Groupware: Some issues and experiences.” Communications of the ACM 34(1): 38–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fırat, Gökhan
2021 “Uberization of Translation: Impacts on Working Conditions.” The Journal of Internationalization and Localization (JIAL) 8 (1): 48–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuks, H., Raposo, A., Gerosa, M. A., Pimental, M. and Lucena, C. J. P.
2008 “The 3C Collaboration Model.” In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration, edited by Ned Kock, 637–644. Hershey and New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Ignacio
2015 “Cloud Marketplaces: Procurement of Translators in the Age of Social Media.” Journal of Specialised Translation (23): 18–38. [URL]. Accessed December 2021.
2017 “Translating in the Cloud Age: Online Marketplaces.” HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, (56): 59–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A.
1961 “Snowball sampling.” The annals of mathematical statistics 321: 148–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gough, Joanna and Katerina Perdikaki
2018 “Concurrent Translation – Reality or Hype?” In Translating and The Computer 401, AsLing Proceedings, 79–88. London. 15–16 November 2018.Google Scholar
Gough, Joanna
2018 “Concurrent Translation – Pedagogical Implications”. PP Presentation, 1st APTIS Conference , Birmingham. 23 November 2018.
2019 “Concurrent Translation – implications for translation process, product and the human translator”. PP Presentation, LECTIS Seminar Series , Leicester. 07 November 2019.
Inbox Translation-Freelance translator survey
2020 Key findings & demographics: From business practices to rates, everything you wanted to know about your peers. [URL] Accessed April 2022.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2017 Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations: Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreutzer, Julia et al.
(2022) ‘Quality at a Glance: An Audit of Web-Crawled Multilingual Datasets’, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 101, pp. 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moorkens, Joss
2020a “A Tiny Cog in a Large Machine: Digital Taylorism in the Translation Industry.” In Translation Spaces: Fair MT – Towards Ethical, Sustainable Machine Translation, 9 (1): 12–34. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b ‘Comparative satisfaction among freelance and directly-employed Irish-language translators’, Translation and Interpreting, 12(1), pp. 55–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morera Mesa, Aram, John J. Collins, and David Filip
2013 “Selected Crowdsourced Translation Practices.” In Proceedings of ASLIB Translating and the Computer 34. [URL]. Accessed December 2021.
Nimdzi Language Technology Atlas
2022 [URL] Accessed October 2022.
O’Brien, Sharon & Schäler, Reinhard
2010 “Next generation translation and localization: Users are taking charge.” In Proceedings of Translating and the Computer 32. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2011 “Collaborative Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 17–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako
2009 “Evolution of user-generated translation: Fansubs, translation hacking, and crowdsourcing.” The Journal of Translation and Localisation 11: 94–121.Google Scholar
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, 10 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TAUS
2020 Real-time Translation Analytics. Translation Automation User Society. Accessed 10 February 2022. [URL]
Trzeciak-Huss, Joanna
2018 “Collaborative Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation (1st ed.), edited by Washbourne, K., & Wyke, B. V., DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, Lucas Nunes, Valentina Ragni, and Elisa Alonso
2021 “Translator autonomy in the age of behavioural data.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia
2021 “Online collaborative translation: its ethical, social, and conceptual conditions and consequences.” Perspectives 30(1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar