Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation Spaces
Vol. 12:1 (2023) ► pp.74–96

How production and distribution processes shape translations in organisations

A material perspective

ORCID logo | Tampere University

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.

Keywords: materiality, translation in organisations, digital texts, software localisation, Finnish Tax Administration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Case description: The Finnish Tax Administration’s translation activities and OmaVero translation processes
  • 3.Applying materiality to translation theory and OV translation practice
    • 3.1Basic principles of materiality in semiotics and textual theory
    • 3.2Material model of the translation process
    • 3.3OV translation’s production process and distribution process
    • 3.4Digital texts and tools as part of OV translating
  • 4.Effects of OV translations’ production and distribution processes reflected in OV translation examples
    • 4.1OV translation solutions motivated by the production process
    • 4.2OV translation solutions motivated by the distribution process
    • 4.3OV translation solutions motivated by the interaction of the production and distribution processes
    • 4.4Insights from a material analysis
  • 5.Conclusion: Applying materiality in future translation research
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.22038.haa
References
Armstrong, Guyda
2016 “Response by Armstrong to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies 9 (1): 102–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, John A., Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala
2017 Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Studies 45 (5): 495–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène
2005 “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Elisa
2015 “Scaffolding Translation Skills through Situated Training Approaches: Progressive and Reflective Methods.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (3): 306–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coldiron, A. E. B.
2016 “Response by Coldiron to ‘Translation and the materialities of communication.’” Translation Studies 9 (1): 96–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2013 Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
García, Álvaro Marín
2021 “Bridging the Epistemological Gap: Issues in CTS Knowledge Application to Training.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 462–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich
2004 Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2020 “The ‘Technological Turn’ in Translation Studies: Are We There yet? A Transversal Cross-Disciplinary Approach.” Translation Spaces 9(2): 314–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirschenbaum, Matthew G.
2008 Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Littau, Karin
2016 “Translation and the materialities of communication.” Translation Studies 9 (1): 82–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Media, materiality and the possibility of reception. Anne Carson’s Catullus.” In Unsettling Translation. Studies in Honour of Theo Hermans, edited by Mona Baker, 125–141. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, Kobus
2019 A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martín de León, Celia, and Alba Fernández Santana
2021 “Embodied Cognition in the Booth: Referential and Pragmatic Gestures in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8 (2): 277–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merrell, Floyd
2000 Change through Signs of Body, Mind and Language. Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Scott L.
2009 “English and Science: Realities and Issues for Translation in the Age of an Expanding Lingua Franca.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 111: 6–16.Google Scholar
Nieminen, Tommi
2017 “Joukkoistetun kotoistamisen luonteesta kääntämisenä [Crowdsourced localisation as translation]”. MikaEL 101: 88–100.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 11: 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders, et al.
1994 The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charlottesville: Intelex.Google Scholar
Pettersson, Anders
2017 The Idea of a Text and the Nature of Textual Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando
2021 “Assessing Practices in Institutional Translation and Interpreting.” In Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 1–7. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2004 The Moving Text: Localization, Translation, and Distribution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation.” Target 19 (2): 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 3(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1984 Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Translated by Christiane Nord 2013 Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler
2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 21: 151–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević
(ed.) 2019 Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl
2021 “Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 478–499. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2022 “Praxis and Process Meet Halfway: The Convergence of Sociological and Cognitive Approaches in Translation Studies.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 14(2): 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruokonen, Minna, and Minna Hjort
2019 “O Translator, Where Art Thou? In-House Translators’ Physical Location and Organisational Position.” VAKKI Publications 101: 95–108.Google Scholar
Sannholm, Raphael
2021 Translation, Teamwork, and Technology. The Use of Social and Material Scaffolds in the Translation Process. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Short, T. L.
2007 Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S. C., and Sharon O’Brien
2017 “Investigating the Cognitive Ergonomic Aspects of Translation Tools in a Workplace Setting.” Translation Spaces 6(1): 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar