Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive space: Exploring the situational interface
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova
[Translation Spaces 5:1] 2016
► pp. 1–19

Cognitive space: Exploring the situational interface

| Stockholm University
| Zurich University of Applied Sciences
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.1.01eng
References (90)
Alonso Jiménez, Elisa, and Elisa Calvo Encinas
2015 “Developing a Blueprint for a Technology-mediated Approach to Translation Studies.” Meta 60 (1): 135–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and Tânia Liparini Campos
2009 “Chains of Cognitive Implication in Orientation and Revision during the Translation Process: Investigating the Impact of Translation Memory Systems in the Performance of Professional Translators.” Current Issues in Language Studies 11: 75–95.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V
2004 Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Interpreting in the Healthcare Setting: Access in Cross-Linguistic Communication.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication, edited by Heidi Hamilton and Silvia Chou, 573–585. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antonini, Rachele
2010 “Child Language Brokering: Trends and Patterns in Current Research.” mediAzioni 101: 1–23. Accessed May 16, 2016. [URL]Google Scholar
Austermühl, Frank
2001 Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2011 “The Technical Infrastructure of a Translator’s Home Office.” In Übersetzung - translation - traduction. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung. An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Encyclopédie internationale de la recherche sur la traduction, edited by Harald Kittel, Armin P. Frank, Norman Greiner, and Theo Hermans, 2642–2651. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1990 The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Biau Gil, José Ramón, and Anthony Pym
2006 ”Technology and Translation.” In Translation Technology and Its Teaching, edited by Anthony Pym, Alexander Perestrenko, and Bram Starink, 5–19. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
Bower, Kathryn
2015 “Stress and Burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) Interpreting.” Journal of Interpretation 24 (1): Article 2. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynn
2005 “Productivity vs Quality? A Pilot Study on the Impact of Translation Memory Systems.” Localisation Focus 4 (1): 13–20.Google Scholar
Chernov, Sergei
2016 “At the Dawn of Simultaneous Interpreting in the USSR: Filling some Gaps in History.” In New Insights in the History of Interpreting, edited by Kayoko Takeda and Jesús Baigorri Jalón, 167–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2013/2015 “Models of What Processes?” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 155–168 [Reprinted in Benjamins Current Topics 77, 7–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, Aline, and Maud Kicka
2006 “Web Designers and Web Users: Influence of the Ergonomic Quality of the Web Site on the Information Search.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 641: 1031–1048. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Tina P
2011 “Studies on the Mental Processes in Translation Memory-Assisted Translation - the State of the Art.” Trans-Kom 4 (2): 137–160. Accessed May 10, 2016, from [URL].Google Scholar
Christensen, Tina P., and Anne Gram Schjoldager
2010 “Translation-Memory (TM) Research: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?” Hermes–Journal of Language and Communication Studies 441: 89–101.Google Scholar
Costa, Hernani, Gloria Corpas Pastor, and Isabel Durán Muñoz
2014 “Technology-Assisted Interpreting.” MultiLingual April/May 2014 25 (3): 27–32.Google Scholar
DePalma, Donald A., Hélène Pielmeier, Stephen Henderson, and Robert G. Stewart
2015 The Language Services Market: 2015. Cambridge, MA: Common Sense Advisory.Google Scholar
DGI
2015 Interpretation in Figures. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
DGT
2014 Translation in Figures. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2006 “Computer-Aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2): 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J
2012 “The Industrialization of Translation. Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces 11: 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting Special Issue 11: 355–383. [URL].Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Severine Hubscher-Davidson, and Ulf Norberg
(eds) 2013/2015 Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events, Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2). [Reprinted in Benjamins Current Topics 77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Gary Massey, Ursula Meidert, Silke Neumann, and Heidrun Becker
Forthcoming. “An International Survey of the Ergonomics of Professional Translation.” ILCEA Revue de l’Institut des Langues et des Cultures d’Europe et d’Amérique.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
2013 “Indicators of Translation Competence: Translators’ Self-Concepts and the Translation of Titles.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (11): 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in Professional Translation.” In The Development of Translation Competence. Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien
2015 Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction. Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elia
2016 Language Industry Survey Report – Expectations and Concerns of the European Language Industry. European Language Industry Association. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Elimam, Ahmed S
2007 “The Impact of Translation Memory Tools on the Translation Profession.” Translation Journal 11 (1). Accessed May 10, 2016, from [URL].Google Scholar
EN 15038:2006 Translation Services–Service Requirements. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a From Loner to Teamplayer. The Translator in a Changing Professional Landscape. Presentation at IATIS conference , July 2015, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
2015b Auktoriserad translator – kompetens och prov. Kartläggning och kunskapsunderlag. Stockholm: Kammarkollegiet. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Kenneth Hyltenstam
(eds) 2000 Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enríquez Raído, Vanessa
2013 “Teaching Translation Technologies ‘Everyware’: Towards a Self-Discovery and Lifelong Learning Approach.” Revista Tradumàtica: tecnologies de la traducció 111: 275–285.Google Scholar
Eurofound
2015 First Findings: Sixth European Working Conditions Survey. Brussels: EU Publications Office. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2016 “Rapid and Radical Changes in Translation and Translation Studies.” International Journal of Communication 101: 887–906.Google Scholar
García, Ignacio
2009 “Beyond Translation Memory: Computers and the Professional Translator.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 121: 199–214.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2016 “Experimental Research.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, edited by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian J. Baer, 220–228. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Routledge.Google Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
2007/2010 Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
2012 “Nutzbarkeit von Sprachtechnologien für die Translation.“ Trans-Kom 5 (21): 211–226. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Holmes, James S
1972/2000 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 172–185. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984 Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia / Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ B 226). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G., and Paul Kussmaul
1982 Strategie der Übersetzung: ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 205). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
ISO 2603:1998 Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation - General Characteristics and Equipment. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 4043:1998 Mobile Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation - General Characteristics and Equipment. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 13611:2014 Interpreting—Guidelines for Community Interpreting. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 17100:2015 Translation Services - Requirements for Translation Services. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta, Pekka Kujamäki, and Jukka Mäkisalo
2011 “Towards Professionalism – or against It? Dealing with the Changing World in Translation Research and Translator Education.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Crespo, Miguel A
2009 “The Effect of Translation Memory Tools in Translated Web Texts: Evidence from a Comparative Product-Based Study.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 81: 213–232.Google Scholar
Kelly, Nataly, and Donald DePalma
2012 The Top 100 Language Service Providers. Cambridge MA: Common Sense Advisory. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija
2013 “Translatorisches Handeln und die interprofessionale Kooperation im Kontext des Gerichtsdolmetschens in Finnland.” trans-kom 6 (11): 70–91.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
2002 “Physiological Stress Responses during Media and Conference Interpreting.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century, edited by Giuliana Garzone, and Maurizio Viezzi, 195–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznik, Anna, and Joan M. Verd
2010 “Investigating Real Work Situations in Translation Agencies. Work Content and Its Components.” Hermes–Journal of Language and Communication Studies 441: 25–43.Google Scholar
Lafeber, Anne
2012 Translation at Inter-Governmental Organizations. The Skills and Sets of Knowledge Required and the Implications for Recruitment Testing. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, Matthieu
2013 “Translators on Translation Memory (TM). Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (21): 1–13.Google Scholar
Mesa Lao, Bartolomé
2014 “Gaze Behaviour on Source Texts: An Exploratory Study Comparing Translation and Post-editing.” In Post-editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications, edited by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 219–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O’Brien
2013 “User Attitudes to the Post-editing Interface.” Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice , 19–25. Allschwil: The European Association for Machine Translation.
O’Hagan, Minako
(ed.) 2011 Translation as a Social Activity — Community Translation 2.0. Special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series — Themes in Translation Studies 10.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human-computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 11: 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, Minako O’Hagan, and Marian Flanagan
2010 “Keeping an Eye on the UI Design of Translation Memory: How Do Translators Use the ‘Concordance’ Feature?” In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, edited by Willem P. Brinckman, and Mark Neerincx, 187–190. Delft: Delft University of Technology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Elena Davitti
2015 “Dynamics of Trusting in Translation Project Management: Leaps of Faith and Balancing Acts.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlando, Marc
2014 “A Study on the Amenability of Digital Pen Technology in a Hybrid Mode of Interpreting: Consec-Simul with Notes.” Translation & Interpreting 6 (21): 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palvalin, Miikka, Antti Lönnqvist, and Maiju Vuolle
2013 “Analysing the Impacts of ICT on Knowledge Work Productivity.” Journal of Knowledge Management 17 (41): 545–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (11): 1–9. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
2013 “Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age.” Meta 58 (31): 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Streddo, and Andy L.J. Chan
2012 The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union. Final Report (= Studies on Translation and Multilingualism, 7/2012). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans Vermeer
1984 Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
2013 Towards a General Theory of Translational Action. Skopos Theory Explained [Translated from the German by Christiane Nord]. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2002 “Situatedness in Translation Studies.” Cognitive Systems Research 31: 523–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “The Role of Technology in Translation Management.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 85–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research. From Mental to Socio-Cognitive Processes.” In Minding Translation, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 331–353. MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting Special Issue 1. Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Angela Dickinson
2009 “Translators as Networkers: The Role of Virtual Communities.” Hermes–Journal of Language and Communication Studies 421: 49–70.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Christina Pein-Weber
2016 “Mutual Dependencies: Centrality in Translation Networks.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 251: 1–22.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager
2013/2015 “Extended Translation. A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (11): 33–45. [Reprinted in Benjamins Current Topics 72, 35–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much Ado about Something Remote. Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (21): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Screen, Benjamin Alun
2016 “What Does Translation Memory Do to Translation? The Effect of Translation Memory Output on Specific Aspects of the Translation Process.” Translation & Interpreting 8 (11): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Susam-Saraeva, Şebnem, and Luis Pérez González
(eds.) 2012 Non-Professionals Translating and Interpreting: Participatory and Engaged Perspectives. Special issue of The Translator 18 (2).Google Scholar
Szameitat, André J., Jan Rummel, Diane P. Szameitat, and Annette Sterr
2009 “Behavioral and Emotional Consequences of Brief Delays in Human–Computer Interaction.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 671: 561–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taravella, AnneMarie, and Alain O. Villeneuve
2013 “Acknowledging the Needs of Computer-Assisted Translation Tools Users: The Human Perspective in Human-Machine Translation.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 191: 62–74.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S.C
2014 The Impact of Metadata on Translator Performance: How Translators Work with Translation Memories and Machine Translation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Torres Hostench, Olga, José Ramon Biau Gil, Pilar Cid Leal, Adriá Martín Mor, Bartolomé Mesa Lao, Mariana Orozco Jutorán, and Pilar Sanchez Gijón
2010 “TRACE: Measuring the Impact of CAT Tools on Translated Texts.” In Linguistic and Translation Studies in Scientific Communication, edited by Maria Lluisa Gea Valor, Isabel García Izquierdo, and Maria José Esteve, 255–276. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuch, Alexandre N., Javier A. Bargas Ávila, Klaus Opwis, and Frank H. Wilhelm
2009 “Visual Complexity of Websites: Effects on Users’ Experience, Physiology, Performance, and Memory.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 671: 703–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UN
2011 Measuring the Impacts of Information and Communication Technology for Development. UNCTAD Current Studies on Science, Technology and Innovation, no. 3.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zetsche, Jost
2007 “Creating the Ideal Word Processing Environment in Translation Environment Tools.” Translation Journal 11 (41). Accessed May 10, 2016. [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Zabotkina, Vera I. & Elena L. Boyarskaya
2024. Unveiling the unseen: the challenge of phenomenological conceptual untranslatables. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 15:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.