This paper analyses the conceptual, social and ethical dimensions of online collaborative translation and particularly one of its major subtypes, translation crowdsourcing. Since online collaborative translation is still a rather young field of research there are still conceptual uncertainties, particularly surrounding the selection of the meta-or top-level concept for recent forms of online translation (such as translation crowdsourcing), unsolicited and self-managed forms of online translation (like Wikipedia translation), and the various forms of online fan translation. This paper argues for using online collaborative translation as the meta-concept, based on a painstaking analysis and justification of the concept against its competitors. The paper focuses on translation crowdsourcing for profit-oriented companies like Facebook and its social and ethical consequences. It concludes by investigating whether this kind of translation is exploitative despite the seemingly mutually beneficial transaction between the volunteer translators and the profit-oriented companies employing them, usually unpaid.

Translation Studies (TS) has undergone a number of internal shifts. These have focused on so-called "travelling concepts", such as 'culture' or 'cognition', and have been crucial in building and establishing the discipline. Both the concept of 'paradigm (change)' and that of 'turn' are used to refer to these shifts and frequently the two concepts are used synonymously. This essay will show why the notion of turn should be given preference over that of paradigm. The turns of TS are based on interdisciplinarity. Yet while the field has imported massively from other disciplines it has hardly exported anything. There is one exception to this trend: TS's fundamental concept, translation, is experiencing a real boom outside the discipline. However, this is happening mostly without the participation of TS itself, which has so far been both passive and ignored. It is time for TS to perform two decisive outward turns. The first must take place in order to counteract misconceived notions about 'translation proper' and about TS as a research field held by other disciplines. The second outward turn needs to be enacted in order to counteract misconceived notions about translation and interpreting generated and disseminated by translation practice. The article discusses how and why this double turn from 'inward' to 'outward' should be performed.

No abstract

The integration of the concept of “social norm” into research on conference interpreting dates back to the late 1980s (Shlesinger 1989). This paper will show that conference interpreting is governed by role-related normative expectations which ultimately can all be traced back to the metaphoric concept of interpreters as conduits. This metaphoric concept that can be found in so many of the extratextual (re)sources on conference interpreting (Toury 1995) is extremely binding for conference interpreters and can therefore be regarded as an omnipotent norm – a supernorm that governs it all. Not only professional bodies such as the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), probably the most influential and powerful norm-setting authority in the field, but also individual authoritative personalities play a key role in promoting this supernorm. It is only in recent years that this supernorm, which demands that interpreters passively channel a message from one side or party to the other and thus tries to prevent an interpreter’s agency, has been challenged by empirical research (Angelelli 2004; Diriker 2004; Zwischenberger 2013). The discussion on norms in simultaneous conference interpreting will be enhanced by some selected findings of a web-based survey which was conducted among AIIC members. The survey’s main objective was to find out whether and to what degree professional conference interpreters adhere to the supernorm so strongly advocated by their professional body.L’intégration du concept de « norme sociale » dans la recherche sur l’interprétation de conférence date de la fin des années 1980 (Shlesinger 1989). Cet article montrera que l’interprétation de conférence est régie par des attentes normatives de stéréotypes qui remontent, en fait, au concept métaphorique de l’interprète comme simple « conduit ». Ce concept métaphorique, si fréquent dans les (res)sources extratextuelles en matière d’interprétation de conférence (Toury 1995), est un impératif pour les interprètes de conférence et peut donc être considéré comme une norme omnipotente – comme une supernorme qui gouverne tout. Les associations professionnelles telles que l’Association internationale des interprètes de conférence (AIIC), probablement l’autorité exerçant l’influence la plus grande sur les normes dans ce domaine, mais aussi des personnalités jouissant d’une certaine autorité, jouent un rôle clé dans la promotion de cette supernorme. Or, ces dernières années, cette supernorme qui demande aux interprètes de transmettre « passivement » un message et qui tente d’empêcher l’interprète de s’impliquer activement est contestée par la recherche empirique (Angelelli 2004 ; Diriker 2004 ; Zwischenberger 2013). La discussion sur les normes dans le domaine de l’interprétation de conférence simultanée sera enrichie par quelques résultats sélectionnés d’un sondage en ligne, réalisé parmi des membres de l’AIIC. L’objectif principal de ce sondage a été de découvrir si et dans quelle mesure les interprètes de conférence professionnels s’en tie...

No abstract