EST Congress 2022

Advancing Translation Studies

June 22-24, 2022 - Oslo, Norwa

hf.uio.no/est

Panel Themes

The following panels will structure the 10th Congres

1 Crisis Translation (1) 4

2 Crisis Translation (2): Ethical Issues and Training Challenges 6
3 Public Service Interpreting and Translation (PSIT) in the times of a pandemic:
the past, the present and the future 8
4 Translation policies and practices in multilingual settings: concepts,
methodologies, and case studies 10
5 Migration and translation at a crossroad 12
6 Revisiting trust in high-stakes intercultural mediation: Theoretical and
methodological concerns 14
7 Revisiting Descriptive Translation Studies 16
8 Additional Language Teaching in Translation and Interpreting programmes –
examining the speci city perspective 18
9 Navigating uncharted waters: towards reframing translator education 20
10 Psycho-affectivity in translator and interpreter education 22
11 Advancing Translation Studies through Language Industry Studies 24
12 Dialogue Interpreter Training Outside the University Context 26
13 Accessibility in Context: Inclusiveness in Specialised Translation and
Interpreting 28
14 Extending translatoriality beyond professional contexts 30
15 Non-professional interpreting and translation: advancement and subversion 32

1
fi
 

16 Interdisciplinarity and interaction: moving forward with journalistic translation

research in the 21st Century 34
17 Interlingual and intralingual translation in science news ows 36
18 Commonalities of and differences between interpreting strands 38
19 Sign Language Interpreting: Research and Global Practices. Bridging Gaps and
Linking Worlds 40
20 Video Remote Interpreting in Healthcare 42
21 The virtual shift in conference interpreting practice and research 44
22 Interpreting in Religious Contexts at the Intersection of Disciplines 46
23 Advancing Translation Process Research 48
24 Advancing TS through think-aloud: Showcasing a challenging but unique
method 50
25 The Reality of Revision 52
26 Keylogging typing ows in mediated communication 54
27 Past, present and future of speech technologies in translation — life beyond the
keyboard 56
28 Advancing Translation Studies by understanding the Labour in
Translaboration 58
29 Advancing Translation Studies through task-comparative and hybrid task
research into multilectal communication 60
30 Translation and Tourism: Encounters through space and language 62
31 Is Machine Translation Translation? 64
32 Advancing Translation Studies: integrating research on the translational
construction of the social world 66
33 The Self-Translation of Knowledge: Scholarship in Migration 68
34 Re-thinking Translation History: Genealogies, Geo-politics, and Counter-
hegemonic Approaches 71
35 Crossing minorities in translation history: peripheries, gender and less
translated languages 73
36 Literary Translation and Soft Power in the Longue Durée 75
2
fl
fl

37 Translation and transcultural circulation of memory narratives 77

38 Advancing intradisciplinary research on indirect translation 79
39 Advancing Intralingual Translation 81
40 No Kidding – Translating, Transcreating and Transmediating for Children 83
41 Being a literary translator in the digital age: Agency, identity and ethics 86
42 New Perspectives on Ibsen in Translation 88
43 Song Translation Studies 89
44 Popular music and cultural transfer 91
45A Global Perspective on Translation Flows 93
46 Exploring translation policy in translation publishing 95
47 Between Tradition and Advancement: How Can Translational Hermeneutics
Contribute to Contemporary Translation Studies? 97
48 The #namethetranslator Campaign in Perspective 99
49 What cognition does for interpreting - what interpreting does for cognition? 100

 1 Crisis Translation (1)

Conveners: Sharon O'Brien, Federico M. Federici, Minako O'Haga

Even prior to the global Covid-19 pandemic, Translation Studies had turned its
attention to the important role of translation and interpreting in mediating
emergencies (e.g. Federici and O’Brien, 2020) and, in so doing, started to build
bridges with the elds of Disaster Studies (Alexander and Pescaroli 2020) and Crisis
Communication (Schwarz et al 2016) and has advanced discussion on policy
(O’Brien et al 2018), on citizen translator training (Federici et al 2021), and on the
ethical aspects of the eld, among other things. The global Covid-19 pandemic has
since underlined the need to investigate and lobby for the study and application of
translation and interpreting in crisis response, as well as the need to build more
bridges and consolidate conversations with other disciplines. To this end, we propose
a panel dedicated to a broad variety of topics that touch on the concept of Crisis
Translation. The panel organisers welcome proposals that go beyond considering the
role of professional translation and interpreting in response to crisis situations to
broader topics such as

• Indigenous languages, minority languages and crisis translatio

• Accessibility, sign-language and crisis translatio

• Human rights, the law and crisis translation Translation/Interpreting for crisis
preparednes

• Translation/Interpreting for crisis recover

• Multimodal translation for crisis communicatio

• Intralingual translation for crisis communication (e.g. literacy and plain

language

• Intersemiotic translation for crisis communication (e.g. use of pictograms or

with or instead of language

• Training requirements and innovative training methods for crisis translatio

• AI, technology, human and non-human agents and crisis translatio

• Trauma and crisis translatio

• Collaboration and crisis translatio

• Directionality and crisis translatio

4
)

fi
fi
:

 • Terminology and crisis translatio

• Ethics, credibility, accountability and risk in crisis translation

References

Alexander, David and Gianluca Pescaroli 2020. ‘The role of translators and
interpreters in cascading crises and disasters: Towards a framework for confronting
the challenges’, Disaster Prevention and Management 29(2): 144-156

Federici, Federico M. and Sharon O’Brien (eds). 2020. Translation in Cascading

Crises. Routledge

Federici, Federico M., Minako O’Hagan, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe, and Sharon
O’Brien. 2021. 'Empowering Communities and Professionals with Crisis Translation
Training' In: Minako O'Hagan and Judy Wakabayashi (eds). Translating and
Interpreting in Australia and New Zealand: The Impact of Geocultural Factors.
Routledge

O'Brien, Sharon, Federico M. Federici, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe, Brian Gerber.
2018. 'Language translation during disaster: A comparative analysis of ve national
approaches'. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31: 627-636

Schwarz, Andreas, Matthew W. Seeger, and Claudia Auer (eds). 2016. The Handbook
of International Crisis Communication Research. Wiley

5
.

fi
.

2 Crisis Translation (2): Ethical Issues and Training Challenges

Conveners: Anna Romagnuolo, Aba Carina Parlo

Humanitarian crises -- including man-made con icts, environmental disasters, and

pandemics, have proved, especially in recent times, that they may not only raise and
increase human rights concerns for the affected population, but that their resolution,
aid intervention, victims’ recovery, policy makers’ response and duty-bearers’
accountability often depend on clear and ef cient communication and adequate and
relevant translation. As con rmed in recent studies conducted by Translators without
Borders (The Lancet Global Health, 2019), and research funded by European Projects
such as H2020 INTERACT, not only scienti c collaboration rests on improving
language skills and cultural understanding among researchers from different
countries, but also and more importantly, survivors of human rights abuses and
disaster victims, marginalized and discriminated groups, and people at risk can tell
their story and get access to useful, oftentimes life-saving information only when this
is available in the language they understand. Medical information in language
combinations not easily available on the translation job market, fake news, and
infodemics exacerbated by the coronavirus global disease have made even more
pressing the long-standing needs of intercultural mediators well versed in human
rights protection, which, if properly understood, include a broad range of economic
and social rights, and of non-language speci c crisis translation training, which can
develop the appropriate linguistic skillsets necessary to help medical writers
contributing to knowledge translation platforms, disaster relief operators, aid
volunteers, social workers and service providers, all dealing with multilingual and
multicultural groups. The objective of this panel is that of exploring ethical issues at
stake, epistemic injustice risks in time-scarce environment, ef cient translation
practices, and training challenges faced in preparing language experts involved in
communication activities that should support disaster management

References

Declercq, C., Federici F. M. (Eds.). (2019). Intercultural Crisis Communication.

Translation, Interpreting and Languages in Local Crises. Bloomsbury Academic

Federici, F. M., O’Brien, S. (Eds.). (2019). Translation in Cascading Crisis.

Routledge

Monzó-Nebot , E., Wallace, M. (Eds). (2020). Ethics of Non-Professional Translation

and Interpreting, Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 15.1

Taibi, M. Ozolins, U. 2016. Community Translation. Bloomsbury

6
.

fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
g

fi
.

Todorova, M., Ruiz Rosendo, L. (Eds.). (2021). Interpreting Con ict: A Comparative
Framework. Palgrave

7
.

fl
 3
Public Service Interpreting and Translation (PSIT) in the times
of a pandemic: the past, the present and the future
Conveners: Carmen Valero-Garcés, Nune Ayvazyan

The global pandemic that hit the world in 2019 was unprecedented in that it happened
in a world that was used to the highest level of mobility in human history. All of a
sudden, the world came to a halt, which has affected (and will possibly reshape)
migratory ows, including migration for work and for asylum (European
Commission 2020). This situation has again reminded us that in the event of a crisis,
the most vulnerable might be at risk of losing their fundamental language, and
therefore human rights (United Nations), something impermissible in modern-day
democratic societies. During the pandemic, in many countries face-to-face
communication has been reduced to a minimum. Where a pro cient speaker of a
language could communicate freely on the telephone or interact with social services
on the Internet, less privileged ones have seen their access to virtually all types of
information drastically curtailed. Translation, and in particular interpreting services
might have been inaccessible to those vulnerable, even more than before the
pandemic. The question is whether the pandemic has also changed the way we will
communicate in the “new normal” (for example, possible extended use of remote
communication) and how this might affect those at risk of exclusion. The time is ripe
for us as a discipline to prepare for the challenges of the future, as our “understanding
of the complexities of translation and interpreting practices and their contexts,
requirements, and constraints is still developing” (Monzó-Nebot and Wallace 2020:
20). This panel is therefore concerned with identifying the challenges posed by the
“new normal” and how public service interpreting and translation (PSIT) has been
affected by it. Researchers are invited to submit abstracts related but not limited to
topics such as

• How has the pandemic affected access to public service interpreting and
translation

• Which role does language play as an instrument of communication and

integration in pandemic times

• Which role have languages access played during the health crisis: translated
materials and resources for immigrants

• Which role have languages of lesser diffusion (LLD) played during the
pandemic

• How has technology in uenced/helped the provision of remote PSIT during

the pandemic
8
?

fl
?

fl
?

fi
 • What are the challenges posed by a possible change to a more virtual type of
communication

• How can interpreters and translators adapt to the “new normal”

• What changes should be implemented in the training of public service

translators and interpreters

• What - if any - quality improvements in TISP quality are observed during the
pandemic

References

Corpas Pastor, Gloria and Mahmoud Gaber. 2020. “Remote interpreting in public
service settings: technology, perceptions and practice”. In SKASE Journal of
Translation and Interpretation 13(2): 58-78

European Commission. 2020. “How is the coronavirus reshaping migration

worldwide?” https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/how-coronavirus-reshaping-migration-
worldwide  

FITISPos IJ. 2020. Special issue. Research Methods in Public Service Interpreting
and Translation (PSIT) /Métodos de investigación en TISP. Monzó-Nebot, Ester &
Melissa Wallace (guest eds.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1

Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law. 2019. Monographic section.
Legal translation and interpreting in public services. Wallace, Melissa, & Monzó
Nebot, Esther (eds), 2019, 71. http://revistes.eapc.gencat.cat/index.php/rld/issue/
view/n71 

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/

about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

Valero Garcés, Carmen (ed). 2020. Technology at the service of PSIT in crisis
situations: Experiences and Perspectives. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de
Publicaciones de la Universidad

Valero Garcés, Carmen (ed). 202. El factor humano en el TISP. Investigación y

testimonios de la primavera de 2020 / The Human Factor in PSIT. Research and
Testimonials of Spring 2020. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la
Universidad

9
?

4
Translation policies and practices in multilingual settings:
concepts, methodologies, and case studies
Conveners: Simo Määttä, Shuang Li, Tanya Escuder

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven the importance of providing information

reaching all members of multilingual societies, both in cities characterized by
superdiversity and in less-densely populated rural areas. However, the high rates of
COVID-19 cases in migrant and minority populations show that many
communication strategies have not been successful (Finell et al. 2021). This brings to
the fore the topics of community translation (Taibi 2018) and translation policy
(González Núñez & Meylaerts 2017), as well as the potential of translation policies
and practices in achieving trust relationships and in uencing changes in behavior. A
burgeoning interest in the connection between translation policy and theories
provides insights that bene t Translation Studies (Meylaerts, 2017), and the
examination of the intersections among theories, policies and practices needs
continued attention. Such analyses could advance Translation Studies by taking into
account insights from multilingual and superdiverse settings where translation forms
part of everyday life (Inghilleri 2017). At the same time, they could help develop
better policies and practices for community and public service translation on local,
regional, and national levels. For this panel, we invite theoretical or methodological
contributions and case studies addressing the intersections among the policies,
theories, and practices of translation in multilingual settings, including the languages
of migration and regional or minority languages. Potential topics include, but are not
restricted to the following

• Guidelines for effective translation policie

• Production and itinerary of translated, interpreted and subtitled information •

Professional and non-professional translation practice

• Translation policies and inclusive urbanizatio

• Intersections between public-service translation and interpretin

• Theoretical, methodological, and ethical re ections on the creation and

evolution of translation policies and practice

• Rethinking traditional binary oppositions, such as source/target, majority/

minority, monolingual/multilingual, local/global, center/periphery, urban/rural,
trust/distrust, and agency/structure through the lens of translation policie

10
:

fi
s

fl
s

fl
o

 • Methodological and theoretical tools offered by adjacent disciplines (such as

sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, political science, public policy, and
legal studies)

This panel has two discussants: Reine Meylaerts, KU Leuven; Mustapha Taibi,
Western Sydney University

References

Finell, E., Tiilikainen, M., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Hasan, N., & Muthana, F. 2021. Lived
experience related to the COVID-19 pandemic among Arabic-, Russian- and Somali-
speaking migrants in Finland. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 18, 2601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1805260

González Núñez, G. & Meylaerts, R. 2017. Translation and Public Policy:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies. London: Routledge. Inghilleri, M.
2017. Translation and Migration. New York: Routledge

Meylaerts, R. (2017). Studying language and translation policies in Belgium: What

can we learn from a complexity theory approach? Parallèles 29(1), 45–59.
doi:10.17462/para.2017.01.0

Taibi, M. (ed.) 2018. Translating for the Community. Bristol: Multilingual Matters

11
.

5 Migration and translation at a crossroad

Conveners: Celia Rico, María del Mar Sánche

Migration is a complex phenomenon. There are a myriad of circumstances that

intervene in the migratory journey, right from route planning at the pre-departure
phase, to orientation on arrival, and settling at the nal stage. Along this journey,
multilingual communication in the written form is essential in the following aspects,
to name but a few: a) for accessing information about travel routes, borders and
safety issues; b) for identity-veri cation processes; c) for navigating services on
arrival; or d) for nding sustainable solutions in long-term integration. Along the
migratory journey, translation is vital not only in facilitating the instrumental access
to knowledge but also in establishing relationships of trust, of mutual respect and
intercultural understanding. In this context, translators play a key role in enhancing
communication, providing access to information and advocating for and on behalf of
the people they work with (Tesseur 2018, 5). But migration is essentially about
people and, from this perspective, we need to remind ourselves that “it is not only
texts that travel” (Polezzi 2012, 347) and, in this respect, migrants can be considered
both as agents (self-translators) and objects of translation. For the picture to be
complete, we also need to refer to the role of third sector organisations in shaping
language mediation in the context of migratory ows in all its forms and
characteristics. In acknowledgement of this complex background, and under the
framework of the research projects INMIGRA and RECRI (see below) this panel
aims at exploring which language practices connected to migration can be linked to
translation in a written form, fostering discussions on how translation can contribute
to future strategies in migration, and analysing its place in Translation Studies. By
identifying gaps in current research, this panel seeks to start mapping translation
activities in a sector that has remained somewhat overlooked. Together with practical
issues on the access to the written (digital) text along the migratory journey (needs,
practices, locations, agents), thorough discussions are expected on the notions of
identity and power, research methodologies, and translation as a linguistic activity.
The ultimate goal is to lay the ground for a conceptualization of translation and
migration as a speci c discipline in the framework of Translation Studies, one that
recognizes “the increased centrality of migration and of translation (as notions but
also as practices) in contemporary society” (Polezzi 2012, 345). Potential topics
include (but not restricted to) the following

• Original and translated representations of migration -Corpus methodologies

applied to the representation of migratio

• Translation in multilingual humanitarian setting

12
fi
fi
fi
n

fl
s

fi
 • Discourse analysis and migratio

• Narrative identity and translation in migrant setting

• Translation and political actio

• Research methodologies in migration studie

• Translation technology and migration.

This panel is a joint proposal of the following research projects

•  INMIGRA (H2019/HUM-5772) is a research project funded by the

autonomous Government of Madrid (Spain) that aims at analysing the migrant
population in the region in a multidimensional study

•  RECRI (Original, translated and interpreted representations of the refugee

cris(e)s: methodological triangulation within corpus-based discourse studies)
is a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(Spain)

References

Baker, M. 2020. Rehumanizing the migrant: the translated past as a resource for
refashioning the contemporary discourse of the (radical) left. Palgrave
Communications, 6 (12), 1-16. doi: 6:12 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-038

Inghilleri, M. 2017. Translation and Migration. London: Routledge Polezzi. L. 2012.

Translation and migration, Translation Studies, 5(3), 345-356, DOI:
10.1080/14781700.2012.70194

Rico, C. 2019. Mapping Translation Technology and the Multilingual Needs of NGOs
along the Aid Chain, in O’Brien, S. & Federici, F. (eds) Translation in Cascading
Crisis. London: Routledge, 112-131

Tesseur, W. 2018. Researching translation and interpreting in Non-Governmental

Organisations.Translation Spaces 7(1): 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00001.te

13
.

 6
Revisiting trust in high-stakes intercultural mediation:
Theoretical and methodological concerns
Convener: Bei H

Ever since Gideon Toury assembled Descriptive Translation Studies, descriptivists

have considered trust one of the central values underlying the translator’s observable,
norm-informed behaviour (Chesterman 2001). The sociological turn in the late 1990s
inspired a growing body of interdisciplinary research that not only focuses on the way
in which trust maintains the translator’s (and the interpreter’s) social status (e.g.
Edwards, Temple and Claire 2005) but also investigates how trust is contextualised in
various translation forms as social practices (e.g. Pym 2005; Abdallah and Koskinen
2007). Recent views on trust from a historical translator-centred perspective (Rizzi,
Lang and Pym 2019) have opened up theoretical re ection towards a more
comprehensive model of trust-building, advocating trust’s place at the centre of
translation history. It is argued that by studying translation with reference to trust
from sociological, philosophical, historical and technological dimensions, we can
advance a clearer understanding of the translator’s textual and cultural decision-
making, and hopefully address issues of complex social causation patterns that
advance or hinder intercultural communication

However, the epistemological scope and practical implications of the role of trust
remain unclear, at the same time as there is a lack of consensus on methodological
apparatuses. These factors tend to limit theoretical discussions, reducing trust to a
marginal consideration in wider discussions of translation ethics. In addition, while
research on trust typically gives more prominence to translators, the implications for
the reception of translations have received very little systematic attention to date,
with fewer empirical contributions on the subject (Rossetti, O’Brien and Cadwell
2020)

We suggest that the notion of trust as an epistemological scepticism, advanced object

of study, key socio-cultural aim or analytical tool creates opportunities for providing
nuanced accounts of the underlying mechanisms of the production and reception of
translational practices. This panel thus aims to discuss how trust plays a key role in
translation in all its modalities, including orality, textuality, language, sociology,
technology and culture. We are particularly interested in tracing the ways in which
trust is built and maintained in high-stakes intercultural mediation

We invite papers contributing to the following suggested topics, among others

• How does trust shape translational dynamics, power relations between various
agents and translation norms

14
.

fl
.

 • Who and what is trusted in translational communication

• In what sense, or to what extent, can trust (in various kinds) be built or re-built
in translational activities

• Under what conditions does mistrust occur in the translation system? With
what implications

• How does trust affect public health responses in the Covid-19 pandemic

• Can translation technologies enhance the level of trust in intercultural

mediation? If so, how

• How does trust in translators or translations affect trust between cultures

• What (empirical) methodological and analytical approaches are best suited for
in-depth analyses of trust-based intercultural interactions

References

Abdallah, Kristiina and Kaisa Koskinen (2007). Managing Trust: Translating and the
Network Economy. Meta 52(4): 673-687

Chesterman, Andrew (2001). Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath. The Translator 7(2):
139–154

Edwards, Rosalind, Bogusia Temple and Claire Alexander. (2005). Users’ experiences
of interpreters: The critical role of trust. Interpreting 7(1): 77-95

Rizzi, Andrea, Birgit Lang and Anthony Pym (2019). What is Translation History? A
Trust-Based Approach. Palgrave Macmillan

Rossetti, Alessandra, Sharon O'Brien and Patrick Cadwell (2020). Comprehension

and trust in crises: investigating the impact of machine translation and post-editing.
In: 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation
(EAMT 2020). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.eamt-1.2/

Pym, Anthony (2005). Propositions on cross-cultural communication and translation.

Target 16(1), 1–28

15
.

 7 Revisiting Descriptive Translation Studies

Conveners: Omri Asscher, Galia Hirsch, Hilla Karas 

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) - in its more restricted sense as the systematic
theoretical approach introduced by Gideon Toury (1995/2012), or as an umbrella term
for the diverse discourse of descriptive scholarship that developed alongside or
following Toury’s work (Pym 2014, 62-85) - played a seminal role in the maturation
of the discipline of translation studies. Arguably the rst attempt to systematically
explain translation phenomena in their historical and cultural contexts, DTS brought a
sociological sensibility to the discipline which had heretofore been lacking. In recent
years, DTS seems to have fallen out of favor. It has been subjected to criticism for
importing the goals of the exact sciences, for endorsing an overly dichotomous target-
oriented approach, for demonstrating insuf cient self-criticism and self-re exivity,
and for not concentrating enough on power relations and ideology, nor on the
translator as an agent (Rosa 2010/2016). However, DTS’s exible and highly
applicable tools for the study of translation maintain their relevance, and remain
foundational for the descriptive analysis of case studies. Moreover, some of the
ideological and theoretical critique that DTS drew may have been more indebted to
its insights than is often acknowledged. This panel seeks to revisit DTS’s major
concepts and contributions, by engaging them with contemporary trends in translation
theory and reality. Its intention is to suggest the value of approaching new
developments in the study of translation - with regards to technology, globalization,
history, activism, ecology, emotions, multimodality, interpreting, intralingual
translation, adaptation, and other expanding sub elds of our discipline - from a
distinctly DTS perspective; and to explore how recent developments in these areas
can contribute to a better understanding of DTS’s theoretical merits and/or
shortcomings. Along these lines, we welcome proposals that bring new light to the
contributions of DTS, including, but not limited to, its notions of

• translation norms (initial, preliminary, operational

• universals and law

• target-orientednes

• shift

• assumed translatio

• pseudo-translatio

• indirect translatio

16
s

fi
fi
)

fi
 

fl
:

fl
 • translation equivalenc

• adequacy and acceptability

References

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978/2000. “The Position of Translated Literature within the

Literary Polysystem,” in: Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader
(New York and London: Routledge), 193-197

Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented

Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome

Pym, Anthony. 2014. Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge

Rosa, Alexandra Assis. 2016. “Descriptive Translation Studies – DTS.” In Handbook

of Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 94–104.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Toury, Gideon. 1995/2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weissbrod, Rachel. 2004. "From translation to
transfer." Across languages and cultures 5.1: 23-41

17
e

8
Additional Language Teaching in Translation and Interpreting
programmes – examining the speci city perspective
Conveners: Melita Koletnik, Astrid Schmidhofer, Enrique Cerezo Herrer

Additional language teaching (ALT) in Translation and Interpreting programmes

presents itself as a speci c teaching approach (see, e.g., Berenguer 1999; Beeby
2004; González Davies 2004, Cruz García and Adams 2008; Clouet 2010; Li 2001,
Cerezo Herrero 2019) that lies at the intersection of Translation Studies and
Additional Language Teaching. Consequently, its objectives and methods need to be
geared to the students’ future language use in professional translation and mediation
settings. Most scholars who have dedicated their research to ALT in TI programmes
would agree that this needs to be different from general language courses. In this
context, since the late-1990s, the inherent association between ALT in TI programmes
and the tenets of teaching of Languages for Speci c Purposes (LSP) has been
discussed (see, e.g., Berenguer 1997, Cruz García 2017, Cerezo Herrero 2018,
Carrasco Flores, 2019; Koletnik 2021), particularly in terms of curricular
considerations and fundamental methodological concerns, such as the primacy of a
needs-based and target-oriented approach to language learning and teaching.
However, the speci city perspective and the practical applications of adapting such
an approach in ALT in TI programmes have received insuf cient attention within
Translation Studies and evidence, particularly empirical, is limited. The panellist
would thus like to invite papers and presentations that re ect on the association
between Translation Studies and Additional Language Teaching in Translator and
Interpreter programmes. The core topics include, but are not limited to, cross-
disciplinary informed ontological considerations and methodological implications,
and theoretical and applied pedagogical and didactic insight, particularly in the
following areas: syllabus design and language curriculum development, linguistic
needs analysis and target identi cation, expertise and professional language use, bi-
and multilingual practices, contrastive perspective, materials development,
assessment and testing, teacher and student aspects, and technology-supported and
-enabled ALT for future translators and interpreters

References

SCHMIEDHOFER, Astrid, CEREZO HERRERO, Enrique, KOLETNIK Melita.

(forthcoming). Why We Need TI-Oriented Language Learning and Teaching
(TILLT). ELOPE 18(1)

SCHMIEDHOFER, Astrid, and CEREZO HERRERO, Enrique (eds.) (forthcoming)

Foreign Language Teaching in Translation and Interpreting Programmes. Berlin:
Peter Lang
18
.

fi
.

fi
fi
fi
fi
.

fl
fi
o

KOLETNIK, Melita, and FRŒLIGER, Nicolas (eds.). (2019).Translation and

Language Teaching: Continuing the Dialogue. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing

SCHMIEDHOFER, Astrid. (2020). Translationsorientierte

Fremdsprachenkompetenz: Versuch einer Modellierung. In: Schmidhofer Astrid, and
Wußler Annette (eds.): Bausteine translationsorientierter Sprachkompetenz und
translatorischer Basiskompetenzen. Innsbruck: University Press, 21-33

CEREZO HERRERO, Enrique. (2020). La didáctica de lenguas extranjeras en los

estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. ¿Qué nos dice la investigación? Hermeneus.
Revista de Traducción e Interpretación 22, 41-73

19
.

9
Navigating uncharted waters: towards reframing translator
education
Conveners: Elsa Huertas Barros, Nataša Pavlović, Catherine Wa

The move of instruction to online environments during the past year due to the
covid-19 pandemic has profoundly affected higher education in general, and with it,
translator education. The unexpected online transition has involved considerable
challenges for translator educators, but it has also forced them to re-examine and
adapt their familiar teaching models and try out new ones, often experimenting
outside of their comfort zone. After the initial shock of the sudden and unprepared
online transition has worn off, the emergency switch to new environments and ways
of teaching can now be seen as an opportunity for translator educators to overhaul
their practice and emerge from the crisis enriched for the experience. The massive
overnight shift of instruction to online environments has also highlighted the shortage
of robust and adaptable training-the-trainers programmes and models that could be
implemented on short notice and meet the educators’ needs in times of emergencies.
Although the last few years have witnessed further research into blending teaching
and learning methodologies and collaborative multimodal working environments
(e.g. Olvera-Lobo, 2009, Secară, Merten & Ramírez (2014), Prieto-Velasco & Luque-
Fuentes, 2016), research into areas such as changing and adapting classroom methods
and materials for online use and socio affective aspects of virtual training are still
understudied areas in translation pedagogy. In this panel we would like to welcome
contributions dealing with both of the above aspects of advancing translator
education. On the one hand, we would like to invite novel, innovative methods that
have proven successful in fully online translation teaching but also those that, being
informed by the online experience, can be applied to onsite and hybrid environments.
On the other hand, we would like the panel to address the issues related to the
training of translator trainers in such new methods and especially those equipping
them for future rapid adaptation of instructional design to changing circumstances.
Preference will be given to research-based contributions and innovative practical
proposals dealing with, but not limited to, the following topics

• innovative and adaptable methods and materials for onsite, hybrid and/or
online translator educatio

• the impact of the changing professional landscape and new job pro les on
translator education as a result of recent global event

• authentic and novel types of assessment for the changing circumstances and
changing professional landscap

20
n

fi
 • socio-affective aspects of translator education in various learning
environment

• peer-to-peer and institutional support in times of educational disruption and

beyon

• training the trainer

• needs and challenges

References

Olvera-Lobo, D. (2009). Teleworking and collaborative work environments in

translation training. Babel, 55(2), pp. 165-180

Secară, A., Merten, P. & Ramírez, Y. (2014). What’s in your blend? Creating blended
resources for translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 3(2), pp.
275-294

Prieto-Velasco, J.A., & Fuentes-Luque, A. (2016). A collaborative multimodal

working environment for the development of instrumental and professional
competences of student translators: an innovative teaching experience. The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(1), pp. 76-91

21
d

10 Psycho-a ectivity in translator and interpreter education

Conveners: Marcin Walczyński, Urszula Paradowsk

In modern translation and interpreting studies, more and more attention is paid to the
emotional and affective side of the translation/interpreting process. Translation and
interpreting scholars have started to put greater emphasis on what happens – in terms
of emotions and other psycho-affective factors – while translators translate and
interpreters interpret. However, from our perspective, it is equally important to draw
attention to various psycho-affective phenomena occurring at different stages of
translator and interpreter education. For this reason, we would like to propose a panel
devoted to psycho-affectivity in translator and interpreter education. We understand
psycho-affectivity quite broadly – as an intricate, continually active complex of
various affective phenomena constituting part of each translator’s/interpreter’s/
trainer’s/trainee’s psychological make-up. We are also of the opinion that the
elements of psycho-affectivity (i.e. emotions, affects, psycho-affective factors) can be
triggered by nearly all constituents of the translation/interpreting process.
Furthermore, they may also affect those aspects, in uencing the overall translation/
interpreting output quality. The affective is also present in translator and interpreter
education, manifesting itself in, for example, trainees’ emotions invoked by source
texts, trainees’ psycho-affective factors (e.g. anxiety, stress) experienced during
translation and interpreting tasks, trainees’ personality dimensions and their impact
on translation/interpreting products, trainees’ development of soft skills, trainee’s
language inhibition resulting from their weak language ego, trainees’ self-concept and
the resulting approach to translation/interpreting assignments, emotionally burdening
translation and interpreting environments, to mention just a few. However, despite
this diversity of themes touched upon with reference to psycho-affectivity in
translation and interpreting education, this issue can still be considered an under-
researched area of inquiry, waiting for new insights from research. The outcomes of
such psycho-affectivity-oriented scholarly endeavours could then be applied to
translator and interpreter education, thereby enhancing the education process and its
results: developing trainees’ psycho-affective traits as well as their skills,
competences and knowledge to better meet the demands of a more and more
competitive labour market. We welcome papers on all aspects related to the psycho-
affective side of translator and interpreter education. The topics can include (but are
not limited to): trainers’ and trainees’ psycho-affective factors, soft skills, anxiety and
stress, motivation, emotional intelligence, the role of personality dimension, testing
trainees’ aptitude in terms of their psycho-affective properties, language ego, strategy
training, boredom and frustration in a translation/interpreting class, trainees’ self-
concept, self-ef cacy and self-esteem, motivation in a translation/interpreting class,
trainees’ empathy, trainees’ language ego and language inhibition, etc

22
ff
fi
fl
a

References

Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine (2018) Translation and Emotion. A Psychological

Perspective. New York, Abingdon: Routledge

Koskinen, Kaisa (2020) Translation and Affect. Essays on sticky affects and
translational affective labour. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Walczyński, Marcin (2019) Psycho-Affective Factors in Consecutive Interpreting.

Berlin, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang

23
.

 11
Advancing Translation Studies through Language Industry
Studies
Conveners: Erik Angelone, Gary Massey, Maureen Ehrensberger-Do

In recent years, the language industry, de ned here as comprising the key elements of
globalization (G11n), internationalization (I18n), localization (L10n) and translation
(T9n), together with interpreting, consulting, project management and tool design,
has undergone unprecedented transformation. Primary drivers of change include
technological advancement at breakneck speed, a proliferation of language industry
pro les to address both existing and emerging societal needs and an increasingly
digitized, multilingual global landscape. While translation and interpreting continue
to serve as the two key prototypes in the language industry, the respective roles and
positions of each in the broader context of language service provision and
multilingual communication are witnessing a sea change. In this panel, we advocate
for advancing Translation Studies through explorations in the still incipient, industry-
informed eld of Language Industry Studies. These explorations, in their broadest
sense, encompass various kinds of research on the domains, activities, technologies
and stakeholders that shape the multifaceted language industry. Contributions are
welcome on any facet of language industry studies, including, but not limited to, the
following focal points

• Translation and interpreting within broader language industry context

• Language industry domains beyond translation and interpretin

• Forms of automation and their impact in the language industr

• New competences and roles for language industry professional

• Education and training for emerging language industry role

• Mapping the eld of language industry studie

• Methods for researching the language industr

• Establishing bridges and promoting dialogue between academia and the

language industry

References

Angelone, Erik, Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen and Gary Massey (Eds.). (2020). The
Bloomsbury companion to language industry studies. Bloomsbury Academic Press

24
fi
fi
fi
.

fi
y

Cid, Clara Ginovart, Carme Colominas and Antoni Oliver. (2020). Language industry
views on the pro le of the post-editor. Translation Spaces, 9(2), 283-313

Dunne, Keiran J. and Elena S. Dunne (Eds.). (2011). Translation and localization
project management. The art of the possible. John Benjamins

Risku, Hanna, Rogl, Regina and Jelena Milosevic (Eds.). (2019). Translation Practice
in the Field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. John Benjamins

Schmitt, Peter A. (2019). Translation 4.0 – evolution, revolution, innovation or

disruption? Lebende Sprachen, 64(2), 193-229. https://doi.org/10.1515/
les-2019-0013

25
.

fi
.

12 Dialogue Interpreter Training Outside the University Context

Conveners: Rachel Herring, Carmen Delgado Luchne

Opportunities for formal training in dialogue interpreting have increased in recent

decades, hand in hand with the growth of dialogue-interpreting-related research and
publications. Scholarly publications on dialogue interpreter training tend to focus on
university-level programmes (eg., Cirillo & Niemants, 2017), with less attention
given to training initiatives outside this context. However, “most of the learning and
teaching of CI {community interpreting}/PSI {public service interpreting} in the
world does not occur in a university classroom,” (Angelleli, 2020:126) and many
dialogue interpreters would not ful ll the formal requirements to enroll in BA/MA
programmes. High-quality training that prepares interpreters to confront the social/
interactional, ethical, linguistic, and cognitive challenges inherent in their work
should not, however, be reserved for those who are able to access university-level
programmes. Effective, high-quality training can be offered outside the academy—
however, there is a need for increased attention and research related to such training
settings, in order to better leverage the affordances they present. The conveners of
this panel invite submissions related to the training of dialogue interpreters outside
the context of university-based BA/MA programs—for example, in short courses,
vocational settings (e.g., community/technical colleges in the United States, folk high
schools in Nordic countries, NGOs in Switzerland), professional development, and
on-the-job training (see, for instance, Delgado Luchner & Kherbiche, 2019). We
encourage prospective panelists to consider the following areas of particular interest

• Training approaches

• Managing language-neutral (multilingual) training environment

• Retraining practicing interpreter

• Leveraging theory and research in trainin

• Teaching ethics and ethical decision-makin

• Preparing trainees for traumatic and sensitive situation

• Capitalizing on trainees’ lived experience

• Training contexts and course design

• Skill acquisition and progressio

• Multi-stakeholder involvement in curriculum desig

26
:

fi
:

 • Relationships with employers and professional accreditatio

• Practicums, internships, and supervisio

• Challenges and ethical dilemmas encountered by trainer

• Training the users of interpreters

References

Angelleli, C. V. (2020). “Community/Public-service interpreting as a communicative

event: A call for shifting teaching and learning foci.” Translation and
Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 6:2, pp. 114–130

Cirillo, L., & Niemants, N. (2017). Teaching Dialogue Interpreting: Research-based

Proposals for Higher Education. John Benjamins Publishing Compan

Delgado Luchner, C., & Kherbiche, L. (2019). Ethics Training for Humanitarian
Interpreters Working in Con ict and Post-Con ict Settings. Journal of War and
Culture Studies 12:3, pp. 251 267

Phelan, M., Rudvin, M., Skaaden, H., & Kermit, P. (2020). Ethics in public service
interpreting. Routledge

Tipton, R., & Furmanek, O. (2016). Dialogue interpreting: a guide to interpreting in

public services and the community. Routledge

27
.

fl
.

fl
.

 13
Accessibility in Context: Inclusiveness in Specialised
Translation and Interpreting
Conveners: Alessandra Rizzo, Cinzia Spinzi, Gian Maria Grec

Against the backdrop of a universalist account of accessibility, where access is

fundamental for all and not only for some speci c groups, methods, tools, and
services supporting human diversity and social inclusion are being constantly
developed, promoted, applied and revised. Many of them are massively rooted in
practices of translation. The world is becoming more accessible through the use of
different forms of translation in a variety of contexts. Although diversity and access
have long been familiar concepts in translation studies, they are now acquiring an
even more central position in line with the concept of “cultures of accessibility”
(Neves 2018). This is particularly evident within the contexts of specialised
translation and interpreting in a vast range of scenarios, such as audiovisual products,
virtual and immersive environments, live performances, cultural heritage and
museums (Spinzi 2020), emergency situations (Rizzo 2020), health care, creative
industries, tourism, and legal settings. Within those contexts, the question of access is
questioning old assumptions and practices, as well as opening new lines of research
and application. As a major consequence, accessibility and diversity are increasingly
becoming part of education and training programmes in specialised translation. At the
same time, the way that accessibility is included and taught in training and education
programmes poses substantial challenges, for it requires a further level of
specialisation to be integrated into the competences of the specialised translators and
interpreters (Greco 2019). In response to these problems, new training and education
programmes are being developed and existing ones are being modi ed so as to
accommodate those challenges (Orero 2019). We welcome contributions that look at
access within the various areas of specialised translation from a variety of
perspectives that discuss the challenges for specialised translation training and
speci c case studies of training programmes. Further topics of interest include but are
not limited to: the development and use of new translation technologies; context-
oriented methods; interdisciplinary studies; collaborative settings

References

• Greco, G. M. (2019). Towards a pedagogy of accessibility: The need for

critical learning spaces in media accessibility education and training.
Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation (18), 23-46

• Neves, J. (2018). Cultures of accessibility. Translation making cultural

heritage in museums accessible to people of all abilities. In Sue-Ann Harding

28
fi
fi
o

fi
.

 and Ovidi Carbonell Cortés (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation

and Culture, 415-430

• Orero, P. (2017). The professional pro le of the expert in media accessibility

for the scenic arts. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione -
International Journal of Translation (19), 143-161

• Rizzo, A. (2020). The mediation of subtitling in the narrative construction of

migrant and/or marginalised stories. Cultus (13) (special issue in Mediating
Narratives of Migration), eds. Raffaella Merlini & Barbara Schäffner, 93-111

• Spinzi, C. (2019). A cross-cultural study of gurative language in museum

audio descriptions. Implications for translation, Lingue e Linguaggi (33),
303-316

29
.

fi
fi
.

 14 Extending translatoriality beyond professional contexts

Conveners: Esa Penttilä, Juho Suokas, Erja Vottone

In the present world, multilingual communication is essentially involved in various

jobs that deal with cross-cultural phenomena. They are found, for example, in
journalism, academic research, teaching, health care, and social work to mention but
a few. The work in these elds inevitably involve translation and interpreting,
although it is not the main concern of the job. However, since translation is clearly
part of the duties rather than voluntary pursuit, the phenomenon could be regarded as
paraprofessional. In addition to prototypical translation, multilingual tasks of
paraprofessional translators take varying forms of non-prototypical translation and
translanguaging. Some of these are only vaguely related to prototypical translation
and could therefore be regarded as translatoriality in a more general sense. Still, they
are essentially related to multilingual communication in these contexts and deserve to
be studied in more detail in translation studies as well. In translation studies, research
has traditionally concentrated on professional translation, but more recently interest
has been directed at non-professional interpreting and translation (NPIT) in areas
such as fansubbing, crisis situations and child language brokering. Paraprofessional
translatorial activities fall somewhere between these realms and have so far increased
only little attention. This panel aims to challenge this and we call for papers to
discuss the various aspects of translatorial activities in the elds where translation is a
(possibly neglected) part of everyday work. The themes addressed include but are not
limited to the following

• In which contexts are paraprofessional translatorial activities conducted and

by whom

• How conscious are people of their own paraprofessional translatorial

activities

• What is the role of paraprofessional translatorial activitiesin in relation to

professional and non-professional translation

• What theoretical and practical contributions can the study of paraprofessional

translation suggest to translation studies

• How can the study of paraprofessional translation contribute to elds beyond

translation studies

30
?

fi
?

fi
fi
 References

Antonini, Rachele, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato & Ira Torresi (eds) 2017. Non-
professional interpreting and translation: State of the art and future of an emerging
eld of research. Amstedam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Halverson, Sandra. 2000. Prototype effects in the “translation” category. In Andrew

Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador & Yves Gambier (eds) Translation in
Context: Selected Papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. Amsterdam/
Philadelphias: John Benjamins. 3–16

Koskela, Merja, Kaisa Koskinen & Nina Pilke. 2017. Bilingual formal meeting as a
context of translatoriality. Target 29:3, 464‒485

Lomeña Galiano, María. 2020. Finding hidden populations in the eld of translating
and interpreting: A methodological model for improving access to non-professional
translators and interpreters working in public service settings. FITISPos–International
Journal 7:1, 72–91

Schögler, Rafael (ed.). 2019. Circulation of Academic Thought: Rethinking

Translation in the Academic Field. New York: Peter Lang.

31
fi
.



.

fi
15
Non-professional interpreting and translation:
advancement and subversion
Conveners: Melissa Wallace, Michelle Pinzl, Aída Martínez-Góme

Recent scholarship has begun to vigorously examine non-professional interpreting

and translation (NPIT) in public services, in the midst of humanitarian crises and
mass migrations, and in relation to social responsibility, ethics, and quality. Against
this backdrop, this panel aims to challenge reductionist tendencies to automatically
place NPIT in a peripheral or inferior position in relationship to the language
mediation carried out by sanctioned, certi ed practitioners, and instead seeks to
consider how and if NPIT practitioners advance the eld as actors of in uence. This
panel approaches NPIT from a variety of perspectives in order to (1) critically
examine instances of NPIT taking place in under-examined spaces; and (2)
interrogate issues of power, identity, social capital, and social change when
interpreting and translating actors come from non-traditional or non-professional
backgrounds. The conveners welcome proposals exploring the two main goals of the
panel, with particular interest in the in-grouping and out-grouping practices in
translation and interpreting studies, in the subtopics of power, identity, and ideology,
and in the intersection of advancement and subversion. We warmly welcome
proposals based on empirical data as well as qualitative, more theoretical
interrogations of non-traditional actors in spaces of language mediation. Possible
topics can include but are not limited to

• How NPIT circumvent or subvert established institutions and system

• How NPIT interact with / challenge the systemic gatekeepers of the

translational profession

• How notions of social responsibility and ethics extend to non-professional

practitioner

• How NPIT instantiate ethical principles and in uence changes in how they are
conceived by the eld at larg

• The role of NPIT as practiced by “invisible” or stigmatized practitioners (farm

laborers, sex workers, prisoners, asylum seekers, refugees, children, etc.

• How the practice of NPIT intersects with issues of identity in a post-

monolingual world

32
s

fi
.

fi
fl
fi
z

fl
)

 References

Antonini, Rachele., Cirillo, Letizia., Rossato, Linda., & Torresi, Ira. (Eds.). 2017.
Non-professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the art and future of an
emerging eld of research. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.12

Drugan, Joanna, and Rebecca Tipton. 2017. "Translation, ethics and social
responsibility." The Translator 23 (2): 119-125. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13556509.2017.1327008

Martínez-Gómez, Aída. 2015. Non-professional interpreters. In The Routledge

handbook of interpreting: 429-443. Routledge

Monzó-Nebot, Esther and Melissa Wallace. (Eds). 2020. “Ethics of Non-Professional

Translation and Interpreting.” Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 15
(1). https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.15.

Pérez-González, Luis, and Şebnem Susam-Saraeva. 2012. Non-professionals

translating and interpreting: Participatory and engaged perspectives. The Translator,
18(2), 149-165.

33
fi


.

16
Interdisciplinarity and interaction: moving forward with
journalistic translation research in the 21st Century
Conveners: Denise Filmer, Roberto Valdeo

Once considered an emerging subarea of translation studies, news translation has

come of age. In the era of convergence (Davier and Conway 2019), journalistic
translation research has addressed a kaleidoscope of issues surrounding international
news production in globalised, digitalised settings viewed from multiple
methodological and theoretical perspectives. Special issues in prestigious TS journals
(Conway 2015; Davier, Schäffner, and van Doorslaer 2018; Valdeón 2020, 2021, to
list a few), collected volumes, and dedicated monographs attest to the breadth and
scope of the research carried out so far. Yet, despite the diversity of language
combinations, theoretical slants and methodologies already employed, what unites all
the recent literature investigating the crucial role of translation in the circulation of
news, is the plea for greater interdisciplinarity. Acknowledging the complexity of the
questions at stake, academic dialogue across disciplines such as journalism studies,
sociology, journalistic translation, the history of translation, and communication
studies are fundamental to advancing the eld of study (Valdeòn 2021: 328).
Methodological triangulations combining linguistic and ethnographic data with
audience response, or that scrutinise digital news texts through a multimodal lens
incorporating audiovisual translation approaches with multimodal critical discourse
analysis are viable future directions (Filmer 2021). It is the cross-fertilisation of
methods and ideas, collaborations with scholars from adjacent disciplines, and the
development of audience studies that will promote understanding of the nature and
impact of news translation in postmodern societies. For this reason, we aim to
highlight journalistic translation research that delves into innovative and unchartered
areas that include but are not con ned to

• Sociological approaches to journalistic translatio

• Ethnographic studies on news productio

• Multimodal approache

• Diachronic perspective

• Audience and reception studie

• The use of machine translation (such as Google translate) in translation

mediated news text

• Volatile online news texts and issues of censorship

34
s

fi
n

fi
n

 • Imagological perspectives and cultural representatio

• Journalism as intercultural communication and/or mediatio

• Translation training in journalistic sphere

• The impact of gender and identity in cross-cultural news reporting

References

Davier, L., & Conway, K. (Eds.). (2019). Journalism and translation in the era of
convergence. John Benjamins

Davier, L., Schäffner, C, & van Doorslaer, L. (Eds.). (2018). The methodological
remainder in news translation research. Special Issue, Across Languages and Cultures
19 (2), pp. 155–164 (2018) DOI: 10.1556/084.2018.19.2.

Filmer, D. (2021). Salvini, stereotypes and cultural translation: analysing anglophone

news discourse on Italy’s ‘little Mussolini’. Language and Intercultural
Communication, Special Issue, 21(3), 335-352 .DOI: 8. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0907676X.2020.172327

Valdeon, R. A. (2021). News production and intercultural communication at the

crossroads of disciplines. Language and Intercultural Communication, Special Issue,
21(3), 323-335.DOI: 8. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0907676X.2020.172327

Valdeón, R. A. (2020). Journalistic translation research: Five years on. Perspectives,

28(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0907676X.2020.172327

35
.

 17
Interlingual and intralingual translation in science news
ows
Conveners: Luc van Doorslaer, Jack McMartin, Michaël Opgenhaffe

The past two covid years have put the dissemination of science news at the center of
attention, including among researchers. This panel aims at describing, analyzing and
interpreting interlingual as well as intralingual processes in the circulation of science
news. It is conceived as an explicitly interdisciplinary setting where translation
studies (TS) and journalism studies (JS) can exchange approaches and ndings on
this topic. News translation research has developed into a sub eld of TS over the past
two decades, referring to speci c journalistic practices (see Valdeón 2015) and
research methodologies (see Davier, Schäffner and van Doorslaer 2018). Although
several types of news and media have been the object of research (for instance
political, economic, nancial; print, online, radio), science news has remained
underinvestigated so far. The covid context has drawn researchers’ attention to the
troublesome transfer of often dif cult and delicate science information. The transfers
take place at several levels, in many cases almost simultaneously: at language and
content level (both inter- and intralingual translation), but also at platform and media
level (remediation – Bolter and Grusin 1999), sometimes co-determined by the
speci cities of ‘interplatform translation’ and by the media logic (Welbers and
Opgenhaffen 2019). The complementary experience and expertise of JS especially at
the latter level can be of high value for further progress in news translation research
in general, and for emerging research on science news translation in particular.
Therefore, this call invites abstracts that deal with, but are not necessarily limited to,
the following topics

• common conceptual grounds between TS and JS about translation and

remediatio

• translation and remediation practices in science news production and

disseminatio

• information disorder in science news communication as a result of translation

and remediatio

• trajectories and linguistic and social conditions that shape the creation of
transformed, distorted or even false information in science new

• analysis of existing translation and/or remediation strategie

• the position of English as a lingua franca in science news production and

disseminatio

36
fl
fi
n

fi
fi
fi
s

fi
s

fi
 • the position of universities and research institutions in the translation and
remediation of science news ow

• the relevant translating and remediating actors in the science news ow

• speci c media logics as instigator of inte

• and intralingual information disorder

References

Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. 1999. Remediation: Understanding New
Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Davier, Lucile, Christina Schäffner, and Luc van Doorslaer (eds.). 2018. Methods in
News Translation. Special issue of Across Languages and Cultures 19 (2)

Valdeón, Roberto A. 2015. “Fifteen Years of Journalistic Translation Research and

More.” Perspectives 23 (4), 634–662

Welbers, Kasper, and Michaël Opgenhaffen. 2019. “Presenting News on Social

Media: Media Logic in the Communication Style of Newspapers on Facebook.”
Digital Journalism 7 (1), 45–62.

37
fi
fl


s

fl
s

18
Commonalities of and di erences between interpreting
strands
Conveners: Elisabet Tiselius, Michaela Albl-Mikas

Interpreting, regardless of type or strand, shares a common core in terms of skills,

knowledge and cognitive resources needed to perform the task. The same modes and
techniques are also used across all types. Yet, the performer of interpreting is labelled
(and remunerated) according to other, external, factors, such as the setting they work
in (conference, community, court), or one of their working languages (signed
language), some are even labelled as not being interpreters (ad-hoc, non-
professional). Prunč (2011: 22) claims that these labels are rooted in the historical
development of interpreting and he also argues that they are outdated in a
multicultural and polycentric world. Since Mikkelson’s call in 1999, there has been a
growing trend to argue for treating interpreting as the same regardless of interpreting
type or strand. Advantages of this would be, among other things, that researchers can
interpret results in the light of other types and strands, and that professionals regarded
as one group can create a bigger critical mass for push and pull effects on working
conditions, remunerations etc. To date, publications about both commonalities and
differences, and calls to treat the strands as one have been theoretical and
argumentative (Albl-Mikasa 2020; Downie 2020; Pöchhacker 2018) rather than
empirical. The commonalities and differences across different interpreting types and
strands (conference interpreting, community interpreting, signed language
interpreting…) can be investigated from different perspectives (cognitive,
sociological, discursive, procedural and so forth). This panel invites contributors to
explore commonalities of and differences between the different strands of interpreting
empirically. We invite papers with a (socio-) cognitive approach, with the aim to
argue and highlight reasons for stressing either commonalities of or differences
between different strands. Papers are welcome to contrast several interpreting strands,
but can also discuss their results of the speci cities of one with a view to whether or
not they point to commonalities rather than differences or vice versa

References

Albl-Mikasa, Michaela 2020. Interpreters’ roles and responsibilities. In E. Angelone,

M. Ehrensberger-Dow & G. Massey (eds) The Bloomsbury Companion to Language
Industry Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 91–114

Downie, Jonathan 2020. Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind

interpreting settings to discover Comparative Interpreting Studies. Translation and
Interpreting Studies. Online rst. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20006.do

38
fi
ff
fi
a

Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta & Tiselius, Elisabet 2016. Cognitive aspects of

community interpreting: Toward a process model. In R. Muñoz Martín (ed)
Reembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 195–214

Mikkelson, Holly 1999. Interpreting is interpreting – Or is it?. Originally presented at

the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
41373508_Interpreting_Is_Interpreting_-_Or_Is_It (Accessed January 10 2021

Pöchhacker, Franz 2018. Moving Boundaries in Interpreting. In H. V. Dam, M. N.

Brøgger & K. K. Zethsen (eds) Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London:
Routledge, 45–63

39
.

19
Sign Language Interpreting: Research and Global
Practices. Bridging Gaps and Linking Worlds
Conveners: Riccardo Moratto, Xiaoyan Xiao, Christopher Stone

With the rising need for Deaf people to gain equal access to information and services,
sign language interpreting has become an important social factor in the contemporary
world. This panel is an opportunity to examine its value for potential users. This
panel aims to discuss an array of subjects in this research eld which allows
researchers to have a comprehensive view of the research themes, theoretical
approaches and methodologies as well as specialized sign language interpreting
practices. It is also hoped that this panel will further spur governmental agencies and
other ad hoc institutional bodies to recognize the fact that sign language interpreters
ought to enjoy the same rights as spoken language interpreters. As Sandra Hale
(2007, p. 162) rightfully points out: “It is the responsibility of all those involved: the
interpreters themselves, the service providers and the service recipients to put
pressure on policy-makers to instigate the necessary changes. […] Research can do
much to describe and highlight the issues, demonstrate the needs for training, provide
useful information for the improvement of interpreters’ performance; but it needs to
be read and considered seriously by the interested parties in order to have any effect.”
Sign languages are natural languages, as proven by numerous neurobiological
studies. However, in the history of the development of sign language studies around
the world, it has taken a lot of efforts by linguists and neurobiologists to give sign(ed)
languages their well-deserved status and dignity of natural languages; in some
countries and regions, this is still not the case. Although the international scienti c
community has amply proven that sign languages are on a par with spoken languages,
in terms of linguistic accuracy, degree of completeness, and dignity, many sign(ed)
language interpreters around the world do not share the same status as their fellow
spoken language interpreters, even if the International Association of Conference
Interpreters (AIIC) decided, by an overwhelming majority at the AIIC general
assembly held in Buenos Aires in 2012, to open its doors to sign language conference
interpreters, as a result of the close cooperation and fruitful discussions between AIIC
and WASLI as well as the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (EFSLI)

References

Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. London: Palgrave Macmillan

Moratto, R. (2020). Taiwan Sign Language Interpreting: Theoretical Aspects and

Pragmatic Issues. New York: Peter Lan

40
g

fi
 

fi
.

Stone, C. A., & West, D. (2012). Translation, representation and the Deaf ‘voice’.
Qualitative Research, 12(6), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879411143308

Xiao, X., Y. Peng & Y. Deng (2020). Sign language interpreter education: In search of
a Chinese Model. Journal of Foreign Languages. 43 (5)

Xiao, X., X. Chen & J. Palmer (2015). Chinese Deaf viewers’comprehension of

signed language interpreting on television: An experimental study. Interpreting:
International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting.17 (1

41
 

20
Video Remote Interpreting in Healthcare
Convener: Franz Pöchhacke

The delivery of interpreting services via video link was a growing trend
even before the covid-19 pandemic but has acquired particular signi cance in the
context of social distancing, travel restrictions and remote work. In public service
settings, video remote interpreting (VRI) has been implemented mainly in police and
asylum interviews but also in healthcare settings, though empirical research on this
novel practice has been relatively slow to emerge. This panel therefore aims to bring
together recent and ongoing studies of VRI in healthcare settings undertaken from a
variety of disciplinary vantage points, including linguistic and sociological
approaches as well as the paradigms of interpreting studies and healthcare
communication. The panel will also seek to cover different stakeholder perspectives
on the use of VRI, including the concerns of healthcare organizations and
institutional interpreting service providers (agencies); the perceptions and
experiences of video remote interpreters; the needs and expectations of healthcare
service providers using VRI in their professional practice; and, last, but not least, the
needs and experiences of patients whose access to quality care is mediated by a video
remote interpreter. Within this multitude of relevant research perspectives, thematic
focal points may include but are not limited to

1) the organizational and technical implementation of VRI services in healthcare

2) the speci c challenges of VRI use in particular healthcare settings

3) the video remote interpreter’s workplace and task demands

4) skill requirements and training for VRI

5) VRI users’ experiences with the service

6) the constraints and affordances arising from the visuospatial ecology of VRI in
clinical encounters; an

7) the interactional dynamics of provider–patient communication mediated by a video

remote interpreter

It is expected that research on these and other topics will employ a broad range of
methods (and combinations thereof), including quantitative survey research,
qualitative interviews, ethnographic observations, and discourse-based analyses of
video-recorded interactions

42
fi
.

fi
;

References

Azarmina, P., & Wallace, P. (2005). Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A

systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11, 140–145

De Boe, E. (2020). Remote interpreting in healthcare settings, PhD thesis, University

of Antwerp, 2020

Hansen, J. P. B. (2020). Invisible participants in a visual ecology: Visual space as a

resource for organising video-mediated interpreting in hospital encounters. Social
Interaction, 3. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.12260

Koller, M., & Pöchhacker, F. (2018). “The work and skills”: A pro le of rst-
generation video remote interpreters. In J. Napier, R. Skinner & S. Braun (eds), Here
or There? Research on Interpreting via Video Link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press, 89–110

Price, E. L., Pérez-Stable, E. J., Nickleach, D., López, M., & Karliner, L. S. (2012).
Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical
interpretation in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 87, 226‒232

43
.

fi
.

fi
.

21
The virtual shift in conference interpreting practice and
research
Conveners: Agnieszka Chmiel, Nicoletta Spinol

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the adoption of virtual tools in conference
interpreting practice and research. Interpreters have been forced to quickly adopt
remote interpreting solutions with little or no previous training and work out best
practices for ef ciently cooperating with boothmates. Professional associations have
hurried to create guidelines to ensure safe interpreting conditions. Researchers have
had to cope with the issue of ecological validity when collecting data remotely,
pushing their creativity limits when replacing lab-based research methods with
remotely available ones while pro ting from geographically unrestrained remote
access to study participants. Remoteness and its consequences on communication
also come with a growing complexity in human-computer interaction: interpreters use
multiple devices and increasingly sophisticated workstations; researchers face not
only remote, but also novel environments in which to collect data, as well as a wealth
of new variables to take into account. Thus, the virtual shift triggered by the
pandemic has become an unprecedented learning experience for all members of the
interpreting community. Despite its numerous challenges and constraints, it has led to
important advancements in the practice and research of interpreting. We would like to
take stock of these recent developments, discuss limitations and embrace new
opportunities that have been created. We welcome presentations related but not
limited to the following

• remote interpreting platform

• human-computer interaction in interpreting practice and researc

• interface design and user experience in interpreting practice and researc

• best practices and novel applications in remote interpretin

• online data collection tool

• methodological challenges for research on remote interpreting and remote

research on interpreting

References

AIIC Taskforce on Distance Interpreting. "AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting

(Version 1.0)". aiic.net. January 11, 2019. Accessed June 2, 2020.

44
fi
:

fi
o

 Braun, S. (2015). Remote interpreting. In Pöchhacker, F. (ed.) 2015. Routledge

Encyclopaedia of Interpreting Studies, 346-348. London, New York: Routledge

Fantinuoli, C. (2018). Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn.

In Fantinuoli C. (ed.), Interpreting and technology, 1-12. Berlin: Language Science
Press

Mellinger, C. D.; Hanson , T. A. (2018). Interpreter traits and the relationship with
technology and visibility. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 13 (3), 366-392

Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R., & Hengl, S. (2019). Expectations vs. experience:
Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting, 21(2), 270-304

45
.

 22
Interpreting in Religious Contexts at the Intersection of
Disciplines
Conveners: Jonathan Downie, Teresa Paris

Nearly a decade after the rst appearance of Interpreting in Religious Contexts (IRC)
as a panel at EST Congress (Downie and Karlik, 2012), this panel will ask how
understanding of this practice and its effects on religious communities can be
enlightened by inter-disciplinary research. IRC is understood as the performance in a
signed or spoken language of a representation of what was said or signed in another
language within any form of religious practice or religious organisation. New
perspectives on this practice are especially timely in view of the changes in religious
practice and interpreting delivery brought about by COVID-19 restrictions on in-
person gatherings. Researchers have stressed that IRC serves wider purposes, beyond
providing access to the semantic content of what was said or signed. Vigouroux
(2010) argued that interpreting was the performance of vision of the church and its
relationship with the surrounding community. The work of St André (2010) on the
translation of Buddhist sutras and van der Louw's (2008) on the preparation of the
Septuagint translation of the Jewish Scriptures pointed to the role that interpreting
played in the process of sacred text translation and the adaptation of such translations
to their cultural environment. This suggests that Balci Tison (2016) was correct to
connect IRC with church identity formation. We particularly welcome papers on the
following areas

• Theological accounts of IRC in the light of ecclesiology, homiletics, and

hermeneutics

• Discussions of the social and cultural position and power of IRC using tools,
theories and methods from cultural studies, sociology, sociology of religion,
performance studies, and social psychology

• Historical re ections of the links between IRC and religious translation

• Re ections of the intersection between IRC and research on multi-ethnic

religious and inter-religious practice, especially in light of the changes in such
practices brought about by COVID-19 restriction

• Examinations of the place of IRC within Interpreting Studies, especially as

regards the theoretical and methodological insights it might offer to research
on other forms of interpreting

46
fl
fl
,

fi
.

References

Balci Tison, A. (2016) The interpreter’s involvement in a translated institution: a case

study of sermon interpreting. PhD Thesis. Universitat Rovira i Virgili

Downie, J. and Karlik, J. (2012) Panel 19: Translating and interpreting in religious
settings., EST Congress 2012. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz. Available at:
http://www.fb06.uni-mainz.de/est/63.php (Accessed: 14 January 2014)

van der Louw, T. (2008) ‘The Dictation of the Septuagint Version’, Journal for the
Study of Judaism, 39(2), pp. 211–229

St André, J. (2010) ‘Lessons from Chinese history: Translation as a collaborative and

multi-stage process’, TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 23(1), pp. 71–94

Vigouroux, C. B. (2010) ‘Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and

participant roles’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(3), pp. 341–369.

47
.



.

23 Advancing Translation Process Research

Convener: Fabio Alve

Translation process research has come of age from the rst studies which solely used
think-aloud protocol data in the mid-1980s to current empirical studies that draw on
large data sets and use computational tools. Building on the triangulation paradigm
(Alves 2003), translation process research has inquired into user activity data (UAD),
investigated segmentation patterns and translation units, and attempted to account for
instances of peak performance or to model translation entropy, among several other
topics. The development of the database CRITT TPR-DB (Carl, Schaeffer &
Bangalore 2016), storing and integrating translation-process data in a large repository,
has enabled researchers to use a data pool to compare and extend empirical studies of
translation-process data. In parallel with developments in empirical research, the eld
has also seen the emergence of a research agenda that considers human cognition, and
indirectly the act of translating and interpreting, to be situated, embodied, distributed,
embedded, and extended (Risku & Rogl 2020), challenging the standard
computation-oriented and information-processing views of translation process
research and claiming that studies need to be placed in context and consider the act of
translating as embodied, embedded and affective action. At the same time, advances
in machine translation systems has enhanced the focus on human-computer
interaction and contributed to expand the agenda of translation process research in a
new direction. The merging of translation memories and machine translation, as well
as the advent of adaptive and interactive neural machine translation systems and the
use of multimodal input, have had an impact on the process of translation (O’Brien
2020). Advancing translation process research is, therefore, required to understand
these new forms of translational activity. Advocating in favour of a complementary
approach, Alves & Jakobsen (2020) have insisted that only by integrating them into a
coherent whole can cognitive translation studies lay the epistemological,
paradigmatic and interdisciplinary foundations for its further development. It should
ground itself “in theories of semiosis (meaning-making) and linguistics (language
use) and on cognitive science (neurocognition and situated-action cognition)”. For
Alves & Jakobsen, cognitive translation studies must incorporate in its research
agenda not only features of machine translation and aspects of human-computer
interaction, but also enlarge the scope of its theoretical formulations to include
situated, distributed and extended aspects of human cognition. In line with these
emerging trends, this panel invites contributions seeking to advance translation
process research, e.g. (but not necessarily) by suggesting an integrated alternative to
the dichotomic separation of computational and non-computational approaches in
translation process research or other ways of clarifying the relation between the
translation process, the translation product and machine-related activities in

48
s

fi
fi
 translation. Suggestions for bridging the gap between representational and non-
representational views of human cognition or for computationally modelling
translating as a dynamic cognitive activity are also welcome. Contributions can be
based on any language pairs and translation modes (including oral and signed), and
on all kinds of empirical data, as long as the aim is to offer ideas for advancing
translation process research, in particular, and to contribute to the development of
Translation Studies in general

References

Alves, Fabio (Ed.) (2003). Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented

research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Alves, Fabio; Jakobsen, Arnt (2020). Grounding Cognitive Translation Studies:

Goals, commitments and challenges. In: Fabio Alves; Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. (Eds.).
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New York: Routledge, p.
545-554

Carl, Michael; Schaeffer, Moritz; Bangalore, Srinivas (2016). The CRITT Translation
Process Research Database. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz
Schaeffer (Eds.) New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research -
Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. London: Springer, p. 13-56

O’Brien, Sharon (2020). Translation, human-computer interaction and cognition. In:

Fabio Alves; Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Translation
and Cognition. New York: Routledge, p. 376-388

Risku, Hanna; Rogl, Regina (2020). Translation and situated, embodied, distributed,
embedded and extended cognition. In: Fabio Alves; Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. (Eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New York: Routledge, p.
478-499

49
.

24
Advancing TS through think-aloud: Showcasing a
challenging but unique method
Conveners: Claudine Borg, Brita Dore

In the 1980s and 1990s, Krings, Lörscher, Séguinot and Gerloff were pioneers in
using verbal data to study translation processes, with methodological advances
employing verbal reports backed by Ericsson and Simon’s ground-breaking work.
Introspective reports, both concurrent and retrospective, as well as dialogue protocols
were the method largely applied to understand what was going on in the
translators’ “black box”, paving the way for what is now known as Cognitive
Translation and Interpreting Studies. Since the 1990s, favoured by technological
advancements and more powerful statistical tools, new quantitative methods have
been added to process-oriented research, such as keystroke logging, eye-tracking, and
EEG. The importance of think-aloud decreased, triggered by criticism targeting its
validity and reliability, the immense effort required to gather and analyse verbal data
in the form of Think-Aloud Protocols (TAPs), and its predominantly qualitative, and
thus subjective, nature. However, despite such criticism, think-aloud continues being
a powerful and unique method for analysing cognitive processes, particularly in
triangulation settings. And technological advances nowadays facilitate data
processing and analysis, for instance, transcriptions by using automated speech
recognition. As Jakobsen & Alves (2021:4) put it, “[t]he TAP method remains a
strong method, as there may not be a better way of getting information about a
person’s mind than by having the person tell us about it in words”. Recent work
showing the valuable and unique insights think-aloud provides include Borg (2017),
Dorer (2020), Sun et al. (2020) and Vieira (2017).This panel aims to shed light on the
strengths, uniqueness and power of think-aloud for TIS. We invite contributions
discussing think-aloud in relation (but not limited) to

• methodological insights and innovation (e.g. approaches to gathering and

analysing data, triangulation

• situated translatio

• cognitive aspects (e.g. cognitive load, decision-making

• psychological phenomena (e.g. emotions, self-con dence, creativity

• personality (e.g. the effect of personality on think-aloud

• revision and post-editing processe

• literary translatio

50
n

fi
:

 • differences in levels of translation experienc

• translator trainin

• professional practices

References

Borg, C. 2017. ‘Decision-making and alternative translation solutions in the literary

translation process: A case study’. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 279-304

Dorer, B. 2020. Advance translation as a means of improving source questionnaire

translatability?: Findings from a think-aloud study for French and German. Berlin:
Frank & Timme

Jakobsen, A.L. & Alves, F. 2021. ‘Introduction’. In F. Alves & A.L. Jakobsen (eds.)
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. London: Routledge, 1-20

Sun, S., Li, T., & Zhou, X. 2020. ‘Effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort in
translation’. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies,
19, 132-151

Vieira, L. N. 2017. ‘Cognitive effort and different task foci in post-editing of machine
translation: A think-aloud study’. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(1), 79-105

51
.

 25 The Reality of Revision

Conveners: Ilse Feinauer, Amanda Lourens

Revisers do not need theory or training to become revisers. And yet they operate as
recognized professional revisers. We would like panellists to give account of
everyday normal ways of action to make meaning of the terms reviser, revision. Also
what does the agent performing revision look like and what is the role of this agent in
any speci c nished product? In this panel we group all revisionary activities
(currently referred to with the tems revision, editing, proofreading, post-editing,
fuzzy matching) under revision as the umbrella term. We request panellists to
investigate professional practices to advance theoretical approaches regarding
revision; in turn practice may draw on these new theoretical perspectives e.g. project
managers understanding the complexities of the social networks in which the various
agents operate in order to generate a speci c product. The research framework used
will be data-based, drawing on patterns that emerged from the analysis of real-life
data. Panellists will follow a more sociological approach in researching publishing
projects, since sociological theories may provide the background against which we
can explain the very complex patterns in the actual revisionary activities. At this stage
very little is known about the way revision takes place, but empirical data on the
actual genesis of published texts will describe the various roles, power, as well as the
socio-cognitive aspects operative in revision. The following research questions could
for example drive the investigations of panellists

1. What are the practices of revisionary activities in their situational embeddedness

and how can they be described

2. how do these practices come together in actual processes; an

3. how are all of these eventually played out in networks

The styles and applications of revisionary activities may vary from project to project,
and also from agent to agent, depending on the nature of the text and individual
working style and personality of the agent at work. We therefore invite contributions
on the following topics

• workplace revision practice

• revision agents (author, translator, reviser, reader, reviewer) and their agencies
(habitus, processes, networks, power relations, gender, post-colonialism

• revisionary practices in various genres (e.g. literary, technical, academic)

generically or in speci c publication

52
fi
fi
fi
:

fi
 

 • revisionary practices in manuscript development in various genre

• revisionary practices in all types of (sign language) interpreting

References

Buzelin, H. 2005. Unexpected allies: How Latour’s network theory could

complement Bourdieusian analyses in Translation Studies. The Translator,
11(2):193-219

Koponen, M., Mossop, B., Robert, I. and Scocchera, G. (eds.). 2021. Translation
Revision and/or Post-Editing. London, New York: Routledge

Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 14. 2015. On

Genetic Translation Studies

Mossop, Brian (2014) Revising and editing for translators. 3rd edition. London &
New York: Routledge

53
.

26 Keylogging typing ows in mediated communication

Conveners: Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Erik Angelone, César A. Gonzále

Eyetracking and screen recording (e.g., Walker & Federici 2018) have drawn much
attention as data collection tools in the last decade. In contrast, the case can be made
that keyloggers are now increasingly underused, often relegated to collecting
secondary or supportive data in otherwise welcome mixed methods research projects.
However, much of what we know of translation processes is based on keylogging
studies, even though many were carried out with software that does not record key-
moving and typing actions (Couto Vale 2017, 211). Keyloggers yield rich behavioral
descriptions of the typing ow that might be exploited in many different ways. Unlike
eyetracking technology, which is somewhat expensive, many keylogging tools (e.g.,
Translog II, Carl 2012; Inputlog, Leitjen & van Waes. 2013) are free, which can
further break down nancial barriers that might otherwise exist in attempts to
advance Translation Studies research. Multilectal mediated communication tasks can
be seen as particular instances of language production. Across tasks, the very act of
language production tends to be mainly linear, but the processes leading to its
unfolding are not necessarily so. Researchers have traditionally formulated and tested
hypotheses derived from the interplay between text chunking, various characteristics
of the segments resulting from such chunking (e.g., length and grammatical nature,
but also mistakes such as false starts and typos), delivery speed, pause types and
lengths, and the interleaving of language production with other subtasks, such as
listening, reading or vieweing, searching the web, online and nal revision. This
panel seeks to update and relaunch the use of keylogging as the main source of data,
on its own and combined with other data-collection tools, to analyze language
production tasks as manifest in various forms of mediated communication including,
but also transcending translation, at high levels of granularity—mainly with
quantitative approaches. Resemblances between tasks, such as revising as a stand-
alone activity and revising as a subtask within a translation activity, are obvious, and
they extend to research constructs that are often assumed to apply to both of them.
However, many analytical insights may pertain to not only translation and writing in
their strictest senses, but also audio description, live subtitling, transcription, and
other forms of meditated communication, such as simultaneous interpreting, where
keylogging the computer use of interpreters may yield additional insights into their
mental processes, and consecutive interpreting, when note-taking is performed
through digital means (keyboard, pen). Contributions are welcome on topics such as

• Advances in keylogging indicators, constructs and combinations thereof

54
fi
fl
fl
fi
z

 • Applications of time- and chunking-based analyses across a range of mediated

communication tasks, such as translation, audio description, live subtitling,
transcription, transediting, interpreting

• Applications of keylogging in writing systems other than those based on the

roman alphabet

• Proposals for multilectal mediated communication task models and standards

to be keylogged

• Strategies and frameworks to analyze typing ow (e.g., the Task Segment

Framework, Muñoz & Apfelthaler, in press)

References

Walker, Callum, & Federico Federici (Eds.) 2018. Eye Tracking and
Multidisciplinary Studies on Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carl,
Michael. 2012. Translog-II: a Program for Recording User Activity Data for
Empirical Reading and Writing Research. Proceedings of the Eighth International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pp.4108--4112.
http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/614_Paper.pd

Couto-Vale, Daniel. 2017. What does a translator do when not writing? In S. Hansen-
Schirra, O. Czulo & S. Hofmann, eds. Empirical modelling of translation and
interpreting (pp. 209–237). Berlin: Language Science Press

Leitjen, Mariëlle. & Luuk van Waes. 2013. Keystroke Logging in Writing Research:
Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes. Written Communication
30 (3): 1 –35

Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, & Matthias Apfelthaler. [in press]. A Task Segment
Framework to study keylogged translation processes. To be published in Translation
& Interpreting, vol. 14

55
.

fl
.

27
Past, present and future of speech technologies in
translation — life beyond the keyboard
Conveners: Dragoș Ciobanu, Alina Secară, Julián Zapat

The quality of speech technologies is improving so fast for certain languages that the
latest report published by the Language in the Human-Machine Era (LITHME)
COST action highlights “two imminent changes to human communication [...]:
speaking through technology and speaking to technology” (2021:6). In situations
where two-way communication is not necessary, however, speech technologies have
already been implemented to optimise monolingual and multilingual content
production work ows: for over a decade, human-to-machine dictation (automatic
speech recognition / speech-to-text) has been the preferred mode of creating content
of professional linguists whose technological set-up allowed this kind of
enhancement or who work in live contexts, such as broadcasting, where immediate
access to the text produced is crucial. In addition, automatic speech synthesis (text-to-
speech) has also been gaining ground in recent years. Research has shown that both
speech recognition and synthesis can positively in uence the output quality, language
professionals’ productivity and workspace ergonomics associated with translation,
revision and post-editing machine translation (PEMT) processes. Despite these
demonstrated bene ts, technology providers have been somehow trailing behind in
implementing speech technologies into current CAT/PEMT/TEnT environments.
Moreover, with the exception of respeaking in accessibility-related scenarios, there is
little evidence that speech technologies are nding a place in translation training and
research. This panel will focus on the practical, methodological and educational
implications of using speech technologies by professional and trainee translators. We
invite contributions from industry practitioners and academics that discuss observed
advantages and disadvantages of integrating speech technologies into translation,
PEMT, audiovisual translation, revision, or review processes; creative ways of
achieving such integrations; novel training approaches created for such new
integrations; as well as future directions of research, development and training

References

Ciobanu, D., Ragni, V., & Secară, A. (2019). Speech Synthesis in the Translation
Revision Process: Evidence from Error Analysis, Questionnaire, and Eye-Tracking.
Informatics, 6(4)(51), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics604005

Herbig, N., Düwel, T., Pal, S., Meladaki, K., Monshizadeh, M., Krüger, A., & van
Genabith, J. (2020). MMPE: A Multi-Modal Interface for Post-Editing Machine
Translation. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, 1691–1702. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main
56
fl
fi
fi
fl
a

155 LITHME. (2021). The Dawn of the Human-Machine Era. A Forecast of New and
Emerging Language Technologies. https://lithme.eu/2021/05/18/ rst-publication-
forecast-of-future-language-technologies

Teixeira, C. S. C., Moorkens, J., Turner, D., Vreeke, J., & Way, A. (2019). Creating a
Multimodal Translation Tool and Testing Machine Translation Integration Using
Touch and Voice. Informatics, 6(1)(13), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/
informatics601001

Zapata, J., S. Castilho and J. Moorkens (2017) ‘Translation Dictation vs. Post- editing
with Cloudbased Voice Recognition: A Pilot Experiment’, in Proceedings of the MT
Summit XVI – The 16th Machine Translation Summit, Nagoya, Japan

57
3

fi
.

 28
Advancing Translation Studies by understanding the
Labour in Translaboration
Conveners: Cornelia Zwischenberger, Alexa Alfe

Discussions of ‘translaboration’ have so far focused on the investigative potential of

the conceptual blending of ‘translation’ and ‘collaboration’. A further and rather
central concept that emerges in/from translaboration is ‘labour’. Labour, as the
production of appropriated surplus value, remains, we argue, an under-researched and
under-discussed dimension of translation. To advance our understanding of both
translation and Translation Studies, and the ways in which both elds of activity
intersect with critical areas of human interest, the concept of labour, as distinct from
‘work’ (Narotzky 2018), warrants more sustained engagement. Our focus for this
panel is the work/labour dimension of collaborative translation. In online
collaborative translation, hundreds or even thousands of mostly non-professional and
voluntary translators collaborate in crowdsourced translation drives initiated by and
bene tting both pro t-oriented companies such as Facebook or Skype and not-for-
pro t organizations such as Translators Without Borders or Kiva. Are these
translation efforts work, labour, or just fun? The same question applies to self-
managed online collaborative translation drives such as Wikipedia-translation, and to
the various types of fan translation such as fansubbing, fandubbing etc. Digital labour
(Fuchs 2010) is a particular pertinent category here, as are concepts such as playbor
(Kücklich 2005), fan labour, and affective labour since this type of collaborative
translation centrally builds on social relations and consequently affects (Koskinen
2020). But what about the work/labour dimension of collaborative translations in the
analogue world? The collaborative translations undertaken in 17th- and 18th-century
Germany between women and their male partners as their intellectual equals, for
example, were often construed as ‘labours of love’, thus masking their speci c
constellations of agency, creativity, and gain (Brown 2018). To advance Translation
Studies from the vantage point of the labour, we invite panel contributions addressing
the work/labour dimension of translation in the following contexts, among others

• translation crowdsourcing for for-pro t and not-for-pro t/humanitarian

organisation

• self-managed and user-initiated forms of online collaborative translatio

• historical or contemporary case studies of analogue collaborative translatio

• translation’s relationship with digital labour, fan labour, playbor, or affective

labour

58
fi
fi
.

fi
fi
r

fi
fi
n

fi
:

References

Brown, Hillary. 2018. Rethinking agency and creativity: Translation, collaboration

and gender in early modern Germany. Translation Studies 11 (1), 84-10

Fuchs, Christian. 2010. Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet. The
Information Society 26 (3), 179-196

Koskinen, Kaisa. 2020. Translation and affect. Essays on sticky affects and
translational affective labour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Kücklich, Julian. 2005. Precarious Playbour: Modders and the Digital Games
Industry. The Fibreculture Journal (5), n.p

Narotzky, Susana (2018). Rethinking the concept of labour. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 24, 29-43.

59


.

29
Advancing Translation Studies through task-
comparative and hybrid task research into multilectal
communication
Conveners: Iris Schrijver, Pawel Korpal, Isabelle Rober

Over the past decades, Translation Studies has witnessed a growing body of research
into emergent forms of mediated communication that surpass the dichotomy of
translation versus interpreting, as well as the traditional divide between translation,
writing and adaptation. Objects of study are technology-enabled, often multimodal,
hybrid modes of practice, such as theatre surtitling, interlingual live subtitling or
speech-to-text interpreting through respeaking, simultaneous interpreting with text,
sight translation, (live) audiodescription, audio-introduction, audiosubtitling and
interlingual summary translation. However, research in which such hybrid forms are
studied and compared with their af nitive variants is still limited (but cf., Puerini,
2021; Seeber, Keller & Hervais-Adelman, 2020), even though it would yield insight
into the similarities, differences and possible transfer between the tasks that are
activated. In turn, these insights would advance Translation Studies as well as
neighboring disciplines including Writing Research, Media Accessibility and
Cognitive Science. Moreover, they would sketch a more uid portrait of the
communicative skills the human translator/interpreter of the future may need. In
support of calls for more comparative research into related multilectal mediation
tasks (e.g., Remael, 2016; Dam-Jensen, Heine & Schrijver, 2019; Xiao & Muñoz
Martín, 2020), this thematic panel aims to provide a framework for converging
critical inquiry into such research. Contributors may address a wide range of topics,
such as conceptual and theoretical implications (e.g., similarities and differences in
cognition and reception between related tasks, their impact on existing process and/or
competence models), interdisciplinary issues (e.g., common disciplinary ground or
diverging terminology and premises that allow/hinder comparative research),
methodological challenges and requirements (e.g., inter-subject vs intra-subject
design, matching of stimuli across tasks and/or conditions, measurement of quality
and satisfaction), technological aspects (e.g., prerequisites for related tasks, level of
impact on cognition and reception), practical and pedagogical aspects (e.g., af nitive
tasks used and skills taught in translator training)

References

Dam-Jensen, H., Heine, C., & Schrijver, I. (2019). The nature of text production –
Similarities and differences between writing and translation. Across Languages and
Cultures 20(2), 155–172

60
.

fi
.

fl
fi
Puerini, S. (2021). Typing your mind away. Comparing keylogged tasks with the Task
Segment Framework. Università di Bologna

Remael, A. (2016). On studying complex interactions: Hybridity in (audiovisual)

translation and interpreting. Keynote at TransInt 2016, University of Trieste

Seeber, K., Keller, L., & Hervais-Adelman, A. (2020). When the ear leads the eye:
The use of text during simultaneous interpretation. Language, Cognition and
Neuroscience, 35(10), 1480–1494

Xiao, K., & Muñoz Martín, R. (2020). Cognitive Translation Studies: Models and
methods at the cutting edge. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in
Translation Studies 19, 1–24

61
.

 30
Translation and Tourism: Encounters through space and
language
Conveners: So a Malamatidou, Elena Manc

Tourism is a global phenomenon and one of the largest industries worldwide, which
heavily relies on translation to achieve its goals both before and during the visit.
Therefore, translation has the capacity to shape how the visitor understands and
responds to the destination, attraction, event, activity, etc. and of particular interest
are the various ways in which the translation of tourism texts adapts the texts in terms
of language, ideology and identity. This panel aims to encourage and advance critical
discussion on the important role played by translation in tourism, especially in, but
not limited to, the context of the recent pandemic, which has offered an opportunity
for re ection on tourism practices, including how destinations are being branded and
promoted. This panel recognises tourism translation as an interdisciplinary research
area that can draw from a range of elds, e.g. translation studies, tourism studies,
discourse studies, narratology, linguistics, intercultural communication. Moreover,
tourism texts offer translation researchers a rich source of data to examine how
different languages and cultures interact and importantly how identities and
ideologies are negotiated through translation. This panel ultimately seeks to open up a
collaborative and supportive space for interdisciplinary research on tourism and
advance our understanding of how translation mobilises and supports tourism
communication. Contributors may address any aspect of tourism translation, but we
particularly welcome submissions for the following areas

• Manifestations (linguistic or other) of adaptation of tourism texts

• Multimodal analysis of different types of tourism texts

• The role of the translator in tourism communication

• The development of new theories, models, and methodologies for the

exploration of tourism translation

• The construction of brand and identity in tourism texts and how these are
negotiated in translation

• Processes (linguistic or other) of destination promotion

• Negotiation of cross-cultural differences in tourism

• Ecotourism and its promotion

62
fl
fi
.

fi
a

References

Dann, Graham. 1996. The Language of Tourism. Oxon: CAB International

Francesconi, Sabrina. 2014. Reading Tourism Texts: A Multimodal Analysis. Briston,

Tonawanda, and Ontario: Channel View Publications

Manca, Elena. 2016. Persuasion in Tourism Discourse: methodologies and models.

Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers

Malamatidou, So a. 2018. “A Pretty Village is a Welcome Sight”: A Contrastive

Study of the Promotion of Physical Space in Of cial Tourism Websites.” Translation
Spaces 7(2): 304-333

Urry, John, and Jonas Larsen. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: SAGE
Publications.

63


fi
.

fi
.

 31 Is Machine Translation Translation?

Conveners: Dorothy Kenny, Félix do Carmo, Mary Nurmine

Any contemporary investigation of advances in translation must surely take into

account the rise of machine translation (MT), acknowledging improvements in its
quality and the many worthy causes it can serve (Nurminen and Koponen 2020). But
irenic engagement with the technology does not have to be uncritical (Kenny,
Moorkens and do Carmo 2020), and alongside a growing number of empirical,
technical, investigations of translation work ows that use MT, translation studies
scholars have also begun to interrogate its ethical basis. Some such studies (e.g. do
Carmo 2020) touch upon the very de nition of translation, its relationship to post-
editing, and the material consequences for professional translators of industry’s
sometimes self-serving construal of these activities. But there are still only rare
explorations of how we in translation studies, by embracing MT, are changing our
own construal of translation. And studies that re ect on how, by integrating MT into
translation studies, we may be recon guring our eld of inquiry, are even rarer.
Against this backdrop, this panel aims to (re-)examine the eld of translation studies,
and its object of inquiry, in a context in which translation could be conceived of as
taking many forms, including forms that culminate in readers accessing raw machine
outputs. We thus invite proposals for conceptual papers that address such questions
as

• Is machine translation translation

• Is there merit in continuing to distinguish between human and machine

translation

• How does our ontological basis affect how we approach these questions

We also wish to generate debate on the effects of the full integration of MT, and
related activities such as post-editing, into translation studies as a multidiscipline, and
invite re ection on whether incorporating MT represents an advance for the
discipline or an impoverishment (if we think MT constitutes a reduction of translation
to automatable transfer). Ultimately, the panel poses a question that goes to the heart
of the discipline: could MT be the straw that breaks translation studies’ back, under
the weight of the ongoing import of knowledge from outside, or could MT be a
golden opportunity for translation studies to reveal the value of the knowledge it has
already constructed and continues to construct on its object of study

64
:

fl
?

fi
fi
fl
fl
fi
fi
n

 References

Carl, Michael (forthcoming) Computation and Representation in Cognitive

Translation Studies. In Michael Carl (ed) Explorations in Empirical Translation
Process Research. Berlin: Springer, 341-355

do Carmo, Félix (2020) ‘Time is Money’ and the Value of Translation. In Joss
Moorkens, Dorothy Kenny and Félix do Carmo (eds) (2020) Fair MT: Towards
ethical, sustainable Machine Translation. Special Issue of Translation Spaces 9(1):
35-57

Kenny, Dorothy, Joss Moorkens and Félix do Carmo (2020) ‘Introduction’, Fair MT:
Towards ethical, sustainable Machine Translation, Special Issue of Translation Spaces
9(1): 1-11

Nurminen, Mary and Marit Koponen (2020) Machine translation and fair access to
information. In Joss Moorkens, Dorothy Kenny and Félix do Carmo (eds) (2020) Fair
MT: Towards ethical, sustainable Machine Translation. Special Issue of Translation
Spaces 9(1): 150-169

Sager, Juan (1994) Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of

automation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

65
.



 32
Advancing Translation Studies: integrating research on
the translational construction of the social world
Conveners: Dilek Dizdar, Tomasz Rozmyslowic

For quite some time now, Translation Studies has been interested in translation and
interpreting as constructive practices from which different types of collectivities
emerge. While the focus has mainly been on understanding national or ethnic
identities as products of translation processes, other research (also from other
disciplines) has indicated that translation and interpreting also play a vital role in the
emergence of other collectivities, such as linguistic communities, international
organizations, scienti c communities, religious gatherings, and social identity groups.
However, these various undertakings have not yet been systematically related to each
other. The aim of this panel is to bring these research endeavors together and discuss
their results as investigations into the translational construction of collectivities. This
way, a common frame of reference can be established which allows for comparisons
between the different types of collectivities that translation and interpreting practices
help to produce and the various ways in which they do this: Are similar mechanisms
involved? How does the impact of translation and interpreting on the construction –
or deconstruction – of collectivities differ across time and space? What concepts,
theories, and methods are adequate for the investigation of such processes? Can we
draw from established approaches within Translation Studies or is it necessary to look
beyond disciplinary boundaries? The panel invites empirical, methodological or
theoretical papers addressing questions related to the various forms and ways in
which translation and interpreting practices participate in carving up the social world
into collectivities. Possible topics include, but are not limited to

• translation and interpreting as practices of drawing, redrawing and dissolving

border

• translation and interpreting as mechanisms of inclusion and exclusio

• translation/interpreting and the (de)construction of collectivitie

• agents of translational constructions of collectivities: Humans, machines,

institution

• translation/interpreting and (linguistic) belonging

66
s

fi
z

 References

Dizdar, Dilek/Gipper, Andreas/Schreiber, Michael (2015): Nationenbildung und

Übersetzung [Nation Building and Translation]. Berlin: Frank & Timme (Ost-West-
Express 23)

Meylaerts, Reine (2011): “Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An

Overview of Translational Regimes”, in: Meta: Journal des traducteurs 56:4, 743–
757

Sakai, Naoki (2009): “How Do We Count a Language? Translation and

Discontinuity”, in: Translation Studies 2:1, 71–88

Venuti, Lawrence (2012): “Translation, Community, Utopia”, in: Venuti, L.:

Translation Changes Everything. London/New York: Routledge, 11-31

Wolf, Michaela (2015): The Habsburg Monarchy’s Many-Languaged Soul.

Translating and Interpreting, 1848-1918. Translated by Kate Sturge. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins (BTL 116)

67
.

 33
The Self-Translation of Knowledge: Scholarship in
Migration
Conveners: Spencer Hawkins, Lavinia Helle

Recent surges in con ict and oppression have led to an in ux of refugees to Europe,
which has in turn prompted us to reexamine traditional associations between nation
and identity. These reexaminations have not left Translation Studies unaffected.
During the last decade, Translation Studies has devoted new attention to the
geographic relocation of human beings as a driving force behind interlinguistic
transmission of loan words, exotic concepts, translated texts, and appropriated
traditions. Throughout the migrational turn in Translation Studies, literary output has
become paradigmatic of migrant cultural ambassadorship. Privileging the literary
over other forms of discursive participation, however, risks obscuring the centrality
of academic migrants who in uence their host cultures through the complex work of
self-translation within institutional spaces of knowledge production. For migrants to
continue research abroad requires a complex process of translation and self-
translation, not only into a new academic language, but also into a new academic and
intellectual culture and these self-translations do not leave the host discourses and
cultures unaffected. An intellectual history of academic migration has the complex
task of investigating why certain self-translations achieve in uence by accounting for
social, linguistic, discursive, disciplinary, and philosophical mechanisms of
adaptation, integration, and advancement. The study of (self-)translated humanistic
scholarship promises valuable insight into the extent to which, for example,
academics do in fact show consciousness of the conditions for the success of their
self-translation. Such research could also reveal what academics in exile consider
translatable in their lives and work, for whom those elements are translatable, and
which speci c rhetorical resources they must mobilize, as well as questioning
whether the success or failure of academic self-translation depends on linguistic
factors at all, or whether other factors are far more decisive: such as one’s social and
academic prestige and the suitability of one’s work to academic research trends and
the political climate within the university culture. We welcome paper proposals that
discuss

• case studies of the emergence of speci c texts by voluntary or involuntary

migrant scholars in the context of their translated live

• the challenges and fruits of self-translation or exophonic scholarship for

academic discourse

• theorizations of the migrant scholar, like Edward Said’s “Re ections on Exile

68
:

fi
s

fl
fl
fi
r

fl
fl
fl
”

 • rhetorical habits of academic migrant self-translation: including inventive loan

translations and conceptually generative periphrasis, but also losses of
complexity through the reliance on more easily mastered cliché and simpli ed
argument

• the capacity of an academic lingua franca to orient migrant writers’

destinations and their deviations from the local languages of their
displacemen

• the effect of an academic lingua franca on international cooperatio

• the asymmetries of scienti c internationalis

• the geopolitical center of gravity around anglophone metropoles.

We welcome also papers that mark the dichotomies and methodological

(in)compatabilities between:

• forced and voluntary academic migratio

• successful and unsuccessful adaptation to new academic languages and

cultures

• “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences

• ancient, medieval, and modern cases of academic migration

• migration in eras where one lingua franca predominates in the sciences and
migration in eras of “Scienti c Babel” (Gordin)

• explicitly migration-related translation theory concepts—like self-translation

and exophony—and broader theories of translation—like skopos theory

• migration from the “semi-peripheries” (Bennett) to the metropoles of

academia and the opposite movement, especially the migration of native
English speakers to Asian educational institutions

References

Bennett, Karen. The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities

and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillion: 2014

Gordin, Michael. Scienti c Babel, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press:

2015

69
.

fi
fi
fi
 

fi
 Inghelleri, Moira, Translation and Migration, New York: Routledge, 2017

Polezzi, Loredana, “Translation and Migration” Translation Studies 5(3): 345-356,

2012

Weigel, Sigrid, “Self-Translation and Its Discontents” Migrating Histories of Art

Self-Translations of a Discipline ed. Maria Teresa Costa and Hans Christian Hönes,
21-35. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019

70
.

34
Re-thinking Translation History: Genealogies, Geo-
politics, and Counter-hegemonic Approaches
Conveners: Brian Baer, Philipp Hofenede

Informed by post-structuralist (White 1987) and postcolonial approaches to

historiography (Chakrabarty 2000), this panel aims to interrogate current histories of
translation and Translation Studies and to propose new, counter-hegemonic
approaches. Post-structuralist historiographers, such as Hayden White (1987, 5),
argue that modern history is inseparable from narration, that is to say, the events must
be "revealed as possessing a structure, an order of meaning, that they do not possess
as mere sequence". Indeed, most of the Romance and Slavic languages acknowledge
an etymological connection between historiography and storytelling (histoire,
historia, etc. mean both 'history' and 'story'). At the same time, postcolonial scholars
have critiqued dominant historiographical practices, what Chakrabarty terms
"western historicism," as promoting and naturalizing developmental thinking, which
construes cultures as more or less advanced and posits (Western) modernity as the
teleological endpoint of all histories. Histories of historiography have also traced
major shifts in the focus of histories, from great men and singular events to the
anonymous forces studied by the Annales School (Burke 2015), and in the framing or
situating of histories, e.g., from national histories (or Eurocentric) to transnational
histories and histories from the margins; from universal, meta-histories to micro-
histories; and from histories of humans to histories of commodities (see Kurlansky
2003). In addition, the speci c notion of disciplinary histories has been interrogated
as a feature of the academic "monocultures" of the Global North that work to exclude
epistemologies of the South (Santos 2018). The panel invites theoretical papers and
case studies on the history of translation and Translation Studies from these post-
structuralist and post-colonial perspectives and using a variety of approaches to
interrogate the dominant histories of the practice and the eld of translation in order
to explore the cultural logic that produces lacunae and historical breaks, to investigate
"forgotten" voices and marginalized histories, to trace the in uence of politics on
translation theory, and to propose non-hegemonic historiographic approaches.
Contributors may address but are not limited to the following topics

1) The role of the Cold War, its politics and paranoia, in shaping contemporary
histories of translation

2) Bibliometric studies that trace shifting citational patterns as a version of translation

historiography or that investigate citational practices as a form of genealogy creation

71
;

fi
r

fi
fl
:

 3) Case studies investigating diverse translational spaces and times. Of interest are
not only studies between ideologically, politically, and culturally divergent spaces but
also within them (which is the case within the Socialist bloc)

4) Comparative historiographic studies, highlighting alternative or competing

histories of the practice or eld of translation

5) Micro-histories or histories from the margins, i.e., the involvement of translators

and interpreters in historical situations of violence and suppression, such as the slave
trade or resistance movements

6) Investigations of the historiographic challenges of writing modern or pre-modern

histories of the theory and practice of translation

7) Studies that focus on the unpredictable and the contingent in translation history
(networks, spaces, and contacts)

References

Burke, Peter. 2015. The French historical revolution. The Annales School 1929-2014.
Cambridge: Polity Press

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and

Historical Difference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press

Kurlansky, Mark. 2003. Salt: A World History. New York and London: Penguin
Books

Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage

Santos, Buoventura de Sousa. 2018. The End of Cognitive Empire: The Coming of
Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham and London: Duke University Press

White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical
Representation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press

72


.

fi
;

35
Crossing minorities in translation history: peripheries,
gender and less translated languages
Conveners: Maud Gonne, Laura Fólica,

Despite a growing interest in minor(ized) voices in translation studies, less translated

languages, cultures and agents (regional, female) are still kept to the margins of
translation and cultural history. Moreover, they are mainly approached in isolation or
in relation to dominant models (national, male), rather than in intersection, i.e. in
relation to each other (regional-regional, female-female, regional-female, indigenous-
regional-female, and so one). And yet, such intersectionalities challenge translation
scholars to rethink translation history in the light of complex decentralized, entangled
and paradoxical cultural dynamics. Indeed, while translation simultaneously
promotes and threatens the very existence of peripheral languages and cultures, it is
also a freeing practice for less legitimate agents such as women, allowing their
incorporation in the intellectual or publishing elds. With other words, the complex
intertwinement of minor(ized) languages, cultures, agents and practices invites us to
reassess their role in translation history. We invite theoretical-methodological papers
and case studies contributing to this interdisciplinary issue through different
perspectives (among others global and literary history, gender studies, postcolonial
studies, sociology of translation and digital humanities) without any spatial-temporal
limitation. Possible topics include, but are not limited to

1. Intersectionalities: theoretical perspectives on the crossing of translation and

minor(ized) agents, cultures and geographies in translation history, including women
(women translator and/or women translated), less translated and regional languages
and cultures

2. Historiographical methods: methodological challenges in the study of (the

intersection of) minorities in translation history, among others the promises and
pitfalls of biographical studies, prosopography, data mining, social network analysis,
geohumanities and feminist and gender approaches

3. Minorities and activism: the relationships between translation, activism and

identity building in minority contexts, among others the function of women in the
promotion of less translated cultures and languages

4. Mapping multiscale dynamics: case studies targeting multiscale (translocal,

transregional, transnational) ows and intersections of minor(ized) agents, cultures
and geographies

73
.

fl
 

fi
.

References

Branchadell, Albert and Lovell Margaret West. 2005. Less Translated Languages,
John Benjamins

Flotow, Luise von and Frazaneh Farahzad. 2017. Translating Women. Different
Voices and New Horizons, Routledge

Fólica, Laura “The translation of indigenous languages in Latin American avant-

garde literary journals of the rst half of the 20th century” and Maud Gonne
“Translating minorities. Literary translation beliefs and Walloon identity building
(1850-1930)”, in Diana Roig Sanz, Elisabet Carbó and Ana Kvirikashvili (eds.).
Special issue of Comparative Literature Studies, forth. 202

Lionnet, Françoise and Shu-mei Shih. 2005. Minor Transnationalism, Duke

University Press

Roig Sanz, Diana and Reine Meylaerts. 2018. Literary Translation and Cultural
Mediators in 'Peripheral' Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan.

74
.

fi
.



2

36 Literary Translation and Soft Power in the Longue Durée

Conveners: Diana Roig Sanz, Elisabet Carbó, Lucía Campanella

This panel focuses on the analysis of literary translation and soft power in the longue
durée within the growing eld of global translation history. Much has been written on
literary translation and politics (Tymcozko & Gentzler 2002), but the potential of
translation in terms of consolidating political formations and soft power has only
recently been explicitly addressed (Batchelor 2019). We argue therefore that dialogue
with disciplines such as international relations, cultural diplomacy or global history
(von Flotow 2018; Carbó and Roig Sanz 2022, forth.) offers fertile ground to analyse
the role of translation in shaping the ways a given culture is perceived abroad. As a
corollary, this panel seeks to push further the interdisciplinary analysis of translation
as a form of foreign action in nation-building processes, and historicize it from a
longue durée, multilingual and decentred perspective. It also proposes to explore the
ways literary translation intervenes in the consecration of a given culture/literature,
and as a space where power struggles are manifested and renegotiated both on a
textual and extratextual level. In this respect, we propose the following topics

1. Theoretical proposals that can integrate multiple borrowings from other disciplines,
from international relations and cultural diplomacy to global history or world
literature, to think the ways literary translation can become a form of intervening in
the political arena

2. Methodological challenges in the analysis of literary translation and soft power

(Nye 2004) across temporalities and multiple geographies

3. Case studies from early modern to contemporary periods that can analyse how the
Empire or the State intervene in the creation and manipulation of world literature
through translation, or how foreign cultural policies promote translations through
national institutes, embassies, cultural centres, foreign affairs ministers, or
international institutions such as the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation
or UNESCO

4. The role of agents, both individual and collective, in the promotion of translations
or as responsible of non-circulation. Re ections on how gender plays in this
framework are particularly welcome

Across these research lines, we also seek to encourage the discussion on the effects
and reactions triggered by translations after they are published

75
.

fi
.

fl
.

References

Batchelor, Kathryn (2019) “Literary translation and soft power: African literature in
Chinese translation”, The Translator, 25:4, 401-41

Carbó-Catalan, Elisabet and Diana Roig-Sanz (Eds.) (forth. 2022) Culture as Soft
Power. Bridging Cultural Relations, Intellectual Cooperation and Cultural Diplomacy.
Berlin: De Gruyter. Accepted for publication

Nye, Joseph S (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New
York: Public Affairs

Tymoczko, Maria & Gentzler, Edwin (2002). Translation and Power. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press

von Flotow, Luise (2018). “Translation and cultural diplomacy” in The Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Politics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Routledge

76
.

37
Translation and transcultural circulation of memory
narratives
Conveners: Geir Uvsløkk, Anneleen Spiessens, Jeroen Vandael

Despite the recent ‘transcultural’ turn in Memory Studies, which underscores the
dynamism of remembering as it travels across time, space, cultures and media, little
attention has yet been paid to the speci c role of translation in disseminating,
retransmitting and understanding memory narratives. Recent publications and
initiatives are beginning to ll this knowledge gap — Deane-Cox (2013); Brownlie
(2016); Castillo Villanueva & Pintado Gutiérrez (2019); Deane-Cox & Spiessens
(forthcoming); and the 2019 conference Translating Cultural Memory in Fiction and
Testimony, which explicitly promoted dialogue between memory studies and
translation studies, thus producing a range of perspectives on translated narratives
about traumatic pasts (Jünke & Schyns 2022 [forthcoming]). Inspired by these
initiatives, this panel intends to explore the mechanisms and implications of various
modes of translation when memories of con icts from the 20th and 21st centuries
travel across languages and cultures, both in ction and non- ction, and both in
testimonies and postmemorial texts. Relevant topics are: Which strategies do editors,
translators and other agents of translation resort to – linguistically, discursively,
literarily, historically – to ensure and shape the transmission of con ict memories that
are not their own? Which ethical roles and questions are at play in such processes? To
what extent are agents of translation invested and involved in texts that are so
intimately connected to the authors’ personal or familial experiences, and in which
cases can they be considered “secondary witnesses” (Deane-Cox 2013)? Moreover,
how are the translations received in the target culture, compared to the original
reception? And what do the translated texts themselves reveal about the way
memories are received, reinterpreted and re-signi ed as they cross borders? The panel
conveners invite contributions that address memory in translation in relation to 20th
and 21st century con icts

References

Brownlie, S. (2016). Mapping Memory in Translation. Palgrave Macmillan

Castillo Villanueva, A. & L. Pintado Gutiérrez (eds). 2019. New Approaches to

Translation, Con ict and Memory. Narratives of the Spanish Civil War and the
Dictatorship. Palgrave Macmillan

Deane-Cox, S. 2013. “The Translator as Secondary Witness: Mediating Memory in

Antelme’s L’espèce humaine”, Translation Studies 6(3): 309-23

77
fl
fl
.

fi
.

fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
e

fl
.

Deane-Cox, S & A. Spiessens (eds.). Forthcoming. Routledge Handbook of

Translation and Memory. Routledge

Jünke, C & D. Schyns (eds.). 2022 [Forthcoming]. Translating Cultural Memory in

Fiction and Testimony - Memory Studies and Translation Studies in Dialogue.
Routledge

78
.

 38
Advancing intradisciplinary research on indirect
translation
Conveners: Hanna Pieta, Ester Torres-Simón, Lucile Davie

If indirect translation is understood broadly as a translation of a translation (Gambier

1994), it can take the shape of oral mediation, intralingual, interlingual or
intercultural recontextualization, intersemiotic translation, etc. Such practices are the
object of research in different branches of Translation Studies, particularly those that
often deal with fuzzy source-target-mediating text situations. Most strands of research
on indirect translation and similar concepts have been developing separately within
specialized sub elds, and there has been no productive dialogue between them (see
Pięta 2017). This development echoes the fragmentation of the discipline observed by
Chesterman (2019). Different research strands call indirect translation different
names (e.g., relay interpreting, pivot subtitling, bridge method, multilingual news
reporting, cf. Washbourne 2013, Davier and van Doorslaer 2018). They look at this
practice by cooperating with specialists from different disciplines (accessibility
studies, computer sciences, linguistics, religious studies), resort to distinct conceptual
and methodological borrowings and often focus on entirely different research
questions. With this panel we aim to promote a more systematic dialogue between
different sub elds of Translation Studies. We welcome submissions that focus on
indirect translation in any translation domain, but particularly those that cut across
two or more domains or that stress advances that can be generalized to other domains.
The list of topics includes but is not limited to

• historical developments in indirect translation practice

• ethical issues in the production of indirect translatio

• different stakeholders’ attitudes towards indirect translatio

• indirect translation in crisis situation

• technology in the production of indirect translation

• non-professional indirect translatio

• competences needed to ef ciently translate from translation or for further

translatio

• training approaches to indirect translatio

• methodological, conceptual or terminological features that connect the

different strands of indirect translation research

79
n

fi
fi
fi
n

 The panel organizers intend to start and end this panel with an open discussion, to
better connect common threads that emerge from the individual contributions

References

CHESTERMAN, Andrew. 2019. “Consilience or fragmentation in Translation

Studies today?.” Slovo. ru: baltijskij akcent. 10 (1): 9–20

DAVIER, Lucile, and Luc van Doorslaer. 2018. Translation without a source text:
methodological issues in news translation. Across Languages and Cultures 19 (2):
241–257

GAMBIER, Yves. 1994. “La retraduction, retour et détour.” Meta 39 (3): 413–417

PIĘTA, Hanna. 2017. “Theoretical, methodological and terminological issues in

researching indirect translation: A critical annotated bibliography.” Translation
Studies 10 (2): 198–216

WASHBOURNE, Kelly. 2013. “Nonlinear Narratives: Paths of Indirect and Relay

Translation.” Meta 58 (3): 607–625

80
.

 39 Advancing Intralingual Translation

Conveners: Karen Korning Zethsen, Linda Pillière, Manuel Moreno Tova

Over the last fteen years, research on intralingual translation —roughly de ned as
translation within the “same language”— has actively contributed to expanding the
aim and scope of Translation Studies. Researchers with an interest in this concept
have built on its description as “rewording” in Jakobson’s classic typology to
challenge reductionist understandings of translation, while also destabilising the very
notion of language. Scholarly perspectives on translation today seem to be more
inclusive than ever before, and the pervasive focus on interlingual phenomena is
countered by initiatives such as the upcoming International Research Workshop
“Intralingual Translation: Language, text and beyond” and The Routledge Handbook
of Intralingual Translation. In order to further advance intralingual translation as a
research priority in Translation Studies, it needs to be understood as a highly diverse
set of practices that often requires a very speci c set of skills. Analysing the texts
resulting from such practices in search of microstrategies and shifts has proven
bene cial to describe some of the (dis)similarities between interlingual and
intralingual translation, as well as between different subtypes of the latter. Following
the panel “Intralingual translation — breaking boundaries” at the EST Congress
2016, this panel aims to serve as a space for empirical contributions and theoretical
discussions on intralingual translation, particularly by encouraging original
approaches and the study of instances that have thus far received marginal attention.
Submissions are welcome in areas including but not limited to

• conceptualizations of intralingual translation that challenge Eurocentrism in

academi

• intralingual interpreting, retranslating, revising and transeditin

• intralingual translation across language varieties and text type

• intralingual translation and accessibilit

• intralingual translation and agenc

• intralingual translation and technolog

• intralingual translation, ideology and powe

• intralingual translation, language learning and translator trainin

• intralingual translation research beyond Translation Studie

• methodological aspects of intralingual translation researc

81
fi
a

fi
y

fi
h

fi
 • the relationship between intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic
translation

References

Zethsen, K. K. (2007). Beyond Translation Proper: Extending the eld of translation

studies. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 20(1), 281–308. https://doi.org/
10.7202/018506a

Zethsen, K. K. (2009). Intralingual translation: an attempt at description. Meta:

Translators’ Journal, 54(4), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.7202/038904a

Hill-Madsen, A. & K.K. Zethsen (2016). Intralingual translation and its place within
Translation Studies – a theoretical discussion. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 61(3), 692–
708. https://doi.org/10.7202/1039225a

Pillière, L. (2021). Intralingual Translation of British Novels: A Multimodal Stylistic

Perspective. London: Bloomsbury Academic

Berk Albachten, Ö. & L. Pillière (Eds., forthcoming). The Routledge Handbook of

Intralingual Translation. London and New York: Routledge

82
.

fi
r

 40
No Kidding – Translating, Transcreating and
Transmediating for Children
Conveners: Joanna Dybiec-Gajer, Riitta Oittinen, Aleksandra
Wieczorkiewic

From a personal perspective, (translated) children’s books provide rst, intimate and
unique encounters with literature. From a TS perspective, studying such texts, i.e.
children’s literature translation studies, seems the only research domain de ned by its
primary recipient – the child, which stresses the deeply engrained humanistic concern
of the enterprise. The impulse to research translations of children’s literature came
from the eld of literary studies (seminal IRSCL proceedings, Klingberg et al. 1978 ).
Since then the research area has gained academic credibility with an enormous
increase in the amount of scholarly and critical writing on the subject, especially
during the last twenty years. In line with the conference theme, the goal of this panel
is to study new advances in the eld, at the planes of both research developments and
professionalization of practices in translating, transcreating and transmediating for
children. Such terminological choices allow for a broader perspective, moving
beyond translation in a prototypical sense and taking into account not only the
classical literary genres, but also audio-medial texts and other created and mediated
in digital environs. In exploring the latest trends and developments in the eld, the
questions that this panel will seek to answer are

• In what directions is the approach to and understanding of translation for

children evolving nowadays

• What areas in literature, culture and society pose major challenges for
contemporary translators of texts for children

• How are technological improvements and market globalisation affecting

translation for young audiences

More speci cally, in line with progressing institutionalization of the research area and
a shift to investigate transformative and mediating practices such as transreation,
transadaptation and transmediation, this panel welcomes contributions related, but not
limited to the following topics

• transdisciplinarity and new methodologies (participatory research, corpus

methods, (auto)ethnography

• documentation of translated children’s literature: texts, contexts, agents

(histories, anthologies, dictionaries

• institutional recognition and reception (literary prizes, curricula

83
fi
fi
z

fi
)

fi
fi
fi
 • changes in child images affecting children's literature and its translatio

• evolutions of norms in translating for childre

• local/national traditions in translating for childre

• translation and identit

• classic and new translation problems and issues: dual address, stereotyping,
ideology, gender and racial awarenes

• visual literature in translation: comics, graphic novels, picturebook

• transmediations of children’s classics: re-writing, re-illustration and adaptation

for other medi

• translating for children within the global publishing, distribution and

translation industrie

• last but not least, the voice of the child recipient

References

Dybiec-Gajer, Joanna, Agnieszka Gicala (eds), 2021, Mediating Practices in

Translation for Children: Tackling Controversial Topics, Berlin: Peter Lang

Dybiec-Gajer, Joanna, Oittinen Riitta (eds), 2020, Negotiating Translation and

Transcreation of Children’s Literature, Singapore: Springer

Kerchy, Anna, Björn Sundmark (eds), 2020, Translating and Transmediating

Children’s Literature, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan

Klingberg, Göte, Øvrig Mary, Stuart Amort, 1978, Children’s Books in Translation,
Lund: CWK Gleerup

Lathey, Gillian, 2010, The Role of Translators in Children’s Literature: Invisible

Storytellers, New York: Routledge

Lathey, Gillian, 2016, Translating Children’s Literature, 2016, London & New York:
Routledge

Oittinen, Riitta, Anne Ketola, Melissa Garavini, 2018, Translating Picturebooks:

Revoicing the Verbal, the Visual and the Aural for a Child Audience, New York:
Routledge

84
.

van Coillie Jan, Jack MacMartin (eds), 2020, Children’s Literature in Translation.
Texts and Contexts, Leuven: Leuven University Press

85
.

 41
Being a literary translator in the digital age: Agency,
identity and ethics
Conveners: Wenqian Zhang, Motoko Akashi, Peter Jonathan Freet

In recent years, growing interest in the role and status of literary translators has
resulted in the development of what has been called “literary translator studies”
(Kaindl et al., 2021). However, while scholars have investigated the agency and
ethics behind literary translator’s social and textual acts in various contexts, such as
the position of the translator in the literary eld (Haddadian-Moghaddam, 2014), the
translator’s voice in retranslation (Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2015), and the development of
a translator brand (Zhang, 2020), the focus has often remained on historical contexts.
By contrast, approaches that focus on contemporary contexts and digital
methodologies enable research to show the multifaceted roles that translators can play
in the movement of literary texts between cultures and languages that goes well
beyond acts of linguistic transfer. For example, by offering translation mentorships,
teaching at summer schools and establishing translation prizes (e.g. Daniel Hahn),
interacting with readers via social media; and even developing their own fan bases
(Akashi, 2018). As such, this panel aims to further advance current understandings of
the literary translator’s role by pushing literary translator studies towards the digital,
thereby seeking to generate more dialogue and scholarship both across disciplines,
and between academia and industry. Contributions are invited on the following and
other relevant topics

• Conceptual and theoretical approaches to the role of literary translators in

contemporary context

• The in uence of digital and social media on the role of literary translator

• The broader sociocultural contexts and power structures in which literary

translators work; as well as the agency, identity and ethics of literary
translators therei

• Applying methods or frameworks from historical or micro-historical research

to contemporary context

• Ethical responsibilities and/or dilemmas in translation and publishing

processes; ethical principles that inform literary translator’s textual and social
act

• Literary translator training and the dialogue between pedagogy and practice

86
s

fl
n

fi
h

References

Akashi, Motoko. 2018. “Translator Celebrity: Investigating Haruki Murakami’s

Visibility as a Translator.” Celebrity Studies 9 (2): 271-278

Haddadian-Moghaddam, Esmaeil. 2014. Literary Translation in Modern Iran: A

Sociological Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Kaindl, Klaus, Waltraud Kolb, and Daniela Schlager. eds. 2021. Literary Translator
Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina. 2015. “Friday in Finnish: A character’s and

(re)translators’ voices in six Finnish retranslations of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson
Crusoe”. Target 27(1): 58-74

Zhang, Wenqian. 2020. Towards a Sociological Construction of the Translator's

Brand: The Case of Howard Goldblatt. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.

87
.



42 New Perspectives on Ibsen in Translation
Convener: Giuliano D'Amic

Ever since the German translation of Brand (1872), the works of the Norwegian
dramatist Henrik Ibsen have circulated widely in both European and extra-European
languages. Although his international reception has been an object of study for over a
century, relatively few studies have concentrated on his translations, either as literary
works or as textual means of reception; Ibsen’s stage history has always been the
main narrative. The proposed panel aims to contribute to a reversal of this trend

References

Liyang Xia, Heart higher than the sky: reinventing Chinese femininity through
Ibsen's Hedda Gabler (2013

Giuliano D'Amico, Domesticating Ibsen for Italy (2013

Ellen Rees, Ibsen's Peer Gynt and the Production of Meaning (2014

Thor Holt, Far from home: Ibsen through the camera lens in the Third Reich (2020

Cristina Gómez-Baggethun, Spain in an assembly: ghting for a future through

productions of Ibsen's An enemy of the people (2021)

88
)

fi
 

 43 Song Translation Studies

Conveners: Johan Franzon, Annjo Klungervik Greenal

In the bibliography accompanying the introductory chapter of the book Song

Translation: Lyrics in Contexts (2021, edited by Franzon, Greenall, Kvam &
Parianou), 49 academic articles are listed, published since 2010, all dealing with the
subject of song translation. This is evidence of a recent increase in interest in this
fascinating eld which is no less than remarkable. But also timely, since research
done within this eld can help shed essential light on the process, product and
reception of translation in general, especially concerning leading-edge topics such as
creativity and voice in translation, non-professional translation, multimodal
translation, and translation as a tool for ‘rapprochement’ between cultures (Susam-
Saraeva 2015). Seeing as most of the mentioned research comes in the form of
relatively disconnected case studies, we wish to dedicate the proposed panel to
re ections on the distinctive and shared characteristics of this research topic, as well
as possible avenues for research in the future. More speci cally, we will invite
research on the following topics

• The relative identity and autonomy of the eld of ‘song translation studies

• Terminological issues: how useful is general translation-studies terminology

within the eld, and do we need (more) tailormade terms

• Strategies in song translatio

• Song translation as a creative and multimodal tas

• Travelling songs and rapprochement – how song translation works in

mediating understanding between culture

• How song translation may contribute to our understanding of translation in

general, and how it connects with and adds insight to neighbouring elds, e.g.,
adaptation studies and ethnomusicology

We wish to include both theoretical advancements in the topic as well as further case
studies of a descriptive-explanatory nature, e.g. on songs, genres (e.g. pop, rock, art
song), modes (folk tradition, theatrical performance, audiovisual services), as well as
the skopoi and afterlife of song translations

References

Franzon, Johan, and Annjo K. Greenall, Sigmund Kvam, Anastasia Parianou (eds.).
2021. Song Translation: Lyrics in Contexts. Berlin: Frank & Timme
89
fl
fi
fi
fi
n

fi
.

fi
fi
.

Desblache, Lucile. 2019. Music and Translation: New Mediations in the Digital Age.
London: Palgrave Macmillan

Low, Peter. 2016. Translating Song: Lyrics and Texts. London/New York: Routledge

Susam-Saraeva, Şebnem. 2015. Translation and Popular Music: Transcultural

Intimacy in Turkish-Greek Relations. Oxford: Peter Lang

Minors, Helen Julia (ed.). 2013. Music, Text and Translation. London: Bloomsbury

90
.

 44 Popular music and cultural transfer

Conveners: Francis Mus, Pieter Boulogn

The complaint that “translations have by and large been ignored as bastard brats
beneath the recognition (let alone concern) of truly serious literary scholars” (Holmes
1978, 69) has functioned more or less as the birth certi cate of our discipline, but
there are still “bastard brats” around that we ourselves have been overlooking. The
translation of popular music, for instance, has not yet received a great deal of
attention. When in the 1990s the translation of music grew into a normal object of
study, canonical genres (opera, art songs) were privileged. The rst studies dealing
with translated popular music tended to be carried out by practitioners in the eld
rather than by scholars. Since two decades or so, song translation is receiving more
and more academic coverage. Even so, as Lucile Desblache (2019, 27) denounces,
“musical transnationalism, transculturalism and translation in the narrow (translation
involving song lyrics or writings about music) or wide (transcreation or mediation of
musical styles and genres) senses of the word, remain largely unexplored.” Drawing
on insights from both Translation Studies and Cultural Transfer Studies, this panel
aims to shed light on the various ways in which popular music, be it in the original
form or in translation, spreads around the world, both historically and currently.
Clearly, popular music tends to circulate and cross national borders at a very fast
pace. When the lyrics are translated, the translation strategies applied to vocal music
can greatly differ. In other cases, a full comprehension of the original lyrics is
considered of minor importance. Sometimes, the relative inaccessibility of the song
text in a given receiving community can even be advantageous to its success.
Envisaging a scholarly discussion that goes beyond individual case studies and the
multimodal comparison of source texts with corresponding target texts, this panel
proposes to focus on the general mechanisms that are brought into play when popular
music is transferred to a new cultural environment. Possible subtopics and
approaches may include but are not limited to

• What are the similarities and differences between the transfer of popular
music and the transfer of other cultural products, such as poetry

• What are the motives for the (non-)translation of popular songs

• What selection mechanisms and translation strategies are adopted for popular
music

• What factors determine whether a translated version of a popular song is

received as an autonomous cultural product

91
?

fi
fi
?

fi
 • What is the status of the author/translator/performer in the case of translated
popular music

References

DESBLACHE, Lucile. 2019. Music and Translation. New Mediations in the Digital
Age. London : Palgrave Macmillan

FRANZON, Johan. GREENALL, Annjo, K. KVAM, Sigmund. PARIANOU,

Anastasia. (eds.) 2021. Song Translation: Lyrics in Contexts. Berlin: Frank & Timme

GORLÉE, Dinda L. (ed.). 2005. Song and Signi cance: Virtues and Vices of Vocal
Translation. Amsterdam/New York : Rodopi

HOLMES, James S. 1978. “Describing Literary Translations: Models and Methods.”

In Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies, edited by James
S. Holmes, José Lambert & Raymond van den Broeck, 69-82. Leuven: Acco

MINORS, Helen. (ed.) 2013. Music, text and translation. Camden : Bloomsbury

SUSAM-SARAJEVA, Sebnem. 2008. Translation and Music. Special issue of The

Translator. 14-2

92
?

fi
.

 45 A Global Perspective on Translation Flows

Conveners: Ondrej Vimr, Diana Roig-Sanz, Julia Miesenböck

Systemic approaches (Zohar, Hermans) or sociology of translation (Heilbron, Sapiro)

have sought to understand the historical and contemporary acts of translation as
embedded in a wider international context. Yet, the former has been criticised for
overlooking the human agent, while the latter has far too often employed a centrist
world-systems model and dichotomies of centre vs. periphery or dominated vs.
dominating, diverting attention from the distributed (multicentric), multi-layered and
non-deterministic nature of intercultural communication, including literary
circulation. This panel aims to advance the investigation of translation ows by
taking inspiration from Global Studies and focus on concepts that allow fresh
investigations while addressing many of the familiar issues of the place of literature
in international communication and cultural exchange. We suggest topics falling into
three categories: Connectivity, connections, and space. How does connectivity – or
the fact that people stay in touch with each other as technology of the time allows –
impact the international translation ows both now and from a historical perspective?
Translations are results of such connectivity, and they are a form of connections
across linguistic and geographical borders. How can we map translation zones and
understand the patterns and circuits of connections between multiple regions,
literatures, publishers, authors, literary agents, book fairs and festivals, or translators?
How does connectivity and connections relate to each other? Scales, layers, and time.
A global perspective involves an integration of different scales and layers. How do
we approach local acts or regional patterns of translation from a global perspective?
What is the interplay between the local, regional, and global scale of translation?
How do unforeseen layers of international literary circulation (such as involving
speci c genres, topics, or repertoires) impact our understanding of translation ows at
various scales and different historical epochs? Agency. Literary translation involves
many actors, including translators, authors, publishers, literary agents, scouts,
diplomats, institutions, or other cultural mediators (Roig Sanz and Meylaerts 2018).
Most of them act in multiple capacities, across various scales and layers at the same
time. What methods do we have at hand to disentangle the complexity of such
relations and explore the impact of individuals or groups of individuals on literary
ows at a particular time and place? How does global consciousness and connectivity
affect their choices and actions? How do the actions of individuals affect the global?
And what role do women play in these global translation ows? We welcome
proposals employing all methods, including qualitative and computation (digital
humanities) approaches, from all parts of the globe, addressing issues at any scale
dating to any historical era as long as a global perspective is employed

93
fl
fi
fl
fl
 

fl
fl
References

James, Paul, and Manfred B. Steger. 2016. ‘Globalisation and Global Consciousness:
Levels of Connectivity’. In Roland Robertson and Didem Buhari-Gulmez (eds.):
Global Culture: Consciousness and Connectivity, pp. 5–20. London - New York:
Routledge

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 2021. Connectivity and Global Studies. Palgrave

Macmillan

Roig-Sanz, Diana, and Reine Meylaerts (eds.) 2018. Literary Translation and Cultural
Mediators in ’Peripheral’ Cultures: Customs Of cers Or Smugglers? Palgrave
Macmillan

Vimr, Ondrej. 2022 (forth.): ‘Choosing Books for Translation. A Connectivity

Perspective on the Current Practice of Translation Publishing’ in Diana Roig-Sanz
and Neus Rotger (eds.): Global Literary Studies: Key Concepts. Berlin: De Gruyter

94
.

fi
.

 46 Exploring translation policy in translation publishing

Conveners: Paola Gentile, Jack McMartin, Reine Meylaerts

This panel seeks to explore translation policy in literary publishing settings. As a

concept, translation policy has most recently been used to explore legal, institutional
and administrative aspects (Meylaerts 2011), e.g., how translation policy is enacted in
the European Union, or how it is used by governments to guarantee or limit citizens’
right to understand information and access public services (González Núñez &
Meylaerts 2017). However, translation policy also operates in “a wide range of
relatively informal situations related to ideology, translators’ strategies, publishers’
strategies, prizes and scholarships, translator training, etc.” (Meylaerts 2011, 163). In
recent years, researchers working at the intersection of translation publishing and the
sociology of translation have foregrounded translation policy in the literary sphere by
focusing on the transnational processes and institutions involved in the publication of
translated works from the ‘periphery’ (McMartin & Gentile 2020), which are often
facilitated by state-sponsored institutions with clear strategies for international
literary circulation and promotion (Heilbron & Sapiro 2018). This panel seeks to
further explore the link between translation policy and the publishing industry, with a
special focus on the selection, acquisition, production, and marketing of translated
literature, the institutions facilitating the production of translated literature, and the
overlapping social spheres (cultural, commercial, political) and scales (local, national,
regional, global) that shape how translated literature comes into being in the
contemporary, globalized book market. Relevant topics include but are not limited to

• Theoretical and methodological re ections on translation policy in relation to

the publishing industr

• Case studies examining the translation policy of speci c publishing houses or

governmental institutions, or clusters thereo

• The role of government organizations in literary transfer to and from

(peripheral) cultures and language

• Links between the various institutional actors involved in the publication of a

translated boo

• Translation policy as it relates to literature in contexts in which censorship is

practiced

95
.

fl
f

fi
 

References

González Núñez, Gabriel, and Reine Meylaerts. 2017. Translation and Public Policy.
Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies. London/New York: Routledge

Heilbron, Johan and Gisèle Sapiro. 2018. "Politics of Translation: How States Shape
Cultural Transfers" In Literary Translation and Cultural Mediators in 'Peripheral'
Cultures, eds. Diana Roig-Sanz and Reine Meylaerts, Palgrave Macmillan, 183-208

McMartin, Jack, and Paola Gentile. 2020. “The transnational production and
reception of ‘a future classic’: Stefan Hertmans’ War and Turpentine in 30
languages”. Translation Studies 13 (3): 271–90. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14781700.2020.173550

Meylaerts, Reine. 2011. “Translation policy”. In Handbook of Translation Studies -

Volume 1, eds. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 163–68. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.tra10.

96
1



.

 47
Between Tradition and Advancement: How Can
Translational Hermeneutics Contribute to
Contemporary Translation Studies?
Conveners: Beata Piecychna,  Larisa Cerce

Translational hermeneutics is a dynamic approach that actively contributes to the

advan¬cement of the discipline through conferences (Cologne 2011, 2013, 2016,
Saarbrücken 2018, Leipzig 2020), numerous publications (including Stolze 2011,
Cercel 2013, Stanley et al. 2018, Venuti 2019, Piecychna 2021, Robinson
forthcoming), and the founding of a journal (Yearbook of Translational
Hermeneutics). Two speci c aspects of this approach have to be mentioned here: (1)
Translational hermeneutics is a school of thought that had its theoretically xed
beginning two hundred years ago with Friedrich Schleiermacher, and thus can
probably boast the longest tradition in Translation Studies. (2) By focusing on the
person of the translator and by its attempt to uncover the basic structures of human
translation, this approach presents itself as an advance to a fundamental level of
re ection on translation. The similarities with the newly emerged Translator Studies,
in which the thesis of the primacy of the translator in the translation process is
empirically supported above all by psychology and cognitive science, are
unmistakable. The core questions of the panel are thus: How does the hermeneutical
heritage contribute to current translatological debates? How can hermeneutical
thought be mobilized for the further development of translation research? The main
objective of this panel is to re ect on the status of contemporary translational
hermeneutics, with particular emphasis on how this sub- eld can contribute to
advancing Translation Studies by uniquely connecting the hermeneutical legacy of
the past with the potential of contemporaneity. Possible sub-topics include, but are
not limited to

• The legacy of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s, Martin Heidegger’s, Hans-Georg

Gada¬mer’s and Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics for the development of
Trans¬lation Studie

• The interplay between translational hermeneutics and cognitive science

• The hermeneutic approach to translation teachin

• The hermeneutic approach to analysing literary and non-literary rendering

• The relationship between hermeneutics and performativity in translatio

• The tenets of hermeneutics and their potential use within Genetic Translation
Studie

97
fl
s

fi
fl
l

fi
n

fi
 • New theoretical and methodological perspectives on translational
hermeneutics

References

Cercel, L. (2013). Übersetzungshermeneutik. Historische und systematische

Grundlegung. St. Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag

Piecychna, B. (2021). The Multidimensionality of Translational Hermeneutics:

Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Białystok: Temida2

Robinson, D. (ed.) (forthcoming).Cognition and Hermeneutics: Convergences in the

Study of Translation (special issue of the Yearbook of Translational Hermeneutics 2,
2022)

Stanley, J., O’Keeffe, B., Stolze, R. and Cercel, L. (eds.). (2018). Philosophy and
Practice in Translational Hermeneutics. Bucharest: Zeta Books

Stolze, R. (2011). The Translator’s Approach: An Introduction to Translational

Hermeneutics with Examples from Practice. Berlin: Frank & Timme

Venuti, Lawrence (2019).Contra Instrumentalism. A Translation Polemic. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press

98
.

 48 The #namethetranslator Campaign in Perspective

Convener: Ne se Kahrama

This panel focuses on the #namethetranslator campaign that has been sweeping
through social media and asking to redress a decades-old injustice committed against
translators by erasing their names from the cover of books. The campaign urges
publishers to allow translators to share the limelight with authors and aims to bring
greater visibility to translators to make people aware that they are reading a book in
translation. The campaign seemingly assumes that all translators would like to gain
visibility through the practice of naming. The panel invites papers looking at
exceptional cases where we encounter a translator who wishes to remain invisible for
various reasons. What could motivate a translator’s deliberate invisibility? Can we
imagine a translator who is deliberately invisible in the sense that they would rather
not be named on the cover or at all? The panel also invites papers relating to the
#namethetranslator campaign that explore whether the act of naming a translator
carries with it an inherent responsibility for translators to market the book and serve
as spokesperson more broadly. Other possible questions to raise may include: Can we
think about the #namethetranslator campaign in connection with Translator Studies
which reengages with the human translator in the age of AI and puts the human back
into Translation Studies? If we are to read a translator’s name on the cover as a
paratextual cue or a peritext, what could we make of its absence or potential
exclusion? Can we detect a different pattern or practice in the act of naming a
translator of minoritized languages

99


fi
n

49
What cognition does for interpreting - what interpreting
does for cognition?
Conveners: Kilian Seeber, Alexis Hervais-Adelman, Rhona Amo

Interpreting has long been recognized as a complex and demanding cognitive activity.
Early accounts of the intellectual requirements for aspiring interpreters, such as
"quick-wittedness" and "good memory" Jean Herbert (1952:4), have fuelled a
recurring debate about whether interpreters are born or made. In other words, whether
a unique cognitive architecture allows interpreters to perform this complex task, or
whether it is the execution of the task that engenders changes to the interpreter’s
cognitive architecture. By analogy with the, admittedly increasingly controversial,
bilingual advantage hypothesis, whereby exercising multilingual language control
leads to bene ts for domain general executive functions, it has been proposed that
interpreting expertise may also drive bene ts in various cognitive domains, such as
predictive processing (Chernov, 1994), attentional control, cognitive exibility
(Yudes, Macizo, & Bajo, 2011), and working memory. Babcock and Vallesi (2017)
found that interpreters had an advantage over multilinguals in a subset of skills
directly associated with interpreting – working memory and language control. In a
longitudinal investigation of trainee interpreters Babcock et al. (2017) found that
there was no signi cant difference in working memory between interpreter trainees
and control groups prior to training, but that an advantage developed after training.
However, the evidence in favour of the "made" over "born" view remains scant, and
there is currently little agreement as to the cognitive domains in which the
"interpreter advantage" (García, 2014) can be reliably detected. In this panel we want
to revisit the question about the complex relationship between cognitive ability and
interpreting expertise. Submissions are welcome in the following areas

• Meta analyses of studies into a cognitive interpreter advantag

• Longitudinal studies of cognitive effects of interpreter training and expertis

• Cognitive parameters in aptitude and pro ciency testin

• Comparative studies of naïve multilinguals and trained interpreters

References

Babcock, L., Capizzi, M., Arbula, S., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Short-Term Memory
Improvement After Simultaneous Interpretation Training. Journal of Cognitive
Enhancement, 1(3), 254-267. doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0011-

100
fi
fi
fi
fi
g

fl
:

Babcock, L., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Are simultaneous interpreters expert bilinguals,
unique bilinguals, or both? Bilingualism-Language and Cognition, 20(2), 403-417.
doi:10.1017/S136672891500073

Chernov, G. V. (2004). Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: John

Benjamins Publishing

García, A. M. (2014). The interpreter advantage hypothesis: Preliminary data patterns

and empirically motivated questions. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The
Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 9(2),
219-238. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.2.04ga

Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2011). The in uence of expertise in simultaneous
interpreting on non-verbal executive processes. Front Psychol, 2, 309. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2011.0030

101
9

fl
r