Penterjemahan Berasaskan Khalayak: Konsep dan Pelaksanaan Crowdsourcing Translation: Concept and Implementation
Main Article Content
Abstract
The development of the digital world has impacted translation activities significantly. It has enabled users to participate in translation activities widely through user-generated translation (UGT). The shift in the concept of translation from passive users-oriented to a wider concept of translation that considers the roles and contributions of text producers as well as readers, taking advantage of the development of Web 2.0, has taken users to a new level of translation through UGT. This article answers questions related to (1) the concept of user or audience-based translation (crowdsourcing translation), (2) the implementation of translation through the said method, and (3) its implications on the status statement of “professional” and “non-professional” translators based on the context of user/ crowd-based translation. Through qualitative-descriptive observations, the concept of translation is discussed, while the translation production procedures as well as the status tagging of translator’s status are examined through a case study on Flitto.com platform. The Theory of User/Crowd-Based Internal Model and the Crowd Community Model inform the discussion on the implementation of crowd-based translation procedures addressed in this article.
Perkembangan digital dan Internet telah memberikan kesan yang signifikan terhadap aktiviti penterjemahan. Kebolehan pengguna untuk turut serta dalam aktiviti penterjemahan secara meluas dilihat berlaku dalam konteks terjemahan yang dijana pengguna (user-generated translation, UGT). Perubahan konsep penterjemahan daripada berorientasikan penggunaan yang pasif kepada penterjemahan yang mengambil kira peranan dan sumbangan pengeluar teks serta pembaca menerusi perkembangan Web 2.0 telah membawa pengguna kepada paradigma baharu yang terhasil melalui UGT. Makalah ini bertujuan menjawab persoalan yang berkaitan dengan (1) konsep penterjemahan berasaskan pengguna atau khalayak (crowdsourcing translation), (2) pelaksanaan penterjemahan menerusi kaedah ini, dan (3) implikasinya terhadap penyataan status penterjemah “profesional” dan “bukan profesional” berdasarkan konteks penterjemahan berasaskan khalayak. Menerusi pemerhatian kualitatif-deskriptif, konsep penterjemahan telah diperincikan, manakala tatacara penghasilan terjemahan serta penentuan status penterjemah telah diteliti melalui kajian kes ke atas platform Flitto.com. Teori Model Dalaman Berteraskan Pengguna dan Model Komuniti telah dimanfaatkan untuk membantu menjelaskan lagi pelaksanaan tatacara penterjemahan berasaskan khalayak yang menjadi fokus kepada penulisan makalah ini.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aghaei, S., Nematbakhsh, M.A. and Farsani, H.K. 2012. Evolution of the World Wide Web: From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. International Journal of Web and Semantic Technology 3(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijwest.2012.3101
Anastasiou, D. and Gupta, R. 2011. Comparison of crowdsourcing translation with Machine Translation. Journal of Information Science 37(6): 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511418760
Brems, E., Meylaert, R. and van Doorslaer, L. 2012. Looking back and looking forward: An introduction. Target 24(1) The known unknowns of translation studies: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.1.01bre
Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council. n.d. Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.cttic.org/ (accessed 12 May 2019).
Choudhury, N. 2014. World Wide Web and its journey from Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies 5(6): 8096–8100.
Coelho, L.M.R. and Fujihara, Á.K. 2010. Textual genres on discourse analysis and translation functionalism. Retrieved from http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/XXIVAJL/Interlinguistica/Encuentro%20XXIV/Real&Kasuaki%20REVF.pdf (accessed 5 June 2019)
Costales, A.F. 2013. Crowdsourcing and collaborative translation: Mass phenomena or silent threat to translation studies? Hermeneus 15: 85–110.
Cronin, M. 2013. Translation in the digital age. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Dam, H.V. and Zethsen, K.K. 2009. Translators and (lack of) power: A study of Danish company translators’ occupational status. Language at Work – Bridging Theory and Practice 4(6): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7146/law.v4i6.6189
DePalma, D.A. and Kelly, N. 2008. Translation of, for, and by the people: How usertranslated content projects work in real life. Massachusetts: Common Sense Advisory.
Dolmaya, J.M. 2015. Compte rendu de [Cronin, Michael (2013): Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge, 176 p.]. Meta 60(1): 204–205. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032410ar.
The ethics of crowdsourcing. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 10: 97–110.
Drugan, J. 2013. Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
Esfandiari, M.R., Sepora, T. and Mahadi, T. 2015. Translation competence: Aging towards modern views. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 192: 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.007
Flanagan, M. 2016. Cause for concern? Attitudes towards translation crowdsourcing in professional translators’ blogs. The Journal of Specialized Translation 25: 149–173.
Flitto Inc. (n.d.). Flitto terms and conditions. Retrieved from https://www.flitto.com/terms_group?lang_id=undefined#go_to_service (accessed 10 September 2020).
Gafiyatova, V.E. and Pomortseva, N.P. 2016. The role of background knowledge in building the translation/interpreting competence of the linguist. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9(16): 1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i16/89999
Gile, D. 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Rev. Ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goto, S. 2013. Using crowdsourcing for evaluation of translation quality. MSc diss., Kyoto University.
Hessellund, L.T. 2014. A study of Danish and Dutch user-translators on Facebook. MA diss., Aarhus University.
Hope, B. and Wright, T. 2018. Billion dollar whale: The man who fooled Wall Street, Hollywood, and the world. New York: Hachette Books.
Howe, J. 2006. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, Issue 14.06, June. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.html (accessed 18 January 2019).
Intenseclick Team. 2018. Web 2.0: What is it? How it works and its advantages? Retrieved from https://www.intenseclick.com/web-2-0-works-and-advantages/ (accessed 18 January 2019).
Internet World Stats. 2019. Internet World Stats 2019: Usage and population statistics. Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/G20.htm (accessed 18 January 2019).
Jiménez-Crespo, M.A. 2018. Crowdsourcing and translation quality: Novel approaches in the language industry and translation studies. In Translation quality assessment, eds. J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari and S. Doherty, 69–93. Cham, Swirtzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_4
Kelly, N., Ray, R. and DePalma, D.A. 2011. From crawling to sprinting: Community translation goes mainstream. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies (Online) 10: 75–94. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v10i.278
Lytras, M.D. and de Pablos, P.O., eds. 2009. Social web evolution: Integrating semantic applications and Web 2.0 technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Mesipuu, M. 2012. Translation crowdsourcing and user-translator motivation at Facebook and Skype. Translation Spaces 1: 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.03mes
. 2010. Translation crowdsourcing: An insight into hows and whys (at the example of Facebook and Skype. MA diss., Talin University.
Munday, J. and Zhang, M., eds. 2017. Discourse analysis in translation studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Naik, U. and Shivalingaiah, D. 2009. Comparative study of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Paper presented at the 6th International CALIBER 2008, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, India, 28 February–1 March. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2287.2961
O’Brien, S. 2011. Collaborative translation. In Handbook of translation studies, eds. Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, Vol. 2, 17–20. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.col1
O’Hagan, M. 2016. Massively open translation: Unpacking the relationship between technology and translation in the 21st century. International Journal of Communication 10: 929–946
?. 2009. Evolution of user-generated translation: Fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 1(1): 94–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/jial.1.04hag
O’Reilly, T. and Battelle, J. 2009. Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on. Special report, Web 2.0 summit. Retrieved from https://www.kimchristen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf (accessed 18 January 2019).
Pascoal, S.C., Furtado, M. and Chorão, G. 2017. Crowdsourcing translation and the threats/challenges to the profession: A Portuguese translator’s survey. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E 4: 229–263.
Pérez-González, L. and Susam-Saraeva, ?. 2012. Non-professionals translating and interpreting: Participatory and engaged perspectives. The Translator 18(2): 149– 165.
Perrino, S. 2009. User-generated translation: The future of translation in a Web 2.0 environment. The Journal of Specialized Translation 12: 55–78.
Raído, V.E. 2016. Translators as adaptive experts in a flat world: From Globalization 1.0 to Globalization 4.0? International Journal of Communication 10: 970–988.
Ray, R. and Lommel, A. 2009. Crowdsourcing: Crowd wants to help you reach new markets. Romainmôtier, Switzerland: Localization Industry Standards Association. Reiss, K. 1981. Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. Poetics Today 2(4): 121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772491
Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H.J. 1984. Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
Reiss, K., Vermeer, H.J., Nord, C. and Dudenhöfer, M. 2013. Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained. 2nd Ed. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.
Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. 2010. Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673
Rogl, R. 2016. No work and all play: The intersections between labour, fun and exploitation in online translation communities. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(1): 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0022
Sosoni, V. 2017. Casting some light on experts’ experience with translation crowdsourcing. The Journal of Specialized Translation 28: 362–384.
Tan, G.E. 2018. Tom Wright: “Writing ‘Billion Dollar Whale’ has been the highlight of my career”. Options, 24 October. Retrieved from http://www.optionstheedge.com/topic/culture/tom-wright-writing-billion-dollar-whale-has-been-highlight-my-career (accessed 15 December 2018).
Zodian, ?.A. 2017. Digital prosumption. The android case. In EpSBS – Volume 20 – icCSBs 2017, 144–161. Brno, Czech Republic: Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.01.02.16