Revision files as cognitive ethnographic data: Artefact analysis of file and software features combined with systemic functional discourse analysis

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

I apply artefact analysis and systemic functional discourse analysis as independent but complementary methods to examine revision files exported from Trados Studio translation software. The methods are intended to be used as part of cognitive ethnographic investigations of professional translation contexts and the distributed cognitive systems that exist in those contexts. The artefact analysis spotlights how the affordances of the files influence the cognitive work. Comments added to the revised texts inform us of how the translator and reviser as translation process participants position themselves in the cognitive system, and an analysis of shifts at the thematic, ideational and interpersonal levels of translational meaning-making show how they distribute the cognitive labour and direct their individual cognitive focus.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationField Research on Translation and Interpreting
EditorsRegina Rogl, Daniela Schlager, Hanna Risku
Place of PublicationAmsterdam/Philadelphia
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Chapter10
Pages226-250
Number of pages25
ISBN (Electronic)9789027244857
ISBN (Print)9789027220301
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2025
Publication typeA3 Book chapter

Publication series

NameBenjamins Translation Library
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Volume165
ISSN (Print)0920-7316

Keywords

  • cognitive translation studies
  • cognitive ethnography
  • distributed cognition
  • artefact analysis
  • systemic functional linguistics
  • translation revision
  • cognitive collaboration

Publication forum classification

  • Publication forum level 2

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Revision files as cognitive ethnographic data: Artefact analysis of file and software features combined with systemic functional discourse analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this