Literary translators and technology: SCOT as a proactive and flexible approach

References

• Alonso, E., & Vieira, L. N. (2017). The translator’s amanuensis 2020. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 28, 345–361.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgarten, S., & Cornellà-Detrell, J. (2018). Translation and the economies of power. In S. Baumgarten & J. Cornellà-Detrell (Eds.), Translation and global spaces of power (pp. 11–26). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Besacier, L., & Schwartz, L. (2015). Automated translation of a literary work: A pilot study. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0713
   Google Scholar
• Braun, S. (2020). “You are just a disembodied voice really”: Perceptions of video remote interpreting by legal interpreters and police officers. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research (Vol. 149, pp. 47–78). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, S., Davitti, E., & Dicerto, S. (2018). Video-Mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, R. Skinner, & S. Braun (Eds.), Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link (pp. 144–179). Gallaudet.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, P. L. (2014). Reimagining the library as a technology: An analysis of ranganathan’s five laws of library science within the social construction of technology framework. The Library Quarterly, 84(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1086/675355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin, M. (2013). Translation in the digital Age. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Daems, J. (2022). Dutch literary translators’ use and perceived usefulness of technology. In J. Luke Hadley, K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, C. S. C. Teixeira, & A. Toral (Eds.), Using technologies for creative-text translation (pp. 40–65). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elle, M., Dammann, S., Lentsch, J., & Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of SCOT in technology development. Building and Environment, 45(1), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genzel, D., Uszkoreit, J., & Och, F. (2010). “Poetic” Statistical machine translation: Rhyme and meter. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 158–166.
   Google Scholar
• Illich, I. (1975). Tools for conviviality. Fontana.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R., & Irvine, A. (2013). The (Un)faithful machine translator. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, 96–101.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, D., & Winters, M. (2020). Machine translation, ethics and the literary translator’s voice. Translation Spaces, 9(1), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00024.ken
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.1996.0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskinen, K., & Ruokonen, M. (2017). Love letters or hate mail? Translators’ affective responses to technology. In D. Kenny (Ed.), Human issues in translation technology (pp. 8–24). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Littau, K. (2016). Translation and the materialities of communication. Translation Studies, 9(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2015.1063449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen, H. M., Brown, R., Elle, M., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2017). Social construction of stormwater control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change, embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorkens, J., Toral, A., Castilho, S., & Way, A. (2018). Translators’ perceptions of literary post-editing using statistical and neural machine translation. Translation Spaces, 7(2), 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.18014.moo
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, S. (2012). Translation as human–computer interaction. Translation Spaces, 1, 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.05obr
   Google Scholar
• Olohan, M. (2017). Technology, translation and society: A constructivist, critical theory approach. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 29(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.29.2.04olo
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinch, T., & Trocco, F. (1998). The social construction of the early electronic music synthesizer. Icon, 4, 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Ruffo, P. (2021). In-between role and technology: Literary translators on navigating the new socio-technological paradigm. Heriot-Watt University.
   Google Scholar
• Ruffo, P. (2022). Collecting literary translators’ narratives. In J. Luke Hadley, K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, C. S. C. Teixeira, & A. Toral (Eds.), Using technologies for creative-text translation (pp. 18–39). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, S. (1986). The social construction of artefacts: A response to pinch and bijker. Social Studies of Science, 16(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312786016002008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakamoto, A. (2020). The value of translation in the era of automation: An examination of threats. In R. Desjardins, C. Larsonneur, & P. Lacour (Eds.), When translation goes digital (pp. 231–255). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sakamoto, A., & Yamada, M. (2020). Social groups in machine translation post-editing: A SCOT analysis. Translation Spaces, 9(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00022.sak
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slessor, S. (2020). Tenacious technophobes or nascent technophiles? A survey of the technological practices and needs of literary translators. Perspectives, 28(2), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1645189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tezcan, A., Daems, J., & Macken, L. (2019). When a ‘sport’ is a person and other issues for NMT of novels. Proceedings of the Qualities of Literary Machine Translation Workshop, 40–49.
   Google Scholar
• Toral, A., & Way, A. (2014). Is machine translation ready for literature? Proceedings of Translating and the Computer, 36, 174–176.
   Google Scholar
• Wafai, M. H., & Aouad, G. (2022). Innovation transfer in construction: Re-interpreting factor-based research from the perspective of the social construction of technology (SCOT). Construction Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black Box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, M. (2007). Introduction: The emergence of a sociology of translation. In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (Vol. 74, pp. 1–36). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Youdale, R. (2019). Using computers in the translation of literary style: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge.
   Google Scholar