益友非良师：芬兰译者对机器翻译技术的看法

Alonso, E.; Vieira, L. N. (2021). The impact of technology on the role of the translator in globalized production workflows. In: Bielsa, E.; Kapsaskis, D. (eds.). The Routledge handbook of translation and globalization. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 391-405.

Bowker, L.; Fisher, D. (2010). Computer-aided translation. In: Gambier, Y.; Van Doorslaer, L. (eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 60–65. <https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.comp2>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Cudeck, R. (2000). Exploratory Factor Analysis. In: Tinsley H. E. A.; Brown, S. D. (eds.). Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 265-296. <https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50011-2>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Dam, H. V.; Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Translator status: A study of Danish company translators. The Translator, v. 14, n. 1, pp. 71-96. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Dam, H. V.; Zethsen, K. K. (2011). The Status of professional business translators on the Danish market: a comparative study of company, agency and freelance translators. Meta, Translators’ Journal, v. 56, n. 4, pp. 976-997. <https://doi.org/10.7202/1011263ar>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Dillon, S.; Fraser, J. (2006). Translators and TM: An investigation of translators’ perceptions of translation memory adoption. Machine Translation, n. 20, pp. 67–79, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-006-9004-8>. [Accessed: 20211115].

European Commission (2017). European Master’s in Translation: Competence Framework 2017. <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf>. [Accessed: 20210202].

European Language Industry Survey (2020). PDF slides available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/translation/language-industry-platform-lind_en>. [Accessed: 20210516].

Hernant, C. (2003). Does mastery of ICT really improve pupil performance? Revista Lanbide, n. 22, pp. 42–44. <http://www.slideshare.net/HETELFP/revista-lanbide-2003>. [Accessed: 20210620].

Hirschheim, R. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Quo Vadis TAM: Issues and Reflections on Technology Acceptance Research’. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, v. 8, n. 4, pp. 203-205. <https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00128>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Koskinen, K.; Ruokonen, M. (2017). Love letters or hate mail? Translators’ technology acceptance in the light of their emotional narratives. In: Kenny, D. (ed.). Human issues in translation technology. Oxon/New York: Routledge, pp. 8-24.

Krüger, R. (2016). Contextualising Computer-Assisted Translation Tools and Modelling Their Usability. Trans-kom, v. 9. n. 1, pp. 114-148. <http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd09nr01/trans-kom_09_01_08_Krueger_CAT.20160705.pdf>. [Accessed: 20210620].

Leal Fontes, H. (2013). Evaluating machine translation: Preliminary findings from the first DGT-wide translators’ survey. Languages and Translation, n. 6, pp. 10–11.

LeBlanc, M. (2013). Translators on translation memory (TM): Results of an ethnographic study in three translation services and agencies. Translation & Interpreting, v. 5, n. 2, pp. 1-13. <https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a01>. [Accessed: 20211115].

LeBlanc, M. (2017). “I can’t get no satisfaction!”: Should we blame translation technologies or shifting business practices? In: Kenny, D. (ed.). Human issues in translation technology. Oxon/New York: Routledge, pp. 46-62.

Marshman, E. (2014). Taking Control: Language Professionals and Their Perception of Control when Using Language Technologies. Meta, Translators’ Journal, v. 59, n. 2, p. 380–405. <https://doi.org/10.7202/1027481ar>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Mikhailov, M. (2015). Minor language, major challenges: the results of a survey into the IT competences of Finnish translators. JosTrans, Journal of Specialised Translation, n. 24, pp. 89-111. <https://jostrans.org/issue24/art_mikhailov.php>. [Accessed: 20210202].

Moore, G. C.; Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, v. 2. n. 3, pp. 192-222.

Moorkens, J. (2020). Comparative satisfaction among freelance and directly-employed Irish-language translators. Translation & Interpreting, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 55-73. <https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a04>. [Accessed: 20211116].

Olohan, M. (2019). Sociological approaches to translation technology. In: O’Hagan, M. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, Milton: Routledge, pp. 384-397.

Pielmeier, H.; O’Mara, P. (2020). The State of the Linguist Supply Chain: Translators and Interpreters in 2020. CSA Research. <https://insights.csa-research.com/reportaction/305013106/Toc>. [Accessed: 20210202].

Rothwell, A.; Svoboda, T. (2018). Tracking translator training in tools and technologies: findings of the EMT survey 2017. Jostrans, Journal of Specialised Translation, n. 32, pp. 26-60. <https://jostrans.org/issue32/art_rothwell.php>. [Accessed: 20210202].

Ruokonen, M. (2018). To Protect or Not to Protect: Finnish Translators’ Perceptions on Translator Status and Authorisation. Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication in Business, n. 58, pp. 65-82. <https://tidsskrift.dk/her/issue/view/7564>. [Accessed: 20210202].

Ruokonen, M.; Mäkisalo, J. (2018). Middling-Status Profession, High-Status Work: Finnish Translators’ Status Perceptions in the light of their Backgrounds, Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction. Translation & Interpreting, v. 10, n. 1, pp. 1-17. <https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a01>. [Accessed: 20211116].

Salmi, H. (2012). Evidence of bridging the gap between formal education and informal learning through teacher education. Reflecting Education, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 45-61. <http://www.reflectingeducation.net/index.php/reflecting/issue/view/12/showToc>. [Accessed: 20210620].

Salmi, H.; Kaasinen, A.; Kallunki, V. (2012). Towards an Open Learning Environment via Augmented Reality (AR): visualising the invisible in science centres and schools for teachers. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 45, pp. 284–295. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.565>. [Accessed: 20211115].

Salmi, L. (2014). Kääntäjäopiskelijoiden suhtautuminen käännösteknologiaan [Translator students’ perception of translation technology], MikaEL, Electronic Proceedings of the KäTu Symposium on Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 8, pp. 55-73. <https://www.sktl.fi/liitto/seminaarit/mikael-verkkojulkaisu/arkisto-archive/vol-8-2014/>. [Accessed: 20210620].

Suppanen, O. (2015). ”Freelancerin nyt pitää sitten osata itse oikeastaan kaikki”: Kääntäjien tietoteknisten taitojen kartoitusta kyselytutkimuksella [“Well. freelancers have to know how to do just about everything themselves”. Surveying the ICT skills of translators.] Master’s Thesis. University of Tampere. <http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201510292387>. [Accessed: 20210202].

Vieira, L. N. (2020). Automation anxiety and translators. Translation Studies, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 1-21. <https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2018.1543613>. [Accessed: 20211116].

Virtanen, T. (2019). What makes a government translator tick? Examining the Finnish government English translators’ perceptions of translator status, job satisfaction and the underlying factors. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Modern Languages, Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki. <http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5535-1>. [Accessed: 20210202].