DESCRIPTION

This emergent practice in fact consists of a cluster of related practices, each of which can itself be manifested in a variety of ways. How each practice is defined and applied will have an influence on the perceived types of openness and the roles the practice plays within the research process. The definition of these practices in the critical literature has historically been fragmented and inconsistent (Huss, 2018; Liang and Sun, 2022; Liang and Xu, 2015). In what follows, we provide brief guidance on some of the prevalent characterisations.

A key feature of co-translation as defined by Liang and Sun (2022, 30-31) is its central element of cooperation and collaboration: a translation is produced through collaboration either between more than one translator or between translators and non-translators, who contribute to various steps in the translation process. This latter group may include 'patrons, editors, friends, or members of a community' (Liang and Sun, 2022, 23). A version of the former dynamic, termed 'companion translation', specifically 'where co-translators are also life partners or close friends' (Huss, 2018, 392) and share a level of intimacy, is the focus of the analysis performed by Liang and Xu (2015). Huss examines other co-translation dynamics including author–translator collaboration, author collaboration with multiple translators, and editor-translator collaboration, as well as crowdsourcing-style, online collaborative translation, referred to as a type of community translation and considered in more detail below.

Community translation, according to Taibi and Ozolins (2025), is also an area of translation 'still finding its niche in translation studies'. The term 'community translation' in this context refers to translation performed 'largely for readers within a country or region' who are 'residents without command of the dominant language' of informative texts, such as those for public services, and produced by 'different social agents such as non-governmental organizations, local or ethnic community leaders, [or] private organizations with an interest in community welfare' for these communities (Taibi and Ozolins, 2025, 9, 10, 13). This framing of 'community translation' is also known as 'public service translation,' which is 'understood as translation for the community, preferably done by qualified translators' (Taibi and Ozolins, 2025, 13). While undertheorised as a practice within translation studies, community translation in this respect is a form of social action translation, triangulated between 'the user as a social being and a community member, the translator as a social agent and translation as a social action' (Taibi & Ozolins, 2025, 20).

The term 'community translation' has also been used by O'Hagan (2011) to describe the largely voluntary contribution of internet users to the translation of websites, platforms, and software, though Taibi and Ozolins encourage instead Pym's (2011) recommendation that for these purposes other terms be used, including 'volunteer translation', 'translation crowdsourcing', 'user-generated translation' or 'collaborative translation' (Taibi and Ozolins, 2025, 15). They also cite Garcia's (2014) reference to this type of collaborative translation as 'community translation 2.0', which bypasses 'traditional gatekeepers so that everyone can have a public voice'. While differences between these concepts exist, both 'share a core ethos of individual empowerment and social inclusion' (Garcia, 2014, via Taibi and Ozolins, 2025, 15). The term 'collective translation' is also cited as a frequently-used synonym for community translation.

However, yet another context for 'community translation' exists within the literature, which is that of translation by and for a specific community, as a research process. One example of this comes from the work of Dickie (2017), wherein a community of Zulu youth in South Africa were invited to create their own translations of various praise psalms. This is a unique but relevant example of a type of community translation, whereby 'ordinary speakers' are invited 'to participate in the translation process' and communicate 'the message through oral performance' (Dickie, 2017, 253).

Ak and Tekin (2025, 238) describe collective translation as 'a cooperative process involving several translators who work on the exact [same] text simultaneously', in which 'participants' varied knowledge, cultural consciousness, and language skills are utilized to produce correct, stylistically competent and culturally sensitive translations.' Collective translation achieves this by allowing multiple perspectives to be present in the end result, minimising individual biases, as well as encouraging critical examination of 'essential concepts such as authorship, agency, and the ethical implications of translation' (Ak and Tekin, 2025, 238-239). The practice is also associated with activist and 'solidarity-oriented' approaches. The authors nod to Fois (2011), whose discussion of collective translation considers how a team of multiple translators working mutually on a text will 'negotiate, revise, and harmonize their individual contributions to produce a unified target text' (Ak and Tekin, 2025, 239). Fois herself also raises the potential challenges of working in this collaborative way on translation, which include 'issues related to self-identity, self-esteem and "face-saving"', (Fois, 2011, 60), which can therefore mean the process may require mediation, depending on the group.

Rosas et al. (2025) propose the term 'commoning translation' as a specific approach to collective or collaborative translation 'which stresses common collective action' and 'the principle that translating together is an opportunity to share different forms of knowledge, trajectories, repertoires, and perspectives of each translator' (Rosas, et al., 2025, 514, 515). The term has also been used by Jennifer Hayashida, a Canadian writer and artist in the Global North. Hayashida's experience within the Brazilian Sycorax Collective, which translates 'authors who contributed to feminist reflection from anti-capitalist perspectives' into Brazilian Portuguese, forms the basis of their exploration of this practice.

Hayashida, cited in the glossary of common knowledge, sets out specific defining features that delimit the term 'commoning translation'. These include the rejection of translation as 'fluency' and a recognition of the process as an 'act of contingency, not certainty', which is meant to 'mobilise against white privilege and power, to bring side-lined histories into view'. A focus on solidarity is inherent, recognising the potential precarity and uprootedness of the translator, as well as a decolonialist approach (Hayashida, n.d.). Rosas et al. also emphasise 'commoning translation as a political practice characterized by solidarity,' which is 'integral to the struggles for social justice, and directed towards the production of the common good' (Rosas et al., 2025, 517).

The participatory and potential epistemic openness that exist within this practice may also be accompanied by an open availability of outputs, as illustrated in the Sycorax Collective's additional emphasis on free and open access to the translations they produce, 'whether in print or digital format', which they feel is 'crucial, as are the activities related to the social integration of the discussions introduced by the novel text' (Rosas et al., 2025, 517).

While the indeterminate nature of the terms discussed here, and their inevitable overlap, indicates the need for further scholarship, what is evident is that there are multiple forms of openness, as well as levels of openness, present in these closely related collaborative translation practices.

References

Ak, E. and Tekin, B.M. (2025) 'Unveiling Collective Translation: Exploring Charles Dickens' "The Haunted House" through Paratextual Analysis', Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları, (32), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1709334

Baldo, M. (2023) 'The Formation of Translation Collectivities in Italian Queer Feminist Activist Scenarios: The Case of Onna Pas', Translation in Society, 2(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/tris.22009.bal

Dickie, J.F. (2017) 'Community Translation and Oral Performance of Some Praise Psalms within the Zulu Community', The Bible Translator, 68(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051677017728564

Fois, E. (2011) 'Collective Translation as Training to the Profession (?)', La main de Thôt. Théories, enjeux et pratiques de la traduction et de l'interprétation [Preprint], (4). http://interfas.univ-tlse2.fr/lamaindethot/index.php?id=649 [accessed 21 November 2025]

Hayashida, J. (n.d.) 'Translation', Glossary of Common Knowledge. https://glossary.mg-lj.si/referential-fields/commons/translation-3 [accessed 20 November 2025]

Huss, J. T. (2018) 'Collaborative Translation', in The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation. Routledge.

Liang, L. and Sun, Y. (2022) 'What We Talk About When We Talk About Co-translation: Mapping, Locating, and Translating', transLogos: Translation Studies Journal, 5(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.29228/translogos.41

Liang, L. and Xu, M. (2015) 'Analysis of the Mode of Translation from the Perspective of Co-Translation', Translation Review, 92(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2015.1086288

O'Brien, S. (2013a) 'Collaborative Translation', in Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 2, pp. 17–20). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/online/hts/articles/col1

O'Brien, S. (2013b) 'The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation', Target, 25(1), 5–17.

O'Hagan, M. (2011) 'Community Translation: Translation as a Social Activity and Its Possible Consequences in the Advent of Web 2.0 and Beyond', Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 10. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v10i.275

Pym, A. (2011a) 'Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity and Dispute', in A. Pym (ed.), Translation Research Projects 3 (pp. 75–110). Intercultural Studies Group. https://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/research_methods/2010_terms.pdf

Pym, A. (2011b) 'What Technology Does to Translating', Translation & Interpreting, 3(1), 1–9. https://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/121

Rosas, C. et al. (2025) 'Tradução comunizante: feminismo e política do comuns', Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción, 18(2), 504–520. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.mut.v18n2a11

Taibi, M. and Ozolins, U. (2016) Community Translation. London: Bloomsbury Academic (Bloomsbury Advances in Translation). https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=fb78867f-7b26-3a63-9f82-264d28251b09 [accessed 20 November 2025]

Thiérard, H. (2024) 'On Collaborative Translation and Subjectivity in the Humanities. A Conversation with The Henri Meschonnic Reader's Translator Team', TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 37(2), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.7202/1116644ar