Artesis Hogeschool Antwerpen - Vertalers en Tolken - Impact of the translation revision procedure on the process and quality of the revision

In 2006, the European Committee for Standardisation published a European norm for translation services (EN 15038) in which translation revision has henceforth become compulsory. This is why some researchers who have published on translation revision believe that this process will probably become more and more frequent (e.g. Künzli 2007, Mossop 2007). However, the European standard is not clear as to how this revision process should be carried out.

Little empirical research has been specifically dedicated to translation revision procedures (with the exception of Künzli 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008), although the subject is dealt with in some publications on translation revision, such as course books (Mossop, 2001; Horguelin and Brunette, 1998). On the whole, the revision process per se and in particular revision procedures remain an open issue

This paper reports on an ongoing project concerned with the impact of translation revision procedures on the revision product and process. Sixteen professional revisers were asked to review four comparable[1] French texts translated from Dutch and to use a different translation revision procedure for each of them. The four procedures they had to use were selected on the basis of a previous explorative study (Robert, 2008). In procedure A, the target text is read once and the reviser only refers to the source text when he has some doubt about the target text. In procedure B, the target text is also read once, but together with the source text (= comparative reading). In procedures C and D, the target text is read twice: in procedure C, the reviser starts with the comparative reading, and then reads the target text again alone, whereas he follows the opposite in procedure D.

As far as the methodology is concerned, three main tracks were involved. The analysis of the revision as a product is based on the number and type[2] of amendments made in the final version. The theoretical background is that of Nord’s functionalism in which the translation brief plays a major role, in this case not only as to the translation, but also as to revision production. The analysis of the revision as a process is based on data collected through a key-logging tool (Inputlog developed by Luuk Van Waes and Marielle Leijten at the University of Antwerp ) on the one hand, and through Think Aloud Protocols on the other hand. These methodologies are used in neighbouring disciplines, such as cognitive sciences and writing studies focusing on text production procedures.

I am in the process of analysing the product data. This part of the analysis should be ready by February 2010. The analysis of the TAP-data is in progress as well. The key logging data will be analysed as last. In other words, by the time I present my paper, I will be able to report on the impact of the revision procedure on revision product (and process).

Keywords: translation revision, revision procedures, product and process studies, key logging, think aloud protocols, translation quality

Horguelin, P.A. and Brunette, L. 1998. Pratique de la révision. Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.

Künzli, A. 2005a. “Introduction”. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 81: 1-3.

Künzli, A. 2005b. “What principles guide translation revision? A combined product and process study”. In Translation Norms: What is 'normal' in the translation profession? Proceedings of the 4th Translation Conference, University of Portsmouth , November 2004, I. Kemble (Ed.). Portsmouth : University of Portsmouth , School of Languages and Area Studies. 31-44.

Künzli, A. 2006a. “Die Loyalitätsbeziehungen der Übersetzungsrevisorin”. In Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a ”social turn”, M. Wolf (Ed.). Münster/Hamburg/Berlin/Wien/London: LIT-Verlag. 89-98.

Künzli, A. 2006b. “Teaching and learning translation revision: Some suggestions based on evidence from a think-aloud protocol study”. In Current trends in translation teaching and learning, M. Garant (Ed.). Helsinki : Department of Translation Studies Publication III, Helsinki University . 9-24.

Künzli, A. 2006c. “Translation revision - A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a technical text”. In Insights into specialized translation, M. Gotti and S. Šarcevic (Eds). Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 195-214.

Künzli, A. 2007a. “The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study”. The Journal of Specialised Translation [on-line serial], 8. Retrieved July 26 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jostrans.org

Künzli, A. 2007b. “Translation revision - A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text”. In Doubts and directions in Translation Studies [Benjamins Translation Library 72], Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (Eds). Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Co. 115-126.

Künzli, A. 2008. “Qualität in der Übersetzungsrevision“. In Translation zwischen Text und Welt, L. Schippel and H. Kalverkämper (Eds). Berlin : Frank & Timme.

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2006). “Inputlog: New Perspectives on the Logging of On-Line Writing”. In Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Vol. 18, pp. 73-94, Oxford: Elsevier

Mossop, B. 2001. Revising and editing for translators. Manchester : St. Jerome .

Mossop, B. 2007. “Empirical studies of revision: what we know and need to know”. The Journal of Specialised Translation [on-line serial], 8. Retrieved July 26 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jostrans.org

Nord, C. 2005. Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application

of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam – New York : Rodopi.

Robert, Isabelle (2008). “Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study”. In Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007, Boulogne , P. (Ed.). http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

[1] Ideally, I should have worked with one and the same target text (plus source text) and have it revised each time according to another procedure. This is of course not possible, because even after some time, people do remember at least partly what they have once read or, in this case, revised. Therefore, four “comparable” source and target texts had to be found. The four selected source texts are authentic press releases containing approximately the same number of words (500). They are thus “comparable” in different ways: first, they belong to the same genre – press release – and have the same main function (mainly inform the reader). Second, they are also comparable as far as translation problems are concerned, in Nord’s sense (Nord 2005: 168), i.e. as to pragmatic problems (same transfer situation: Belgian Dutch-speaking and French-speaking journalists as receivers, same medium, same motive for ST production vs. motive for translation, same time and place), convention-related problems (press releases within the Belgian culture: same conventions in French as in Dutch), linguistic translation problems (each time from Dutch into French, within a Belgian context). The target texts are comparable in a similar way: first, they belong to the same genre and have the same function (as required by the translation brief); second, they are comparable as to the amount (which means that some manipulation was necessary) of controlled “mistakes” of the same type (authentic mistakes, panel consensus about the fact that they are indeed mistakes and about their nature, i.e. meaning, linguistic coding – strictly speaking, but also in the broad sense - and appropriateness).

[2] The types of amendments are partly based on Künzli (2006, 2007, 2008), i.e. justified revision, hyperrevision, overrevision and underrevision, plus “improvement”.