ASC, 31/10/06

Kirsten W. Rasmussen

Anne Schjoldager

The AarhusSchool of Business

Denmark

Abstract for 5th EST Congress – Ljubljana 2007

How does revision contribute to translation quality?

Inspired by the Interim Report of the IAMLADP Working Group on Training of Language Staff (20 June 2001), we decided to carry out a small-scale study of professional practice within précis-writing, revision and editing in Denmark and other European Countries (Schjoldager, Rasmussen and Thomsen. In press) inconnection with the development of a pilot module for the European Master in Translation (EMT). With the kind help of the Standing Committee of IAMLADP as well as a few of our own contacts, a web-based questionnaire yielded many eye-opening and interesting responses from a sample of European practitioners and decision-makers within the translation industry. These findings were supplemented nicely by a focus-group interview with the translator-editors of the English Language Editing Service of Direction Générale de la Traduction. In general terms, our survey confirmed the findings of the IAMLADP report, namely that there is a particular need for translators to be trained to carry out revision, editing and précis-writing, and it offered much useful input on how to proceed with this training.The survey also helped us to pinpoint confusing terms and their meanings: Whereas most respondents seemed to distinguish conceptually between the correction/improvement of original texts, on the one hand, and a similar process in connection with translations, on the other, there was no terminological consensus. A review of the literature soonrevealed that most scholars make similar distinctions and use a variety of terms to refer to them (see,for instance, Lee’s(2006) review of revision theory). For our pilot module, we chose to employ Mossop’s (2001) distinction between editing, for the correction/improvement of original texts, and revision, for a similar process in connection with translations, because it is both logical and operational.This distinction is also made in the present paper.

Our work with the EMT module made us painfully aware that the area of professional revision (as defined by Mossop 2001), in particular, lacks necessary in-depth empirical research. We have therefore decided to investigate further the reality of professional revision, using the current situation in Denmark as a case in point. Based on a review of the literature and the above-mentioned surveys, we shall assume that revision is carried out in order to improve translation quality and shall explore to what extent revision actually improves translation quality and howit is achieved (or not, as the case may be). We intend to explore this from three angles:

(a)Revision policies

Questionnaires will be sent to the managers (decision-makers) of major (i) translation agencies and (ii) companies with an in-house translation section. This part of the investigation will attempt to answer questions such as: How is revision defined? Why is it carried out? How often? What kinds of revision are carried out? Who are the revisers? What are their qualifications? Who are the translators? What are their qualifications? What translations are revised? What are the procedures? What are the guidelines? Are they explicit? How is the relation between quality and revision perceived?

(b)Revision practices

Based on the results of the questionnaire investigation, a few translators and revisers will be selected forfocus-group interviews (a method also employed within translation studiesby Schjoldager and Zethsen 2003).Here our aim is explore the reality of revision from a practitioner’s point of view.

(c)Samples of revision

In order for us to study actual revision products, respondents will be asked to provide samples of their own work. The study of these should include analyses of (i) the target-text brief, (ii) the revision brief, (iii) actual working procedures, (iv) the source text, incl. its genre,(v) reviser’s corrections/improvements, and (vi) the quality of the end product.

In the final phases of the project, we shall attempt to determine how the evidence of our empirical investigation relates to available theories within translation studies, exploring if a modification of available theories is necessary and attempting to suggest a best-practice guide that might modify practice.

For the present paper, we shall concentrate on these general research questions:

(1)To what extent does revision contribute to translation quality?

(2)What are the obstacles experienced by decision-makers, revisers and translators?

(3)How may these obstacles be overcome?

(4)How do our findings relate to available theories within translation studies?

References

IAMLADP Working Group on Training of Language Staff (20 June 2001), Interim Report of the (2001): United Nations System: Restricted distribution.

Lee, Hyang (2006): ”Révision: définition et paramètres”. Meta 51: 2. 410-419.

Mossop, Brian (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators [Translation Practices Explained].Manchester:, UK/Northampton, MA: St. Jerome.

Schjoldager, Anne and Karen Korning Zethsen (2003): “How skopos is established by the professional translator: Preliminary results of a focus group”. In Veisbergs, Andrejs (ed.). The Third Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation. Proceedings.Riga: University of Latvia & AarhusSchool of Business. 140-152.

Schjoldager, Anne, Kirsten W. Rasmussen and Christa Thomsen (In press): “Précis-writing, revision and editing: Piloting the European Master in Translation”. To appear in: Meta.

1