1887
Volume 30, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Editing and revision are regularly incorporated into professional translation projects as a means of quality assurance. Underlying the decision to include these tasks in translation workflows lay implicit assumptions about what constitutes quality. This article examines how quality is operationalized with respect to editing and revision and considers these assumptions. The case is made for incorporating revision into translation quality assessment models and employs the concepts of adequacy, distributed cognition, and salience – and their treatment in the research on cognitive translation processes, post-editing, and translation technology – in order to re-think translation quality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.16104.mel
2018-03-14
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdallah, Kristiina
    2007 “Tekstittämisen laatu – mitä se oikein on?” [Subtitling quality – what is it?]. InOlennaisen äärellä. Johdatus audiovisuaaliseen käätämiseen [Introduction to audiovidual translation], edited by Riitta Oittinen and Tiina Tuominen , 272–293. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, Keith , and Kasia M. Jaszczolt
    eds. 2011Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing. Berlin: De Mouton Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves, Fabio
    2015 “Translation Process Research at the Interface: Paradigmatic, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Dialogue with Cognitive Science, Expertise Studies, and Psycholinguistics.” InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter , 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Angelone, Erik
    2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone , 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xv.03ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.03ang [Google Scholar]
  5. ASTM International
    ASTM International 2006 “ASTM F 2575 – 06: Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation.”
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bass, Scott
    2006 “Quality in the Real World.” InPerspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne , 69–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiii.07bas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiii.07bas [Google Scholar]
  7. Brunette, Louise
    2000 “Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: A Comparison of TQA Practices.” The Translator6 (2): 169–182. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799064 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chiarcos, Christian , Berry Claus , and Michael Grabski
    2011 “Introduction: Salience in Linguistics and Beyond.” InSalience: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on its Function in Discourse, edited by Christian Chiarcos , Berry Claus , and Michael Grabski , 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110241020.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241020.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cronin, Michael
    2013Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dragsted, Barbara
    2008 “Computer-aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” In Dror and Harnad 2008a, 237–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dror, Itiel E. , and Stevan Harnad
    eds. 2008aCognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends our Minds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.16 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2008b “Offloading Cognition onto Cognitive Technology.” In Dror and Harnad 2008a, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Drugan, Joanna
    2013Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunne, Keiran J.
    2006 “Putting the Cart behind the Horse: Rethinking Localization Quality Management.” InPerspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne , 95–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xiii.08dun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiii.08dun [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 “From Vicious to Virtuous cycle: Customer-Focused Translation Quality Management Using ISO 9001 Principles and Agile Methodologies.” InTranslation and Localization Project Management, edited by Keiran J. Dunne and Elena S. Dunne , 153–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xvi.09dun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xvi.09dun [Google Scholar]
  16. 2012 “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces1: 143–168. doi: 10.1075/ts.1.07dun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.07dun [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, Nick C.
    2016 “Salience, Cognition, Language Complexity, and Complex Adaptive Systems.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition38 (2): 341–351.10.1017/S027226311600005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600005X [Google Scholar]
  18. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
    2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  19. Even-Zohar, Itamar
    1975 “Decisions in Translating Poetry.” Ha-sifrut/Literature21: 32–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. European Standard
    European Standard 2006 “EN 15038: Translation Services – Service Requirements.”
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Giora, Rachel
    2003On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Glenberg, Arthur M.
    2006 “Radical Changes in Cognitive Process due to Technology: A Jaundiced View.” Pragmatics & Cognition14 (2): 263–274. doi: 10.1075/pc.14.2.07gle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.07gle [Google Scholar]
  23. Gouadec, Daniel
    2010Translation as a Profession. 2nd ed.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Halverson, Sandra L.
    2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation, edited by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano , 33–73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110302943.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The Case of ‘Literal Translation.’” Translation Spaces4 (2): 310–340. doi: 10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  26. Hine Jr., Jonathan T.
    2003 “Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment.” InBeyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, edited by Brian J. Baer and Geoffrey S. Koby , 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xii.10hin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xii.10hin [Google Scholar]
  27. Horguelin, Paul A. , and Louise Brunnette
    1998Pratique de la révision. Montreal: Linguatech.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. House, Juliane
    2015Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutchins, Edwin
    1995Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hutchins, John
    1998 “The Origin of the Translator’s Workstation.” Machine Translation13 (4): 287–307. doi: 10.1023/A:1008123410206
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008123410206 [Google Scholar]
  31. ISO 17100
    ISO 17100 2015Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services. Geneva: ISO.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jääskeläinen, Riitta
    2016 “Quality and Translation Process Research.” InReembedding Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín , 89–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.128.05jaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.05jaa [Google Scholar]
  33. Killman, Jeffrey
    2015 “Context as Achilles’ Heel of Translation Technologies: Major Implications for End Users.” Translation and Interpreting Studies10 (2): 203–222. doi: 10.1075/tis.10.2.03kil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.2.03kil [Google Scholar]
  34. Koby, Geoffrey S. , et al.
    2014 “Defining Translation Quality.” Tradumàtica12: 413–420.10.5565/rev/tradumatica.76
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.76 [Google Scholar]
  35. Koskinen, Kaisa
    2008Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Künzli, Alexander
    2007 “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text.” InDoubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004, edited by Radegundis Stolze , Miriam Shlesinger , and Yves Gambier , 115–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.72.14kun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.14kun [Google Scholar]
  37. LeBlanc, Matthieu
    2017 “‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’: Should We Blame Translation Technologies or Shifting Business Practices?” InHuman Issues in Translation Technology, edited by Dorothy Kenny , 45–62. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, Hyang
    2006 “Révision: Définitions et paramètres.” Meta51 (2): 410–419. doi: 10.7202/013265ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/013265ar [Google Scholar]
  39. Lörscher, Wolfgang
    1986 “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance.” InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, edited by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka , 277–292. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1991Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mann, William C. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text8 (3): 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2014Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. PhD diss.Kent State University. Available at: bit.ly/1ybBY7W
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mellinger, Christopher D. , and Gregory M. Shreve
    2016 “Match Evaluation and Over-editing in a Translation Memory Environment.” InReembedding Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín , 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.128.07mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.07mel [Google Scholar]
  44. Mossop, Brian
    2014Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies5 (2): 145–162. doi: 10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” MonTISpecial Issue – Minding Translation1: 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. O’Brien, Sharon
    2007 “An Empirical Investigation of Temporal and Technical Post-Editing Effort.” Translation and Interpreting Studies2 (1): 83–136. doi: 10.1075/tis.2.1.03ob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.2.1.03ob [Google Scholar]
  48. Orellana, Marina
    1990La traducción del inglés al castellano. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Papineni, Kishore , Salim Roukos , Todd Ward , and Wei-Jing Zhu
    2002 “BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation.” InProceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 311–318. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Quah, C. K.
    2006Translation and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230287105
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230287105 [Google Scholar]
  51. Racz, Peter
    2013Salience in Sociolinguistics: A Quantitative Approach. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110305395
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110305395 [Google Scholar]
  52. Risku, Hanna
    2010 “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?” Target22 (1): 94–111. doi: 10.1075/target.22.1.06ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris [Google Scholar]
  53. Risku, Hanna , and Florian Windhager
    2013 “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target25 (1): 33–45. doi: 10.1075/target.25.1.04ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.04ris [Google Scholar]
  54. Risku, Hanna , Florian Windhager , and Matthias Apfelthaler
    2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces2: 151–182. doi: 10.1075/ts.2.08ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.2.08ris [Google Scholar]
  55. Robert, Isabelle S.
    2014 “Investigating the Problem-Solving Strategies of Revisers through Triangulation: An Exploratory Study.” Translation and Interpreting Studies9 (1): 88–108. doi: 10.1075/tis.9.1.05rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.05rob [Google Scholar]
  56. Robert, Isabelle S. , and Louise Brunette
    2016 “Should Revision Trainees Think Aloud While Revising Somebody Else’s Translation? Insights from an Empirical Study with Professionals.” Meta61 (2): 320–345.10.7202/1037762ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1037762ar [Google Scholar]
  57. Šarčević, Susan , and Colin Robertson
    2015 “The Work of Lawyer-Linguists in the EU Institutions.” InLegal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects, edited by Anabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos , 181–202. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Shih, Claire Yi-Yi
    2006 ““Revision from Translators’ Point of View. An Interview Study.” Target18 (2): 295–312. doi: 10.1075/target.18.2.05shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.05shi [Google Scholar]
  59. Shreve, Gregory M.
    2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies9 (1): 27–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Spalink, Karin , Rachel Levy , and Carla Merrill
    1997The Level Edit ™ Post-Editing Process: A Tutorial for Post-Editors of Machine Translation Output. Internationalization and Translation Services.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Specia, Lucia , Najeh Hajlaoui , Catalina Hallett , and Wilker Aziz
    2011 “Predicting Machine Translation Accuracy.” MT Summit XIII: The Thirteenth Machine Translation Summit, 513–520. Xiamen, China.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Suojanen, Tytti , Kaisa Koskinen , and Tiina Tuominen
    2015User-Centred Translation. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. TAUS
    TAUS 2010 “Machine Translation Post-Editing Guidelines.” AccessedOctober 26, 2017. https://www.taus.net/academy/best-practices/postedit-best-practices/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines
  64. Teixeira, Carlos S. C.
    2014 “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2014 Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice. Vancouver, BC.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Toury, Gideon
    2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  66. Turner, Phil
    2016HCI Redux: The Promise of Post-Cognitive Interaction. Switzerland: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑319‑42235‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42235-0 [Google Scholar]
  67. Underwood, Nancy L. , and Bart Jongejan
    2001 “Translatability Checker: A Tool to Help Decide Whether to Use MT.” Proceedings of MT Summit VIII: Machine Translation in the Information Age, edited by Bente Maegaard , 363–368. Santiago de Compostela.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Vermeer, Hans J.
    (1989) 2004 “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” Translated by Andrew Chesterman . InThe Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti , 227–238. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Wagner, Emma , Svend Bech , and Jesús M. Martínez
    2002Translating for the European Union Institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Whyatt, Bogusława , Katarzyna Stachowiak , and Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny
    2016 “Similar and Different: Cognitive Rhythm and Effort in Translation and Paraphrasing.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2): 175–208.10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0007 [Google Scholar]
  71. Williams, Malcolm
    2004Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.16104.mel
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error