Developing assessment instruments: The effect of a reviser’s profile on the quality of the revision product
Keywords:assessment instruments, empirical study, error analysis, high-stakes translation, quality control, revision quality, translation revision
AbstractTranslation revision is such a new field of study that there are still very few empirical studies from which to learn more about matters such as the ideal profile of a reviser or the assessment instruments with which to determine the quality of a revision product. This article describes the development of two such assessment instruments. Instrument 1 employs categories that describe a revision product and Instrument 2 comprises a formula for quantifying the quality of a revision product. These assessment instruments were applied in an empirical study involving 30 revised translations to determine whether there is any relationship between aspects of a reviser’s profile, such as qualifications and translation and revision experience, and the quality of their revision product.
Allal, L., Chanquoy, L., & Largy, P. (Eds.). (2004). Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Arthern, P. (1983). Judging the quality of revision. Lebende Sprachen, 28(2), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/les.19188.8.131.52
ASTM F2575 Standard guide for quality assurance in translation. (2014). (2nd ed.). ASTM International. West Conshohocken, United States of America.
ATA (American Translators Association). (2009). Flowchart for error point decisions. Retrieved from https://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_flowchart.pdf
CAN/CGSB-131.10 Translation services. (2008). Canadian General Standards Board. Gatineau, Canada.
Chakhachiro, R. (2005). Revision for quality. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 13(3), 225–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668994
Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist approach. The Translator, 14(1), 97–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251
Colina, S. (2009). Further evidence for a functionalist approach to translation quality evaluation. Target, 21(2), 235–264. doi: 10.1075/target.21.2.02col
De Almeida, G. (2013). Translating the post-editor: An investigation of post-editing changes and correlations with professional experience across two Romance languages (Doctoral dissertation). Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://doras.dcu.ie/17732/1/THESIS_G_de_Almeida.pdf
EN 15038 Translation services – Service requirements. (2006). European Committee for Standardization. Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission. (2010). Revision manual. Directorate-General for Translation, Spanish Department. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/translation/spanish/guidelines/documents/revision_manual_en.pdf
Gambier, Y., & Van Doorslaer, L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Graham, J. (1983). Checking, revision and editing. In C. Picken (Ed.), The translator’s handbook (pp. 99-105). London: Aslib.
Graham, J. (1989). Checking, revision and editing. In C. Picken (Ed.), The translator’s handbook (2nd ed., pp. 59–70). London: Aslib.
Hansen, G. (2008). The speck in your brother's eye – the beam in your own: Quality management in translation and revision. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp. 255–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.80.19han
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984)00. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Ipsen, A., & Dam, H. (2016). Translation revision: Correlating revision procedure and error detection. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 55, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i55.24612
ISO 17100 Translation services – Requirements for translation services. (2015). International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO/TS 11669 Translation projects – General guidance. (2012). International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jiménez-Crespo, M. (2009). The evaluation of pragmatic and functionalist aspects in localization: Towards a holistic approach to quality assurance. The Journal of Internationalization & Localization, 1, 60–92. doi: 10.1075/jial.1.03jim
Koby, G., & Baer, B. (2005). From professional certification to the translator training classroom: Adapting the ATA error marking scale. Translation Watch Quarterly, 1(1), 33–45.
Koby, G., & Melby, A. (2013). Certification and job task analysis (JTA): Establishing validity of translator certification examinations. Translation & Interpreting, 5(1), 174–210. doi: ti.105201.2013.a10
Künzli, A. (2006). Teaching and learning translation revision: Some suggestions based on evidence from a think-aloud protocol study. In M. Garant (Ed.), Current trends in translation teaching and learning (pp. 9–24). Helsinki: Helsinki University.
Künzli, A. (2007). Translation revision: A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger, & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in Translation Studies (pp. 115–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.72.14kun
Lommel, A. (Ed.). (2015). Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) definition. Retrieved from http://www.qt21.eu/mqm-definition-2015-06-16.html
Mitchell, L. (2015). Community post-editing of machine-translated user-generated content (Doctoral dissertation). Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://doras.dcu.ie/20463/1/PhDThesis_LindaMitchell_Final.pdf
Mossop, B. (2007a). Empirical studies of revision: What we know and need to know. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 8, 5–20.
Mossop, B. (2007b). Revising and editing for translators (2nd ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome.
Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and editing for translators (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
Nord, C. (1991). Scopos, loyalty, and translational conventions. Target, 3(1), 91–109. doi: 10.1075/target.3.1.06nor
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Rasmussen, K., & Schjoldager, A. (2011). Revising translations: A survey of revision policies in Danish translation companies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 15, 87–120.
Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Robert, I. (2012). La révision en traduction: Les procédures de révision et leur impact sur le produit et le processus de révision (Translation revision: Revision procedures and their impact on the revision process and product) (Doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Robert, I. (2013). Translation revision: Does the revision procedure matter? In M. Bartłomiejczyk, R. Meylaerts, S. Vandepitte, & C. Way (Eds.), Treks and tracks in Translation Studies (pp. 87–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robert, I. (2014). Investigating the problem-solving strategies of revisers through triangulation: An exploratory study. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 9(1), 88–108. doi: 10.1075/tis.9.1.05rob
Robert, I. S., Remael, A., & Ureel, J. J. J. (2017). Towards a model of translation revision competence. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 11(1), 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1198183
Sager, J. (1994). Language engineering and translation: Consequences of automation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schjoldager, A., Rasmussen, K., & Thomsen, C. (2008). Précis-writing, revision and editing: Piloting the European Master in Translation. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 53(4), 798–813. doi: 10.7202/019648ar
Van Dyk, T., Van Rensburg, A., & Marais, F. (2011). Levelling the playing field: An investigation into the translation of academic literacy tests. Journal for Language Teaching, 45(1), 153–169.
Van Rensburg, A. (2012). Die impak van revisie op vertaalde eksamenvraestelle in ’n hoëronderwysomgewing (The impact of revision on translated examination papers in a higher education environment). LitNet Akademies, 9(2), 392–412.
Van Rensburg, A. (2014). Minimum vereistes vir professionele vertalers: Vertaalvermoë volgens die teorie en in die praktyk (Minimum requirements for professional translators: Translation competence in theory and in practice). LitNet Akademies, 11(2), 553–595.
Venuti, L. (Ed.). (2004). The Translation Studies reader (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. (1978). Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen, 23(3), 99–102.
Vermeer, H. (1996). A Skopos theory of translation: Some arguments for and against. Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT.
Williams, M. (1989). The assessment of professional translation quality: Creating credibility out of chaos. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 2(2), 13–33. doi: 10.7202/037044ar
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).