etransfair.eu · Web viewPrepare your own brainstorming ’word cloud’ including the first 8-10 phrases that occur to you. >> First compare your version with your classmates’

Revision eModule

Authors: Rita Besznyák, Csilla Szabó, Ágnes Hilóczki, Gabriella KovácsProvider: BME Centre for Interpreter and Translator Training at the Centre for Modern LanguagesSubject area: specialised translationTitle of the resource: eTransFair e-module on RevisionLicence: CC BY 4.0

MODULE1 “REVISION”

In this module, you will learn about REVISION. The module consists of three major units each of which deals with a different aspect of the topic (see table below). At the beginning of each unit, you will find the learning outcome to be reached after completing the learning activities described in the heading. You will also find information on the learning context, e.g. competences required for the specific content provided in the unit, technical and other requirements and also your workload estimated in minutes. For your orientation, an overview of the activities and their main characteristics (title, description, rationale etc.) are also provided followed by the individual worksheets you will need to complete the activities. At the end of each unit, you will a reference list where further reading is given.

Please feel free to add your own examples (own activities, best practices, used methods, assessment techniques etc.) to the list of units because not all aspects of revision could be considered in this module.

Below you will find the module’s structure divided into units and indicating the topic to be dealt with.

Module “Revision”

Unit 1 INTRODUCTION TO REVISIONUnit 2 REVISION PARAMETERS, ERROR TYPOLOGIESUnit 3 MARKET AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF REVISION

1 The module could either be used for individual training or as part of an existing training programme. All activities within the modules are only ideas and cannot be regarded as an entire course or constitute the main part of a training course.

Revision eModule

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO REVISION

Activity 1: Introduction to the world and work of revisers1.1 Word association on revision1.2 Profile and tasks of revisers through adjectives and verbs

Activity 2: Revision typology and related terms2.1 Term definition – What revision is and what it isn’t?2.2 Terms related to revision – Comparing definitions

Activity 3: Revision vs. Translation3.1 Changing roles: One translation from two perspectives3.2 Personality traits and work of translators and revisers

Activity 4: The revision process - Step-by-step guide to the revision processActivity 5: Summary of revision principles – Revising revision principles

UNIT 2 REVISION PARAMETERS, ERROR TYPOLOGIES

Activity 1: Revision parameters, introduction to error typology – What are we looking for?Activity 2: Error categories and correction techniques – Dancing to different tunesActivity 3: Error typologies involving different assessment (…)Activity 4: Style and register

4.1 Poorly edited texts4.2 Overloaded sentences

UNIT 3 MARKET AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF REVISION

Activity 1: Revision and market aspects1.1 Map up the local market1.2 Comparison of TQA standards in revision1.3 Revision in the translation process

Activity 2: Introduction to machine translation and post editing – Chocolate and Google TranslateActivity 3: Interpersonal and ethical aspects of revision

3.1 Giving feedback to translators3.2 Whose fault is it?

Appendix - Readings on Revising and Editing. ©Brian Mossop 2015

Revision eModule

UNIT 1 Activity 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE WORLD AND WORK OF REVISERS

Learning outcome

The following activities are aimed to give an introduction to trainees about the world and work of translators, starting out from their previous associations and notions about this profession, and activating their previous knowledge on the profile and tasks of revisers.

Learning context

Prerequisites NoneLearning environment

PCs/lab + projector

Time/Workload 35-40 min

Overview of learning activities

Title Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assessment

Estimated timeframe

1.1. Word association on revision

Trainees are asked to create word clouds about revision

to activate and organise trainees’ general knowledge and ideas about revision

individual work (word cloud) >> group work (brainstorming in groups of 3-4)

not assessed

20 min

1.2. Profile and tasks of revisers through adjectives and verbs

Trainees are given a list of adjectives (Group A) and a list of verbs (Group B) and shall decide to what extent these words apply to the profile and work of translators

to assess what image the trainees have in mind concerning the main characteristics and work of revisers

pair work (divided into two types of groups)

not assessed

15-20 minutes

Revision eModule

Unit 1. Activity 1.1: Word association on revision

Background information for trainers:

1. The trainees are asked to gather 8-10 words that come to their minds talking about revision and to prepare their own word cloud related to this term.

2. First they should compare their solutions with other trainees’ versions in groups of 3-4 and identify the items that appear on all the lists and the ones that only one or few of them included. They should present the results of their discussion to the class.

3. To conclude with, the class is shown a word cloud generated by wordcloud.com and trainees are asked to find the new items and the ones included in most people’s list.

Instruction for trainees:

WORKSHEET

>> Which words come to your mind if you hear the word revision? Prepare your own brainstorming ’word cloud’ including the first 8-10 phrases that occur to you.

>> First compare your version with your classmates’ in groups of three – find the items you all listed and the ones that only appear in your word cloud.

>> Have a look at the word cloud generated by wordcloud.com – find the new items and the ones included in most people’s list.

Revision eModule

Unit 1. Activity 1. 2. Profile and tasks of revisers through adjectives and verbs

What do revisers like and what do they do ? – setting the basic profile and tasks of revisers in the light of adjectives and verbs

Instructions for trainers:

1. The trainees are divided into two groups and form pairs within the given group. They get a list of adjectives (Group A) and a list of verbs (Group B). Trainees in Group A should decide which of the listed characteristics are essential (1) / preferable (2) / irrelevant (3) / disadvantageous (4) for revisers? Similarly, members of Group B should discuss in pairs whether the listed items are something reviser always (1) / often (2) / occasionally (3) /never (4) do?

2. The results of the pair work are first shared within the group and the final findings of both groups are then presented to the class. (A projected version of the list may be used.)

Group A Profile – ADJECTIVES

>> Which of these characteristics are essential (1) / preferable (2) / irrelevant (3) / disadvantageous (4) for revisers?

expertaccuratepickycompetent

detail-orientedhair-splittingempatheticwell-informed

unscrupuloustolerantopen-mindedsociable

sharp-eyedkindprecisefast

Group B Tasks – VERBS

>> Which of these activities should a reviser always (1) / often (2) / occasionally (3) /never (4) do?

retranslatecorrectrenovateformat

criticiseproofreadevaluategive a final polish

comparejudgeoverwriteapologise

recommendimprovegive feedbacksimplify

Background information for trainers

Theoretical background – The main tasks of revisersEdina Robin defines the main tasks of revisers as follows: „The task of revisers is to check the text transferred by the translator to the target language, and to correct it by comparing the source and target texts with respect to grammatical and stylistic aspects, in accordance with the requirements of modern, natural language. Revisers aim to produce a text that, as a result of the corrections, is accurate in content, grammatically correct, equivalent to the original, fit for processing by the recipient and ready for printing.”

Source: Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].

WORKSHEETs (printable)

Revision eModule

Group A Profile – ADJECTIVES

>> Which of these characteristics are essential (1) / preferable (2) / irrelevant (3) / disadvantageous (4) for revisers?

expertaccuratepickycompetent

detail-orientedhair-splittingempatheticwell-informed

unscrupuloustolerantopen-mindedsociable

sharp-eyedkindprecisefast

Group B Tasks – VERBS

>> Which of these activities should a reviser always (1) / often (2) / occasionally (3) /never (4) do?

retranslatecorrectrenovateformat

criticiseproofreadevaluategive a final polish

comparejudgeoverwriteapologise

recommendimprovegive feedbacksimplify

Useful resources

Arthern, P. (1987): Four Eyes are Better than Two. In: Picken, C. (ed.) Translating and the Computer 8: A Profession on the Move. The Association for Information Management: London. 14–26.

Fischer, M. (2017): Kompetencia-fejlesztés a szakfordítóképzésben. Örök dilemmák, régi-új módszerek és a terminológiai kompetencia. In: Kóbor, M – Csikai Zsuzsanna (szerk.): Iránytű az egyetemi fordítóképzéshez, A kompetenciafejlesztés új fókuszai. Kontraszt:Pécs 2017.

EMT Expert Group (2009): Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/emt/ key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf

Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].

Revision eModule

UNIT 1 Activity 2: REVISION TYPOLOGY AND RELATED TERMS

Learning outcome

The four related activities summed up under this heading are aimed to define what revision actually means, and which subcategories belong to this term. It gives an overview of the various types of revision and the related terms that all reflect a specific aspect of evaluating a translation from various perspectives.

Learning contextPrerequisites Some basic knowledge on the related terms is an advantageLearning environment

PCs/lab + projector

Time/Workload 40 min

Overview of learning activitiesTitle Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assess

mentEstimated timeframe

2.1 Term definition – What revision is and what it isn’t?

Short introductory activity to define statements which are true for revision and ones that do not apply

to activate the existing background knowledge of trainees on the types of revision and to make them share their ideas about the topic

pair work not assesse

d

10 min

2.2 Terms related to revision – Comparing definitions

An activity to investigate related terms by finding various definitions for types of revision (proofreading, review, editing)

This activity is aimed at looking up and comparing definitions of terms related to revision and thus, making trainees aware of the main differences between them

group work (research in groups of 3)

not assessed

30 min

Revision eModule

UNIT 1. Activity 2.1 Term definition – What revision is and what it is not?

Instruction for trainers:

1. Trainees are asked to finish sentences in pairs concerning the very nature of revision – sentences related to what revision is and what it is not. This activity shall ultimately give them an idea of the basic characteristics of the revision process. They should compare their solutions with those of another pair and find the most adequate and precise solution for each sentence. Finally, the trainees should share the results of their discussion with the whole group.

2. Based on this preparatory brainstorming task, trainees are instructed to create their own definition for the term ’translation revision’. To make the activity more complex, they should formulate their definitions in three different ways: explaining it (1) to an English learner who doesn’t know the word (2) to fellow students and (3) in a scientific publication.

Revision eModule

Background information for trainers and trainees:

What exactly is revision? – Researchers’ confusing typologies

a) The text is a translation, the reviser is the translator >> checking, self-revision (Mossop)b) The text is a translation, the reviser is not the translator >> revision, other-revision (Mossop)c) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is the author of the text >> self-revisiond) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is not the author of the text >> editing

a) The text is a translation, the reviser is the translatorEN 15038 standard (European Committee for Standardisation 2006: 11): this process of revising is called ‘checking’ (Vérification in the French version):

„On completion of the initial translation, the translator shall check his/her own work. This process shall include checking that the meaning has been conveyed, that there are no omissions or errors and that the defined service specifications have been met.”

More generally, in Translation Studies a variety of terms is used: checking (Graham, 1989); evaluation or Content comparison and control (Sager, 1994); proof reading (own work) (Samuelsson-Brown, 1993); revision (Gillaerts, 1993; Sager, 1994; Pena and Hernández Guerrero, 1994); self-correction (Mizón and Diéguez, 1996); self-revision (Sedon-Strutt, 1990; Mossop, 1992, 2001, 2007)

b) The text is a translation, the reviser is not the translator

According to the EN 15038 standard, this process is called ‘revision’ (révision in the French version).More generally, in Translation Studies a variety of terms occurs:

• bilingual revision (Horguelin and Brunette, 1998; Brunette, 2003); • checking (Graham, 1989; Samuelsson-Brown, 1993); • other-revision (Mossop, 2007, who also uses the term “revision”); • revision (Arthern, 1983; Mossop, 1992, 2001, 2007; Gillaerts, 1993, Sager, 1994; Pena and

Hernández Guerrero, 1994; Gile, 1995; Newmark, 2001)• translation revision (Künzli, 2005b, 2006a using the German “Übersetzungsrevision”)

c) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is the author of the text - this process is generally called ‘self-revision’.

d) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is not the author of the text editing in English (Mossop, 2001) OR révision professionnelle (Bisaillon, 2007a) OR révision linguistique (Lachance, 2007)Editing means finding problems in a text which is not a translation, and then correcting or improving it, with particular attention to making the text suitable for its future readers and for the use to which they will put it. Revising is this same task applied to draft translations.

Based on: Isabelle ROBERT: “Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study” 2008. In: Pieter BOULOGNE (ed.). Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

A) Typology based on type of TEXT and the REVISER:

B) Types of revision based on the 3Ps (Person, Purpose, Procedure)

Revision eModule

PERSON revisinga) revision practice between peers: reciprocal revision

(révision réciproque / interrévision – Horguelin and Brunette (1998: 4))b) revision carried out by a group of people: collective revision

(révision collective – Horguelin and Brunette (1998: 4))c) revision done by the client: validation

PURPOSE /FUNCTION a) pragmatic revision (with the purpose of improving the quality of the translation)b) didactic revision (for training purposes) – also révision pédagogique Brunette (2000).

PROCEDURE (the way the revising process is carried)a) target text is not compared to the source text:

unilingual re-reading (Mossop (2001: 116)) ORmonolingual revision (Brunette, Gagnon and Hine (2005))

b) the two versions are comparedcomparative re-reading (Mossop (2001: 116)) OR bilingual revision (Brunette, Gagnon and Hine (2005))

Based on: Isabelle ROBERT: “Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study” 2008. In: Pieter BOULOGNE (ed.). Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

UNIT 1. Activity 2.1 Term definition – What revision is and what it isn’t?

Instructions for trainees

Working in pairs, looking for potential definitions for ‘revision’.

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

>> How would you define the word ’revision’? Try to finish the following sentences in pairs.

WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS NOT

It refers to …Its main purpose is …It involves the work of …It is related to …It requires …Its main outcome is …

It does not refer to…Its main purpose is not …It does not involve the work of …It is not related to…It does not require…Its main outcome is not…

>> Compare your solutions with another pair – try to find the most adequate and precise solution for each sentence together. Share the results of your discussion with the whole group.

>> Create your own definition for the term ’translation revision’. Formulate it in three different ways:a) as if you had to tell a child what your work as a reviser isb) as if you had to explain it to your fellow studentsc) as if you had to define it in a scientific publication

Revision eModule

UNIT 1. Activity 2.2 :Terms related to revision – Comparing definitions


1. Trainees should collect terms related to revision (they may even draw a word cloud about their findings). Possible solutions are: proofreading, monolingual revision, copy-editing, editing, reviewing, post-editing, validation, bilingual proofreading, checking, bilingual editing. They should work in groups of 3.

2. Once they have the related term, they should find 3 definitions for the following terms in 3 different resources in groups of three (3x3). They may work in a shared document – e.g. on Google Drive. The resources shall be: (1) a trustworthy monolingual dictionary, (2) the homepage of an office /agency/organisation providing translation services, (3) a publication (paper or journal?) in the field of translation science


In Translation Terminology (1999: 175), the term ‘revision’ refers to the following concepts:

(1) a detailed comparative examination of the translated text with the respective source text in order to verify that the sense is the same in both texts and to improve the quality of the target text.

(2) a function usually assigned to an experienced translator for the purpose of ensuring that texts translated by others will measure up to the standards of professional translation. [...] In American English, this stage of the translation document cycle is commonly referred to as editing, which is also closely related to review. This step may involve checking a text, followed by a revision or editing phase, where the text is actually corrected

According to the above definition, the term ‘revision’ refers either to the process of revising one’s own translation, or to the process of revising somebody else’s translation, which is a first possible confusion.The next potential source of confusion is that researchers use various interrelated terms with various meanings (for further details, see Appendix 1).

a) The text is a translation, the reviser is the translator >> checking, self-revision (Mossop)b) The text is a translation, the reviser is not the translator >> revision, other-revision (Mossop)c) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is the author of the text >> self-revisiond) The text is a not a translation, the reviser is not the author of the text >> editing

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

>> What related terms can you think of talking about translation? Are there any similar processes that you know of /anything you have done before? Make a list of these terms. Try to collect as many as possible working together with a partner.

>> Find 3 definitions for terms listed (revision, proofreading, copy-editing, reviewing, post-editing – see the worksheet below) in 3 different resources in groups of three (3x3). You may work in a shared document – e.g. on Google Drive). Don’t forget to indicate which source you used.

The resources should be:a) a trustworthy monolingual dictionaryb) the homepage of a translation office /agencyc) publication in the field of translation science

RevisionDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

ReviewDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

ProofreadingDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

Copy-editingDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

ReviewingDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

Post-editingDEF 1:DEF 2:DEF 3:Target language:

Useful resources


Revision eModule

EMT Expert Group (2009): Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/ emt / key_documents /emt_competences_translators_en.pdf

Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.

Robert, I. (2007): Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study. In: Pieter BOULOGNE (ed.). Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html

Revision eModule

UNIT 1 Activity 3: REVISION VS. TRANSLATION

Learning outcome

These two related activities wish to shed light on the differences between the work and intended role of translators and revisers and tries to sum up the personality traits and competences required for these two related professions – highlighting the areas where there are significant differences. The activities also attempt to illustrate the necessary shift to be observed in the attitude of translators who act as revisers.

Learning context

Prerequisites NoneLearning environment

PCs/lab + projector

Time/Workload 45-50 min


Title Description Rationale/goal Type of activity

Assessment Estimated timeframe

3.1 Changing roles: One translation from two perspectives

Students translate a text at home and revise another version of the same text translated by one of their peers

to observe one specific translation task from both the perspective of a translator and that of a reviser

individual work (revision and comparison) >> pair work (discussing results) >> group work (sharing experience)

Not assessed (though peer assessment is involved to some extent)

30-35 min

3.2 Personality traits and work of translators and revisers

Comparing the personality traits, the role and work of translators and revisers

to make students aware of the differences between the work and required competences of translators and revisers

individual work >> pair work (comparing results) >> group discussion (on further examples)

Not assessed 15 min

Revision eModule

UNIT 1. Activity 3.1. Changing roles: One translation from two perspectives


1. As preparation for this activity the trainees have to translate a short text of your choice (e.g. a news item) either right away in class or previously at home (in which case, it should be given to them in advance). There should be a printed version of all translations available and each trainee shall get one version of the text.

2. The first task is to revise the text they’ve got (whatever that means for them – they are free to decide at this stage whether, what and how they wish to correct)

3. The second task is to compare the text with their own version and find 2-3 solutions that they like more in the peer-translation and some others that they’d prefer to keep from their translation.

4. The trainees should discuss it in pairs which methods of correction they used – and whether they indicated if the given correction is optional (improvement) or obligatory (correction) (Robin 2018). Having the objective of this activity in mind it is not necessary to put trainees in pairs who corrected each other’s translations.

5. In the last phase, students share the results of their pair work with the whole class and try to compare the two kinds of activities (the stages and accuracy of the process, the shift in the reviser’s attitude etc.)

Instruction for trainees

>>Translate the short text (e.g. news item) received from your trainer in class/at home. Print it out.

>> You’ll get another version of the translation. (1) revise the text (you are free to decide what to correct and how to indicate errors; (2) Compare the translation with your own version and find 2-3 solutions that you like more in your groupmate’s translation or in your translation.

>> Discuss it in pairs which methods of correction you used – and whether you’ve indicated if the given correction is optional or obligatory. Share the results of your discussion with the group.

Revision eModule

UNIT 1. Activity 3.2. Personality traits and work of translators and revisers


1. The trainees should have a look at a list including skills, competences and personality traits, and indicate which characteristics are essential for translators /for revisers? (see table in the worksheet of trainees) It is meant to be individual work later to be discussed in pairs.

2. The pairs should summarize the results of their discussion and the class is asked for further personality traits that are only necessary for revisers/translators?

3. Trainees should work in groups of 3-4 and collect the main tasks and roles of translators and revisers, trying to find out what these two groups have in common and from which aspects they are different.

4. Materials required for the task: Source text in ENG


Edina Robin summarizes the main differences between the work of translators and revisers in the following table (The Translator As Reviser, 2016). This is a combination of her views and the description given by Horváth (2011: 35).

Translator ReviserStarting point Source text Target text

Main activity Creating a textCreating equivalence

Evaluating a textChecking equivalence

Strategy Local (sentence by sentence)Bottom-upMicro-level

Global (whole text)Top-downMacro-level

Method of revision Self-revisionCondoning, forgiving, blindness for errors

Revision of someone else’s workAccommodating to another way of thinking and styleForcing one’s own attitude or language use on the text

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

>> Which characteristics are essential for translators /for revisers? (Individual work – discuss it in pairs)

Translator Reviserprofessional language skills (in both languages)good communication skillsdeep understanding of the subject mattergood interpersonal skillsspecialisation in specific fieldlong years of professional experienceentrepreneurial skillsa sharp eye for detailsan ability to keep deadlinesperfectionismresearch competencetechnical skillsprofessional qualificationscritical thinking

>> Can you think of any other personality traits that are only necessary for revisers/translators?

>> Summarize the results of the discussion in the following diagram. What are the main characteristics of translators and revisers – what do these two groups have in common?

TRANSLATOR REVISER

Useful resources

Robin, E. (2016) The Translator As Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].Horváth, Péter Iván (2009): Revision Competence. Doctoral dissertation in Translation Studies

Programme , Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Humanities Doctoral School of Linguistics. In Hungarian, 12-page English summary at http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/horvathpeterivan/thesis.pdf


Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Robin, E. (2018) Differenciált értékelés a fordítóképzésben: javítás vagy jobbítás? In: Hilóczki, Á. & Fischer, M. & Szabó, Cs. (szerk.) Fókuszban a fordítás értékelése. Tanulmányok a BME INYK Tolmács- és Fordítóképző Központ 2017. szeptember 29-30-án megrendezett Őszi Konferenciájának előadásaiból. Budapest: BME

Revision eModule

UNIT 1 Activity 4: THE REVISION PROCESS

Learning outcome

This activity is aimed at reconstructing the process of revision in order to show what this work entails and what the ideal workflow of revisers should involve.

Learning contextPrerequisites None (though some revision experience is an advantage)Learning environment

PCs/lab + projector

Time/Workload 30 minutes

Overview of learning activitiesTitle Description Rationale/goal Type of

activityAssessment Estimated

timeframe4 Step-by-step guide to the revision process

The main focus of this activity is to reconstruct the ideal process of revision (starting out from personal views and comparing them with Brian’s Mossop’s sample order)

to demonstrate how complex the work of revisers is and what steps of the revision process entails

pair work >> group discussion

not assessed 30 minutes

UNIT1. Activity 4.: Step-by-step guide to the revision processInstruction for trainers and methodological aspect

1. Trainees should begin this exercise with brainstorming in pairs on the process of revision – they should try to reconstruct the procedure step by step and compile a list in pairs including the main phases of revision.

2. Once their own list is ready, they shall have a look at the seven stages listed by Brian Mossop as a sample order. They should try to put the individual steps in the right order and once they had aligned it with Mossop’s recommendation, then should compare the list to their original version.

3. The trainees can discuss their results in groups and – if available – listen to an interview with a reviser.


Sample Orders of Operations (based on Mossop)1. Read the entire translation for Logic, Smoothness, Tailoring, Sub-language and Idiomaticity, as

well as those aspects of typography and punctuation which are important for meaning.2. Do a comparative check for Accuracy and Completeness. If the client wants the translation to

follow the Layout of the source text, check this at the same time.3. Read the entire translation from start to finish for Mechanics (other than spelling), Layout,

consistency, and any Language errors introduced during steps 1 and 2.4. Do a separate check for numbers if they are important to the message.5. Check the document’s Organization.6. Run Spell check after all changes have been made in case you have introduced any errors.7. Press Control-S to make sure you have saved all your changes.

Revision eModule

Background information for trainers and trainees

The revision procedures suggested by Mossop (2001: 124) can be summarized as follows:

1. Orientation(a) Background: topic, terminology, parallel texts.(b) Text: communicative purpose, future users, required parameters of revision.

2. Reading(a) Source-language text: global message of the original text.(b) Target-language text: checking the completeness and readability of the whole translation.

3. Correction(a) Comparison: comparing the source and target texts in regards to accuracy and completeness.(b) Monolingual correction: having put aside the original, correcting language errors.(c) Re-reading: re-reading of smaller sections for logic, readability and idiomacy.(d) Full re-reading: re-reading the full translation for readability and coherence. (e) Data check: checking for dates, data and numbers.

4. Presentational adjustments(a) Technical revision: adjusting the layout, typography and organization of the translation.

5. Language check(a) Computerised language check: correcting final mistakes and typos.(b) Saving: saving all executed changes in the text.

Mossop (2001: 124). Summarized by Robin, E. (2016): The Translator As Reviser. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET>> Give a step-by-step progress report on the process of revision – the way you think it works.

Preconceptions Sample Order (by Mossop)

>> Find the right order of Brian Mossop’s sample Order of Operations: Run Spell check after all changes have been made in case you have introduced any errors. Do a comparative check for Accuracy and Completeness. If the client wants the translation

to follow the Layout of the source text, check this at the same time. Read the entire translation from start to finish for Mechanics (other than spelling), Layout,

consistency, and any Language errors introduced during steps 1 and 2. Press Control-S to make sure you have saved all your changes. Check the document’s Organization. Do a separate check for numbers if they are important to the message. Read the entire translation for Logic, Smoothness, Tailoring, Sub-language and

Idiomaticity, as well as those aspects of typography and punctuation which are important for meaning.

>> Your teacher will give you the actual order that Mossop suggests for the revision process. Once you have the correct order, compare your list with the workflow that Mossop suggests.

Useful ResourcesArthern, P. (1987): Four Eyes are Better than Two. In: Picken, C. (ed.) Translating and the Computer 8:

A Profession on the Move. The Association for Information Management: London. 14–26.Fischer, M. (2011). A társas és önértékelés szerepe a fordítás oktatásában. In Dróth J. (szerk.)

Szaknyelv és Szakfordítás. Tanulmányok a szakfordítás és a fordítóképzés aktuális témáiról 2010–2011. 76–82. o. Gödöllő: Szent István Egyetem GTK.



Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Scriven, M. (1967): The methodology of evaluation. In: Tyler, R. W. – Gagne, R. M. – Scriven, M. (eds)

(1967) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Rand McNally: Chicago 39–83.

Revision eModule

UNIT 1. Activity 5: Summary of revision principles

Learning outcomes

Trainees understand the basic principles of revision and have deepened their knowledge on the actual steps to be taken when revising a text

Learning context

Prerequisites theoretical knowledge about phases of revision and major tasks and responsibilities of a reviser

Learning environment

PCs/lab or paper

Time/Workload [Total suggested time / ECTS]E.g. 30 min


Title Description Rationale/goal Type of activity

Assessment Estimated timeframe

5. Revising revision principles

reading/writing discussion activity which deepens and systematises knowledge on revision

to enable trainees to clarify and revise knowledge on the major stages of revision

individual and pair work

can be used for self-assessment, and also for course evaluation (key available)

30 min

UNIT 1. Activitiy 5.: Revising revision principles

Instructions for trainersa) Trainees work individually to anticipate and predict what information may be missing in each of

the gapped sentences of Worksheet1. They then compare their ideas in pairs.

b) Trainees are invited to insert the chunks from A-H into the text on Worksheet 1. This activity can be done straight away, it is a great task to enhance anticipation.

A … admit it to the client.

B ….they are part of the message

C … by making sure that there are no spelling or typographical errors….

D … make sure you have not introduced a mistranslation.

E ….consider whether the text should be retranslated rather than revised.

F … Make the fewest possible changes…

G … then a correction is definitely necessary.

H … rather than rewriting it.

Revision eModule

c) Trainers may also choose to elicit information by way of forming groups, and asking trainees to collect some major principles of revision where this activity will serve as a means of checking their knowledge. Elicitation of major principles may also be encouraged by giving keywords such as style, retranslation, etc. (see Worksheet, variation 2 below).


Source: Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014. Appendix 1, Summary of Revision ideas.

a) Prediction - Key with text:

1. If you find a very large number of mistakes as you begin revising a translation, consider whether the text should be retranslated rather than revised.2. Make the fewest possible changes, given the users of the translation and the use they will make of it.3. If you cannot understand the translation without reading it twice, or without consulting the source text, then a correction is definitely necessary.4. Make small changes to a sentence rather than rewriting it.5. Minimize introduction of error by not making changes if in doubt about whether to do so.6. Minimize revision time through unilingual re-reading unless the longer comparative procedure is dictated by the likelihood of mistranslation or omission (difficult text, untried translator, etc.) or by the consequences of such errors.7. When you make a linguistic correction or stylistic improvement, make sure you have not introduced a mistranslation.8. When you make a change, check whether this necessitates a change elsewhere in the sentence or a neighbouring sentence.9. Do not let your attention to micro-level features of the text prevent you from seeing macro-level errors, and vice versa.10. Do not let your attention to the flow of linguistic forms prevent you from seeing errors in meaning (nonsense, contradiction etc.), and vice versa.11. Check numbers as well as words; they are part of the message.12. Adopt procedures which maximize your opportunity to see the text from the point of view of the first-_me reader.13. Adopt procedures which allow you to strike a suitable balance between the degree of accuracy of the translation and the degree of readability.14. In the final analysis, give preference to the reader’s needs over the client’s demands.15. Avoid creating an immediate bad impression by making sure that there are no spelling or typographical errors on the front page of the translation.16. Do not make changes you cannot justify if revising the work of others.17. Do not impose your own approach to translating on others.18. Do not impose your linguistic idiosyncrasies on others.19. Make sure that client and reader receive full benefit from revision work by ensuring that all handwritten changes are properly input and that all changes are saved before the text is sent to the client.20. If you have failed to solve a problem, admit to the client.

Source: Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014. p205.

b) Possible variation: Inserting chunks - Key for trainers

Twenty principles for revision

Revision eModule

1. If you find a very large number of mistakes as you begin revising a translation, ………………………………….E…………………………….2………………………………F……………………., given the users of the translation and the use they will make of it.3. If you cannot understand the translation without reading it twice, or without consulting the source text, ……………………………G……………………….4. Make small changes to a sentence ………………………..H……………………………….5. Minimize introduction of error by not making changes if in doubt about whether to do so.6. Minimize revision time through unilingual re-reading unless the longer comparative procedure is dictated by the likelihood of mistranslation or omission (difficult text, untried translator, etc.) or by the consequences of such errors.7. When you make a linguistic correction or stylistic improvement, …………………D …………………………………8. When you make a change, check whether this necessitates a change elsewhere in the sentence or a neighbouring sentence.9. Do not let your attention to micro-level features of the text prevent you from seeing macro-level errors, and vice versa.10. Do not let your attention to the flow of linguistic forms prevent you from seeing errors in meaning (nonsense, contradiction etc.), and vice versa.11. Check numbers as well as words;………………………….B…………………………………….12. Adopt procedures which maximize your opportunity to see the text from the point of view of the first-_me reader.13. Adopt procedures which allow you to strike a suitable balance between the degree of accuracy of the translation and the degree of readability.14. In the final analysis, give preference to the reader’s needs over the client’s demands.15. Avoid creating an immediate bad impression ……………………..C………………..on the front page of the translation.16. Do not make changes you cannot justify if revising the work of others.17. Do not impose your own approach to translating on others.18. Do not impose your linguistic idiosyncrasies on others.19. Make sure that client and reader receive full benefit from revision work by ensuring that all handwritten changes are properly input and that all changes are saved before the text is sent to the client.20. If you have failed to solve a problem, ………………………………A……………………………………..

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET 1

a) PredictionTwenty principles for revision2

1. If you find a very large number of mistakes as you begin revising a translation, ………………………2……………………………………………………., given the users of the translation and the use they will make of it.3. If you cannot understand the translation without reading it twice, or without consulting the source text, …………………………………………………….4. Make small changes to a sentence ………………………..……………………………….5. Minimize introduction of error by not making changes if in doubt about whether to do so.6. Minimize revision time through unilingual re-reading unless the longer comparative procedure is dictated by the likelihood of mistranslation or omission (difficult text, untried translator, etc.) or by the consequences of such errors.7. When you make a linguistic correction or stylistic improvement, ………………………………………8. When you make a change, check whether this necessitates a change elsewhere in the sentence or a neighbouring sentence.9. Do not let your attention to micro-level features of the text prevent you from seeing macro-level errors, and vice versa.10. Do not let your attention to the flow of linguistic forms prevent you from seeing errors in meaning (nonsense, contradiction etc.), and vice versa.11. Check numbers as well as words;………………………….…………………………………….12. Adopt procedures which maximize your opportunity to see the text from the point of view of the first-_me reader.13. Adopt procedures which allow you to strike a suitable balance between the degree of accuracy of the translation and the degree of readability.14. In the final analysis, give preference to the reader’s needs over the client’s demands.15. Avoid creating an immediate bad impression ……………………..on the front page of the translation.16. Do not make changes you cannot justify if revising the work of others.17. Do not impose your own approach to translating on others.18. Do not impose your linguistic idiosyncrasies on others.19. Make sure that client and reader receive full benefit from revision work by ensuring that all handwritten changes are properly input and that all changes are saved before the text is sent to the client.20. If you have failed to solve a problem, ……………………………………………………………………..

2 Source: Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014. Appendix 1, Summary of Revision ideas.

Revision eModule

b) Possible variation: Inserting chunks

WORKSHEET (variation 1):

A … admit it to the client.

B ….they are part of the message

C … by making sure that there are no spelling or typographical errors….

D … make sure you have not introduced a mistranslation.

E ….consider whether the text should be retranslated rather than revised.

F … Make the fewest possible changes…

G … then a correction is definitely necessary.

H … rather than rewriting it.

c) Key word anticipation

WORKSHEET (variation 2):

retranslation/ message / when in doubt / revision time / style / micro vs. macro level, accuracy vs. readability, reader vs. client, justifications, own style or approach / failure

Source: Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014. p205.

Revision eModule

UNIT 2. Activity 1: REVISION PARAMETERS – INTRODUCTION TO ERROR TYPOLOGY

Learning outcome

Trainees become aware of the various types of mistakes that may occur in translations, and get familiar with the error categories that revisers have to identify. After sharing their views and creating their own typology in groups, trainees get familiar with Brian Mossop’s revision parameters that may serve as a guideline in their later work as revisers. The input is strengthened by means of visualisation.

Learning contextPrerequisites NoneLearning environment

classroom/lab with black/whiteboard


Overview of learning activitiesTitle Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assessm

entEstimated timeframe

1. Revision parameters – introduction to error typology

This section is an introduction to the typology of errors that revisers have to focus on – based on Brian Mossop’s parameters.

to make trainees aware of the various types of mistakes that may occur in translations, and to familiarise them with the error categories that revisers have to identify.

group work (brainstorming in groups of 3-4)>> individual work (reading, analysis) >> group work

not assessed

40 min

UNIT 2. Activity 1.: Revision parameters – introduction to error typology

Instructions for trainers:1. First, the trainees try to create their own error typology by brainstorming in groups of 3-4. They

shall write keywords on post-it notes, and try to put the individual items under headings, i.e. in larger categories on a poster.

2. Then, they share their ideas with the class by presenting their posters starting with the group with the lowest number of items.

3. The posters are put on the blackboard and compared to each other (discussion moderated by the trainer).

4. Once their initial ideas are activated and presented they are given the 12 revision parameters of Brian Mossop for individual reading and analysis.

5. After reading the parameters, the groups shall compare their ideas with Mossop’s categories.6. In the meantime, the trainer writes Mossop’s four main categories (Group A-D) on the board and

it is the trainees’ task to put the 12 error types (either written on post-it notes or previously prepared pieces of paper with blue tack) into these categories at the board. This way of visualising the error categories may help them remember Mossop’s terminology easier.

Revision eModule

Materials required for the task

a) Preparation, teaching toolsb) Post-it notes, markers and posters (depending on the teaching environment, you may also use

computers for certain tasksc) Mossop’s 12 revision parameters (see WORKSHEET) – either in handouts or projected; the

parameters should also be written separately on post-it notes or printed on individual pieces of paper with blue tack)

Background information for trainers

The revision parameters that this activity deals with are from Brian Mossop’s Revising and Editing for Translators (St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester UK, 2001). See printable version as follows.

The revision parameters are the things a reviser checks for, the types of error. An exhaustive listing of things would be very long indeed, however in order to think about and discuss revision, it is convenient to have a reasonably short list of error types. In Mossop’s typology these parameters are expressed as questions about the translation, followed by a single capitalized word for convenience of reference.

Revision eModule

REVISION PARAMETERS(Brian Mossop. Revising and Editing for Translators, 2014)

Group A – Problems of meaning transfer (Transfer)1. Does the translation reflect the message of the source text? (Accuracy)

2. Have any elements of the message been left out? (Completeness)

Group B – Problems of content (Content)3. Does the sequence of ideas make sense: Is there any nonsense or contradiction? (Logic)

4. Are there any factual errors? (Facts)

Group C – Problems of language and style (Language)5. Does the text flow: Are the connections between sentences clear? Are the relationships among

the parts of each sentence clear? Are there any awkward, hard-to-read sentences? (Smoothness)

6. Is the language adapted to the users of the translation and the use they will make of it? (Tailoring)

7. Is the style suited to the genre, has correct terminology been used, and does the phraseology match that used in original TL texts on the same subject? (Sub-language)

8. Are all the word combinations idiomatic? Does the translation observe the rhetorical preferences of the target language? (Idiom)

9. Have the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, house style and correct usage been observed? (Mechanics)

Group D – Problems of physical presentation (Presentation) 10. Are there any problems in the way the text is arranged on the page: spacing, indentation,

margins, etc.? (Layout)

11. Are there any problems of text formatting: bolding, underlining, font type, font size, etc.? (Typography)

12. Are there any problems in the way the document as a whole is organized: page numbering, headers, footnotes, table of contents, etc.? (Organization)

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

Phase 1: Group work (brainstorming)>> What types of errors do you think a reviser is looking for? Discuss your ideas in groups of 3-4. Try

to give examples as well.

>>How many types of errors were you able to detect in your group? Pick someone from your group who is ready to present your poster to the class.

>> Put the posters next to each other, compare your solutions in the class and find the items that were included on all of them.

Phase 2: Individual work (Reading and analysis)>> Read Mossop’s 12 revision parameters, highlight the main items in Mossop’s list and draw your

own summarizing map of Mossop’s categories.

Phase 3: Group work (Comparison, discussion, synthesis)>> Compare Mossop’s typology with your group’s results. Is there anything that you haven’t thought

about or any items that you have included and is not listed in Mossop’s typology?

>> Create a map of Mossop’s typology on the black/whiteboard following your trainer’s instructions

Useful resources



Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Mossop’s revision parameters available: http://www.atesman.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Mossop-

10.pdf Scriven, M. (1967): The methodology of evaluation. In: Tyler, R. W. – Gagne, R. M. – Scriven, M. (eds)

(1967) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Rand McNally: Chicago 39–83.Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].Šunková, Jana (2011): Revising Translations: Corpus Investigation of Revision and Self-revision.

Master’s Diploma Thesis. Masaryk University Faculty of Arts. Department of English and American Studies. https://is.muni.cz/th/j38qz/DIPLOMOVA_PRACE_SUNKOVA.pdf?so=nx

Revision eModule

UNIT 2. Activity 2: ERROR CATEGORIES AND CORRECTION TECHNIQUES

Learning outcome

After completing this unit, trainees will understand the basic differences between corrections made by trainers, revisers and reviewers at translation companies. You will be more familiar with individual correction techniques and focal points whether done by trainers, revisers and (native speaker) reviewers.

Learning context

Prerequisites [Knowledge/skills/attitudes that are required for the content provided in the learning activity.] E.g. correction techniques used by various trainers teaching on the course.

Learning Environment

PCs/lab + projector



Title Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assessment

Estimated timeframe

2. Dancing to different tunes

How to conform to requirements set by the trainers, translation offices; how tell the differences between corrections made by trainers, revisers and native speaker reviewers

to activate theoretical knowledge in practice, and comprehend different interpretations

first individual, then pair work; trainees compare the corrections and discuss in what way the three corrections may differ

Not assessed

60 min

Revision eModule

Unit 2. Activity 2.: Dancing to different tunes

Instruction for trainers

My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, nor be weary of His correction; (Proverbs 3:11)

In this activity, trainees will be made familiar with the differences between the correction techniques of a trainer, a reviser and a reviewer. The activity hopes to demonstrate the diverse functions of the corrections and trainees will also be able to follow how the quality of the text improves as a result of the different adjustments.

1. DISCUSSION: Revision in the translation classroom

First, it is advised to have a discussion with trainees about the various correction techniques they have so far encountered during their studies. To mediate the discussion, trainers may focus on the following areas:

How are the errors indicated? (underlined, indicated by different colours, circled, etc.) Are errors corrected (alternatives offered), or only hinted at/implied? Are trainees given an opportunity to remedy the errors? Are errors distinguished as minor/major errors? (Does the trainer indicate whether the

correction was necessary or just an improvement to the translation?) How are their translations assessed?

2. SPOTTING THE DIFFERENCES

- Trainees first work individually. [They either translate the text in class (only two paragraphs), or they may have been assigned this translation task previously.]

- They look at the three different corrections and take notes as to what kind of differences they can identify between the different correction techniques.

- In the next phase, trainees can work in pair and discuss: the Trainer’s corrections (discussing actual solutions for the hints made by T) the Reviser’s correction and how they differ from those of the Trainer the native speaker’s corrections and how they are different from those of the reviser when the Trainer received feedback from the different pairs, they can be given a

worksheet (below) where they need to further specify the differences with the help of the statements.

Materials required for the task:- Source text in HUN- Sample translation- Translation corrected by Trainer (T)- Translation corrected by Reviser ® working at translation office- Translation corrected by native speaker reviewer (N)

Revision eModule

WORKSHEETs

Tasks:1. Trainees should make a list what kind of corrections/hints the trainer made (in this

specific text: village, considered as, etc.)

2. They make a list of the type of corrections the different assessors used. (The table below may be distributed in the class.)

3. Possible variation: the trainer may ask the trainees to guess which correction was made by whom. The trainer may either give options (trainer reviser, reviewer), or may choose to allow trainees to guess.

Corrections by trainer Corrections by reviser Corrections by native speaker reviewer

Revision eModule

a) Source text in HU

Oklevlek tanúsága szerint már a 14. században vízi vár állt településen – az erődítmény pontos helye egyelőre nem ismert, többen úgy sejtik, hogy a mai kastélypark rejti a maradványokat. 1424-ben említik először a község nevét az egyik oklevélben, 1496-ben már Bakócz Tamás adományozza unokaöccsének, Bakócz Péternek, aki felvette az Erdődy előnevet – és ily módon a nemesi família „ősapjának” tekinthető.

Az Erdődy-család felemelkedése a 17. században kezdődött, Erdődy György ekkor bontatta el a korábbi várat, és építette fel az „öreg kastélyt” és más épületeket a településen. A jelenlegi kastély 1860 és 1862 között készült el Anton Weber tervei alapján. 1929-ben egy tűzvész során a teljes belső berendezése elpusztult, a lángok megsemmisítették az Erdődy-család archívumát és II. Rákóczi Ferenc titkos irattárát, amelyet szintén itt őriztek.

b) Sample translation: HU<EN

Documents indicate that the village, in the early days, had a castle on the water, but the exact location of the fort is still unknown. Many believe that the remnants are hidden somewhere under the present day castle park. The name of the village was first mentioned in a document dating 1424. In 1496, it was passed over by Tamás Bakócz to his nephew, Péter Bakócz who later adopted the surname Erdődy and thus can be considered as the “forefather” of the noble family.

The rising of the Erdődy family dates back to the 17 th century, when György Erdődy had pulled down the former castle, and had the “old castle” constructed along with other buildings in the village. The palace in its present form was built between 1860 and 1862 based on Anton Weber’s plans. A great fire destroyed the entire inner furnishing in 1929, and not only the archives of the family, but the secret documents Ferenc Rákóczi II were also destroyed in the flames.

c) Translation corrected by Trainer (T)

Revision eModule

d) Translation corrected by trainee before handing it in to Reviser:

Documents indicate that, in the early days, the community possessed a castle on water, but the exact

position of this is still unknown. Many believe that the remains lie hidden somewhere under the present-

day castle park. The name of the village was first mentioned in a document dated 1424. In 1496, it was

handed over by Tamás Bakócz to his nephew, Péter Bakócz, who later adopted the surname Erdődy

and can therefore be considered to be the forefather of the noble family.

The rise of the Erdődy family dates back to the 17th century, when György Erdődy had the

former castle pulled down, and reconstructed together with other buildings in the village. The palace in

its present form was built between 1860 and 1862, planned by Anton Weber. A great fire destroyed the

entire internal furnishings in 1929, when not only the archives of the family, but also numerous secret

documents of Ferenc Rákóczi II were consumed by the flames.

e) Translation corrected by Reviser ® working at a translation office

Revision eModule

f) Translation corrected by native speaker reviewer (N)

Circle the letter of the person(s) (T = trainer, R = reviser and N= native speaker reviewer) whose correction you think can be associated with the statements in the table. More than one letter can be circled!

1. Helped trainees find out what the translation error might be by T R N

Revision eModule

giving hints and making comments2. Corrected collocations and stylistic problems T R N

3. Added words to the translation when s/he sees fit T R N

4. Offered straight-forward alternatives T R N5. Indicated which correction might be preferential and which

mandatory amendments (improving suggestions vs. correcting modifications – Robin, 2015)

T R N

6. Corrected only what’s absolutely necessary. T R N

7. Used different colours to indicate how long each unit is T R N

Useful resources:


Fischer, M. (2011). A társas és önértékelés szerepe a fordítás oktatásában. In Dróth J. (szerk.) Szaknyelv és Szakfordítás. Tanulmányok a szakfordítás és a fordítóképzés aktuális témáiról 2010–2011. 76–82. o. Gödöllő: Szent István Egyetem GTK.



Mossop, B. (2014): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Scriven, M. (1967): The methodology of evaluation. In: Tyler, R. W. – Gagne, R. M. – Scriven, M. (eds)

(1967) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Rand McNally: Chicago 39–83.

Revision eModule

UNIT 2. Activity 3: REVISION PARAMETERS – ERROR TYPOLOGIES INVOLVING DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT

Learning outcome

Trainees become aware of the various types of mistakes that may occur in translations, and get familiar with the error categories that revisers have to identify. They know how to revise their own work (self-assessment), how to revise their peer’s work (peer assessment), how to categorise errors and how to justify their revisions by objective reasoning.

Learning contextPrerequisites Awareness of different error categories used in the market


classroom/lab


Overview of learning activitiesTitle Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assessment Estimated

timeframe

3. Revision parameters involving market aspects

This section is meant to elaborate on the application of different error categories and boost trainees’ awareness of self and peer assessment techniques

to boost trainees’ awareness of spotting errors, identifying errors categories; to practise objective reasoning when giving feedback to translators

Individual work, pair work, group work

Self/peer assessment – here both are in the focus of the activity!

40 min

UNIT 2. Activity 3.: Revision parameters involving market aspectsInstructions for trainers:

1. Trainees prepare a translation; trainer/supervisor assesses their work.2. In class, trainees receive their own original uncorrected assignment, and their corrected work.

They compare the two versions, and categorise their mistakes based on the correction (using one specific assessment table, standard or metrics), and classify them as major or minor mistakes. (10 min)

3. They form pairs and the pairs swap their translations. They now do the same analysis with the work of their peer. (They put mistakes into categories; decide which a major, which is minor mistake. Depending on the assessment scale, they may also give points/percentages, etc...) 10 min.

4. The pairs compare then analyse and discuss results, then report their findings back to the class. The class together defines problem areas and identify types of mistakes they did not notice in their own work but tended to spot in their peer’s translation.

5. They receive their own work from the trainer and compare their corrections with that of their own and their peer, and the class together draws major conclusions.

Revision eModule

UNIT 2. Activity 4: STYLE AND REGISTER

Learning outcome

The activities in this unit aim to improve the coherence of the target text by remedying problems such as poor cohesive devices, wrong/unclear focus within the sentence, confusing verbosity, general long-windedness or awkward/odd wording. It will also help trainees decide what they should do with a poorly edited source text when they receive one as an assignment on the market.

Learning contextPrerequisites ability to paraphrase and segment units of meaning, ability to achieve coherence in

writingLearning Environment

PCs/lab or paper


Overview of learning activitiesTitle Description Rationale/goal Type of

activityAssessment Estimated

timeframe4.1Poorly edited texts

Trainees discuss to what options translators have to deal with poorly edited texts

to raise trainees’ awareness how to go about poorly edited texts

Discussion, reading (pair work and group work)

not assessed 40 min

4.2Overloaded sentences

It is a writing activity with focus on paraphrasing and restructuring units of meaning to achieve maximum coherence and doing away with basic problems such as focus, verbosity and cohesion.

to enable trainees to simplify overloaded sentence to get clear meaning and message across

pair work, writing, reasoning

not assessed, peer assessed

30 min

UNIT 2. Activity 4.1.: Poorly edited texts

Background for trainers

Translators often come up against poorly edited text. Texts might be problematic due to several reasons: the author may lack the relevant knowledge for the topic, their ignorance of the target readership, or just simply due to lapse of attention. The elements of a poorly written text may be the following: poorly organized argumentation, faulty syntax, inconsistent terminology, misdirected sentence focus, ambiguous sentence structure, typographical errors, wrong collocations, unspecified abbreviations, mixed metaphors, inappropriate mixing of formal and informal register - to name but a few.

Discuss the following with your trainees: Have they ever come across a text that was largely untranslatable because the poor quality of

the source text? What was the problems in terms of style?

WORKSHEET

Read the following online conversation between professional translators and discuss the questions raised in the debate.

Revision eModule

Hi everyone

I'm fuming right now and I came here to vent off a little bit before I keep on working on one of the worst written texts I've ever come across. It is a Spanish text supposedly written by Spanish people, and upon a first glance I assume that it was composed copying and pasteing fragments from too many different texts. It is really a nightmare to translate as too many sentences don't make any sense at all and I have to rack my brains to come to a logical conclusion, even though sometimes there isn't any at all.This is very time-consuming so I'm seriously considering translating every sentence by itself, not paying attention to the whole of the text.

I surely am going to have a word or two with the client when I deliver this "thing", specially as this text is supposed to be posted on their website. They really need to get their act together or at least hire a decent writer if they want to keep doing business.

How do you deal when in a similar situation?

I've come across a few of these myself, and although the temptation is there to throw up my hands in frustration, a better strategy might be to try to work with the original author to edit the source text before going ahead with the translation. This, of course, would require a great deal of tact and a very good working relationship with the client. It's not pleasant to be told that your document is unreadable.

There are different opinions on this. I would tend to take the view that, even if the source text is poorly written, part of what the client is paying you for is that you are a professional writer and so your aim should still be to turn in a well-written text-- or at least to do the best you can in the circumstances. (And of course, this extra work isn't free: you need to establish a rate that takes into account the extra work created as a result of the poor quality of the source text.)

Now, having to put extra work in to untangle a poorly written text is one thing. But if there are parts of the text that are actually inconsistent or incomprehensible, then you need to go back to the client and get them to clarify.https://www.proz.com/forum/translation_theory_and_practice/259676how_do_you_deal_with_poorly_written_source_texts.html

Discuss the following questions in groups:1. Should a translator contact the client if the text is poorly edited?2. Is it the translator’s responsibility to make sure that the source text is of the same quality as the

target text? Is it his or her task to correct the source text or just to transfer the meaning of the ST?

3. Should the ambiguities be left in the target text assuming that the author may have written them intentionally?

4. What if the translator works via a middleman or has no contact to the author of the source text, i.e. contacting the “client” or the author is not possible?

http://translationjournal.blogspot.com/2005/12/good-translations-from-poor-originals.html

See further ideas on ethics in this Module in Unit 3. Activity 3.

UNIT 2. Activity 4.2. : Overloaded sentences

Istructions for trainers:

1. Ask trainees to translate the excerpts below from Hungarian into English. Before the translation, they should decide whether the source text needs to be edited in terms of style or register. They should make the corrections with track changes.

Revision eModule

2. [Optional task: Once ready, they should translate the excerpt into English. If they do the translation themselves, they will be more familiar with the problems that a translator may encounter. Since, however, this task is part of a revision module, trainees may as well skip to the revision and review task.]

3. Look at the rendition displayed below the source text in HUN. Compare the two renditions and explain what problems there might be in the interpretation.

4. Revise both texts according to style and register.

ST (HUN): “Áhítatos ember, szemérmesen jóságos ember és ugyanilyen művész is volt, aki az élettől elgyötört öregek arcában és elnyűtt kezében, a csecsemője fölé hajló anyában, a mosósajtárból kiviruló fiatal lány gyöngyfényű testében, az istálló melegében kérődző borjakban, egy tál naspolyában vagy az őszi tájban ballagó ökrösszekérben fáradhatatlanul hirdette azt az áhítatot minden élő iránt, amely a régi nagyok képeiből árad az évszázadokon át.”

TT (EN1) Similarly to his predecessors, he was reverential, unblemished and kind-hearted who indefatigably proclaimed devotion and piety: in the worn out face and the work-roughened hands of his elderly subjects, in the affectionate mother bending over her infant, in the beautiful body of the young girl standing radiant in the wooden washtub, in the calves chewing hay in the warm stable, in a bowl of medlars, or in the bullock-cart creaking along the autumn landscape.

TT (EN 2) He was reverential, unblemished and kind-hearted both as a person and as an artist. Like his great predecessors, he indefatigably proclaimed devotion and piety via the worn-out face and the work-roughened hands of his elderly subjects, via the affectionate mother bending over her infant, via the beautiful body of the young girl standing radiant in the wooden washtub, via the calves chewing hay in the warm stable, via a bowl of medlars, or via the bullock-cart creaking along the autumn landscape.

Look at the Hungarian source text below. Analyse according to the categories Mossop gives on pages 67-72, and try to establish which of the scenarios may apply for the excerpt below. What is the issue/problem here? What devices does the translator have to solve the problem?

Sokszor mondják, hogy az élet a legjobb forgatókönyvíró, és ezt a lenti történet csak megerősíteni látszik, Görgey Elemér, Szlányi Baby (eredetileg Margit, akit tévesen Gabiként is emlegettek) és Schönberger Béla története ugyanis olyan, hogy simán helyet kaphatna egy Rejtő-kisregényben.

Work in pairs! Each trainee in a pair should translate the excerpt into English, then exchange the papers (PCs) and discuss how they have solved the issue. https://index.hu/techtud/tortenelem/2018/08/25/sopron_rio_szerelem_1925_gorgey_elemer_szlanyi_baby/

5. Read Mossop’s view on Stylistic editing (4.1 on pages 63-66) and discuss with a partner what he says about the following aspects:- redundancy- explicitness- motivation - language- reader-writer relationship

Read Mossop’s introduction to the issue of “smoothing” in 4.2 on page 67 in the Chapter on Stylistic editing. Look at the overloaded sentence below: What makes it extraordinarily complicated?

Until last week, I would have said that your best hope for being more than a bodiless brain in a chemical stew was the fact that no scientist was yet capable of sustaining a viable brain in a jar.

Revision eModule

Source: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/125160/what-is-this-wordy-and-complicated-sentence-structure

Paraphrase the sentence with your own words to make sense of it. You may want to organise the meaningful units into different chunks or sentences such as in the example below:

E.g. "If you want to be more than a highly-developed brain in a jar, then your hope is dashed because it's not even possible to sustain life in a jar in the first place... at least that's what I would have said... until last week."

Look at the second example:

Four aircraft passengers, the pilot and three people travelling in a car were killed when a twin-engined Beechcraft Baron aircraft hit an electric power line and crashed near Nadi airport this week.

E.g. Eight people died when an aircraft crashed near Nadi airport this week. The pilot and four passengers died when their twin-engined Beechcraft Baron hit a power line. The plane then crashed into a car on a road near the airport, killing three more people.

Homework: see task in worksheet:

Look at the following examples. Smooth out the sentences, now in writing, to make sure they read well. Then compare your renditions with your partner, and discuss what changes you had to make to get the meaning across.

Sentence 1Anyone who feels that if so many more students whom we haven’t actually admitted are sitting in on the course than ones we have that the room had to be changed, then probably auditors will have to be excluded, is likely to agree that the curriculum needs revision.Sentence 2A cardholder becomes eligible for this Overseas travel insurance when, before leaving Australia on an overseas journey, they have a return overseas travel ticket, and A$500 of each of their prepaid travel costs (i.e. cost of their return overseas travel ticket, and/or airport/departure taxes; and/or their prepaid overseas accommodation/travel; and/or their other prepaid overseas itinerary items) have been charged to the cardholder’s eligible credit card account

Source: https://onlinewritingtraining.com.au/2015/02/happens-overload-sentences/Source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

Revise both texts according to style and register.

ST (HUN): “Áhítatos ember, szemérmesen jóságos ember és ugyanilyen művész is volt, aki az élettől elgyötört öregek arcában és elnyűtt kezében, a csecsemője fölé hajló anyában, a mosósajtárból kiviruló fiatal lány gyöngyfényű testében, az istálló melegében kérődző borjakban, egy tál naspolyában vagy az őszi tájban ballagó ökrösszekérben fáradhatatlanul hirdette azt az áhítatot minden élő iránt, amely a régi nagyok képeiből árad az évszázadokon át.”

TT (EN1) Similarly to his predecessors, he was reverential, unblemished and kind-hearted who indefatigably proclaimed devotion and piety: in the worn out face and the work-roughened hands of his elderly subjects, in the affectionate mother bending over her infant, in the beautiful body of the young girl standing radiant in the wooden washtub, in the calves chewing hay in the warm stable, in a bowl of medlars, or in the bullock-cart creaking along the autumn landscape.

TT (EN 2) He was reverential, unblemished and kind-hearted both as a person and as an artist. Like his great predecessors, he indefatigably proclaimed devotion and piety via the worn-out face and the work-roughened hands of his elderly subjects, via the affectionate mother bending over her infant, via the beautiful body of the young girl standing radiant in the wooden washtub, via the calves chewing hay in the warm stable, via a bowl of medlars, or via the bullock-cart creaking along the autumn landscape.

Look at the Hungarian source text below. Analyse according to the categories Mossop gives on pages 67-72, and try to establish which of the scenarios may apply for the excerpt below. What is the issue/problem here? What devices does the translator have to solve the problem?

Sokszor mondják, hogy az élet a legjobb forgatókönyvíró, és ezt a lenti történet csak megerősíteni látszik, Görgey Elemér, Szlányi Baby (eredetileg Margit, akit tévesen Gabiként is emlegettek) és Schönberger Béla története ugyanis olyan, hogy simán helyet kaphatna egy Rejtő-kisregényben.

Homework

Look at the following examples. Smooth out the sentences, now in writing, to make sure they read well. Then compare your renditions with your partner, and discuss what changes you had to make to get the meaning across.

Sentence 1Anyone who feels that if so many more students whom we haven’t actually admitted are sitting in on the course than ones we have that the room had to be changed, then probably auditors will have to be excluded, is likely to agree that the curriculum needs revision.Sentence 2A cardholder becomes eligible for this Overseas travel insurance when, before leaving Australia on an overseas journey, they have a return overseas travel ticket, and A$500 of each of their prepaid travel costs (i.e. cost of their return overseas travel ticket, and/or airport/departure taxes; and/or their prepaid overseas accommodation/travel; and/or their other prepaid overseas itinerary items) have been charged to the cardholder’s eligible credit card accountSource: https://onlinewritingtraining.com.au/2015/02/happens-overload-sentences/Source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical

Useful resources:

Revision eModule

Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014.

Structural ambiguity: http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg7/11_ambiguity.pdf

Words usage in scientific writing: http://people.vetmed.wsu.edu/jmgay/courses/documents/ScientificWritingWordUsage.pdf

Check your punctuation: https://www.gingersoftware.com/punctuation-checker#.W4k-e-gzbIU

Revision eModule

UNIT 3. Activity 1: REVISION AND MARKET ASPECTS

Learning outcome

Trainees will be familiar with practices and principles applied in the local market (at local translation offices) in terms of revision and related standards.

Learning contextPrerequisites discuss with translation companies that trainees will pay a visit to their office and

make an interview with them

Learning Environment

translation office, informal environment, classroom, PPT-presentation



Title Description Rationale/goal Type of activity Assessment Estimated timeframe

1.1

Map up the local market

Trainees make an interview with revisers (or other representatives) of local offices to find out about their practices in revision

to raise trainees’ awareness about local companies’ practices in revising translations

interview, preparation of presentation, discussion and/or PPT presentation in class (group, pair and individual work)

not assessed

peer assessed

60 min (field)

30 min(in class)

1.2

Comparison of TQA standards in revision

Trainees compare the currently available TQA tools that can be applied for revision

to raise trainees awareness about the various TQA tools and the differences between them

reading, discussion, arguing for and against

(individual and group work)

not assessed

20 min

1.3 Revision in the translation process

Trainees study the translation workflow and discuss revisers’ and reviewers’ role

to help visualise the reviser’ and reviewers’ role in the translation process

discussion

(group work)

not assessed

20 min

UNIT 3. Activity 1.1 : Map up the local marketBackground for trainers

Revision eModule

Trainees are organised into groups and are assigned to various translation offices. They are (with the help of their tutors) to organise a visit to the given company and make an interview where they are to obtain answers to the following questions:

Interview questions

1. Do they always revise a translation before returning it to the client?2. Does the company comply with any translation quality assessment (TQA) procedures (i.e. ISO,

SAE, LISA, etc.) to determine and measure translation quality? What procedure or standard is it and when was it introduced?

3. What revision parameters do they apply? 4. Have they got their own set of parameters and if so, how did they compile them?5. Do they have an in-house native speaker reviser/reviewer for the main foreign language they

work with? How did they recruit him/her?6. Does the reviser revise 100% of the translation project or only does spot-checks on

translations? 7. How is the revision/review process organised and how are results of the revision process

documented (if at all)?8. Do they keep track of the individual (staff) translators’ accuracy ratio and do they take any

punitive measures if a staff or free-lance translator fall below average?9. How does the company determine what is average and below average?10. What feedback do translators receive about their translations once they are revised or

reviewed?

Optional tasks:

1. Before you show the trainees the list of questions above, they may be asked to compile a list themselves. As part of the preparation for the visit, the class may compare their list with the trainer’s list and agree in a final set of questions to ask in the interview.

2. Even if the trainer decides to give the trainees the list of questions, they may be asked to anticipate the answers – in writing. This is expected to raise their motivation to attend the visit and will stimulate their interest in hearing the answers. One trainee may be assigned to make a short debriefing in class the following week about the difference in trainees’ expectations and the interviewee’s answers.

3. Provided the interviewee consents to it, trainees may record the interview on video. They may even be asked to edit and then subtitle the video in English (as a translation assignment) and upload it on their website.

In an ideal situation, these videos could find their way into the revision e-module and could provide valuable information on other countries practices in terms of revision and review processes in translation offices.

UNIT 3. Activity 1.2: Comparison of TQA standards in revision


Trainees are asked to work in groups and based on the TAUS summary (see below) compare the various metrics applied in translation quality evaluation. They may also compare it with the practice of the translation company they visited (see previous task).

Revision eModule

The 8 most frequently used metrics for Translation Quality Evaluation

(Source: TAUS http://blog.taus.net/the-8-most-used-standards-and-metrics-for-translation-quality-evaluation)

Why standards and metrics for objective evaluation?

Different companies use different metrics which makes it hard to compare vendors, translators, projects and to benchmark translation quality with industry averages. In order to benchmark quality and productivity of translation services, we need an objective approach by employing industry standards and metrics. The difference between metric and standard is simple: a metric is a system of measurement; a standard is a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. A metric helps ensure that a service or a product complies with an agreed level of quality, the standard. In what follows, we will highlight some of the standards and metrics used in translation quality management.

Standards

ISO 17100 provides requirements for the core processes, resources, and other aspects necessary for the delivery of a quality translation service that meets applicable specifications. The use of raw output from machine translation plus post-editing is outside the scope of this standard.The ISO 9000 family addresses various aspects of quality management and contains some of ISO’s best known standards. The standards provide guidance and tools for companies and organizations who want to ensure that their products and services consistently meet customer’s requirements, and that quality is consistently improved.The EN 15038 quality standard is developed especially for translation services providers and aims to unify the terminology used in the translation field, define basic requirements for LSPs and create a framework for the interaction of customers and service providers in terms of their rights and obligations. A strong focus is on administrative, documentation, review and revision processes, as well as on the functions of different specialists who are involved in translation process over its duration. As a minimum requirement under EN15038 certification translations must involve at least two separate people performing translation and editing (or review).The ASTM F2575-14 is a standard guide for Quality Assurance in translation. It provides a framework for customers and LSPs desirous of agreeing on the specific requirements of a translation project. It does not provide specific criteria for translation or project quality, as these requirements may be highly individual, but states parameters that should be considered before beginning a translation project. As the document's name suggests, it is a guideline, informing stakeholders about what basic quality requirements are in need of compliance, rather than a prescriptive set of detail instructions for the translator.

MetricsThe LISA QA metric was initially designed to promote the best translation and localization methods for the software and hardware industries. While since 2011 LISA is no longer active, their standardization methods are still widely used in translation quality evaluation. This metric features three severity levels, but no weighting. The Model consists of a set of 20, 25 or 123 error categories, depending on how they are counted.The SAE J2450 metric has gained popularity in the manufacturing industry. It consists of four parts:

Seven primary error categories which cover such areas as terminology, meaning, structure, spelling, punctuation, completeness, etc.

Two subcategories: serious and minor

Two meta-rules to help evaluators make a decision in case of ambiguity

Numeric weights for each primary and subcategory

The current version of the metric does not measure errors in style, making it unsuitable for evaluations of material in which style is important (e.g., owner's manuals or marketing literature).

Revision eModule

The newest metric for error-typology based evaluation is the MQM-DQF harmonized metric. LISA QA and SAE J2450 have not kept up with the times and lack the flexibility that is required in a world with much for diversified types of content. Because the need for an industry-wide quality metric was still great, both TAUS and DKFI decided to work on a new and better quality metric.The TAUS Dynamic Quality Framework (DQF) was developed in consultation with TAUS members. DQF includes various tools for the evaluation of translation quality, the error typology being one them. The Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) is an error typology metric that was developed as part of the (EU-funded) QTLaunchPad project based on careful examination and extension of existing quality models.Despite the variety of approaches taken in industry and research, the two models turned out to be broadly similar, but they were also different in important ways due to their history. In a series of meetings the developers of MQM and DQF agreed to make substantive changes to both frameworks to bring them into harmony. The newly harmonized metric offers translation professionals a standard and dynamic model that can be used in every context. It can be used ‘stand-alone’ but is also available through the DQF open API.

Diligent trainees may also be asked to read the following paper:

Sirena, D. (2004). Mission Impossible: Improve Quality, Price and Speed At the Same Time Using SAE J2450 to Do the Impossible. Globalization Insider, 13(2.2). Available at: http://www.translationdirectory.com/article387.htm and comment on it in class and/or write a summary.

UNIT 3. Activity 1.3: Revision in the translation process


Trainees are asked to work in pairs or in small groups and study the workflow chart below. They are to

discuss where in the process the reviser works, what stages his or her work is related to, and their work

may affect other activities in the workflow.

Source: http://en.freelanguage.net/services/rev.html

WORKSHEET

Revision eModule

Read what the company referred to as Freelanguage writes on their website, and discuss the following issues:

Revision: http://en.freelanguage.net/services/rev.html How is the cost of revision calculated? How many words per day an average reviser is expected to do? How much difference can be between the old version and the revised version in terms of

percentage?

Proofreading: http://en.freelanguage.net/services/proof.html How does proofreading relate to revision? How does the company calculate the costs of proofreading? What is the normal daily volume of one proofreading project? How would you estimate the

difference in terms of average volume between the languages you work with?

Useful resources:

Mossop, Brian. Revising and editing for translators. Routledge, 2014.Sirena, D. (2004). Mission Impossible: Improve Quality, Price and Speed At the Same Time Using SAE J2450 to Do the Impossible. Globalization Insider, 13(2.2).http://www.translationdirectory.com/article387.htmTAUS Blog: http://blog.taus.net/the-8-most-used-standards-and-metrics-for-translation-quality-evaluation)http://en.freelanguage.net/services/rev.htmlhttp://en.freelanguage.net/services/proof.html

Revision eModule

UNIT 3. Activity 2: INTRODUCTION TO MACHINE TRANSLATION AND POST EDITING

Learning outcome

The main aim of this activity is to give an introduction to the issue of Machine Translation, to list the main arguments for and against this type of translation, and to give an insight into the work of post-editors.

Learning context

Prerequisites Trainees should be aware of the error categories, should have some basic background knowledge about MT in general


PCs/lab + projector

Time/Workload 40 minutes



2.Chocolate and Google Translate

Trainees compare their translations with the machine translated version of a text, they are given a basic post-editing task

to introduce the trainees to the techniques involved in post-editing Machine Translation (MT) output.

individual translation >> revision in pairs >> group discussion

Not assessed

40 minutes

UNIT 3. Activity 2.: Chocolate and Google Translate


>> Trainees are given a text about 10 interesting facts related to chocolate. They should translate the segments in groups (preferably, each trainee should get two or three), share their solutions in groups and agree on a final version for each segment.

>> Trainees receive the machine translated version of the text (provided by Google Translate) and revise it in pairs – trying to find errors that have to be corrected and ones that sound weird in the target language but convey the message.

>> Trainees discuss the types of problems that might occur in MT. Try to make a list of pros and cos of applying Machine Translation. They are to share their views on the difference between the work of ‘traditional’ translation revisers and post-editors.

Materials required for the task:a) Source text in ENGb) Machine translated version of the text in the target language

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

Theoretical background

>> You will get a text about 10 interesting facts related to chocolate.

>>Translate one segment and agree on a final version for each segment in groups of 3-4.

>> You will get the machine translated version of the text (provided by Google Translate). Your task is to revise (to ‘post-edit’) the text, compare it with your version and make the necessary correction. Don’t forget to indicate, whether your corrections are optional or compulsory.

>> Discuss the types of problems that might occur in MT. Try to make a list of pros and cos of Machine Translation together.

Source text Translation by Google translate

What is machine translation?The translation of text by a computer, with no human involvement. Pioneered in the 1950s, machine translation can also be referred to as automated translation, automatic or instant translation.

How does machine translation work?There are three types of machine translation system: rules-based, statistical and neural:

Rules-based systems use a combination of language and grammar rules plus dictionaries for common words. Specialist dictionaries are created to focus on certain industries or disciplines. Rules-based systems typically deliver consistent translations with accurate terminology when trained with specialist dictionaries.

Statistical systems have no knowledge of language rules. Instead they "learn" to translate by analysing large amounts of data for each language pair. They can be trained for specific industries or disciplines using additional data relevant to the sector needed. Typically statistical systems deliver more fluent-sounding but less consistent translations.

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) is a new approach that makes machines learn to translate through one large neural network (multiple processing devices modeled on the brain). The approach has become increasingly popular amongst MT researchers and developers, as trained NMT systems have begun to show better translation performance in many language pairs compared to the phrase-based statistical approach.

What are the benefits to translators?

https://www.sdltrados.com/solutions/terminology-management/

Revision eModule

10 interesting facts about chocolate

1. The inventor of the chocolate chip cookie sold the idea to Nestle in return for a lifetime supply of chocolate.

2. Chocolate milk is actually more efficient at giving you energy than most energy drinks. And surely it is more healthy!

3. Switzerland has the largest chocolate consumption in the world per capita. An average citizen of Switzerland eats 240 bars of chocolate (25-40 grams each) yearly.

4. During World War II, Nutella was invented when an Italian pastry maker mixed hazelnuts into chocolate. Chocolate was very expensive then, so he decided to make a new cheaper recipe.

5. 25% of all Toblerone chocolate is sold at duty free airport shops. It should be announced the chocolate of all travellers!

6. In black and white movies, chocolate syrup was used to simulate blood.

7. Chocolate milk was invented in Jamaica. Later it was brought to Europe by an Irish botanist who used to sell it as a medicine.

8. According to Japanese scientists chocolate is much less harmful to your teeth than other sweets - it can help fight against bacteria in the mouth and stop dental decay.

9. Chocolate contains a chemical (similar to that of weed), which makes you feel good and is addictive.

10. More than twice as much chocolate is sold for Halloween than for Valentines Day. Each Halloween week they sell 90 pounds of chocolate in the US!

Based on: http://bestpictureblog.com/20-mouthwatering-facts-about-chocolate/19/

10 érdekes tény a csokoládéval kapcsolatban

1. A csokoládé-csipke feltalálója eladta az ötletet a Nestle-nek, cserébe az egész életen át tartó csokoládé kínálatáért.

2. A csokoládé tej hatékonyabban nyújt energiát, mint a legtöbb energiaital. És biztos, hogy egészséges!

3. Svájc a világon a legnagyobb csokoládéfogyasztás. Egy átlagos svájci állampolgár évről évre 240 bár csokoládét fogyaszt (25-40 gramm).

4. A II. Világháború alatt a Nutella-t feltalálták, amikor egy olasz cukrászda vegyes mogyorót csokoládéba kevert. A csokoládé nagyon drága volt, úgyhogy úgy döntött, hogy új, olcsóbb receptet készít.

5. Az összes Toblerone csokoládé 25% -át vámmentes repülőtéri üzletek árusítják. Meg kell hirdetni a csokoládét az összes utazóknak!

6. Fekete-fehér filmekben a csokoládészirupot használták a vér szimulálására.

7. A csokoládé tejet Jamaicában találták ki. Később egy ír botanikus hozta Európába, aki gyógyszert árusít.

8. A japán tudósok szerint a csokoládé sokkal kevésbé káros a fogakra, mint más édességek - segíthet a baktériumok elleni küzdelemben a szájban és megakadályozni a fogszuvasodást.

9. A csokoládé olyan vegyszert tartalmaz (hasonlóan a gyomnához), ami jól érzi magát és addiktív.

10. Több mint kétszer annyi csokoládét adnak el Halloweenra, mint a Valentin-napra. Minden Halloween héten 90 ezer csokoládét értékesítenek az Egyesült Államokban!

Useful resources


What is machine translation?The translation of text by a computer, with no human involvement. Pioneered in the 1950s, machine translation can also be referred to as automated translation, automatic or instant translation.

How does machine translation work?There are three types of machine translation system: rules-based, statistical and neural:

Rules-based systems use a combination of language and grammar rules plus dictionaries for common words. Specialist dictionaries are created to focus on certain industries or disciplines. Rules-based systems typically deliver consistent translations with accurate terminology when trained with specialist dictionaries.

Statistical systems have no knowledge of language rules. Instead they "learn" to translate by analysing large amounts of data for each language pair. They can be trained for specific industries or disciplines using additional data relevant to the sector needed. Typically statistical systems deliver more fluent-sounding but less consistent translations.

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) is a new approach that makes machines learn to translate through one large neural network (multiple processing devices modeled on the brain). The approach has become increasingly popular amongst MT researchers and developers, as trained NMT systems have begun to show better translation performance in many language pairs compared to the phrase-based statistical approach.

What are the benefits to translators?

https://www.sdltrados.com/solutions/machine-translation/

http://appstore.sdl.com/list/language/automated-translation/most-downloaded/

https://www.sdltrados.com/products/language-cloud/

Revision eModule

Carl, M. – Gutermuth, S. – Hansen-Schirra, S. (2015): Post-editing machine translation. In: Ferreira, A. – Schwieter, J.W. (eds): Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam /Philadelphia.


EMT Expert Group (2009): Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/ emt / k ey_documents /emt_competences_translators_en.pdf

Krings, Hans P. (2001): Repairing Texts. Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing Processes. Kent State University Press: Kent, Ohio.

Mossop, B. (20141): Revising and Editing for Translators. John Benjamins Publishing: Amsterdam.

Revision eModule

UNIT 3. Activity 3: INTERPERSONAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF REVISION

Learning outcome

In this activity the trainees are shown two possible extremes of giving feedback to translators by revisers (in the form of guided role plays). By analysing these situations they become aware of what a reviser should/should not do when interacting with translators.

Learning context

Prerequisites Trainees should be aware of the main tasks and characteristics of revisers and should be familiar with the process of revision and error typologies.


classroom /lab




3.1 Giving feedback to translators

Two pairs of trainees will act out two alternative ways of giving feedback on the same translation

to show trainees two extremes as far as the communication with translators is concerned and develop their own approach

role play (first 2 pairs of volunteers) >> group discussion >>role play (all trainees in pairs)

not assessed 40 min

3.2 Whose fault is it?

Trainees compare reviser and translator attitudes during the process of revision/review

to raise awareness in the ultimate goal of revision and translation quality, to eliminate possible pitfalls of communication

grouping information, discussion

not assessed 10 min (for warmer)

20 min for discussion

UNIT 3. Activity 3.1: Giving feedback to translators


- Four trainee volunteers are given the task of acting out a situation in which a reviser gives feedback to the translator. Two of them will act as revisers and two of them as translators, meaning that the peers will be able to witness two alternative ways of giving feedback to translators. The two pairs have the source text and the revised version with corrections/comments at hand and should get prepared for the task (in about 5 minutes) based on the previously prepared role cards.

Revision eModule

- After having listened to both role plays the other trainees are asked to share their views on the two different ways of communicating with translators, to highlight the points where the revisers attitude or way of communication was questionable.

- Try to formulate the main ethical principles that a reviser should follow when communicating with translators.

- Trainees are instructed to act out the situation in pairs, trying to avoid the communication mistakes identified in course of the group discussion.

Materials required for the task:

a) Source textb) Sample translation corrected by a reviser (preferably an acceptable translation with some minor

and a few major mistakes)

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

Ethical rules

„The ethical rules that apply to translators are applicable to revisers, too. The difference is that the reviser has to consider the person of the translator in addition to other people who are involved in the translation process. In every change the reviser makes, he or she has to take in account the needs and requirements of the author of the translation. This is not the case with self-revision, where one only has moral commitments to oneself and the motivation to ethical behaviour is therefore self-generated.”

Cooperation with the translator

„Cooperating with the translator might contribute to the professional development of the reviser. Providing and accepting sophisticated feedback based on conscious arguments as well as linguistic and professional norms instead of instinctive feelings serves the professional advancement of both parties. Consultation helps in detecting errors and prevents unnecessary, futile modifications by the reviser. It is important to keep in mind that translators and revisers are not enemies bent on dragging each other’s work through the mud. On the contrary, they have a common goal: to deliver a perfect, high-quality target text, and they do not strive to promote their own interests.”

Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].For the trainees participating in the first role play:

>> Your task will be to act out a situation in which a reviser gives feedback to the translator. We’ll need two revisers and two translators who will be given a source text and the revised version with corrections/comments. You should get prepared for the role play (in about 5-8 minutes) based on the previously prepared role cards.

REVISER 1

You are supposed to be very picky and hair-splitting, going into every tiny detail of the corrections. You should list all the errors one after the other, without indicating whether your corrections are optional or compulsory. You should also make it clear that you have serious concerns about the quality of the translation and the translator’s professional competence. Tell the translator that you are going to inform the client about the poor quality of his/her translation.

REVISER 2

You are supposed to be rather forgiving and accepting as far as translation errors are concerned. You should only pick a few mistakes in random order, assuring the translator that most of your corrections are optional and your comments are only based on your personal views and preferences, meaning (s)he is free to decide whether to accept them or not. Assure the translator that you won’t tell the client about the translation errors.

For the rest of the group>> You will see role plays performed by your peers showing two alternative ways of giving feedback to

translators. After having listened to both role plays you’ll be asked to share your views on the behaviour and attitude of the two revisers. Try to highlight the points where the revisers attitude or way of communication was questionable. Discuss it in class how the revisers’ communication with the translator could be improved.

>> Act out the situation again, this time in pairs, trying to avoid the communication mistakes identified in the group discussion.

UNIT 3. Activity 3.2: Whose fault is it?

Revision eModule

Trainees are invited to brainstorm what typical problems there might arise when translators and revisers work together. Once they have made their own list, they get a list of typical pitfalls and they are to group the information under the two headings. They will also need to indicate if a statement may apply to both the translator and the reviser.

Source: Horváth, Péter Iván (2018). What can you learn from the professional reviser? Lecture and handout at Trainees Meet Professionals event at BME on 8 November 2016.


disregarding lessons to be learnt (Both: translators may make the same mistakes again, reviser fails to see that only corrections are necessary, but no improvements (Robin, 2018))

submitting work over the deadline (Typically T, but sometimes R delays the process) too much reliance on the other party (Both: T: the reviser will solve this problem, R: R believes

that T has done a thorough job inadequate self-check (e.g. leaving unfinished chunks in the text) Both: T forgets about

unsolved problems, R forgets about undecided issues being personal, not accepting the other’s opinion - both the delusion of being infallible/unerring – lack of self-criticism - both lack of communication with the other party (making a phone call or writing an email to clarify

misunderstandings) – both, but mainly R making mistakes – both (R may add new mistakes!)

Useful resources




Mossop, B. (2001): Revising and Editing for Translators. Benjamins: Amsterdam.Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].Robin, E. (2018). : Differenciált értékelés a fordítóképzésben: javítás vagy jobbítás? In: Hilóczki, Á. & Fischer, M. & Szabó, Cs. (szerk.) Fókuszban a fordítás értékelése. Tanulmányok a BME INYK Tolmács- és Fordítóképző Központ 2017. szeptember 29-30-án megrendezett Őszi Konferenciájának előadásaiból. Budapest: BME

Revision eModule

WORKSHEET

Basic ethical principles of revision

The reviser should only mark those mistakes that need marking – “[i]t is unethical to make unwarranted stylistic changes as well as to withhold justified changes in order to discredit or unduly credit the translator.” (Chakhachiro)

Revision will always be a rather subjective process – „subjectivity in revision can be remedied, by revisers basing intuitive corrections on the linguistic, stylistic, and pragmatic characteristics of the languages involved”. (Reiss in Chakhachiro, 2004); “[t]here is (...) no such thing as the definitive solution to a translation problem (by definition, translation problems allow for more than one solution)” (Pym 2005:73).

Revisers should not distort the meaning of the text.(Robinson 30)

Revisers must always admit their fault (when they realise it), or failure to resolve a problem. (Mossop 160, 177)

Source: Robin, E. (2016). The Translator as Reviser. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 307628891_The_Translator_As_Reviser [accessed Aug 29 2018].

Look at the list of typical problems/mistakes and decide which of them is likely to make this mistakes: translator, reviser or both!

List: disregarding lessons to be learnt submitting work over the deadline too much reliance on the other party inadequate self-check (e.g. leaving unfinished chunks in the text) being personal, not accepting the other’s opinion the delusion of being infallible/unerring – lack of self-criticism lack of communication with the other party (making a phone call or writing an email to clarify

misunderstandings) making mistakes

TRANSLATOR REVISER BOTH

Revision eModule

Readings on Revising and Editing©Brian Mossop 2015

Latest update: 27 May 2018

Allman, Spencer (2008) ‘Negotiating Translation Revision Assignments’, in Ian Kemble (ed.) Translation and Negotiation. Proceedings of the Conference held on 10th November 2007 in Portsmouth, Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, School of Languages and Area Studies, 35-47. Alves, Fabio & Daniel Couto Vale (2011) ‘On drafting and revision in translation: a corpus linguistic oriented analysis of translation process data’ in Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 1(1). http://www.t-c3.org/index.php/t-c3/article/view/3/8 Angelone, Erik. (2013) “The impact of process protocol self-analysis on errors in the translation product.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8:2, pp. 253–271. Antunović, Goranka & Nataša Pavlović. (2011) “Here and now: Self-revision in student translation processes from L2 and L3.” Across Languages and Cultures 12:2, pp. 213–234. ASTM (2006, 2014) Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation (F-2575). Arthern, Peter (1983) ‘Judging the Quality of Revision’, Lebende Sprachen 28(2): 53-57. Arthern, Peter (1987) “Four Eyes are Better than Two” in C. Picken (ed.), Translating and the Computer 8: A Profession on the Move. London: Aslib, The Association for Information Management, 14-26. http://www.mt-archive.info/Aslib-1986-Arthern-1.pdf Arthern, Peter (1991) ‘Quality by numbers: Assessing revision and translation’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting, London:Aslib, 85-91. Asadi, Paula and Séguinot, Candace (2005) “Shortcuts, strategies and general patterns in a process study of nine professionals”, Meta 50:2, 522-547. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2005/v50/n2/010998ar.html Biel, Łucja (2011) ‘Training translators or translation service providers? EN 15038:2006 standard of translation services and its training implications’ in Journal of Specialised Translation 16. http://www.jostrans.org/issue16/art_biel.php *Bisaillon, Jocelyne (2007) ‘Professional Editing Strategies used by Six Editors” in Written Communication 24:4, 295-322. Breedveld, Hella (2002) “Writing and revising process in professional translation” in Across Languages and Cultures 3(1) 91-100. Breedveld, Hella (2002) ‘Translation processes in time’. Target 14(2), 221–240. Brunette, Louise (2000) ‘Toward a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: a comparison of TQA practices’, The Translator 6(3): 169-182. Brunette, Louise, C. Gagnon and J. Hine (2005) ‘The GREVIS project: revise or court calamity’, Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 29-45. Bundgaard, Kristine, Tina Paulsen Christensen and Anne Schjoldager (2016) “Translator-computer interaction in action — an observational process study of computer-aided translation” Journal of Specialised Translation 26 http://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_bundgaard.php * Burrough-Boenisch, Joy (2003) ‘Shapers of Published NNS Research Articles’, Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 223-243.

Revision eModule

*Burrough-Boenisch, Joy (2013) Righting English That’s Gone Dutch (3rd edition), Voorburg: Kemper Conseil Publishing. *Burrough-Boenisch, Joy (2013) ‘The Authors’ Editor: Working with authors to make drafts fit for purpose’, in Valerie Matarese (ed.) Supporting Research Writing, Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 173-189. Canadian General Standards Board / Office des normes générales du Canada (2008/2017) Translation services/ Services de traduction (CAN/CGSB-131.10). http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/ongc-cgsb/P29-131-10-2017-eng.pdf Carl, Michael, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Barbara Dragsted (2011) ‘A taxonomy of human translation styles’, Translation Journal 15:2 Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth and Silvie-Hansen-Schirra (2015) ‘Post-editing machine translation: efficiency, strategies and revision processes in professional translation settings’. In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting (ed. Aline Ferreira & John W.Schwieter), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chakhachiro,Raymond (2005) ‘Revision for Quality’, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 13(3): 225-238. *Chandler, Daniel (1993) ‘Writing Strategies and Writers’ Tools’, English Today 9(2): 32-38 Colina, Sonia (2008) ‘Translation Quality Evaluation. Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach’, The Translator 14(1), 97-134. Colina, Sonia (2009) ‘Further Evidence for a Functionalist Approach to Translation Quality Evaluation’, Target 21(2): 235-264. *Dayton, David (2003) ‘Electronic editing in technical communication: a survey of practices and attitudes’, Technical Communication 50(2) 192-206. *Dayton, David (2004) ‘Electronic editing in technical communication: the compelling logics of local contexts’, Technical Communication 51(1) 86-101. *Dayton, David (2004) ‘Electronic editing in technical communication: a model of user-centered technology adoption’ Technical Communication 51(2) 207-223. *Dayton, David (2011) ‘Electronic editing’, chapter 6 of Rude & Eaton 2011. Department of the Secretary of State of Canada (1985) Reviser’s Manual. English adaptation of Guide du réviseur by Vic Bucens, Brian Mossop and Ingrid Roed. Dragsted, Barbara and Michael Carl (2013) ‘Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye-tracking and keyloggging data’, Journal of Writing Research 5(1): 133-158. Drugan, Joanna (2013) Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement, London: Bloomsbury. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (2005) Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process, Benjamins: Amsterdam. (See sections 2.3.5, 4.5, 4.6.4 and 6.2.2) European Committee for Standardization (2006) Translation Services – Service Requirements (EN 15038). [Versions in several other languages are available].

Revision eModule

European Commission, Directorate-General for Translation (2010) Revision Manual http://ec.europa.eu/translation/spanish/guidelines/documents/revision_manual_en.pdf European Commission, Directorate-General for Translation (2015) DGT Translation Quality Guidelines http://ec.europa.eu/translation/maltese/guidelines/documents/dgt_translation_quality_guidelines_en.pdf Flanagan, Mary & Tina Paulsen Christensen (2014) ‘Testing post-editing guidelines: how translation trainees interpret them and how to tailor them for translator training purposes’ The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8:2, 257-275 Fonseca, Norma (2015) ‘Directionality in translation: investigating prototypical patterns in editing procedures’ in Translation and Interpreting 7(1), 111-125. García, Ignacio (2008) “Translating and revising for localisation: what do we know? What do we need to know?” In: Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 16:1-2. pp. 49-60. García, Ignacio (2011) “ Translating by post-editing: is it the way forward?” Machine Translation 25, 217-237. García, Ignacio (2012) “A brief history of postediting and of research on postediting” Anglo Saxonica III (3), 291-310. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the PRC (2003; revised 2008) Specification for Translation Service – Part 1 Translation (GB/T 19363). General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the PRC (2005) Target text quality requirements for translation services (GB/T 19682). *Gopen, George & Judith Swan (1990), ‘The Science of Scientific Writing’ in Scientific American 78, Nov-Dec, 550-558. Göpferich, Susanne & Riitta Jääskeläinen (2009), ‘Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go?’, Across Languages and Cultures 10(2): 169-191. Graham, J.D. (1989). Checking, revision and editing. In C. Picken (Ed.), The translator’s handbook (pp. 59–70). London: Aslib. Guerberof, Ana (2009) ‘Productivity and quality in MT post-editing’. http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-Guerberof.pdf Guerberof, Ana (2009) ‘Productivity and quality in the post-editing of outputs from translation memories and machine translation’, International Journal of Localisation 7:1, 11-21. http://isg.urv.es/library/papers/2009_Ana_Guerberof_Vol_7-11.pdf Guzmán, Rafael (2007) ‘Manual MT Post-editing: if it’s not broken, don’t fix it!’ in Translation Journal 11(4). http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/42mt.htm Hague, D., Melby, A. and Zheng, W. (2011) ‘Surveying translation quality assessment: A specification approach’, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5 (2), 243–67. Hajmohammadi, Ali (2005) ‘Translation Evaluation in a News Agency’, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 13(3), 215-224.

Revision eModule

Hansen, Gyde (2009) ‘The speck in your brother's eye – the beam in your own: Quality management in translation and revision’ in Hansen, Chesterman and Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.) Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255–280. Hansen, Gyde (2009) ‘A classification of errors in translation and revision’ in CIUTI Forum 2008: Enhancing Translation Quality: Ways, Means, Methods. Martin Forstner, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke and Peter A. Schmitt (eds). Peter Lang: Bern. Hine, Jonathan (2003) ‘Teaching text revision in a multilingual environment’ in Beyond the ivory tower: rethinking translation pedagogy (Baer and Koby eds), 135-156. International Organization for Standardization (2012), Translation projects – General guidance (ISO/TS 11669). International Organization for Standardization (2015), Translation services – Requirements for translation services (ISO 17100). International Organization for Standardization (2017), Translation services – Post-editing of machine translation output - Requirements (ISO/DIS 18587). Ipsen, A. Helene and Helle Vrønning Dam (2016), ‘Translation revision: correlating revision procedure and error detection’. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 55, 143-156. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (2002) “Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students” in Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, Copenhagen Studies in Language 27, 191-204. Klaudy, Kinga (1995) ‘Quality assessment in school vs professional translation’, in C. Dollerup and V. Apple (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, Philadelphia & Amsterdam: Benjamins, 197-204. Ko, Leong (2011) ‘Translation checking: a view from the translation market’ in Perspectives 19(2) 123-134. Koby, Geoffrey S. (2007) “Computer editing as a translation efficiency skill:Summary evidence from keystrokes.” Translation and Interpreting Studies2:2, pp. 93–125. Koponen, M. & Salmi, L. (2015). ‘On the correctness of machine translation: a machine translation post-editing task’. Journal of Specialised Translation 23. Koponen, M. (2016). ‘Is machine translation post-editing worth the effort: a survey of research into post-editing and effort’. Journal of Specialised Translation 25. Koponen, M., & Salmi, L. (2017). Post-editing quality: Analysing the correctness and necessity of post-editor corrections. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 137–148 Krings, Hans (2001) Repairing Text [edited by G.S. Koby, translated from German by G.S. Koby, G.M. Shreve, K. Mischerikow and S. Litzer], Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. (about post-editing machine translation, 7-page summary in section 11.8) *Kruger, Haidee (2008) ‘Training editors in universities: considerations, challenges and strategies’ in John Kearns (ed) Translator and Interpreter training: issues, methods and debates. London: Continuum, 39-65. Künzli, Alexander (2005). “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

Revision eModule

Translation Conference, University of Portsmouth , November 2004, I. Kemble (Ed.). Portsmouth : University of Portsmouth , School of Languages and Area Studies. 31-44. Künzli, Alexander (2006) ‘Teaching and learning translation revision: Some suggestions based on evidence from a think-aloud protocol study’ in Mike Garant (ed.) Current trends in translation teaching and learning. Helsinki Department of Translation Studies Publication III. Helsinki: Helsinki University, 9-24 Künzli, Alexander (2006) “Translation revision - A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a technical text” in Maurizio Gotti & Susan Sarcevic (eds), Insights into specialized translation, Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 195-214. Künzli, Alexander (2007) “The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study” in Journal of Specialised Translation 8. Künzli, Alexander (2007) “Translation Revision: a study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text” in Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (eds), Translation Studies: doubts and directions, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 115-126. Künzli, Alexander (2009) ‘Address pronouns as a problem in French-Swedish translation and translation revision’ Babel 55(4) 364-380. Lauscher, Susanne (2000) ‘Translation quality assessment: Where can theory andpractice meet?’ The Translator 6(2), 149–68. Malkiel, Brenda. (2009) “From Ántonia to My Ántonia: tracking self-corrections with Translog.” In: Go ̈pferich, S.; A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees (eds.) 2009. Behind the Mind. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 149–166. Marashi, Hamid & Mehrnaz Okhowat. (2013) “The comparative impact of editing texts translated into Farsi with and without the original English texts.” Perspectives 21:3, 299–310. *Marsh, David (2013) For Who the Bell Tolls: one man’s quest for grammatical perfection. London: Guardian Books. Martin, Charles (2012) “The dark side of translation revision” Translation Journal 16(1). Martin, Timothy (2007) “Managing risks and resources: a down-to-earth view of revision” in Journal of Specialised Translation 8, http://www.jostrans.org/issue08/art_martin.php Mason, Ian (1987) ‘A text linguistic approach to translation assessment’, in Translation in the Modern Languages Degree, London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Mateo, Roberto Martínez, Silvia Montero Martínez & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro (2017) ‘The Modular Assessment Pack: a new approach to translation quality assessment at the Directorate General for Translation’ Perspectives in Translatology 25(1), 18-48. Matis, Nancy (2011) ‘Quality Assurance in the Translation Workflow – A professional’s testimony’ in Ilse Depraetere (ed.), Perspectives on Translation Quality, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 147-159. McDonough Dolmaya, Julie (2015) ‘Revision history: Translation trends in Wikipedia’, Translation Studies 8(1), 16-34. Mellinger, Christopher & Gergory Shreve (2016) ‘Match evaluation and over-editing in a translation memory environment’ in Muñoz Martín (ed.) Reembedding Translation Process Research, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Revision eModule

Mellinger, Christopher (2018) ‘Rethinking translation quality: revision in the digital age’. Target Merkel, Magnus (1998) ‘Consistency and Variation in Technical Translation: A study of translators’ attitudes’, in Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson (eds), Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 137-149. Mossop, Brian (1982) ‘A Procedure for Self-Revision’, in Terminology Update 15:3. http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/favart/index-eng.html?lang=eng Mossop, Brian (1992) ‘Goals of a Revision Course’, in C. Dollerup and A. Loddegaard (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 81-90. Mossop, Brian (2001, 2007, 2014) Revising and Editing for Translators, Routledge. Mossop, Brian (2007) ‘Empirical studies of revision: what we know and need to know’ in Journal of Specialised Translation 8, http://www.jostrans.org/issue08/art_mossop.php Mossop, Brian (2011, updated version 2016 available online at Benjamins website) ‘Revision’, in Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 2, John Benjamins, 135–139. Mossop, Brian (2018) ‘Editing in translation: revision’ in Chan Sin-wai (ed.), Encyclopedia of Practical Translation and Interpreting, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 43-72. Munday, Jeremy (2012) Evaluation in Translation, New York: Routledge. Ch. 4 on self-revision. *Murphy, Amanda (2013) ‘Incorporating Editing into the Training of English Language Students in the Era of English as a Lingua Franca’, Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7(2) 235-255 Nordman, Lieselott (2003) “From Draft to Law - Studying the Translation Process of Legal Bills in Finland” in Textologie und Translation (ed. Gerzymisch-Arbogast et al) Jahrbuch Übersetzen und Dolmetschen Bd. 4/II, O’Brien, Sharon (2012) ‘Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation’, Journal of Specialised Translation 17. Payne, Jerry (1987) ‘Revision as a teaching method on translating courses’, in Translation in the Modern Languages Degree, London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, 43-51. Picken, Catriona (ed.)(1994) Quality-assurance, Management & Control. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting, London: ITI Publications. Pietrzak, Paulina (2014) ‘Towards effective feedback to translation students: empowering through group revision and evaluation’. Intralinea Special Issue http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/towards_effective_feedback_to_translation_students *Pinker, Steven (2014) The Sense of Style: the thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Viking. Rasmussen, Kirsten and Anne Schjoldager (2011) ‘Revising Translations: a survey of revision policies in Danish translation companies’ Journal of Specialised Translation 15, http://www.jostrans.org/issue15/art_rasmussen.php Rayson, Paul; Xu Xialoan; Xiao Jian; Wong Anthony & Yuan Qi (2008) Quantitative Analysis of Translation Revision: Contrastive corpus research on native English and Chinese translationese http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/41883/1/Rayson_P_Et_Al_fit2008.pdf

Revision eModule

Rigouts Terryn, Ayla, Isabelle S. Robert , Jim J. J. Ureel , Aline Remael and Sabien Hanoulle (2017) ‘Conceptualizing translation revision competence: A pilot study on the acquisition of the knowledge about revision and strategic subcompetences’, Across Languages and Cultures 18:1, 1-27. 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. http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/robert.pdf Robert, Isabelle (2013) “Translation revision: Does the revision procedure matter?” in Tracks and Treks in Translation Studies: Selected papers from the EST Congress, Leuven 2010, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87-102. Robert, Isabelle & Luuk Van Waes (2014) “Selecting a translation revision procedure: do common sense and statistics agree?” in Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 22(3). Robert, Isabelle (2014) Investigating the problem-solving strategies of revisers through triangulation. An exploratory study. Translation and Interpreting Studies. 9(1), 88-108. Robert, Isabelle and Louise Brunette (2016) Should Revision Trainees Think Aloud while Revising Somebody Else’s Translation? Insights from an Empirical Study with Professionals. Meta 61(2), 320-345. Robert, Isabelle, A. Remael & J.J.J. Ureel (2016). Towards a model of translation revision competence. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 11(1), 1-19. Robert, Isabelle, Jim J. J. Ureel, Aline Remael & Ayla Rigouts Terryn (2017), Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘fairness and tolerance’ attitudinal component. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice. Robert, Isabelle, Ayla Rigouts Terryn, Jim J.J. Ureel and Aline Remael (2017) Conceptualising translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘tools and research’ subcompetence. Journal of specialized translation 26 http://www.jostrans.org/issue28/art_robert.php Robin, Edina (2016) ‘The translator as reviser’. In Ildikó Horváth (ed) The Modern Translator and Interpreter. Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 45-56.http://www.eltereader.hu/media/2016/04/HorvathTheModernTranslator.pdf Robin, Edina (2018) ‘A Classification of Revisional Modifications’ In Ildikó Horváth (ed) Latest Trends in Hungarian Translation Studies. Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation, 155-163.http://www.eltereader.hu/media/2018/03/HORVATH_Latest_Trends_READER.pdf Robinson, Bryan J., Clara I. López Rodríguez & María I. Tercedor Sánchez.(2006) “Self-assessment in translator training.” Perspectives 14:2, pp.115–138. *Rude, Carolyn and Angela Eaton (2011) Technical Editing, 5th edition. New York: Longman. Sedon-Strutt, Hugh (1990) ‘The revision of translation work’, Language International 2(3): 28-30. Sénécal, André (2008) ‘Technical Accuracy Checks of Translation’ Language Update 5(4): 24. http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/favart/index-eng.html?lang=eng Sager, Juan (1994) Language Engineering and Translation, chapter 8.8 Evaluation and revision. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Revision eModule

Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey (1996) ‘Working Procedures, Quality and Quality Assurance’ in R. Owens (ed) The Translator’s Handbook (3rd edition), London: Aslib. Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey (2010) A Practical Guide for Translators (5th revised edition), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chapter 8 on quality control. Schjoldager, Anne, Kirsten Rasmussen & Christa Thomsen (2008) “Précis-writing, revision and editing: piloting the European Master in Translation” in Meta 53:4. pp. 798-813. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2008/v53/n4/019648ar.html Schrijver, Iris, Leona Van Vaerenbergh & Luuk Van Waes (2012) "An Exploratory Study of Transediting in Students' Translation Processes" in Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication in Business No. 49. pp 99-117. Scocchera, Giovanna (2015) ‘Computer-based collaborative revision as a virtual lab of translation genetics’. Linguistica antverpiensia 14, 168-199. Scocchera, Giovanna (2014) ‘What kind of training for literary translation revisers’, Intralinea Special Issue: Challenges in Translation Pedagogy http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/2093 Scocchera, Giovanna (2013) ‘What We Talk about When We Talk about Revision: A critical overview on terminology, professional practices and training, and the case of literary translation revision in Italy’, in FORUM, vol. 11, n.2., 141–174. Scocchera, Giovanna (2017) ‘Translation Revision as Rereading : Different Aspects of the Translator’s and Reviser’s Approach to the Revision Process’. Mémoires du livre/Studies in Book Culture 9(1). Screen, Benjamin (2016) ‘What does Translation Memory do to translation? The effect of TM output on specific aspects of the translation process’ in Translation and Interpreting 8(1), 1-18. Sedon-Strutt, Hugh (1990) ‘The revision of translation work’, Language International 2(3): 28-30. Shih, Claire Yi-yi (2003). ‘A cognitive approach to three trainee translators’ overnight revision processes’ in Translation Quarterly 28, 1-17. Shih, Claire Yi-yi (2006). “Revision from translators’ point of view: an interview study”, Target 18:2, 295-312 Shih, Claire Yi-yi (2013). “Translators’ ‘End-Revision’ Processing Patterns and Maxims: a Think-Aloud Protocol Study”, Arab World English Journal 4.3, 31-44. Shih, Claire Yi-yi (2015). “Problem-solving and decision-making in translation revision: two case studies”, Across Languages and Cultures 16:1, 69-92. Shreve, Gregory M.; Angelone, Erik; Lacruz, Isabel (2014) ‘Efficacy of screen recording in the other-revision of translations: episodic memory and event models’ Revistas – MonTI, Special Issue 1. Minding Translation, 225-245. *Stetting, Karen (1989) ‘Transediting – a new term for coping with the grey area between editing and translating’ in Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, 371-382. Svoboda, Tomáš, Łucja Biel & Krzysztof Łoboda (eds.) (2017) Quality aspects ininstitutional translation (Translation and Multilingual Natural LanguageProcessing 8). Berlin: Language Science Press.http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/181

Revision eModule

Thaon, Brenda and Paul Horguelin (1980) A Practical Guide to Bilingual Revision. Montreal: Linguatech. Thaon, Brenda (1984) ‘The role of a revision course in a translation program’ in La Traduction : l’universitaire et le practicien, Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa, 297-301. Toury, Gideon (1995) “Studying Interim Solutions”, in Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Benjamins: Amsterdam, 181-192. United Nations (2003) Inter-agency Meeting on Language Arrangements, Documentation and Publications, Working Group on Translation. (see especially Annexes 4 to 8) http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/interagency/pdf/rep-wg-tran.pdf *Van de Poel, Kris, WAM Carstens and John Linnegar (2012) Text editing: a handbook for students and practitioners, Antwerp: Uitgeverij UPA University Press. Van Rensburg, A. (2017). ‘Developing assessment instruments: The effect of a reviser’s profile on the quality of the revision product’. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 71–88 Vasconcellos, Muriel (1987) ‘A comparison of MT postediting and traditional revision’, in K. Kummer (ed) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 409-416. *Ventola, Eija and Anna Mauranen (1991) ‘Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles’, in E. Ventola (ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 457-492. *Wagner, Emma (2005) ‘Translation and/or editing: the way forward?’ in In and Out of English: for better, for worse? (Anderman & Rogers eds), 214-226. Williams, Malcolm (1989) ‘The Assessment of Professional Translation Quality’, TTR 2(2): 13-33. Williams, Malcolm (2009) ‘Translation Quality Assessment’, Mutatis Mutandis 2(1), 3-23.

2. In French * Bisaillon, Jocelyne (ed) (2007) La révision professionnelle : processus, stratégies et pratiques [professional editing: processes, strategies and practices], Québec : Éditions Nota Bene *Lachance, Ginette (2006) La révision linguistique en français [linguistic editing in French], Sillery, Québec : Éditions du Septentrion. Brunette, Louise (2002) ‘Normes et censure : ne pas confondre’ [don’t confuse standards and criticisms] in TTR : traduction, terminologie, redaction 15.2, 223-233. Brunette, Louise (2003) ‘Révision et mesure de la qualité des traductions’ [revision and the measurement of translation quality] http://www.colloque.net/archives/2002/Spec-M%E9tiers/Specimet022.htm Brunette, Louise (2003) ‘Révision pédagogique et interférences linguistiques’ [pedagogical revision and linguistic interferences] in La formation à la traduction professionnelle, edited by Geneviève Mareschal, Louise Brunette, Zélie Guével and Egan Valentine, 141-151. Ottawa : Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. Brunette, Louise (2007) ‘Relecture-révision, compétences indispensables du traducteur spécialisé’ [re-reading and revision as essential abilities of the specialized translator] in Lavault-Olléon (ed), Traduction specialisée : pratiques, théories, formation Berne : Peter Lang 2007, 225-235.

Revision eModule

Brunette, Louise (2007) ‘Les risques de la révision unilingue en traduction’ [the risks of unilingual revision of translations] in La révision professionnelle: processus, stratégies et pratiques, ed J. Bisaillon, Québec : Éditions Nota Bene. 167-87. Brunetee, Louise & Sharon O’Brien (2011) ‘Quelle ergonomie pour la pratique postéditrice des textes traduits ?’ [what kind of ergonomics for post-editing of translations?], Revue ILCEA 14. https://ilcea.revues.org/1081 Brunette, Louise & Chantal Gagnon (2013) ‘Enseigner la révision à l'ère des wikis : là où l'on trouve la technologie alors qu'on ne l'attendait plus’ [teaching revision in the wiki era: technology discovered where it was not expected] in Journal of Specialised Translation 19 http://www.jostrans.org/issue19/art_brunette_gagnon.php Circuit 69, Automne 2000, numéro consacré à la révision http://www.circuitmagazine.org/images/stories/documents/archives/CI_69_00.pdf Circuit 127, Été 2015, dossier sur la revision http://www.circuitmagazine.org/archive/numero-127 Guasco, Patrizia (2013) La révision bilingue: principes et pratiques [French-Italian bilingual revision: principles and practices] Milano: EDUCatt Università Cattolica Hernández Morin, Katell. (2009) ‘Pratiques et perceptions de la révision en France’ [practices and perceptions of revision in France] in Traduire 221, 58-78. Horguelin, Paul (1988) La révision didactique, Meta 33(2), 253-7. Horguelin, Paul & Louise Brunettte (2000), Pratique de la révision [the practice of révision], 3e édition, Montréal : Linguatech. Horguelin, Paul & Michelle Pharand (2009), Pratique de la revision [the practice of revision], 4e édition, Montréal : Linguatech. Joyal, Bernard (1969) ‘Initiation à la traduction par la révision’ [introduction to translating through revision], Meta 14(2), 98-100. Ku ̈nzli, A. (2003), Stratégies et principes en traduction technique français-allemand et français-suédois [strategies and principles in French-German and French-Swedish technical translation], Cahiers de la recherche 21. Stockholm: Universität Stockholm, Institut fu ̈r Französisch und Italienisch. Available at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:198303/FULLTEXT01.pdf Lee, Hyang (2006) ‘Révision : Définitions et paramètres’ [revision: definitions and parameters] in Meta 51:2, 410-419 http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2006/v51/n2/013265ar.html Prioux, René & Michel Rochard (2007) ‘Économie de la révision dans une organisation internationale : le cas de l'OCDE’ [a cost/benefit approach to revision in an international organization: the case of the OECD] in Journal of Specialised Translation 8, http://www.jostrans.org/issue08/art_prioux_rochard.php Robert, Isabelle (2014) ‘La relecture unilingue : une procédure de révision de traduction rapide, fonctionnelle, mais déloyale’, TTR 27(1), 95-122. Rochard, Michel (2004) ‘Le réviseur : Achille ou Mentor’ [the reviser: destroyer or patient teacher?] in Traduire 203. Paris : Société française des traducteurs. Rochard, Michel (2002) ‘La révision: un acte pédagogique et économique’ [revision as a pedagogical and economic act] in Daniel Gouadec (dir.) En bons termes, Actes du colloque international de

Revision eModule

l'Université de Rennes 2 " Spécialités et spécialisations dans la pratique et la formation des traducteurs. " Paris : La Maison du Dictionnaire. 3. In German Canfora, Carmen & Agnelika Ottmann (2015) ‘Risikomanagement für Übersetzungen’ [risk management for translations]. Trans-kom 8(2), 314-346. Künzli, Alexander (2014) ‘Die Übersetzungsrevision – Begriffsklärungen, Forschungsstand, Forschungsdesiderate’ [translation revision: definitions, current state of research and desiderata for future research] in trans-kom 7(1). http://www.trans-kom.eu/ihv_07_01_2014.html Künzli, Alexander (2009) ‘Qualität in der Übersetzungsrevision’ [quality in translation revision], in Translation zwischen Text und Welt, L. Schippel and H. Kalverkämper (eds). Berlin: Frank & Timme. Künzli, Alexander (2006) ‘Die Loyalitätsbeziehungen der Übersetzungsrevisorin’ [loyalty relationships of revisers], in Michaela Wolf (ed.) Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “social turn”? 89-98. Münster/Hamburg/Berlin/ Wien/London: LIT-Verlag. Risku, Hanna (2004). Translationsmanagement. Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter [translation management: intercultural specialized communication in the information age]. Tübingen: Narr (sections 9.2.2.3 and 9.3.1.4) Schopp, Jürgen, (2007) ‘Korrekturlesen - ein translatorisches Stiefkind?’ [proofreading, translation’s poor cousin?], in Lebende Sprachen 52:2, 69-74. 4. In Dutch, Italian, Russian and Spanish Aston, Guy (2012) ‘Tecniche per migliorare la traduzione automatica: post-editing e pre-editing’ [techniques to improve machine translation: post-editing and pre-editing]. In Bersani Berselli, Gabriele (ed) Usare la Traduzione Automatica [using machine translation] Bologna: CLUEB, 33-45. Bertaccini, Franco & Sara Di Nisio (2011) ‘Il traduttore e il revisore nei diversi ambiti professionali’ [the translator and the reviser in various professional environments], in Danio Maldussi and Eva Wiesmann (eds), Specialised Translation II, Special Issue of Intralinea, http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/il_traduttore_e_il_revisore_nei_diversi_ambiti_professionali Breedveld, Hella & Huub van de Bergh (2002) ‘Revisie in vertaling: waneer en wat’ [revision in translation: when and what] in Linguistica Antverpiensia: New Series 1, 327-345. Lorenzo, María Pilar (2002) ‘Competencia revisora y traducción inversa’ [revision competence and translation into the second language], Cadernos de Tradução 10, 133-166. Максютина О. В. (2014) ‘Редактирование перевода как неотъемлемая часть современного стандарта качества’ [translation revision as an integral part of modern quality standards] TSPU Bulletin 4 (#145) http://vestnik.tspu.edu.ru/files/vestnik/PDF/2014_4.pdf Magris, Marella (1999) ‘Il processo della revisione e la qualità del testo finale: alcune riflessioni basate su un manuale di infermieristica [the process of revision and the quality of the final text: some reflections based on a nursing handbook]’ in Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 4, 133-156. Notaristefano, Maristella (2010). La revisione di una traduzione specializzata: interventi e profilo del revisore [revision of specialized translation: interventions and profile of the reviser]. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione: Volume 12, Single Issue (online): 215-226. http://hdl.handle.net/10077/8171

Revision eModule

Parra Galiano, Silvia (2006) ‘La revisión y otros procedimientos para el aseguramiento de la calidad de la traducción en el ámbito profesional’ [revision and other procedures for translation quality assurance in a professional context] in Turjuman 15(2), 11-48. Parra Galiano, Silvia (2007) ‘La revisión como procedimiento para el aseguramiento de la calidad de la traducción: grados, tipos y modalidades de revisión’ [revision as a quality assurance process in translation: degrees, types and procedures of revision] in Senez 32, 97-122. Parra Galiano, Silvia (2007) ‘Propuesta metodológica para la revisión de traducciones: principios generales y parámetros’ [methodological proposal for translation revision: general principles and parameters] in Trans 11, 197-214. Parra Galiano, Silvia (2011) ‘La Revisión en la Norma Europea EN-15038’ [revision in the European standard EN-15038] in Enculturas 3, http://www.entreculturas.uma.es/n3pdf/articulo09.pdf Parra Galiano, Silvia (2015) ‘El conocimiento experto (pericia) en la revisión de traducciones: clave en la gestión y propuestas de investigación’’ [expertise in translation revision – a key element to translation project management and research proposals]. In Amigo Extremera, Jose Jorge (ed.) Traducimos desde el sur. VI Congreso Internactional de la AIETI.

Rega, Lorenza (1999) ‘Alcune considerazioni sul problema della revisione nell’ambito della traduzione’ [some considerations about the problem of translation revision], Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione, 4, 115-131. Scocchera, G. (2017) La revisione della traduzione editoriale dall’inglese all’italiano. Ricerca, professione, formazione. Roma: Aracne. 5. PhD Dissertations and Master’s Theses in various languages Allman, Spencer (2006) Unpublished University of Birmingham dissertation Acknowledging and establishing the hierarchy of expertise in translator-reviser scenarios as an aid to the process of revising http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/translationstudiesdiss/allmandissertation.pdf Horváth, Péter Iván (2009) Doctoral dissertation Eötvös Loránd University, ‘Revision Competence’. In Hungarian, 12-page English summary at http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/horvathpeterivan/thesis.pdf Khalzanova, Serafima (2008) Unpublished minor dissertation defended at Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. ‘Revision and Time Constraints in Translation’. http://isg.urv.es/doctorate/2006/dissertations/khalzanova/khalzanova_minor%20dissertation_REV.pdf (login: pam; password: map) Meyer, Annina (2013) Master’s thesis Zurich University of Applied Sciences. ‘Selbstrevision in der U ̈bersetzung. Eine Untersuchung der Revisionsprozesse vo U ̈bersetzungsstudentinnen im Verlauf der Zeit’ [self-revision in translation: an investigation of the revision process of translation students over time’]. Morin-Hernández, Katell (2009) Doctoral dissertation Rennes. ‘La révision comme clé de la gestion de la qualité des traductions en contexte professionnel’ [revision as key to managing translation quality in a professional environment] http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/38/32/66/PDF/TheseMorinHernandez.pdf Parra Galiano, Silvia (2005) Doctoral dissertation Granada. ‘La revisión de traducciones en la Traductología: aproximación a la práctica de la revisión en el ámbito profesional mediante el estudio de

Revision eModule

casos y propuestas de investigación’ [revision of translations in Translation Studies: approach to the practice of professional revision through case studies and research proposals] http://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/10481/660/1/15472905.pdf Robert, Isabelle (2012) Doctoral dissertation Antwerp. ‘La révision en traduction : les procédures de révision et leur impact sur le produit et le processus de révision’ [revision procedures and their impact on the product and process of revision]. English abstract in BITRA online bibliography. http://www.alineremael.be/data/These_ISBN_20120425_BW.pdf Robin, Edina (2014) Doctoral dissertation Eötvös Loránd University, ‘The modification of translation universals in revised texts’ http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/robinedina/thesis.pdf or https://www.academia.edu/28043497/THE_MODIFICATION_OF_TRANSLATION_UNIVERSALS_IN_REVISED_TEXTS Scocchera, Giovanna (2015) Doctoral dissertation University of Bologna. ‘La revisione della traduzione editoriale dall’inglese all’italiano tra ricerca accademica, professione e formazione: Stato dell’arte e prospective future’ [revision of editorial translation from English to Italian between academic research, profession and training; state of the art and future outlook] http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/7203/ Shih, Claire Yi-yi (2006) Doctoral dissertation Newcastle-upon-Tyne. ‘Translator’s revision processes: global revision approaches and strategic revision behaviours’. Abstract in BITRA online bibliography. Sonderegger, Sabine (2011) Master’s thesis Zurich University of Applied Sciences. ‘Qualitätsunterschiede in der Übersetzungsrevision’ [quality differences in translation revision] (compares self and other revision) Šunková, Jana (2011) Master’s thesis Masaryk University. ‘Revising Translations: Corpus Investigation of Revision and Self-revision’. http://is.muni.cz/th/362729/ff_m/DIPLOMOVA_PRACE_SUNKOVA.pdf Temizöz, Özlem (2013). Doctoral dissertation Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. ‘Postediting machine translation output and its revision: Subject-matter experts versus professional translators’. http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/128204/TemizozOzlem_TDX2.pdf?sequence=1 Yamada, Masaru (2011) Doctoral dissertation Rikkyo University. ‘Revising text: An empirical investigation of revision and the effects of integrating a TM and MT system into the translation process’ http://apple-eye.com/rikkyo/YAMADA_2011.pdf

http://www.yorku.ca/brmossop/RevisionBiblio.htm

http://www.yorku.ca/brmossop/RevisionBiblio.htm