Revision e-module

Feedback form: 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScdI72vdcfofBVA7gE-7h7zHX6Z-9-4rUfXzU-ft71ylDUGwA/viewform

Download the enitre module :Revision e-Module

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.

Table of contents

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO REVISION

Activity 1: Introduction to the world and work of revisers

1.1 Word association on revision

1.2 Profile and tasks of revisers through adjectives and verbs

Activity 2: Revision typology and related terms

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

2.2 Terms related to revision – Comparing definitions

Activity 3: Revision vs. Translation

3.1 Changing roles: One translation from two perspectives

3.2 Personality traits and work of translators and revisers

Activity 4: The revision process - Step-by-step guide to the revision process

Activity 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 tunes

Activity 3: Error typologies involving different assessment (…)

Activity 4: Style and register

4.1 Poorly edited texts

4.2 Overloaded sentences

UNIT 3 MARKET AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF REVISION

Activity 1: Revision and market aspects

1.1 Map up the local market

1.2 Comparison of TQA standards in revision

1.3 Revision in the translation process

Activity 2: Introduction to machine translation and post editing – Chocolate and Google Translate

Activity 3: Interpersonal and ethical aspects of revision

3.1 Giving feedback to translators

3.2 Whose fault is it?

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

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

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

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.

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?

Group B          Tasks – VERBS

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

Background information for trainers

Theoretical background – The main tasks of revisers

Edina 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)

Group A          Profile – ADJECTIVES

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

Group B          Tasks – VERBS

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

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].

UNIT 1 Activity 2: REVISION TYPOLOGY AND RELATED TERMS

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

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.

Background information for trainers and trainees:

„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:

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:

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

PERSON revising

PURPOSE /FUNCTION

PROCEDURE (the way the revising process is carried)

monolingual revision (Brunette, Gagnon and Hine (2005))

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’.

WORKSHEET

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

>> 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:

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

Instruction for trainers:

Background information for trainers:

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).

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:

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.

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

UNIT 1 Activity 3: REVISION VS. TRANSLATION

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

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

Instruction for trainers:
 

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

Instructions for trainers:

Background information for trainers:

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).

WORKSHEET

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

>> 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

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.

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

UNIT 1 Activity 4: THE REVISION PROCESS

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT1. Activity 4.: Step-by-step guide to the revision process

Instruction for trainers and methodological aspect

Background information for trainers:

Sample Orders of Operations (based on Mossop)

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:

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. (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.

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.

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.

UNIT 1. Activity 5: Summary of revision principles

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT 1. Activitiy 5.: Revising revision principles

Instructions for trainers

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.

Twenty principles for revision

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……………………………………..

WORKSHEET 1

a) Prediction

                                                    Twenty principles for revision[2]

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, …………………………………………………………………….

b) Possible variation: Inserting chunks

WORKSHEET (variation 1):

c) Key word anticipation

WORKSHEET (variation 2):

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

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

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

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

Instructions 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 PARAMETERS

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

Group A – Problems of meaning transfer (Transfer)

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)

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

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.

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.

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

UNIT 2. Activity 2: ERROR CATEGORIES AND CORRECTION TECHNIQUES

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

Unit 2. Activity 2.: Dancing to different tunes

Instruction for trainers

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. 

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:

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)

WORKSHEETs

Tasks:

• Trainees should make a list what kind of corrections/hints the trainer made (in this specific text: village, considered as, etc.)
• They make a list of the type of corrections the different assessors used. (The table below may be distributed in the class.) 

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

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!

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. (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.

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. (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

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

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT 2. Activity 3.: Revision parameters involving market aspects

Instructions for trainers:

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 context

Overview of learning activities

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:

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

https://www.proz.com/forum/translation_theory_and_practice/259676how_do_you_deal_with_poorly_written_source_texts.htm

Discuss the following questions in groups:

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

UNIT 2. Activity 4.2. : Overloaded sentences

Istructions for trainers:

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/

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?

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:

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.

Source: https://onlinewritingtraining.com.au/2015/02/happens-overload-sentences/

Source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical

WORKSHEET

Revise both texts according to style and register.

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?

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.

Source: https://onlinewritingtraining.com.au/2015/02/happens-overload-sentences/

Source: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49238/7-sentences-sound-crazy-are-still-grammatical

Useful resources:

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

UNIT 3. Activity 1: REVISION AND MARKET ASPECTS

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT 3. Activity 1.1 : Map  up the local market

Background for trainers

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

Optional tasks:

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

Background for trainers

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).

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.

Metrics

The 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:

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

Background for trainers

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

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?

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.htm

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

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

http://en.freelanguage.net/services/proof.html

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

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT 3. Activity 2.: Chocolate and Google Translate

Instructions for trainers:

>> 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:

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.

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.

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.

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/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.

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

Learning context

Overview of learning activities

UNIT 3. Activity 3.1: Giving feedback to translators

Instructions for trainers:

- 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.

- 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:

• Source text
• Sample translation corrected by a reviser (preferably an acceptable translation with some minor and a few major mistakes)

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.

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?

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.

Background information for trainers:

• 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

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].

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

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  

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 10^th 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.

*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].

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.

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 Studies

2:2, 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 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 and

practice meet?’ The Translator 6(2), 149–68.

Malkiel, Brenda. (2009) “From Ántonia to My Ántonia: tracking self-corrections with Translog.” In: Göpferich, 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.

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 21^st 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

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, 5^th 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.

Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey (1996) ‘Working Procedures, Quality and Quality Assurance’ in R. Owens (ed) The Translator’s Handbook (3^rd edition), London: Aslib.

Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey (2010) A Practical Guide for Translators (5^th 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 in

institutional translation (Translation and Multilingual Natural Language

Processing 8). Berlin: Language Science Press.

http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/181 

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.

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.

Künzli, 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 für 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 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

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 Übersetzung. Eine Untersuchung der Revisionsprozesse vo Übersetzungsstudentinnen 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 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