FOR A THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF TRANSLATION REVISION

By Miguel Siso M.A.

"Do not ask whether a sentence can be improved but whether it needs to be improved.
To what extent do you view this as a universal maxim in the revision of other people's
translations?". The following paragraphs are an approach to define translation revision
as an independent task in terms of terminology, methodology, and empirical studies
upon the matter.
Termiology
any terms are currently in use to define the task of re!reading translations and making
changes where necessary" 'reviewing', 'proofreading', checking', 'editing', 'correction'
and so on. To some extent, it seems to be #ust a matter of preference among
professionals and translation agencies or publishing houses. '$evision' seems to be
claimed as the most suitable term. %arra puts it as"
&arefully reading a target text accounted for a semi!finished text or a draft translation in order to
confirm that it meets all the specifications given in the translation brief, and make proper and
opportune modifications before it is finally delivered to the client '())*" +,-
%arra, however, warns us about the 'amphibology' of the term revision, which, according
to her, is so diverse among professionals that sometimes causes confusion. .irstly, she
refers to professors using the term revision in the sense of auto-editing, that is, the
changes made upon text by its same producer following a petition from the editor.
/econdly, republished works with added, deleted or modified text as re0uired by the
editor after considering the evolution of the field of the work, or errors found by
revisers after a first publication. /uch republished works are publici1ed as 'revised
editions', although, according to %arra, it would be more suitable to call them reeditions.
/pecifically in the realm of translation, this author refers to international organi1ations
where documents go under several revisions before they are accounted for final
versions, that is, a constant updating of existing translations in order to adapt them to
the last version of the originals. 2n literary translation, on the other hand, sometimes
revisions are announced as new translations. %arra explains that, with the reedition of
classics, for example, editors normally publici1e new translations when in reality such
works are merely a revision of a pre!existing translation already published, and which
served as draft translation.
3nit 4 of the %rofessional &ontexts of Translation module, $evising Translated Texts,
contains a fair clear explanation about terminology in the drafting and post!drafting
process, whether related to sense, style, grammar and5or format"
%roofreading" focuses not so much on elimination of errors in the original
translation, but on such areas such as layout, punctuation, typos, font, etc.
6diting5&opy!editing5/tylistic!editing" connotes pre!publication modifying
'condensation, rearranging, altering of content-.
$eview" implies the task of a sub#ect!matter specialist 'not necessarily a
linguist-, someone who is checking for compliance with client
rules5terminology.
%ost!editing" fre0uently associated with machine translation or the use of
translation memory.
7s per a definition of revision in the light of its context, %arra cites 8orguelin's '+9,*-
notion of interventions upon 'finished text' and5or 'semi!finished text'. The first set of
these interventions comprises evaluation and critic, not our sub#ect. The second entails
revision and5or proofreading.
A Me!"o#ology $or Tr%sl%!io Re&isio
:alle '())+- sheds some light upon how to perform revision. 2deally, he states, this
should be carried out by two persons, one who reads the translation out loud and
another one that follows the original, silent and carefully, in the search of
inconsistencies between both texts. 8e recommends meeting these two steps"
composing a translation as 'loyal' as possible to the original, even with the risk of being
too 'literal', and finally, putting the original apart temporary in order to focus on
corrections upon text within the specific frame of the target language.
(
%arra's '())*- notions of 'revision according to its participants' also help unveiling a
methodology for this process '/ection (.;-.
Cl%ssi$yig Tr%sl%!io Re&isio
%arra '())*- describes revision under three main scopes"
a- its ob#ect
b- its function
c- its participants
$evision according to its ob#ect would be whether it is performed upon a translated text
only, or upon a translated text and its original. The author cites 8orguelin '+9,*-, who
poses unilingual revision and bilingual revision, respectively, for the two cases.
Bilingual revision is referred by %arra as comparative.
.or 'bilingual revision', ossop '())+- posits twelve parameters of modifications,
divided into four groups"
<roup 7. Transference" +- 7ccuracy. (- &ompleteness.
<roup =. &ontent" ;- >ogic. ?- .acts.
<roup &. >anguage" *- /moothness. 4- Tailoring. @- /ub!language.
,- 2dioms. 9- echanics.
<roup D. %resentation" +)- >ayout. ++- Typography. +(- Argani1ation
+
.
Bith respect to its function, %arra refers again to 8orguelin '+9,*- to bring up two
different approaches to revision" pragmatic and didactic. 2n the first one no
communication takes place whatsoever between the reviser and the translator. The
+
3nfortunately, we were not able to consult the text written by =rian ossop, Revising and Editing for
Translators, which deals with these concepts. y regular book vendor '7ma1on- included this title
among those that cannot be sent to my mailing address. 7 review upon this book was available in an
article written by %arra '())+-, which served for a general view upon its contents and was considered for
this essay. Abviously, this was rather limitative.
;
didactic revision, on the contrary, aims to improve the skills of the translator and5or the
student5trainee, which re0uires communication.
.inally, regarding its participants, %arra describes revision as"
Self-revision.
Reciprocal revision, also known as 'inter!revision' or 'crossed!revision',
performed by two translators who revise themselves mutually.
Collective revision, carried out by several persons, normally a multi!
disciplinary group, namely, terminology experts, the clients or his5her
representatives, the translator, the reviser, the editor, etc.
Concordance revision, by which the translation is read out loud by a reviser so
that a present colleague can search any inconsistency in the original text.
Expert revision, which is needed when disagreement arises between the client
and the translator. The expert reviser will assess and certify the 0uality of the
translation. 8e5she must be recogni1ed by both parties and be completely
impartial.
This classification of revision according to its participants shed some light upon a
methodology for translation revision. These concepts should be related to section (.(.
Tr%sl%!io Re&isio' A I#e(e#e! T%s)
:alle '())+- explains that the translation and its revision 'he expresses 'correction'-
have many aspects in common, and that revision is performed in most cases by the
translator him5herself. Cevertheless, he refers to 'reputable publishing houses' that
include 'additional corrections' performed by a reviser. :alle affirms vehemently that
translation and correction are two different processes, whether performed by the same
person or not, and that overlooking such fact produces errors 'and horrors, he adds-.
<rosman D $ogante '())9- also express that the first changes upon a text are
performed by its producer. Bith a rather amusing use of language, they speak of 're!
vision', that is, a 'second vision' in order to 're!think, re!read and re!write the text'.
?
8owever, they also defend the idea of an actual revision carried out by a second person.
They refer to the undesirable common practice of skipping proper revision in order to
buy time and money. They affirm that different researches have proved that changes
made upon text by its own producer tend to be only 'cosmetic', and that such superficial
revision will be soon put in evidence. 3nfortunately the authors do not specify which
researches are those.
7lso %arra '())*- considers revision, specifically bilingual revision, as an independent
task. /he refers to 8orguelin and =runette '+99,- who think otherwise. %arra
antagoni1es claiming that only re-reading made by the translator upon his5her own text,
what she understands as e0ual to self-revision, should be taken account as part of the
translation process.
Some Em(iri* S!u#ies u(o Tr%sl%!io Re&isio
ossop '())@- reviews some empirical studies upon translation revision. 8e posits the
dichotomy 'other!revision' ! 'self!revision'. The first case refers to the changes made by
revisers upon the work of other translators. The latter entails the changes performed by
the translator him5herself upon his5her own work.
7s a referential frame for 'other!revision', ossop takes account of perhaps the only
public set of norms upon this matter available at the moment of the research for this
essay" the 6uropean /tandard 6C +*);,, Translation services E /ervices re0uirements,
from the 6uropean &ommittee of /tandardi1ation '())4-. .ollowing the body of this
document, ossop reviews specific dilemmas pertaining to each
re0uirement5recommendation of 6C +*);,. ore in detail, he analy1es"
nilingual revising 'where only translation is read either without looking at the
source or #ust referring to it occasionally- as opposed to comparative revision
'where both translation and source text are read completely and compared-.
Experience in the field of the text, regarding whether revisers have or do not
have translating5revising experience in the field of the translation under revision.
Time, 0uestioning how 0uickly a good revision can be achieved.
Revision !ualit", a way to assess the reviser's effort.
*
$espectively, the results yielded by the studies under ossop's analysis are"
The less!time consuming process of unilingual re!reading is not a good idea if
one wants high 0uality.
6ven experienced translators and revisers might fail to convey technical terms
accurately.
/pending a lot of time on revision does not necessarily produce a high 0uality
text.
7ccording to 7rthern '+9,;-, a score formula upon the performance of a reviser
is possible, describing the proportional relation between"
i- /ubstantial errors left unchanged or introduced by the reviser 'F-
ii- .ormal errors left unchanged by the reviser '=-
iii- 3nnecessary changes made by the reviser '3-
iv- Cecessary corrections made by the reviser, which improves general
readability '&-.
/uch formula would be" /G FH.5( H 35;.
$egarding 'self!revision', ossop establishes as main characteristics that it is intermixed
with the drafting processI that the self!reviser is familiar with the source text when the
task beginsI and that the temptation to substitute one's own translation or one's own
approach to translation is not an issue. /ome of the findings upon this topic were"
/enior professional translators tend to make fewer revisions and almost none of
them were made during the post!drafting phase 'after translation was first
composed-.
>ess experienced translators tend to wait until the post!drafting phase in order to
revise.
%rofessionals did not always do what they said they were going to do, such as"
letting the text rest before post!drafting revision, letting someone else read the
4
draft translation, printing the draft translation on paper to avoid errors unnoticed
on screen.
ost of revision is concerned with aspects of target language rather than with
source text.
.inally, ossop points out personal revision habits and office !ualit" procedures as
comprising the reviser own skills5methodology and work place standards, two important
aspects affecting revision 0uality. 8e also includes some words upon on!screen versus
on!paper revision. /trictly, no evidence of one being better than the other is available.
/ome notions posed by JKn1li '())@- about the ethical dimension of translation
revision are also valuable. The author deals about the reviser's sense of loyalty to the
different parties involved in a prototypical freelance translation revision #ob. Bith the
help of think aloud protocols, he conducts an investigation in which ten professional
translators were asked to revise three draft translations. 8is findings reveal a number of
issues affecting revision 0uality, as follows"
$evisers have responsibilities to themselves, their own legitimate interests and
expectations, such as reasonable financial compensation and right affective
work!environment.
There is a conflict between economic demand for speed and ethical demand for
thoroughness, reliability and 0uality. $evisers must compromise with respect to
their professional values and ideas due to time constrains.
/ame as translators should be provided with a translation brief, revisers should
be provided with a revision brief, stating explicitly what is expected from them
in terms of full or partial revision and what parameters of the draft translation
they are supposed to check.
+Errors+
Be should analy1e at least briefly the so!called errors, as they are the central matter
upon which revision is performed. 8atim elaborates about the 'nature of translation
errors' as follows"
@
L6rrorsM might be ascribed to a diverse variety of causes, ranging from lack of comprehension to
misuse of register, and which might be located in a variety of levels 'language, pragmatics,
culture- '())+" +49-.
8atim cites %ym's '+99(- interesting notion of binariness#non-binariness of translation
errors, meaning that, even though some wrong choices find a counterpart in a right
choice exclusively 'i.e. grammar errors-, some wrong answers are not necessarily
opposed to a right answer. %ym states that a translation choice may exist alongside at
least one further translation choice which could also have been taken up but was not,
and, apart from them, there is an endless number of possible wrong answers. 7s %ym
puts it" 'for binarism, there is only right or wrongI for non!binarism there are at least two
right answers and then the wrong ones'.
T"eory *om(%re#
%revious to the conclusion of this theoretical background, a few general words about
some theory convergences and divergences might be valuable.
ost of the authors consulted for this research coincide in portraying revision as an
independent task from translation. They might vary in opinion about whether revision
should or should not be performed by the translator him5herself and upon classifying the
revision process. :alle '())+-, %arra '())*-, and <rosman D $ogante '())9- are more
enthusiastic of the notion of revision in the hands of another person different to the
translator, what ossop '())@- refers as 'other!revision. The latter, however, speaks of
the opposite 'self!revision' as an actual revision process too. %arra, on the contrary,
includes 'self!revision' as part of the translation process itself and considers it as
homonymous to the re-reading task made by the translator upon his5her own.
Bhile analy1ing 8orguelin's '+9,*- ideas of unilingual vs. bilingual revision, %arra
labels the latter as comparative, a convergence with ossop '())@-, who posits the
dichotomy 'unilingualNcomparative' for his notion of self!revision vs. other!revision
(
.
(
Ane should 0uestion whether 'bilingual' is indeed the more accurate term, since more than two
languages might be involved in one translation!revision process. '=ilingual' could result insufficient given
the case. 8ence, ossop's notion of comparative could be more suitable to define those revision
processes comprising original and target text.
,
%arra, however, expresses her divergence with 8orguelin D =runette '+99,-, who
consider 'bilingual revision' as part of the translation process. ossop, on the other
hand, coincide with 8orguelin about the term 'unilingual revision'.
JKn1li's '())@- findings upon time as a factor determining revision 0uality, in terms that
time constrains drive revisers to put aside their own personal standards5ideals, should be
0uestioned under ossop's '())@- results, regarding that revision 0uality as not
proportionally nor necessarily related to spending plenty of time upon the revision
process.
%arra's '())*- concept of 'concordance revision', in revision with respect to its
participants, matches :alle '())+- 'ideal' 'and perhaps only- methodology for revision.
%ym's '+99(- notion of binarism5non!binarism of errors might be linked to 7rthern's
'+9,*- parameters for the revision score, namely"
=inary errors in the draft translation might lead to necessary changes made by
the reviserI or to either substantial and5or formal errors left unchanged by the
reviser. 6rrors introduced by the reviser, however, could result as non!binary.
Con!binary errors in the draft translation, on the other hand, might express
themselves in the revision as unnecessary changes made by the reviser.
ore convergences and divergences among the consulted scholars might arise, of
course. This would call for further analysis.
Co*lusios
The authors consulted for this essay coincide in that theory upon revision is scarce, and
that it would be even rarer to find literature upon translation revision specifically.
Cevertheless, some bibliography upon this topic is available.
$egarding the 0uestion posed by this analysis" "do not ask whether a sentence can be
improved but whether it needs to be improved. To what extent do you view this as a
universal maxim in the revision of other people's translations?", the conclusion is that
9
we are not in the position of establishing any universal maxim upon this matter in such
a prescriptive fashion. $oughly speaking, the revision process should comprise and
meet specific criteria of presentation, format, sense, register, etc.I as reviewed by
scholars, associations and colleagues who have described what revision
recommendations deal with mostly. 8ow compulsory and5or optional the modifications
upon text should be is a relative matter, depending on the specific needs5preferences of
the client and the reviser in the light of the rigors of language.
7s our descriptive approach upon case study did not meet meticulously most of the
revision parameters and5or revision assessment criteria posed by the authors we
consulted, it would be recommendable to make further research to this respect. .or
example, evaluating this revision #ob under 7nthern's score formula in order to obtain
its exact results and not a general overview as presented in this essayI or to reflect and
classify every modification performed upon draft translation under ossop's '())+- set
of revision parameters for bilingual revision. 7 larger effort upon theory review and
comparison would be also beneficial.
+)
REFERENCES
7rthern, %eter '+9,;- OPudging the Quality of $evisionR, $ebende Sprachen (,'(-. 2n ossop, =. '())@-
Empirical Studies of Revision% what we &now and need to &now.
'http"55www.#ostrans.org5issue),5artSmossop.php-.
=aker, . '+99(- 'n (ther )ords * Courseboo& (n Translation. >ondon and Cew Tork" $outlegde.
&oppola, .. '+9@(- 'director- The +odfather. 3/7." %aramount %ictures. +@* min.
<rosman, %. D $ogante, 7. '())9- Cuatro tramas, orientaci,n para leer, escribir, traducir " revisar.
=uenos 7ires" Tres almenas.
8atim, =. '())+- Teaching and Researching Translation. >ondon" >ongman.
8orguelin, %. '+9@,- $a Traduction, une profession. *ctes du -'''.me congr.s mondial de la f.deration
internationale des traducteurs. Attawa" &onseil des traducteurs et interprUters du &anada. 2n %arra, /.
'())*- $a revisi,n de traducciones en la traductolog/a% aproximaci,n a la pr0ctica de la revisi,n en
el 0mbito profesional mediante el estudio de casos " propuestas de investigaci,n. <ranada"
3niversidad de <ranada.
8orguelin, %. D =runette, >. '+99,- 1racti!ue de la revision, 2.me 3dition revenue et augment3e. ;a ed.
=rossard 'QuVbec-" >inguatec Vditeur. 2n %arra, /. '())*- $a revisi,n de traducciones en la
traductolog/a% aproximaci,n a la pr0ctica de la revisi,n en el 0mbito profesional mediante el
estudio de casos " propuestas de investigaci,n. <ranada" 3niversidad de <ranada.
8orguelin, %. '+9,+- *nthologie de la mani.re de traduire% domaine fran4ais. ontrUal" >inguatech. 2n
%arra, /. '())*- $a revisi,n de traducciones en la traductolog/a% aproximaci,n a la pr0ctica de la
revisi,n en el 0mbito profesional mediante el estudio de casos " propuestas de investigaci,n.
<ranada" 3niversidad de <ranada.
JKn1li, 7. '())@- The 6thical Dimension of Translation $evision. 7n 6mpirical /tudy. The 5ournal of
Speciali6ed Translation ',-.
ossop, =. '())+-. Revising and Editing for Translators. anchester" /t. Perome %ublishing. 2n %arra, /.
'())+-. '$evising and 6diting for Translators '())+-. anchester" /t. Perome %ublishing. +@4 pp.
7utor" A//A%, =rian'. TR*7S Revista 8e Traductolog/a '4-.
ossop, =. '())@- Empirical Studies of Revision% what we &now and need to &now.
'http"55www.#ostrans.org5issue),5artSmossop.php-.
%arra, /. '())+-. '$evising and 6diting for Translators '())+-. anchester" /t. Perome %ublishing. +@4
pp. 7utor" A//A%, =rian'. TR*7S Revista 8e Traductolog/a '4-.
%arra, /. '())*- $a revisi,n de traducciones en la traductolog/a% aproximaci,n a la pr0ctica de la
revisi,n en el 0mbito profesional mediante el estudio de casos " propuestas de investigaci,n.
<ranada" 3niversidad de <ranada.
%ym, 7. '+99(- Translation error anal"sis and the interface with language teaching. 2n 8atim, =. '())+-
Teaching and Researching Translation. >ondon" >ongman.
$obert, 2. '()),-. Translation $evision %rocedures" 7n 6xplorative /tudy. 2n Translation and 'ts (thers.
Selected 1apers of the CETR* Research Seminar in Translation Studies '())@- =olougne, %. 'ed.-. 2n
'http"55www.kuleuven.be5cetra5papers5papers.html-
$obinson, D. '+99@- Becoming a Translator 9 *n *ccelerated Course. >ondon" $outledge.
:alle, %. '())+- C,mo corregir sin ofender. :anual te,rico-pr0ctico de correcci,n de estilo. =uenos
7ires" >umen.
++