Editing and revision are regularly incorporated into professional translation projects as a means of quality assurance. Underlying the decision to include these tasks in translation workflows lay implicit assumptions about what constitutes quality. This article examines how quality is operationalized with respect to editing and revision and considers these assumptions. The case is made for incorporating revision into translation quality assessment models and employs the concepts of adequacy, distributed cognition, and salience – and their treatment in the research on cognitive translation processes, post-editing, and translation technology – in order to re-think translation quality.
2007 “Tekstittämisen laatu – mitä se oikein on?” [Subtitling quality – what is it?]. In Olennaisen äärellä. Johdatus audiovisuaaliseen käätämiseen [Introduction to audiovidual translation], edited by Riitta Oittinen and Tiina Tuominen, 272–293. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.
Allan, Keith, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt
eds.2011Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing. Berlin: De Mouton Gruyter.
2015 “Translation Process Research at the Interface: Paradigmatic, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Dialogue with Cognitive Science, Expertise Studies, and Psycholinguistics.” In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2006 “ASTM F 2575 – 06: Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation.”
2006 “Quality in the Real World.” In Perspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne, 69–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2000 “Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: A Comparison of TQA Practices.” The Translator 6 (2): 169–182.
Chiarcos, Christian, Berry Claus, and Michael Grabski
2011 “Introduction: Salience in Linguistics and Beyond.” In Salience: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on its Function in Discourse, edited by Christian Chiarcos, Berry Claus, and Michael Grabski, 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2013Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
2008 “Computer-aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” In Dror and Harnad 2008a, 237–256.
2017 “ ‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’: Should We Blame Translation Technologies or Shifting Business Practices?” In Human Issues in Translation Technology, edited by Dorothy Kenny, 45–62. New York: Routledge.
2006 “Révision: Définitions et paramètres.” Meta 51 (2): 410–419.
1986 “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, edited by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 277–292. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
1991Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281.
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2014Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. PhD diss. Kent State University. Available at: [URL]
2016 “Should Revision Trainees Think Aloud While Revising Somebody Else’s Translation? Insights from an Empirical Study with Professionals.” Meta 61 (2): 320–345.
Šarčević, Susan, and Colin Robertson
2015 “The Work of Lawyer-Linguists in the EU Institutions.” In Legal Translation in Context: Professional Issues and Prospects, edited by Anabel Borja Albi and Fernando Prieto Ramos, 181–202. Bern: Peter Lang.
Suojanen, Tytti, Kaisa Koskinen, and Tiina Tuominen
2015User-Centred Translation. New York: Routledge.
2010 “Machine Translation Post-Editing Guidelines.” Accessed October 26, 2017. [URL]
Teixeira, Carlos S. C.
2014 “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2014 Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice. Vancouver, BC.
2016HCI Redux: The Promise of Post-Cognitive Interaction. Switzerland: Springer.
Underwood, Nancy L., and Bart Jongejan
2001 “Translatability Checker: A Tool to Help Decide Whether to Use MT.” Proceedings of MT Summit VIII: Machine Translation in the Information Age, edited by Bente Maegaard, 363–368. Santiago de Compostela.
Vermeer, Hans J.
(1989) 2004 “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” Translated by Andrew Chesterman. In The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 227–238. New York: Routledge.
Wagner, Emma, Svend Bech, and Jesús M. Martínez
2002Translating for the European Union Institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Whyatt, Bogusława, Katarzyna Stachowiak, and Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny
2016 “Similar and Different: Cognitive Rhythm and Effort in Translation and Paraphrasing.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 175–208.
2004Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Cited by 4 other publications
BALKUL, Halil İbrahim & Hüseyin ERSOY
2018. Çeviri Eğitiminde Kalite. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi 4:3 ► pp. 201 ff.
2021. Translation Assessment. In Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 403 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.