Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 30:2 (2018) ► pp.310–331

Re-thinking translation quality

Revision in the digital age

ORCID logo | University of North Carolina at Charlotte
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.
Keywords: editing, translation quality, distributed cognition, salience, computer-assisted translation, machine translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Revising and editing
  • 3.Revision and adequacy
  • 4.Revision and distributed cognition
  • 5.Revision and salience
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 14 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16104.mel
References
Abdallah, Kristiina
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.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt
eds. 2011 Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing. Berlin: De Mouton Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio
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.Google Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ASTM International
2006 “ASTM F 2575 – 06: Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation.”Google Scholar
Bass, Scott
2006 “Quality in the Real World.” In Perspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne, 69–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunette, Louise
2000 “Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: A Comparison of TQA Practices.” The Translator 6 (2): 169–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2013 Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2008 “Computer-aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” In Dror and Harnad 2008a, 237–256.Google Scholar
Dror, Itiel E., and Stevan Harnad
eds. 2008a Cognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends our Minds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b “Offloading Cognition onto Cognitive Technology.” In Dror and Harnad 2008a, 1–23.Google Scholar
Drugan, Joanna
2013 Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J.
2006 “Putting the Cart behind the Horse: Rethinking Localization Quality Management.” In Perspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne, 95–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “From Vicious to Virtuous cycle: Customer-Focused Translation Quality Management Using ISO 9001 Principles and Agile Methodologies.” In Translation and Localization Project Management, edited by Keiran J. Dunne and Elena S. Dunne, 153–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces 11: 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C.
2016 “Salience, Cognition, Language Complexity, and Complex Adaptive Systems.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38 (2): 341–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1975 “Decisions in Translating Poetry.” Ha-sifrut/Literature 211: 32–45.Google Scholar
European Standard
2006 “EN 15038: Translation Services – Service Requirements.”Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel
2003 On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, Arthur M.
2006 “Radical Changes in Cognitive Process due to Technology: A Jaundiced View.” Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2): 263–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
2010 Translation as a Profession. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L.
2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation, edited by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 33–73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The Case of ‘Literal Translation.’” Translation Spaces 4 (2): 310–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hine Jr., Jonathan T.
2003 “Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment.” In Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, edited by Brian J. Baer and Geoffrey S. Koby, 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horguelin, Paul A., and Louise Brunnette
1998 Pratique de la révision. Montreal: Linguatech.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
2015 Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin
1995 Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, John
1998 “The Origin of the Translator’s Workstation.” Machine Translation 13 (4): 287–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ISO 17100
2015 Translation Services – Requirements for Translation Services. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2016 “Quality and Translation Process Research.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 89–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killman, Jeffrey
2015 “Context as Achilles’ Heel of Translation Technologies: Major Implications for End Users.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 10 (2): 203–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koby, Geoffrey S., et al.
2014 “Defining Translation Quality.” Tradumàtica 121: 413–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2008 Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander
2007 “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004, edited by Radegundis Stolze, Miriam Shlesinger, and Yves Gambier, 115–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, Matthieu
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.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyang
2006 “Révision: Définitions et paramètres.” Meta 51 (2): 410–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
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.Google Scholar
1991 Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2014 Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. PhD diss. Kent State University. Available at: [URL]
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Gregory M. Shreve
2016 “Match Evaluation and Over-editing in a Translation Memory Environment.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian
2014 Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2010 “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (2): 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation 11: 49–84.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2007 “An Empirical Investigation of Temporal and Technical Post-Editing Effort.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 2 (1): 83–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orellana, Marina
1990 La traducción del inglés al castellano. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria.Google Scholar
Papineni, Kishore, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu
2002 “BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 311–318. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Quah, C. K.
2006 Translation and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Racz, Peter
2013 Salience in Sociolinguistics: A Quantitative Approach. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager
2013 “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler
2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 21: 151–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S.
2014 “Investigating the Problem-Solving Strategies of Revisers through Triangulation: An Exploratory Study.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 9 (1): 88–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shih, Claire Yi-Yi
2006 ““Revision from Translators’ Point of View. An Interview Study.” Target 18 (2): 295–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M.
2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Spalink, Karin, Rachel Levy, and Carla Merrill
1997 The Level Edit ™ Post-Editing Process: A Tutorial for Post-Editors of Machine Translation Output. Internationalization and Translation Services.Google Scholar
Specia, Lucia, Najeh Hajlaoui, Catalina Hallett, and Wilker Aziz
2011 “Predicting Machine Translation Accuracy.” MT Summit XIII: The Thirteenth Machine Translation Summit, 513–520. Xiamen, China.Google Scholar
Suojanen, Tytti, Kaisa Koskinen, and Tiina Tuominen
2015 User-Centred Translation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
TAUS
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.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
2012 Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Phil
2016 HCI Redux: The Promise of Post-Cognitive Interaction. Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wagner, Emma, Svend Bech, and Jesús M. Martínez
2002 Translating for the European Union Institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Malcolm
2004 Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centred Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

BALKUL, Halil İbrahim & Hüseyin ERSOY
2018. Çeviri Eğitiminde Kalite. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi 4:3 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Jourdenais, Renee
2021. Translation Assessment. In Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Korhonen, Annamari & Maija Hirvonen
2021. Joint creative process in translation. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo

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.