Revision from translators’ point of view: An interview study

Claire Yi-yi Shih
Middlesex University, U.K.
Abstract

Although generally agreed to be an essential part of translation, revision receives little attention in translation studies with only a few exceptions such as Breedveld (2002) and Englund Dimitrova (2005). This study aims to establish what revision means to practicing translators, and their views as to what revision involves, in terms of the numbers of revisions they do, the length of their drawer-time (how long they put their draft away) and the aspects they check for in revision. Data show that translators typically claim to revise their draft translation once or twice. They do not normally have extended drawer-time. If they do, it would be overnight at most. They also describe themselves as having certain specific aspects in mind when they revise.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Few translators can afford to send their translation away without some form of checking or modifying previously translated target text; in other words, some form of revision. It is even suggested by some scholars that revision can be more time-consuming and plays a more important role for the final translation product, than producing a first draft (Newmark 1983; Weaver 1989: 117). Nevertheless, the issue of ‘translation revision’ has until very recently rarely been looked into in its own right in Translation Studies, apart from in a few handbooks or practical guides for translators (Thaon and Horguelin 1980; Mossop 2001). In fact, there is not even a definite definition of ‘revision’. Some have described revision as a procedure done by a reviser, rather than the translator, in order to safeguard the quality of a translation product before it finally reaches clients (Graham 1983: 103–104). Some see it as part of the assessment procedures that [ p. 296 ]either have pragmatic purposes or didactic purposes (Brunette 2000). According to Brunette (ibid), unlike didactic revisers, pragmatic revisers do not have to contact the translator. In other words, a pragmatic reviser is almost like an editor that edits or amends the final translation product to suit its pragmatic purposes, probably according to clients’ demands and requirements. Didactic revisers, on the other hand, need to justify their changes to the target text and communicate with the translator as to why the target text needs to be changed so that the didactic or pedagogical purposes can be achieved.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Breedveld, Hella
2002 “Writing and revising process in professional translation”. Across languages and cultures 3:1. 91–100.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunette, Louise
2000 “Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment”. The translator: Studies in intercultural communications 6:2. 146–159.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van, and Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flower, Linda S. and John R. Hayes
1980 “The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints”. Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg, eds. Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum 1980 31–50.Google Scholar
Graham, John D.
1983 “Checking, revision and editing”. Catriona Picken, ed. The translator’s handbook, ed. London: Aslib 1983 99–105.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1999 Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu. [University of Joensuu publications in the humanities 22.]Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1996 “Psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes”. Meta 41:1. 26–32.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brain
1982 “A procedure for self-revision”. Terminology update 15:3. 6–9.Google Scholar
2001 Revising and editing for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1983 About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn
1990 Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Rose, Marilyn Gaddis
1991 “Seeking synapses: Translators describe translating”. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, ed. Translation: Theory and practice, tension and interdependence. ATA Scholarly Monograph Series 15. New York: State University of New York Binghamton 1991 5–12.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
2000 “Management issues in the translation process”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 2000 143–148.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 312 ]
Sorvali, Irma
1998 “The translator as a creative being with special regard to the translation of literature and LSP”. Babel 44:3. 234–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thaon, Brenda M. and Paul A. Horguelin
1980 A practical guide to bilingual revision. Montreal: Linguatech.Google Scholar
Wang, Jun
2001 “On the application of van Dijk's discourse macrostructure theory to translation”. Paper presented at the conference of the 3rd FIT Asian Translators’ Forum. Hong Kong, December 2001.
Weaver, William
1989 “The process of translation”. John Biguent and Rainer Schulte, eds. The craft of translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar