Editing and Revising as a Necessary Part of Translation Process - Coursework Example

Editing and Revising as a necessary part of the translation process Student Name: Institution: Date: Introduction Revising and editing should be examined as separate parts of the translation process. Generally, revision is perceived as a continual process that involves writing and re-writing, while editing focuses on the stylistic as well as grammatical aspects of an acceptable draft (The University of Queensland, 2009). Massop (2001) makes a distinction between editing and revision where editing is regarded as a step for making corrections or improvements on the original texts, while revision for the translation process as making logical and operational view of the text. Therefore, it is important for translators to be well-trained on how to carry out revision and editing for precise-writing (Mossop 2001). How the linguistic responsibilities of editors and revisers is related to their professional situations of work Revising and editing are key processes for translators because they provide guidance for translation practitioners who intend to edit texts written by other people. These processes also help professional translators to improve their self-revision skills and the ability to revise other people’s work. Editing involves making corrections to improve the readership of texts and revising is the same task but done on draft translations. Basically, the linguistic responsibilities of editors and revisers is more associated with their professional situations of work such as copyediting, structural editing and style editing as well as checking for consistency, ensuring revision procedures and principles are adhered to through translation quality assessment (Mossop, 2007). Copyediting is used in translation process to check and correct a document to ensure that it is in conformance with the pre-set rules. Stylistic editing involves tailoring the language in order to make it suitable for the target audience as well as create a flowing and consistent text. Structural editing is used to make small-scale changes on the physical structure of a text, for instance, by identifying problems associated with prose such as poor paragraphing and headings, missing markers and unexplained acronyms. On the other hand, content editing covers the micro-level functions of translators such as identification and correction of the factual and logical errors. Although accuracy must be given first priority over consistency, it is important to note that ensuring consistency in translation process is one of the major goals of conducting editing and revising work. Thus, both revisers and editors must pay attention to maintaining consistency (Mossop, 2007). Similarly, Rachel (2011) emphasizes that it is important to think of editing as a broad process in which the translation is assessed with the original source text. This involves reviewing the translated text as a whole where the editor is expected to check the key aspects of writing such as word choice, consistency, clarity and conciseness or jargon and register. Therefore, the editing process is crucial in answering questions such as whether the translation accurately conveys the intended meaning of a given source text? How consistent is the translated text? How does the translation utilize the appropriate style for its targeted audience? Editing or review of a translation by another linguist is considered as an industry-standard process of significant value to quality. Revision and editing is the practice of ensuring that translations are checked against their source texts by another translator. Due to the recently set quality assurance standards within the translation field, individuals involved in the translation services often require a second translator to make systematic revision and editing of their translations so as to ensure that quality work is provided. It is relevant to point out that when terms such as revise or check, edit or review are made without necessarily referring to the quality standard, this would make the text or a piece of writing ambiguous. This is simply because the verification of this translation would merely involve reading through translated draft without cross-checking the document against the original one. However, it is important to note that revision by another person will help to achieve quality work only if that particular person is truly competent as well as the translation or revision process is well executed. This implies that poor execution of the revision process destroys the quality of a translation (Martin, 2012). The EN standard or European Committee for Standardization (2006, p.11) considers revising translation as a crucial part of a translation process but the reviser is not recognized as the translator. This standard is important in ensuring that the individual providing the translation service revises the translation. In this case, the reviser is considered to be a different person and not the translator, a type of revision commonly referred to as the ‘translation revision’. Self-revision is important because it enables the translator to examine the text from a broader and informed perspective. Furthermore, it provides a second chance to read each sentence of a particular text that the translator has already given thought to and acquired the general idea about the document. Basically, this means that a translator will begin the revision process with a clear view of the draft than the reviser could do. Therefore, the ability of the translator to first establish the source text when making rough-draft translation, greatly helps him or her to understand and identify issues that could have been initially misinterpreted. In so doing, the translator can ably make the text understandable, ensure consistency as well as eliminate redundancies. Thus, self-revision is such an absolutely crucial step for ensuring quality translation process which should be regarded beyond the normal checking of what could have been missed out in the text (Martin, 2012). Based on the supplementary explanation and observations, Hayes (2009, p.65) examine that when revising a medium quality text, it is the responsibility of the reviser to apply a focused repair approach to the translation process so as to diagnose the any problem. In this particular case, therefore, to some extent revision in translation process is more demanding than revision needed in monolingual writing. Since the text is modelled on a separate text, it is not optional to apply the easiest approach in solving a particular problem within a text to generate a new text segment as the reviser’s own words. It is apparent that revision in translation calls for the translator to make precise diagnostic information. In so doing, the reviser or translator accepts the structures or words as translating that he or she would tolerate when writing his or her own text. Although they may be conversant with subject matter, revisers who barely start the revision process by comparing the pairs of sentences will not clearly understand the document as compared to the translator (Hayes, 2009). Types of revision parameters In his textbook titled “revising and editing”, Mossop (2001, p.99) enumerates the different revision parameters as the aspects that a reviser concerns with. These checks are categorized into four major areas: transfer that focuses on the existing relationship between the ST and the TT, language in terms of cohesion, correctness, TL pragmatics and stylistics, the content that refers to the logic and facts made within the text and lastly, the presentation that includes the layout as well as typography. Based his argument on extensive experience, Mossop notes that the use of these revision parameters in the entire probability must be validated through empirical data when the translators revise even their own texts in what he refers to as “self-revision” and also when revising texts that are translated by other people. Revision is considered as a type of editing because it involves reading over carefully to correct, improve or provide updates appropriately, while editing means revising the text to make it ready and available for publication (Mossop, 2001). Understanding how revision enhances translation quality The purpose of revision is to enhance translation quality, though it must be differentiated from quality-control measures used by other professionals. Similarly, it should be noted that the process of editing draft translations does not necessarily have to include the entire process of ensuring that the text is ready for publication. Unlike in other areas of writing, updating is perceived to be irrelevant but correction is focused on mistranslations. Importantly, the purpose of revision in translation is similar to any other of an editing procedure. In this case, a draft is examined as a composition, written in a specific language that has to conform to the pre-set writing standard for it to be received or accepted by prospective readers (Mossop, 2001). Revision is perceived as the function of professional translators through which they identify the different aspects of the draft translation that fail to reach the acceptable standard, and thus make the needed corrections and improvements. In regard to the translation profession, the revision process may take two major functions; the business function and the training function. It is worth noting that revision made through a business function involves preparing a particular text for specific client. On the other hand, revision accomplished through a training function focuses on revealing to people where both their strengths and weaknesses lie so as to enable translators make great improvements in the quality of their work. A number of translation companies consider both unilingual and comparative revisions as key components a professional quality assurance. Studies show that revision of a professional translation basically involves examining the conceptual or edifying aspects so as to enable trainers or practitioners in translation improve their work (Mossop, 2007). Based on the aim and circumstances, revision procedures may vary, for instance, a full revision that involve both unilingual and comparative revisions often consumes a lot time and is more costly. However, a partial revision may be relevant in circumstances where there is limited time for achieving quality assurance. It is apparent that a full revision can be seen as a waste where a highly qualified and experienced translator makes mistakes (Mossop, 2007). The importance of revision process in understanding the distinction between unilingual and comparative revisions According to Mossop (2007, p.6) revision process is important in understanding the distinction between unilingual and comparative revisions. Mossop notes that when making a unilingual revision, the reviser expected to focus on a targeted text as a separate text with the objective of detecting unidiomatic or incorrect language and other related textual errors. However, this is checked occasionally with the source text. Brunette et al. (2005) compare this procedure with what an editor makes with other individuals’ texts. The authors examine that when making a comparative revision or commonly referred to as bilingual revision the reviser is required to check the translation for its accuracy and completeness by evaluating it with the source text. Although it is effective, comparative revision is naturally more expensive in terms costs and time-consuming than unilingual revision. In terms of efficiency, therefore, comparative revision offers quality work than unilingual revision (Brunette et al, 2005). The process of unilingual revision starts with the target text where the reviser tests successive types of Translation Units that can be considered for editorial acceptability and reliability at sentences level. It is important to note that the reviser focuses on acceptability taking into account that translator was keen enough and made thorough checking of the reliability of the text (Gile, 1995). Conclusion Revising and editing are important steps in translation process because they provide guidance for translational professionals who intend to edit texts written by other people. The steps are also crucial because they enable professional translators to improve their self-revision skills and the ability to revise other people’s work. Generally, the linguistic work expected of editors and revisers is more associated with their professional situations of work such as copyediting, structural editing and style editing as well as checking for consistency, ensuring revision procedures and principles are adhered to through translation quality assessment. Revision is basically a type of editing because it involves reading over carefully to correct, improve or provide updates appropriately, while editing means revising the text to make it ready and available for publication. It is notable that revision in translation requires the translator to make precise diagnostic information, and thus accepts the structures or words as translating that he or she would accept when writing his or her own text. Comparative revision or bilingual revision means that the reviser is involved in the task of checking the translation for its accuracy and completeness by evaluating it with the source text. References Brunette, L., Chantal, G & Jonathan, H., (2005). “The GREVIS project: revise or court calamity”, Across Languages and Cultures, 6 (1), 29-45. European Committee for Standardization. (2006). Translation services: service requirements. Brussels: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut. Gile, D. (1995). The basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hayes, J. (2009). From idea to text. The SAGE Handbook of writing development. London. Sage Publications. Martin, C., (2012). The Dark Side of Translation Revision. Revising Translations. 16 (1), 1-21. Mossop, B. (2007). Revising and Editing for Translators (Translation Practices Explained), 2nd edition. Manchester. St. Jerome Publishers. Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and editing for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishers. Rachel, H. (2011). The Difference between Editing and Proofreading a Translation. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from, The University of Queensland-Australia. (2009). Revising and Editing. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from, Read More