GREVIS (Groupe de recherche en révision humaine) aimed to set up an accelerated method of revising while improving the quality of the operation. The project had a three fold objective: to strengthen the place of revision in the field of translation studies, to increase revisers' satisfaction and to help the translation industry. The hypothesis of this study was that monolingual revision was just as effective as bilingual revision, and could be done at a lower cost, because it is less time-consuming. However, the results of the study disproved this hypothesis: bilingual revision was more than twice as effective as monolingual revision. The 19,407-word corpus comprised translations from the E?F pair (translated and revised in Canada) and from the F?E pair (translated and revised in the United States). Each sub-corpus (E?F and F?E) was analyzed by a team of scholars and/or revisers, according to Louise Brunette's (1997) revision criteria: accuracy, readability, appropriateness and linguistic coding. The study looked at the number of corrections, omissions and revisor-injected errors, in relation to these four criteria.

Abondamment traité en traductologie littéraire, le thème de la visibilité l’est de plus en plus dans le cadre des études qui portent sur la traduction journalistique. Le présent article pose la question suivante : en contexte canadien, lorsqu’il est question de politique locale, les journalistes exposent-ils le statut des textes qu’ils commentent ? En d’autres termes, lorsque les Canadiens lisent leurs quotidiens, sont-ils explicitement exposés au phénomène de la traduction ? Le corpus qui alimente l’analyse est constitué d’articles de journaux rédigés lors de crises nationales, au lendemain d’allocutions importantes prononcées par des dirigeants politiques canadiens, entre 1942 et 1995. Les résultats de l’étude montrent que la visibilité de la traduction n’est pas complètement effacée des textes journalistiques canadiens, contrairement à ce que l’on observe dans les textes journalistiques issus des agences de presse à l’échelle mondiale.In Literary Translation Studies, the issue of visibility has long been debated, and it is being increasingly discussed in studies dealing with news translation. This begs the question: in the Canadian context, when it comes to local politics, do the media expose the status of the texts they comment? In other words, when Canadians read their newspapers, are they explicitly exposed to the phenomenon of translation? The corpus of the present study will consist of articles written in newspapers in times of national crises, in the aftermath of major speeches delivered by Canadian political leaders between 1942 and 1995. The results of this study demonstrate that translation visibility is not completely erased in Canadian journalistic texts, contrary to what is found in journalistic texts from news agencies worldwide

For this paper, heterolingualism or language plurality will be considered as the presence in a single text or in a social environment of both French and English, Canada's official languages. Language plurality will here be studied from an institutional viewpoint: the influence of the Canadian government on the translation of political speeches. The first part of this article will establish that political speeches are written in a bilingual environment where the official languages are often in contact. This bilingualism, however, is homogenised when it comes to speeches translation and publication. Therefore, the second part focuses on the speeches' paratextual features and third looks at the speeches textual features.

No abstract

Le Canada est un pays officiellement bilingue, en ce sens que la communication qui émane de son gouvernement central se fait dans les deux langues officielles, l’anglais et le français. Cependant, les gouvernements des provinces canadiennes sont unilingues, à une exception près (la province du Nouveau-Brunswick est officiellement bilingue). Le contexte québécois est particulier puisque cette province est la seule dont la majorité s’exprime en français, d’où son statut de province unilingue française. Cependant, tant d’un point de vue politique que démographique, la population anglophone a toujours joué un rôle clé dans la société québécoise. La présente étude a pour objectif d’observer les différentes pratiques de traduction officielle du gouvernement du Canada et du gouvernement du Québec. Plus précisément, nous analyserons la traduction des discours de différents chefs politiques au provincial et au fédéral. Afin d’obtenir des résultats comparables, nous étudierons tout particulièrement les discours entourant un seul événement, soit le référendum québécois de 1995. Nos recherches précédentes ont démontré qu’au gouvernement fédéral, la traduction des discours politiques varie entre autres en fonction de l’époque et du premier ministre au pouvoir. Nous posons l’hypothèse qu’étant donné la longue tradition de traduction institutionnelle de certains partis politiques, les stratégies de traduction adoptées par ces partis seront plus efficaces que celles adoptées par les partis peu habitués à faire traduire leurs discours.Canada is an officially bilingual country, in that communications are produced by the central government in both official languages, English and French. However, the governments of the Canadian provinces are unilingual, with one exception (the province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual). The province of Quebec is special in that it is the only province whose majority population is Francophone, hence its unilingual French status. However, given the political and demographic context of the province, the English-speaking population of Quebec has always played a key role. This study focuses on the different practices of official translation by the Governments of Canada and Quebec. To ensure comparable results, it analyzes the translation of speeches made by various political leaders at the provincial and federal levels during the 1995 Quebec referendum. Our previous research has shown that, at the federal level, the translation of political speeches varies, depending on the historical context and the Prime Minister in power at the time, among other factors. We hypothesize that, given the long tradition of institutional translation characteristic of some political parties, their translation strategies are more effective than those of political parties that do not have a tradition of the institutional translation of speeches and are thus less familiar with what translation involves