La relecture unilingue : une procédure de révision de traduction rapide, fonctionnelle, mais déloyale

Abstract

Depuis 2006, les agences de traduction européennes qui souhaitent travailler conformément à la norme EN 15038 sur les services de traduction doivent intégrer la révision dans leur processus. Toutefois, la norme n’est pas claire quant à la manière dont cette révision doit être effectuée et en particulier quant à la nécessité de comparer les textes source et cible durant la révision. Ce constat est à la base d’une étude en cours devant déterminer l’impact de la procédure de révision sur le produit et le processus de révision. Dans la présente contribution, une procédure de révision non comparative, la relecture unilingue, sera comparée à trois autres procédures : la relecture bilingue et deux relectures dites « doubles », à savoir la relecture bilingue suivie d’une relecture unilingue et la relecture unilingue suivie d’une relecture bilingue. L’objectif est de déterminer si la relecture unilingue est efficace et, le cas échéant, dans quelles conditions et par rapport à quelle autre procédure. Pour ce faire, les scores de seize réviseurs professionnels ayant révisé quatre textes cibles comparables chaque fois selon une procédure différente ont été comparés en ce qui concerne la qualité de la révision (produit), la détection d’erreurs et la durée du processus de révision (processus). Une analyse de la variance (ANOVA) a révélé que la relecture unilingue n’est pas significativement moins efficace, en termes de qualité et de potentiel de détection d’erreurs, qu’une relecture bilingue, mais qu’elle ne prend pas non plus significativement moins de temps. En revanche, si la relecture unilingue est significativement moins efficace que les relectures doubles, elle prend aussi significativement moins de temps.Since 2006, European translation agencies willing to work according to the EN 15038 standard on translation services have had to include revision in their process. However, the standard is not clear as to how revision has to be conducted and in particular, to the necessity of comparing source and target texts during the revision process. This observation lies at the basis of an ongoing research project on the impact of revision procedure on revision product and process. In this paper, a noncomparative revision procedure, named monolingual revision, will be compared to three comparative procedures: bilingual revision and two “double revisions,” i.e., a bilingual revision followed by a monolingual revision and a monolingual revision followed by a bilingual revision. The aim is to determine whether monolingual revision is efficient and if so, in what conditions and compared to which procedures. In the main study, the scores of 16 professional revisers, who had to revise four comparable target texts using one of the four procedures each time, have been compared as to quality of the revision (product), error detection potential, and process duration (process). An analysis of the variance (ANOVA) has shown that monolingual revision is not significantly less efficient than bilingual revision as to quality and error detection p...

Source First or Target First? Insight into the Order of Reading in Revision Using In-depth Interviews

“…All these goals could be achieved by carrying out an analysis of revised translations produced in an experimental setting that restricts the order of reading, then calculating the proportion of errors corrected in the different categories (meaning, smoothness, correctness…), the time spent, and the total number of interventions. This would mean conducting a study for reading order that is comparable to the one conducted by Robert (2012Robert ( , 2013Robert ( , 2014 and Robert/Van Waes (2014) on revision procedures.…”

“…Brunette et al (2005) compared monolingual and bilingual revision. The most comprehensive study was conducted by Robert (2012Robert ( , 2013Robert ( , 2014 and Robert/Van Waes (2014), who measured the effect of different revision procedures on time, error detection and the quality of the revised translation. Overall, the experimental research indicates that bilingual revision produces better results than monolingual revision.…”

Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘fairness and tolerance’ attitudinal component

“…For example, Arthern (1983) included unnecessary changes in his formula for revision quality measurement, next to "substantive errors left or introduced" and "formal errors left or introduced". This typology, slightly adapted, was subsequently used by Horguelin and Brunette (1998), Künzli (2006Künzli ( , 2007Künzli ( , 2009, Robert (2012Robert ( , 2013Robert ( , 2014 and Robert and Van Waes (2014) to measure revision quality in their studies. This is an Accepted Manuscript (postprint).…”