The GREVIS Project: Revise or Court Calamity

Brunette, Louise; Gagnon, Chantal; Hine, Jonathan

doi:10.1556/acr.6.2005.1.3

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Quality was measured based on a score of justifi ed changes, whereas error detection potential was measured based on justifi ed changes and attempted but unsuccessful corrections (referred to as under-revisions) as evidenced by the text data, as well as on error detections which did not lead to corrections as evidenced by the TAPs and log fi les. Results of this rather sophisticated research showed that monolingual revision produced poorer results than the other three modalities in terms of both quality and error detection potential, thus corroborating the fi ndings of Brunette et al (2005). Moreover, monolingual revision was found not to take signifi cantly less time than comparative checking, though it was faster than the two-step procedures.…”

supporting

confidence: 71%

“…As he further explains, the "central challenge in revision is simply noticing problematic passages in the fi rst place" (Mossop 2011: 5). This is amply documented in previous studies, which have shown that revisers overlook errors all the time (Brunette et al 2005;Künzli 2006aKünzli , 2007Robert 2013). Error detection in this study is similar to the variable Robert refers to as "error detection potential" and defi nes as "the capacity to detect an error even if the detection does not lead to a justifi ed change" (Robert 2013: 89).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…This is where the third wave of research drawing on observational methods comes in. Brunette et al (2005) compared the results of monolingual revision of twenty three translations with the results of comparative revision (referred to as bilingual revision) of the same translations by the same translators some days earlier. The revisions were assessed for so-called corrections (i.e.…”

Section: Surveys and Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Translation Revision: Correlating Revision Procedure and Error Detection

Ipsen

Dam

2016

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on an empirical study on translation revision. With the aim of investigating the possible link between revision procedure and quality, the research correlates an indicator of quality, error detection, with revision procedure. Error detection and revision procedure were studied drawing on a convergent parallel mixed-methods research design involving three different sources of data. Nine subjects performed a revision task and thus produced text data; their activities on the computer screen were captured and saved as video fi les; and retrospective interviews were conducted with the revisers upon completion of the task. Results show that the highest error detection scores were linked with a variety of revision procedures, but with one common denominator: the target text was consistently the point of departure. Revisers with high error detection scores thus engaged in various different revision procedures, but their focus of attention in the initial operations was the translation rather than the source text in all cases. Conversely, the revisers whose initial attention was directed towards the source text received the lowest error detection scores in the revision task. IntroductionTranslation revision is an emerging topic in the translation industry, in translator training and in translation research. As any emerging fi eld, it is characterized by lack of consensus regarding terms and defi nitions (Robert 2008;Mossop 2011;Rasmussen/Schjoldager 2011), and the term 'revision' itself is used to refer to a range of activities. Brian Mossop, one of the pioneers in the fi eld, suggests the following broad defi nition: "Revision is the process of looking over a translation to decide whether it is of satisfactory quality, and making any needed changes" (Mossop 2011: 1). When this process is performed by the translator him-or herself as an integral part of the translation task, it is sometimes referred to as 'self-revision' (but also as 'checking' in EN 15038, see below). When revision is carried out by someone else as an additional quality check on the translator's work, it is sometimes referred to as 'other-revision'. As pointed out by Mossop (2011: 3), however, 'revision' has become the term of choice to describe the activity of other-revision, and in this article we shall follow this usage. Thus, the term 'revision' is used here to describe the process by which a person other than the translator checks a translation for errors and makes any necessary corrections in order to prepare the translation for delivery to the client. Note that this defi nition excludes revision of non-translated texts, sometimes referred to as 'editing' or 'reviewing'. Also excluded from this article is revision of machine-translated output, which generally goes under the name of 'post-editing'.In the translation business, translations are frequently revised by a person other than the translator as one among several quality assurance procedures. International organizations have been pioneers. Surveys dating several d...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Surveys and Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Translation Revision: Correlating Revision Procedure and Error Detection

Ipsen

Dam

2016

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5. Ces paramètres de révision sont basés sur les travaux de Horguelin et Brunette (1998), Horguelin et Pharand (2009), Brunette (2000 et du GREVIS (Brunette et al, 2005). paramètres d'exactitude et de code linguistique).…”

Section: Hypothèsesunclassified

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

Robert

2016

ttr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…These two procedures are called respectively monolingual and bilingual revision in Brunette, Gagnon and Hine (2005).…”

Section: The Text Is a Translation The Reviser Is Not The Translatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision

Mossop

2011

Handbook of Translation Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper discusses the results of an explorative study on the impact of translation revision procedures on the process and product of revision. The aim of this research is twofold. First, it is to establish which translation revision procedures are worth comparing in the experimental setting of the main study. Second, it is to determine whether it is opportune to allow the subjects in the planned extended experiment to revise on paper, in addition to revising on screen. Regarding the former question, it seems reasonable to compare four particular revision procedures, which are applied by professional revisers and recommended by translation scholars. As far as the latter question is concerned, it may be interesting to leave the revisers the choice. However, when it comes to the methodology of the main research -in which revision processes will be analysed through keystroke logging and think aloud protocols -, this approach has several drawbacks.

show abstract

The GREVIS Project: Revise or Court Calamity

Cited by 35 publications

References 1 publication

Translation Revision: Correlating Revision Procedure and Error Detection

Translation Revision: Correlating Revision Procedure and Error Detection

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

Revision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About