View More View Less
  • 1 Études langagières, Université du Québec en Outaouais C.P. 1250, succursale Hull, Québec, Canada, J8X 3X7
  • 2 School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University Birmingham, United Kingdom, B4 7ET
  • 3 Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures, James Madison University Harrisonburg, Virginia, 22807
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

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.

  • Brunette, L. 2000. Towards a Terminology for Quality Translation Assessment: a Comparison of TQA Practices. The Translator Vol. 6. No. 2. Maier, C. (ed.) Special Issue: Evaluation and Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome.

    'Towards a Terminology for Quality Translation Assessment: a Comparison of TQA Practices ' () Vol. 6 The Translator .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Brunette, L. 1997. Contribution à la pédagogie de la révision en pays bilingue: le cas du Canada. Villeneuve d'Asq: Éditions du Septentrion.

    Contribution à la pédagogie de la révision en pays bilingue: le cas du Canada. , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Brunette, L. & Horguelin, P. 1998. Pratique de la révision. Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.

    Pratique de la révision. , ().

  • Durieux, Ch. 1990. Le raisonnement logique: premier outil du traducteur. In: Lederer, M. (ed.) Études traductologiques en hommage à Danica Seleskovitch. Paris: Minard (Lettres modernes). 189-200.

    Le raisonnement logique: premier outil du traducteur. , () 189 -200.

  • Gouadec, D. (no date) Système d'évaluation positive des traductions. Bureaut des traductions, Secrétariat d'État, Gouvernement du Canada.

    Système d'évaluation positive des traductions. , ().

  • Reiß, K. 2002. La critique des traductions, ses possibilités et ses limites: catégories et critères pour une évaluation pertinente des traductions. Translated by Catherine Bocquet. Arras: Artois presses université.

    La critique des traductions, ses possibilités et ses limites: catégories et critères pour une évaluation pertinente des traductions. , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Robinson, D. 1997. Becoming a Translator: an Accelerated Course. New York: Routledge.

    Becoming a Translator: an Accelerated Course. , ().

  • Hatim, B. & Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. New York: Longman.

    Discourse and the Translator. , ().

  • Holmes, J. S. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. , ().

  • House, J. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: a Model Revisited. Tübingen: G. Narr.

    Translation Quality Assessment: a Model Revisited. , ().

  • Krings, H. P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Postediting Processes. Ed. and transl. by Koby, G. S. et al., Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.

    Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Postediting Processes. , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Lee Jahnke, H. (ed.) 2001. Évaluation: paramètres, méthode, aspects pédagogiques. Meta Vol. 46. No. 2.

    Évaluation: paramètres, méthode, aspects pédagogiques. , ().

  • Maier, C. (ed.) 2000. The Translator Vol. 6. No. 2. Special Issue: Evaluation and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.

    The Translator , ().

  • Mossop, B. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.

    Revising and Editing for Translators. , ().

  • Neubert, A. & Shreve, G. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

    Translation as Text. , ().

  • Nord, Ch. 1997. Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.

    Translation as a Purposeful Activity. , ().

  • Payne, J. 1987. Revision as a Teaching Method on Translating Courses. Translation in the Modern Languages Degree. Proceedings of a conference held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh 5-7. January 1986. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. 43-51.

    Revision as a Teaching Method on Translating Courses. , () 43 -51.

  • Reiß, K. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von übersetzungen. München: M. Hueber.

    Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von übersetzungen. , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Reiß, K. 2000. Translation Criticism, the Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Manchester: St. Jerome, New York: American Bible Society.

    Translation Criticism, the Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. , ().

    • Search Google Scholar

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2020 0 5 8
Jul 2020 23 2 3
Aug 2020 5 2 4
Sep 2020 4 0 0
Oct 2020 8 0 0
Nov 2020 10 3 0
Dec 2020 0 0 0