revision for quality

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 18 February 2009Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

REVISION FOR QUALITYRaymond Chakhachiro a

a University of Western Sydney, Australia

Online Publication Date: 25 November 2005

To cite this Article Chakhachiro, Raymond(2005)'REVISION FOR QUALITY',Perspectives,13:3,255 — 238

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09076760508668994

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668994

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668994

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

REVISION FOR QUALITY

Raymond Chakhachiro, University of Western Sydney, [email protected]

AbstractThis article argues that revision for translation quality control is a specialist subfield of trans-

lation criticism. It discusses the competence and skills required for revision, guided by established quality assessment criteria and ethical behaviour. As such, it devises consistent parameters for the revision process that maintains the integrity of both the source and target texts based on translation, contrastive analysis, and translation criticism studies. The article is not concerned with the relative weighting of individual errors, although it, indirectly, argues that a defensible, professional revision gives a fair assessment of the translators’ competence.

Key words: English-Arabic; revision; translation quality assessment; translation criti-cism; equivalence; revision process; style; subjectivity; ethics.

IntroductionThe aim of revision is to ensure that a translation is an accurate and acceptable

rendition of a source text for the target readership. Therefore, revision entails a professional, informed assessment of translation decisions and products. The process of revision is bi-directional and its purpose is to exert quality control. This requires contrastive analyses, which, in my view, require a comprehension of the message of the source-text, a fair assessment of the process of translating, and a familiarity with the target-language culture, audience, and literature (in the broadest sense of the word). However controversial and elusive the concept of equivalence of meaning and style is, it still hovers over this activity.

I consider revision to be a subfield of translation criticism. Translation criti-cism is practised widely and spans from students’ performance (e.g., Nord 1991; Campbell 1998), to the establishment of models for translation quality assess-ment (e.g., House 2001), to investigations of the process of translation (e.g., Hönig 1991).

Despite growing interest in revision in the professional translation market, there is li�le serious study of revision. This contributes to the existence of ‘revi-sion’ by revisers who are incompetent in terms of specialist expertise, stylistic sensitivity, and occasionally even ethical behaviour.

The back translations of the following lexical amendments in an Arabic tar-get text, which were made by a non-professional reviser, illustrate that revision should not be le� in the hands of people without the necessary qualifications:

225

0907-676X/05/03/225-14 $20.00Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

© 2005 R. ChakhachiroVol. 13, No. 3, 2005

Downloaded At: 23:44 18 February 2009

2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 3

Example 1Source text Original target text Revised target textDoor-to-door sales

باوبألا ىلع لاوجتلا تاعيبم(mabi’aat al-tajwaal ‘alaa al-abwaab) [Literally: doors peddling sales]

باوبألا ىلع لوجتلا تاعيبم(mabi’aat al-tajawwul ‘alaa al-abwaab)[Literally: doors peddling sales]

Throughout the week

عوبسألا مايأ لاوط(Tiwaal ayyaam al-usbuu’)[Literally: throughout the days of the week]

عوبسألا مايأ لوط(Tuul ayyaam al-usbuu’)[Literally: along the days of the week]

Consumer’s vulnerability

كلهتسملا ةليح فعض(Du’f Hiilat al-mustahlik)[Literally: consumer’s weak position]

كلهتسملا ةلاح فعض(Du’f Haalat al-mutahlik)[Literally: consumer’s weak state]

In this case, it is clear that the revisions do not improve the translations.Brian Mossop’s Revising and Editing for Translators (2001) primarily provides

comprehensive and practical advice to translators, translation teachers, and students, and revisers concerning self-revision and revision of others, tackling many issues pertinent to revision, including revision parameters touched upon below. I believe, however, that Mossop makes general statements that fail to take into account the main purpose of most revision, namely to assess the accu-racy of a translation in terms of meaning and style and to make the emendations required.

Mossop’s revisers are, mainly, full-time employees of “translating organiza-tions”, whose responsibilities may also include the training of new translators, administration, and management of translation work. (Mossop 2001: 83)

I disagree with Mossop, who states in his discussion of the revision of ephem-eral texts that “[t]here is no point spending five minutes searching for the mot juste if the translation is going to be read quickly and tossed away.” (2001: 100) “Ephemeral translations” range from informational texts on medical, health, and legal issues to news articles, for all of which I hold that it is important to convey the source-language message with all its terminologies and nuances.

Translation agencies and organisations that realise the importance of revis-ing translations to ensure quality (Mossop 2001: 84) develop reviewing criteria that stress accuracy of meaning and style. (e.g., DIN 2345, Deutsches Institut für Normierung e.V. (Kiraly 2000: 149-150))

Such translation review criteria are usually listed as “necessary” for high- standard translation, but at the same time they seem to be ambiguous and gen-eral and are therefore open to subjective interpretation. However, revision is a professional activity for many translators and involves many parties. Therefore, we need pertinent and clear answers to such questions as: What is revision? How can optimum objective revision be achieved, by whom and with what as-sessment tools?

Sooner or later, all professional translators’ work will be revised or the trans-lators may be asked to revise translations against source-texts. The reviser may be a professional translator, a bilingual person, or even a monolingual speaker, depending on social and financial means. The process may o�en be biased by close relations between the parties involved. This can lead to inefficiency and bi�er debates, which sometimes require the writing of long reviser’s reports to justify translations or amendments.

226


However, in this article, I focus on revision in free-lance translation environ-ments, in which translators and revisers are both independent free-lance con-tractors (i.e., not referring to revisers employed by agencies to review, train, or assess the quality of junior translators’ work).

The case for a systematic approachAs mentioned, revision o�en constitutes part of the process of the translation

of publications for the market. As such, revision can range from (occasionally) the rewriting of source texts to suit target-readers’ culture to stylistic revision in the target language and presentation of the translation in a proofread and forma�ed lay-out.

In order to ascertain whether a target text is comprehensible, in principle it may be reviewed by monolingual groups through a bilingual facilitator (e.g., Feinauer and Lu�ig 2005). The revisers’ emendations and their discussions with or reports to the original translator should be systematic in order to control their own subjectivity and achieve consensus about an outcome that is acceptable to all parties concerned. (Lauscher 2000: 163)

A systematic revision process requires a frame of reference that is, at the same time, flexible enough to allow appropriate intervention and specific enough to cover all linguistic components. It must account for:

1) the dual roles of revisers as assessors and translators, since “the criteria and categories for critical evaluation cannot be formulated without a sys-tematic account of the requirements, the presuppositions and the goals of every translation process;” (Reiss 2000: 7)

2) the fact that “The challenge in translation criticism is to state [one’s] own principles categorically, but at the same time to elucidate the translator’s principles, and even the principles he is reacting against (or following);” (Newmark 1988: 185) and

3) the fact that translation criticism must consider “function-, process- and product-oriented” approaches. (Toury 1995: 11)

Here, revision and the assessment criteria will be explored with reference to the theoretical, practical, and ethical competencies required.

Revision in Translation StudiesIn Holmes’ map of Translation Studies (see this issue page 189), translation

criticism is both a process and function-oriented exercise and translation criti-cism proper.

In a context of translation quality assessment, revision is retrospective and concerned with the accuracy of the product in terms of meaning and style. It uses principles of comparative analysis (Reiss 2000), yet it is not aimed at study-ing differences between two languages, but rather focuses on equivalence or “matches” and “mismatches” between the source and target texts. (House 1977) Revision should make it clear ‘why’ amendments are or are not warranted, whereas translation criticism illustrates ‘what’ it is relevant to examine and, in-directly, ‘how’ the examination should be carried out. (Mossop 2001) The use of revision focuses on the ‘whys’, while translation criticism is concerned with the

Chakhachiro. Revision for Quality. 227



‘whats’ and ‘hows’.

Revision in quality assessment studiesSince translation criticism is retrospective, equivalence and subjective ele-

ments in evaluation have been central to translation quality assessment (e.g., House 2001; Reiss 2000) and to contrastive analysis (e.g., Chesterman 1998). House and Reiss examine the use of, for example, functional and optimum equivalence as yardsticks for quality assessment. They have been criticised for “the lack of reliable, objective and practicable criteria for evaluating the com-municative success of texts”, (McAlester 1999: 175) and Lauscher (2000) argues that the existing evaluation criteria cannot account for the individuality of tar-get texts. She therefore accepts that evaluation is subjective and proposes that translation criticism must “determine the levels on which the influence of the subjective occurs.” (Lauscher 163)

Some scholars (e.g., Sager 1989) take into account other parameters that may affect the evaluation of translations, such as the status of the translation and the role of the initiator. Consequently, I shall re-examine ‘objectivity’ and ‘practica-bility’.

Models of translation criticism aspire to objectivity by se�ing up detailed criteria based on contrastive analysis and comparison. (Reiss 2000: 4) House proposes a translation criticism model that is objective and provides “detailed procedures for analysis and evaluation”, (2001: 247-248) and she rejects subjec-tive and intuitive evaluations as well as response-based approaches.

House’s functional-pragmatic model of translation evaluation provides for the analysis and comparison of an original and its translation on three ‘semiotic planes’: Language (Text), Register, and Genre. (2001: 249)

House argues that globalisation and the dominance of English have created “species of hybrid text”. (2001: 253) My examples are all taken from an instruc-tional text that is not culture-specific, but is globalised and therefore is a hybrid. It is, furthermore, foreign, or at least new, to Arabic. Such instructions are dis-seminated in Arabic by electronic media and not by leaflets and brochures as they are in English. Since they are wri�en, these texts address educated Arab women, whereas the English target audience would comprise persons of both genders and with average educations.

Following House, I distinguish between “overtly erroneous errors” that are mismatches (mistranslations, additions, and omissions) and errors that violate the target-language, such as poor grammar. “Covertly erroneous errors” result from differences between the socio-cultural values and the two language sys-tems. They are more difficult to uncover “since they demand a much more sub-tle, qualitative-descriptive assessment”. (House 2001: 56)

House’s work is based on German and English texts, that is, on languages that are not all that different culturally and linguistically. In today’s globalised world, which teems with multicultural environments, the notion of “covertly erroneous errors”, nevertheless, can be applied to many translations that are not “tied in a specific way to the source language community and culture” (House 2001: 189) (e.g., in the fields of health, education, law, and international rela-tions). They are based on (and create) comparable socio-cultural norms and therefore have largely the same ‘translation skopoi’, in that the effect intended

228


with source-text recipients is much the same as with the target-text recipient readers. (Nord 1991: 132)

Although such texts are not greatly influenced by the source culture or the source language, House’s covertly erroneous errors are relevant since it is here that the revisers’ competence is usually challenged. The literature has concen-trated on how to judge ‘subtle’ stylistic adequacy and House’s model claims that the issue can be tackled on a linguistic basis. We therefore revise the following translation according to House’s model.

Example 2aThey [children] will respond with delight to nursery rhymes that include bouncing and clapping routines, and soon will imitate the actions as they sing their own tune.

زهلا طامنأ لمشت يتلا ةلوفطلا يناغأ عم حرفب نوبواجتي مهو مهو ،قيفصتلاو

ةصاخلا مهتينغأ نونغي امدنع لاعفألا هذه دعب اميف نودلقي(wa-hum yatajaawabuun bi-farah ma’ aghaanii al-Tufuula al-latii tashmul anmaaT al-hazz wa-al-taSfiiq, wa-hum yuqalliduun fimaa ba’d haadhih al-af’aal ‘indamaa yughannuun ughniyatuhum al-khaaSSa)[Literally: And they respond with joy to childhood songs that include pat-terns of shaking and clapping, and they later imitate these actions when they sing their own song.]

Here the instruction describes the development of skills in children aged 6 to 9 months. In Western societies, mothers are given a great deal of information about children’s development.

In this brochure, the readers are addressed indirectly, which provides a tone of authority in Arabic. In English, the geographical origin and social class are unmarked, the language is simple, descriptive (e.g., “pick up things”; “tiny ob-jects”; “da-da”), and semi-formal (e.g., “examine intently” and “high-pitched”). It describes how children perceive and react to sounds.

In the Arab world, such information is traditionally passed on as advice from mother to daughter or through radio and television. When it is conveyed by the Internet, it is mostly translated or edited from English.

A comparison of source and target texts along House’s parameters shows mis-matches. Overtly erroneous errors include: ‘bouncing’, which reads ‘shaking’, rather than the probable binomial ةبلقشلاو طنلا (al-naTT wa-al-shaqlaba) [literally: jumping and bouncing], which would capture the conceptual mean-ing; ‘songs’ reads ‘song’; ‘children’s songs’ reads ‘childhood songs’; ‘soon’ reads ‘later’; ‘routines’ reads ‘types’; ‘actions’ is translated as لاعفأ (af’aal) [literally: acts] rather than the acceptable تاكرح (Harakaat) [literally: movements]; and ‘own tune’ reads ‘own song’, which is a semantic and contextual error.

There are ‘covertly erroneous errors’ at the textual level: the source text’s struc-ture is rendered as a foregrounded paratactic target construction, مهو ... مهو... (wa-hum …wa-hum…) [literally: and they …and they…], a rhetorical device in Arabic, which Holes terms saj’ (1995: 273). Here the use of parallel structure also violates the target text’s coherence. The referent ‘children’ must be explicit in the first instance in order to maintain the thematic progression in Arabic and




consequently it must replace ‘they’, etc. Following these suggested amendments, the target text now reads:

Example 2b ةبلقشلاو طنلا لمشت يتلا لافطألا يناغأ عم حرفب لفطلا بواجتيو

هتقيرطب ينغي امدنع تاكرحلا هذه دلقي نأ ثبلي الو ،قيفصتلاو.ةصاخلا

(wa-yatajaawab al-Tifl bi-faraH ma’ aghaani al-aTfaal allati tashmil al-naTT wa-al-shaqlaba wa-al-taSfiiq, wa-laa-yalbath an yuqallid haadhihi al-Harakaat ‘indamaa yughanni bi-TariiqaTihi al-khaaSSa.)[Literally: And the child responds with joy to children’s songs, which in-cludes jumping and tumbling and clapping, and soon he will imitate these movements when he sings in his own manner.]

It is mainly the justification of the stylistic errors and the suggested emen-dations that challenge the relevance of House’s context of situation and genre. In order to minimise subjectivity, the revisers’ intuitive corrections should be based on the linguistic, stylistic, and pragmatic characteristics of the languages involved.

Revision in translation theoryAchieving and monitoring equivalence comprises part of theories of transla-

tion and translation criticism. Chesterman classifies relativists as scholars “… associated with a belief in negotiated meanings, meanings as results of nego-tiation among speakers of a particular language” (1998: 49), an approach to equivalence that is in harmony with the “multifunctionality” of each and every text (Hatim and Mason 1990: 138), and that every text is a unique performance. (Toury 1995: 27)

In order to see if a relativistic approach fits the revision criteria concerned with textual and stylistic choices, we can use Bell’s structured model (1991), which posits that translating is a two-way process incorporating analysis and synthesis. Given the many components listed by Bell, his two-way process in-volves three competencies: a) native reception of wri�en source text, b) native production of wri�en target text, and c) translating skills. It shares features with the process of revision by requiring an analysis of the source text and the quasi-synthetic ‘reconstruction’ of it in the target language.

In revision, any unacceptable deviation from the ‘quasi-normative’, heuris-tic choices warrants an amendment. The emendations in Example 2 illustrate acceptable vs. unacceptable deviations without losing sight of relative equiva-lence as outlined by Bell.

Example 3aMusic is another form of communication. Singing and rocking rhythmically are relaxing and comforting and both parents and children enjoy this.

يعاقيإلا زهلاو ءانغلا نإو .مهافتلا نم رخآ لكش يه ىقيسوملا نإ.كلذب لافطألاو نادلاولا عتمتيو ،نايلسمو ناحيرم

(inna al-musiiqa hiya shaklun aakhar min al-tafaahum. Wa-inna al-ghinaa’ wa-al-hazz al-iqaa’ii muriHaan wa-musalliyaan, wa-yatama�a’al-waalidaan wa-al-aTfaal

230


bi-dhaalik.) [Literally: Music is [definitely] another form of mutual understanding. And singing and rhythmic rocking are [definitely] relaxing and amusing, and par-ents and children enjoy this.]

Apart from the mistranslations of ‘communication’ and ‘comforting’, there are unacceptable thematic and syntactic deviations from functional and stylis-tic norms. The translator has chosen a foregrounded paratactic structure rather than the automatised syntagmatic structure, ّنإ (inna), the emphatic particle cor-relate in Arabic achieves what Farghal terms “marked evaluativeness”. (Farghal 1991: 141) However, there is no evaluativeness in the source text. Hatim (1989: 137) goes further in that “the choice of these structures is closely bound up with ‘text rhetorical intent’, a cover term for the complex interaction between mes-sage, producer and receiver.” (Hatim 1989: 137) The full stop also disrupts co-herence. Since the source text is an expository text, “The verbs may be colourless statives like ‘consists of’ [or] ‘include’.” (Holes 1995: 205) The same rule applies here, and two possible ‘colourless’ verbs can be introduced: ربتعي (yu’tabar) [literally: is considered] and دعاسي (yusaa’d) [literally: it helps]. The translation then runs:

Example 3b ءانغلا دعاسيو ،لصاوتلا لاكشأ نم رخآ ًالكش ىقيسوملا ربتعتو

ىلع هيدلاولو هل ةعتملاو لفطلل ةحارلا ريفوت ىلع نايعاقيإلا زهلاو .ءاوسلا

(wa-tu’tabar al-musiiqa shaklan aakhar min ashkaal al-tawaaSul, wa-yusaa’id al-ghinaa’ wa-al-hazz al-iqaa’iyyan ‘alaa tawfiir al’raaHa li-al-Tifl wa-al-mut’a lahu wa-li-waalidayh ‘alaa al-sawaa’.)[Literally: Music is considered another form of communication, and singing and rhythmic rocking help provide comfort to the child and enjoyment to him and his parents alike.]

The addition of verbs suggests a class shi�, i.e., the paraphrastic ريفوت ىلع The first translation .[literally: to provide comfort] (alaa tawfiir al-raaHa‘)ةحارلاfailed to deliver the semantic content as well as the pragmatic message (the recommendations to parents) and this justifies the lexical and structural revi-sions. Although the syntactical, lexical, and textual errors in the target text relate to Bell’s “synthesis” and are covertly erroneous errors in Arabic grammar and style, Bell’s model cannot describe the choices.

Equivalence in contrastive studiesRevisers can use contrastive analysis because it focuses on establishing

equivalence across languages. Chesterman (1988) says that most Translation Studies scholars relate equivalence to concrete translations and that it is shaped by many constraints on the process of translation including “the purpose of the translated text and the translation act”. (27) There is therefore no “sense in trying to establish a finite set of general equivalence types”. (24) House submits that qualitative statements presuppose that a target text “must be compared with the [source text’s] textual profile which determines a norm against which




the appropriateness of the target text is judged”. (1977: 52. Original underline re-placed with bold) Chesterman also advocates contrastive analysis and suggests that texts can be examined from perspectives based on the prototype theory of cognitive science, which proposes that although sets of words, phrases, and sen-tence structures have closely matched meanings and are acceptable in the target language, there are some of them that are be�er than others. Reiss holds that “[e]very act of translating involves first recognizing the potential equivalents, and then selecting from among them the one best adapted to the particular [and overall] context.” (Reiss 2000: 51)

The notion of intertextuality supports the idea of prototypes at the textual-discursive levels since texts can be viewed as signs “among other signs”. (Hatim and Mason 1990: 227) We may apply relativity and prototype to the following example:

Example 4aProducing sound gives babies pleasure. They …

...مهو .ًارورس لافطألا يطعي توصلا رادصإ نإ (inna iSdaar al-Sawt yu’ti al-aTfaal suruuran. wa-hum…)[Literally: Producing the sound gives children pleasure. And they…]

The meaning of the sentence is ‘making sounds pleases babies.’ The Arabic translation bears witness to erroneous choices of available options. Among these are the following: 1) It is a grammatical error to use a definite article in توصلا (al-Sawt) [literally: the sound]; 2) ‘sound’ is a non-countable noun communicat-ing a (high) number, so stylistically it should be rendered in the plural تاوصأ (aSwaat) [literally: sounds], which, in turn, calls for a definite article; 3) there is an inappropriate, literal translation in ‘gives pleasure’: ًارورس يطعي (yu’Ti su-ruuran] instead of the standard collocation ًًةعتم بلجي (yajlib mut’a) [literally: provides enjoyment]; and 4) there are lexical errors: ‘babies’ reads ‘children’ and ‘pleasure’ is rendered as ‘happiness’; etc.

Consequently, emendations are required because the Arabic target text pro-vides wrong information in relation to the source text. As a target text, it does not have contextual and stylistic structures that are consistent with and accept-able in the target-text context and language. An amended text would run as follows:

Example 4b... وهف ،ريغصلا لفطلل ًًًةعتم بلجي تاوصألا رادصإ نإ

(inna iSdaar al-aSwaat yajlib mut’a li-al-Tifl al-Saghiir, fa-huwa)[Literally: Producing sounds brings pleasure to the young child, for he …]

Revision and minimal subjectivityThe revision process involves a qualitative, heuristic decision-making (Wilss

1996), which relies on translation criticism when it addresses questions of “translation effects”, stylistic notions, and the function of revision. (Chester-man 2000) Reiss defines objectivity in translation criticism as being “verifiable as in contrast to arbitrary and inadequate”. (2000: 4) She suggests that lexical choices are based on “[c]onformity to grammatical and stylistic standards as

232


well as lexical norms of the target language”, in addition to the semantic level (15) and the influence of “extra-linguistic determinants”. (66) She considers it imperative to identify the specific text-type a source-text belongs to in order “to meet the demands of both translating and objective translation criticism”. (22-23. Uppercase in original replaced with bold) She distinguishes between three functions: representative, that is, content-focused; expressive, that is, form-fo-cused; and persuasive, that is, appeal-focused. Moreover, she argues that the translation strategy should be adapted to the text-type in hand. I find that, like House’s model, Reiss offers notions that are useful for the consideration of deci-sion-making processes, whereas her text typology and description of “stylistic elements” and “idiomatic factors” (48-66) cannot be applied to an ‘objective’ examination of stylistic adequacy of a target text at the micro and macro levels. Example 5 shows why this is the case:

Example 5aBooks are important to everyone. Let them be important to babies too. Now their eyes can focus and they can look at a picture book with you for a few seconds. Their concentration span is brief.

مهنويع نأ ثيحو .ًاضيأ لافطألل ةمهم اهولعجإ .عيمجلل ةمهم بتكلا نإ روصلا نم باتك يف رظنلا نوعيطتسي مهف ،زيكرتلا نآلا عيطتست

.ريصق مهزيكرت ىدم نإو .ناوث ةدعل امكعم(inna al-kutub muhimma li-al-jami’. ĳ’aluuha muhimma li-al-aTfaal ayDan. wa-Haythu anna ‘uyuunahum tasTatii’ al-aan al-tarkiiz, fa-hum yastaTii’un al-naZar fin kitaab min al-Suwar ma’akumaa li-‘iddati thawaan. Wa-inna madaa tarkizuhum qaSiir.)[Literally: Books are important to everyone. Let them be important to chil-dren also. And since their eyes can now focus, they can look at a book of pictures with you for a few seconds. And [definitely] their concentration span is brief.]

The translation is stylistically odd in Arabic. This oddity must be analysed concerning “the intratextual rhetorical [stylistic] features of the [source] text”. (Nord 1991: 134) The source text encompasses all of Reiss’s text typologies. It is (a) content-oriented, (b) form-oriented, and (c) appeal-oriented, as the writer (a) gives advice, (b) in simple sentences, (c) in a vocative tone and calling for action. However, culturally, “books” has a wider meaning in English, namely ‘reading’ in a broad sense. In Arabic, the translation ةعلاطملا (almuTaala’a) [literally: reading] applies to older children and adults and is therefore not appropriate in the context, whereas an equivalent is achieved by means of a paraphrase: ةءارق .[reading books] (qiraa‘at al-kutub) بتكلا

“Important” also has culture-specific connotations and refers to ‘benefit’ and ‘usefulness’ rather than ‘material importance’. Although the translation’s ةمهم (muhimma) [literally: important] can be used, Arabic normally distinguishes between ةديفم (mufiida) [literally: beneficial], which would have been an ad-equate rendition in the first instance, while the next ةمهم (mufiida) [literally: beneficial] is synonymous with ةببحم (muHabbaba) [literally: loved] in collo-cation with لافطألل ةببحم (muHabbaba li-al-aTfaal) [literally: pleasurable to children], just to suggest a few mismatches. Furthermore, the literal transfer of




the source text’s punctuation and ellipsis violates Arabic style and its conven-tional function. A thoroughly amended version reads:

Example 5b يفو .ًاضيأ لفطلل ةببحم اهالعجاف عيمجلل ةديفم ةءارقلا نإف كلذك

روصم باتك ىلع هرصب زيكرت لفطلا عيطتسي هرمع نم ةلحرملا هذه ...هزيكرت ىدم رصقل ًارظن ،ناوث عضبل امكعم

(kadhaalik fa-inna al-qiraa‘a mufiida li-al-jami’ fa-ĳ’alaahaa muHabbaba li-al-Tifl ayDan. Wa-fi haadhihi al-marHala min ‘umrihi yasTati’ al-Tifl tarkiiz baSarih ‘alaa kitaab muSawwar ma’akumaa li-biD’ thawaan, naZaran li-qiSr madaa tarkiizih…) [Literally: Furthermore, reading is beneficial to everyone, so make it pleas-urable to the child also. And at this stage of his age, the child can focus his vision on a picture book with you for a few seconds, due to his brief concen-tration span…]

The extensive emendations made to align with the stylistic conventions of Arabic are exceptional to this sample translation. It was chosen to make my point, which is that, as Nord suggests, the “‘type of effect’ is required to remain unchanged, since the preservation of cultural distance (recipient/text relation-ship) o�en precludes the preservation of the interpretation (intention/text rela-tionship).” Nord (1991: 140)

A ma�er of styleThe amendments made in the examples quoted relate to style and meaning or

“language performance” and “translation problems proper”. (Nord 1991: 159) The role of style in translation means that assessment criteria take stylistic

features into account in revision. Nida defines style as dynamic and unpredict-able. (Nida 1964: 222) Style is also language specific. The connectives, punc-tuation, idiomatic expressions, and phraseology in the source texts may not be within range of choice of Arabic. In order to discuss the emendation of stylistic variation, we need recognised norms that are functionally appropriate to the text type and situation. A stylistic approach and a reviser’s technical compe-tence and professional ethics yield the following assessment criteria:

Source-text analysis a. Meaning: the reviser must fully understand the message in terms of - content (subject ma�er, a�itude) - language (lexis, grammar, syntax) - structure (thematic structure, subordination/coordination, cohesion,

topic shi� (Hatim and Mason 1990)), and - context (socio-systemic)

b. Style: the reviser must fully understand the message in terms of - the source language’s superimposed style (cohesion, idiomaticity, punc-

tuation, etc.) - the original writer’s idiosyncrasies (syntactic complexity, word choice,

formality) - the source-text recipients’ assumed knowledge (presupposition)

234


- the text-type (intertextuality) - the tenor (relationship between the source text producer and recipients),

and - its function (informational, aesthetic, etc.)

Source-text and target-text comparison a. Meaning: the reviser must ensure that the target text message conforms to

that of the source text in terms of - content (correct interpretation, completeness) - language (lexis, grammar, syntax (equivalent to the source text’s when-

ever stylistically possible) - structure (equivalent to that of the source text whenever stylistically pos-

sible), and - context (linguistically equivalent to that of the source text whenever sty-

listically possible)

b. Style: the reviser must ensure that the target text conforms to the source text’s form in terms of

- the norms of the target language - the writer’s idiosyncrasy (where stylistically possible) - the target recipients’ knowledge (presupposition) - the target-text text-type or adapted text-type (intertexuality) - the source text’s tenor (as closely as possible in the target language), and - the source-text function.

The objectivity issueDecision-making in revision involves interpretation of source-text messages,

determination of the style and the audiences of the source and target texts, the identification of the semantic and stylistic problems in target texts, a description of problems when there is a need for a reviser’s report, and suggestions for al-ternatives. To obtain the minimal subjectivity or the maximum objectivity, there are several factors that must be taken into account:

1. The reviser’s knowledge of the language pair, their stylistic variations, and their abstract schemes, such as grammar, syntax, and the lexical meanings of words.

Although she holds that some text-types (e.g., content-focused ones) lend themselves to fewer interpretations than others, Reiss (2000) considers transla-tors’ and critics’ personalities and interpretative skills subjective factors in trans-lation criticism. Technically, interpretative skills are part of revisers’ linguistic competence and enable them to overrule stylistic choices made the translator. The revisers’ own translation skills play a crucial role. The translators’ and re-visers’ personalities (e.g., theoretical or aggressive) affect the choices suggested. Therefore, revisers must be able to justify all overrulings to make sure they are not based on personal preference. Minimising subjectivity therefore must draw not only on “linguistic competence”, but also on




2. The reviser’s own translation competence in terms of decision-making, which depends on 3. The reviser’s translation experience, and4. The reviser’s ability to accept target-text phrasing that is within accepted, probable stylistic variations.

Stylistic amendments can be ‘discretely’ incorporated in the translation re-vised – and possibly (if the translator or client wishes so) with a short descrip-tion of errors.

Subjective assessment can also be related to

5. The reviser’s moral competence.

It is unethical to make unwarranted stylistic changes as well as to withhold justified changes in order to discredit or unduly credit the translator. Techni-cal and specialist incompetence is also a moral issue when revisers knowingly accept jobs revising texts that are beyond their expertise and linguistic compe-tence.

I believe that these subjective elements can only be avoided by having a revis-er’s report that outlines errors and alternatives with quotes and explanations. It is true that such reports are time-consuming and nightmarish to dra� (and must be charged accordingly). In some contexts and societies, an alternative may be to commission revisions to translation practitioners who can

6. produce detailed and systematic revision reports to translators, agencies, or clients.

This is controversial as it involves the relationships between revisers, the translators, and the agencies (see Samuelsson-Brown 1996: 115-16). A transla-tor’s seniority may tempt revisers to overlook pertinent – especially stylistic - mismatches in the translation. Similarly, a direct client-reviser relationship may lead to collusion and increase subjectivity. Ideally,

7. Revisers should be independent of translators, clients, and agencies.

There are practical problems since most agencies usually only have small pools of translators and revisers, be they in-house or free-lancers. This logistic difficulty, perhaps, can be avoided by working with proven ethical revisers, notably if they are highly qualified and do not feel that their reputation or liveli-hood is at stake.

When these issues are addressed, subjectivity at least would be minimised and the message of the source text would be safeguarded. As the source and target texts comparison unfolds, revisers can incorporate any amendment deemed necessary to maintain optimum equivalence of meaning and adequacy of style. In order that revisers can achieve optimum objectivity in this process, they have to be competent readers, bilinguals and translators, and keep in mind

236


that amendments must be defensible should the translator or client question the validity of an emendation or request a report.

ConclusionThe present article has reviewed the literature in so far as it provides insight

into parameters that are appropriate for revision, that is, a translation criticism that is “reliable, realistic, objective and practicable”, (McAlester 1999: 169) and hammered out in the translation product for reasons of quality. I have kept in mind the professional market in which the concrete practice of the many lo�y ideals of academe is not observed. Still, the market is interested and needs revi-sion.

Revision needs to be seen as a specialised type of translation assignment that requires highly qualified professional translators who are familiar with special-ist language as well as moral issues in translation criticism. Furthermore, re-visers, in principle at least, must be able to fully interpret and understand the source texts, be thoroughly familiar with translation processes and completely at home in the finer shades of the target-language system. The discussion of the three disciplines pertinent to revision, i.e., translation theory, contrastive anal-ysis, and translation criticism, demonstrates that stylistic issues are the main concern of translation criticism. I suggest that, in professional se�ings in many countries in the world, the full-scale or at least partial application of systematic assessment criteria along the lines discussed in this article, coupled with ethi-cal principles, and applied to local conditions, will furnish revisers, translation agencies, and clients with consistent approaches that could provide clarity to such broad notions as ‘completeness’, ‘factual and terminological accuracy’, and ensure that target-texts have the intended response with the end-user, the target-text readers.

Works citedBell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London & New York:

Longman.Campbell, Stuart J. 1998. Translation into the Second Language. London & New York: Long-

man.Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:

John Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. Methodological Oppositions in Translation Studies I. = www1. Farghal, Mohammed. 1991. Evaluativeness Parameter and the Translator from English

into Arabic and Vice-versa. Babel 37. 138-151.Feinauer, Ilse & Louise Lu�ig. 2005. Functionalism Is Not Always the Remedy. Perspec-

tives: Studies in Translatology 13. 123-131.Hatim, Basil. 1989. Text Linguistics in the Didactic of Translation: The Case of the Verbal

and Nominal Clause Types in Arabic. IRAL 27.137-144.Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Holes, Clive. 1995. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. London & New

York: LongmanHönig, Hans G. 1991. Holmes’ “Mapping Theory” and the Landscape of Mental Transla-

tion Processes. In Leuven-Zwart and Naaĳkens (eds.) Translations Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the first James S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Am-sterdam: Rodopi.

House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: TßL-Verlag Narr.

House, Juliane. 2001. ‘Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus So-cial Evaluation’. Meta 46: 243-257.

Kiraly, Donald. 2000. Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education: Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.




Lauscher, Susanne. 2000. Translation Quality Assessment: Where Can Theory and Prac-tice Meet? In Maier, Carol (ed.) The Translator – Evaluation and Translation. Manchester: UK: St. Jerome.

McAlester, Gerard. 1999. The Source Text in Translation Assessment. In Anderman, Gun-illa & Margaret Rogers (eds.). Word, Text,Translation: Liber Amicorum for Peter Newmark. Clevendon & Buffalo: Multilingual Ma�ers.

Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St Jerome.Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. UK: Prentice Hall.Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and

Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation, Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Ap-

plication of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi.Reiss, Katharina. 2000 [original (in German) 1971]. Translation Criticism - The Potentials

and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Manchester: St Jerome.

Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey. 1996. Working Procedures, Quality and Quality Assur-ance. In Owens, Rachel (ed.) The Translator’s Handbook. London: Aslib.

Sager, Juan C. 1989. Quality and Standards – The Evaluation of Translations. In Picken, Catriona (ed.) The Translator’s Handbook (2nd Ed.). London: Aslib.

Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadel-phia: Benjamins.

Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam/Philadel-phia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Websiteswww1 = h�p://www.ccl.umist.ac.uk/events/conference/methodology1.htm

238


revision for quality

Documents