Abstract
Translation revision is an essential part of
professional translation, and it has been one of the biggest workloads of
translation companies. However, far too little attention has been paid to it within
the relevant literature on translation studies. To fill this gap, this study aims
to analyze the translation revision policies of translation companies in Turkey
through a questionnaire developed by Rasmussen
&Schjoldager (2011). For this study, the questionnaire was adapted and
slightly modified to reflect the specific situation in Turkey. The questionnaire was answered by 15 revisers
and/or managers of translation companies in Turkey, specifically in three big
cities (including İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir). The data derived from the
questionnaire show the revision types that translation companies mostly prefer.
The answers of the respondents in translation companies offer a brief insight
into the parameters that translation companies consider during the revision
process. The remarks of the respondents also highlighted the scarcity of the
revision training within translation companies. In addition, the answers of the
respondents showed that they give importance to the problems of the transfer and
content of the text as well as language and presentation as suggested by Mossop
(2007, 2014). This study, in short, tries to reflect a view on the current status
of translation revision in Turkey through 15 translation companies.
Keywords
translation revision professional translation companies revisers' profile revision parameters
References
- Almeida, G. de. (2013). Translating the post-editor: an investigation of post-editing changes and correlations with professional experience across two Romance languages (Ph.D. Thesis). Dublin City University, Dublin.
- Brunette, L., Gagnon, C., & Hine, J. (2005). The GREVIS project: revise or court calamity. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 29–45.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., &KılıçÇakmak, E. (2009). Bilimselaraştırmayöntemleri (3rd ed.). Ankara: Pegem.
- European Commission (2010). Revision manual. Directorate-General for Translation, Spanish Department. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/translation/spanish/guidelines/documents/revisionmanual_en.
- Horguelin, P. A. and Brunette, L. (1998). Pratique de la révision. Québec: Linguatec
- Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2015) Quality Management Systems - Requirements (ISO standard no. 9001:2015). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en
- Koponen, M., &Salmi, L. (2015). On the Correctness of Machine Translation: A Machine Translation post-editing task. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (23), 118–136.
- Künzli, A. (2007). The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (8), 42–56.
- Makoushina, J. (2007). Translation Quality Assurance Tools: Current State and Future Approaches. In Translating and the Computer 29 (pp. 1–39). London: Aslib.
- Mirabeau, L., Mignerat, M., &Gtange, C. (2013). The Utility of Using Social Media Networks for Data Collection in Survey Research. Presented at the Thirty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan.
- Mossop, B. (2007). Empirical studies of revision: what we know and need to know. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (8), 5–20.
- Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and editing for translators. London: Routledge.
- Parra, S. (2016). Translations revision: fundamental methodological aspects and effectiveness of the EN 15038:2006 for translation quality assurance. In J. Zehnalova& O. Molnar (Eds.), Interchange between Languages and Cultures: The Quest for Quality (Vol. 5, pp. 39–52). Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc.
- Rasmussen, K. W., &Schjoldager, A. (2011). A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (15), 87–120.
- Robert, I. S., Terryn, A. R., Ureel, J. J. J., &Remael, A. (2017). Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘tools and research’ subcompetence. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (28), 293–316.
- Temizöz, Ö. (2016). Postediting machine-translation output: subject-matter experts versus professional translators AU -Temizöz, Ö. Perspectives, 24(4), 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1119862
- Uotila, A. (2017). Revision and Quality Assurance in Professional Translation A Study of Revision Policies in Finnish Translation Companies (Master Thesis). University of Tampere, Tampere.
- Yazıcı, M. (2017). The barriers in translator training. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(7), 43–50.
Abstract
Çeviride düzeltme
profesyonel çevirinin önemli bir parçasıdır ve çeviri şirketlerinde iş yükünün
büyük kısımlarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Ancak, çeviribilimde konuyla ilgili
alanyazında çok az araştırma yapıldığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışma söz konusu eksikliği
gidermek amacıyla, Rasmussen ve Schjoldager (2011) tarafından geliştirilen bir
anket aracılığıyla Türkiye’deki çeviri şirketlerinin çeviride düzeltme
politikalarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan anket Türkiye
özelindeki durumu yansıtabilmek adına kısmen değiştirilip uyarlanmıştır. Anket
Türkiye’de özellikle üç büyük şehirde (İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir)çeviri
şirketinde çalışan 15 düzeltmen ve/veyaşirket yöneticisi tarafından
yanıtlanmıştır. Anket aracılığıyla elde edilen veriler çeviri şirketlerinin
çoğunlukla tercih ettiği çeviride düzeltme türlerini göstermektedir. Ankete
verilen cevaplar çeviri şirketlerinin çeviride düzeltme esnasında dikkate
aldıkları parametrelere ilişkin bakış açısı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca ankete verilen
cevaplar, çeviri şirketlerinde çeviride düzeltme konulu eğitimlerin eksikliğini
de vurgulamıştır. Bunun yanında ankete verilen cevaplarda Mossop (2007, 2014)
tarafından önerilen çeviride dil ve sunum sorunlarının yanı sıra aktarım ve
metnin içeriğine de önem verildiği gösterilmiştir. Kısaca bu çalışma Türkiye’de
çeviride düzeltme işinin güncel durumuna ilişkin 15 çeviri işletmesi
örneklemiyle betimleyici bir görünüm sunmaya çalışmaktadır.
Keywords
çeviride düzeltme profesyonel çeviri şirketleri düzeltmenlerin profili çeviride düzeltme parametreleri
References
- Almeida, G. de. (2013). Translating the post-editor: an investigation of post-editing changes and correlations with professional experience across two Romance languages (Ph.D. Thesis). Dublin City University, Dublin.
- Brunette, L., Gagnon, C., & Hine, J. (2005). The GREVIS project: revise or court calamity. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 29–45.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., &KılıçÇakmak, E. (2009). Bilimselaraştırmayöntemleri (3rd ed.). Ankara: Pegem.
- European Commission (2010). Revision manual. Directorate-General for Translation, Spanish Department. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/translation/spanish/guidelines/documents/revisionmanual_en.
- Horguelin, P. A. and Brunette, L. (1998). Pratique de la révision. Québec: Linguatec
- Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2015) Quality Management Systems - Requirements (ISO standard no. 9001:2015). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en
- Koponen, M., &Salmi, L. (2015). On the Correctness of Machine Translation: A Machine Translation post-editing task. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (23), 118–136.
- Künzli, A. (2007). The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (8), 42–56.
- Makoushina, J. (2007). Translation Quality Assurance Tools: Current State and Future Approaches. In Translating and the Computer 29 (pp. 1–39). London: Aslib.
- Mirabeau, L., Mignerat, M., &Gtange, C. (2013). The Utility of Using Social Media Networks for Data Collection in Survey Research. Presented at the Thirty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan.
- Mossop, B. (2007). Empirical studies of revision: what we know and need to know. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (8), 5–20.
- Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and editing for translators. London: Routledge.
- Parra, S. (2016). Translations revision: fundamental methodological aspects and effectiveness of the EN 15038:2006 for translation quality assurance. In J. Zehnalova& O. Molnar (Eds.), Interchange between Languages and Cultures: The Quest for Quality (Vol. 5, pp. 39–52). Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc.
- Rasmussen, K. W., &Schjoldager, A. (2011). A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (15), 87–120.
- Robert, I. S., Terryn, A. R., Ureel, J. J. J., &Remael, A. (2017). Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘tools and research’ subcompetence. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (28), 293–316.
- Temizöz, Ö. (2016). Postediting machine-translation output: subject-matter experts versus professional translators AU -Temizöz, Ö. Perspectives, 24(4), 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1119862
- Uotila, A. (2017). Revision and Quality Assurance in Professional Translation A Study of Revision Policies in Finnish Translation Companies (Master Thesis). University of Tampere, Tampere.
- Yazıcı, M. (2017). The barriers in translator training. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(7), 43–50.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 31, 2019 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2019 Issue: 27 |