Cover not available
Article published In:
The Development of Professional Competence
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Séverine Hubscher-Davidson
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 9:1] 2014
► pp. 88–108

Investigating the problem-solving strategies of revisers through triangulation

An exploratory study

This article reports on an exploratory follow-up study on the use of problem-solving strategies of professional revisers, and in particular the use of ‘rereading,’ ‘reflection-reformulation,’ and ‘search’ problem-solving strategies. The study focuses on the frequency of these strategies, on the effect of the revision procedure on the use of these strategies, and on the relationship between the use of these strategies and revision quality and duration. Results based on Think Aloud Protocols (TAPs) and keystroke logging data show that the reflection-reformulation and the search strategies are the most frequent. It seems that the more revisers use the reflection-reformulation strategy, whether alone or in combination with another strategy, the better they revise, but the longer they work. Results also show that the type of revision procedure employed does not seem to have any effect on the use of problem-solving strategies.
Keywords: translation revision, Think Aloud Protocols, keystroke logging, problem-solving strategies, revision procedure
Published online: 7 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.05rob
References (52)
Allal, Linda, Lucile Chanquoy, and Pierre Largy. 2004. Revision: Cognitive and Instructional Processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bisaillon, Jocelyne. 2007. “Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors.” Written Communication 24 (4): 295–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Melissa A. 2010. The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breedveld, Hella. 2002. “Translation Processes in Time.” Target 14 (2): 221–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breedveld, Hella, and Huub van den Bergh. 2002. “Revisie in vertaling: wanneer en wat.” Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 11: 327–345.Google Scholar
Brunette, Louise. 2000. “Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment.” The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication 6 (2): 169–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Normes et censure : ne pas confondre.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 15 (2): 223–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Révision pédagogique et interférences linguistiques.” In La formation à la traduction professionnelle, ed. by Geneviève Mareschal, Louise Brunette, Zélie Guével, and Egan Valentine, 141–151. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Brunette, Louise, Chantal Gagnon, and Jonathan Hine. 2005. “The GREVIS Project: Revise or Court Calamity.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (1): 29–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Elisabet Tiselius. 2009. “Exploring Retrospection as a Research Method for Studying the Translation Process and the Interpretation Process.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 109–134. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Ericsson, Karl A., and Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Committee for Standardization. 2006. European Standard EN 15038. Translation Services - Service Requirements. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.Google Scholar
Field, Andy. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela. 1988. From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen. 2009. “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Gyde. 2009. “The Speck in Your Brother’s Eye - The Beam in Your Own. Quality Management in Translation and Revision.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 255–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, John R., Linda Flower, Karen A. Schriver, James F. Stratman, and Linda Carey. 1987. “Cognitive Processes in Revision.” In Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, ed. by Sheldon Rosenberg, 176–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hernández-Morin, Katell. 2009. “Pratiques et perceptions de la révision en France.” Traduire 2 (221): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horguelin, Paul A., and Louise Brunette. 1998. Pratique de la révision. Brossard, PQ: Linguatech.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L. 1999. “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students.” In Empirical Translation Studies. Process and Product, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Kiraly, Don. 1995. Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1988. “Blick in die ‘Black Box.’ Eine Fallstudie zum Übersetzungsprozess bei Berufsübersetzern.” In Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. AILA-Symposium , Hildesheim, 13–16 April 1987, ed. by Reiner Arntz, 393–411. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander. 2005. “What Principles Guide Translation Revision? A Combined Product and Process Study.” In Translation Norms: What Is ‘Normal’ in the Translation Profession? ed. by Ian Kemble, 31–43. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
. 2006a. “Die Loyalitätsbeziehungen der Übersetzungsrevisorin.” In Übersetzen - Translating - Traduire: Towards a ”social turn”?, ed. by Michaela Wolf, 89–98. Wien: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2006b. “Teaching and Learning Translation Revision: Some Suggestions Based on Evidence from a Think-Aloud Protocol Study.” In Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning, ed. by Mike Garant, 9–24. Helsinki: Helsinki University.Google Scholar
. 2006c. “Translation Revision - A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Technical Text.” In Insights into Specialized Translation, ed. by Maurizio Gotti, and Susan Šarčević, 195–214. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007a. “Translation Revision. A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004, ed. by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 115–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. “The Ethical Dimension of Translation Revision. An Empirical Study.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 81: 42–56.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Qualität in der Übersetzungsrevision - eine empirische Studie.” In Translation zwischen Text und Welt: Translationswissenschaft als historische Disziplin zwischen Moderne und Zukunft, ed. by Hartwig Kalverkämper, and Larisa Schippel, 291–303. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes. 2006. “Inputlog: New Perspectives on the Logging of On-Line Writing.” In Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. by Kirk P.H. Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 73–94. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes.” Written Communication 30 (3): 358–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2007a. Revising and Editing for Translators (2nd edition). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Empirical Studies of Revision: What We Know and Need to Know.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 81: 5–20.Google Scholar
Norberg, Ulf. 2003. Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos. Eine empirische Prozess- und Produktsudie. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 2005. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Parra Galiano, Silvia. 2006. “La revisión y otros procedimientos para el aseguramiento de la calidad de la traducción en el ámbito profesional.” Turjuman 15 (2): 11–48.Google Scholar
. 2007a. “La revisión como procedimiento para el aseguramiento de la calidad de la traducción: grados, tipos y modalidades de revisión.” SENEZ 321: 97–122.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Propuesta metodológica para la revisión de traducciones: principios generales y parámetros.” TRANS 111: 197–214.Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S. 2008. “Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study.” In Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007, ed. by Pieter Boulogne. Accessed October 24, 2013. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012. La révision en traduction : les procédures de révision et leur impact sur le produit et le processus de révision. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S, and Luuk Van Waes. 2014. “Selecting a translation revision procedure: do common sense and statistics agree?”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, DOI logo.Google Scholar
Segers, Winibert. 2007. “IJkpuntenmethode.” In Vertalingen objectief evalueren. Matrices en ijkpunten, ed. by Chris Van de Poel, and Winibert Segers, 21–25. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Shih, Claire Y. 2006. “Revision from Translators’ Point of View. An Interview Study.” Target 18 (2): 295–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thaon, Brenda, and Paul A. Horguelin. 1980. A Practical Guide to Bilingual Revision. Montreal: Linguatech.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wølch Rasmussen, Kirsten, and Anne Schjoldager. 2011. “Revising Translations. A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 151: 87–120.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Scocchera, Giovanna
2020. The competent reviser: a short-term empirical study on revision teaching and revision competence acquisition. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Anke Tardel, Sascha Hofmann & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2019. Cognitive Effort and Efficiency in Translation Revision. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Bisiada, Mario
2018. Editing nominalisations in English−German translation: when do editors intervene?. The Translator 24:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Law, Melanie Ann & Haidee Kruger
2018. Chapter 11. How editors read. In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XVIII], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2018. Re-thinking translation quality. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Robert, Isabelle S., Aline Remael & Jim J.J. Ureel
2017. Towards a model of translation revision competence. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Robert, Isabelle S.
2016. La relecture unilingue : une procédure de révision de traduction rapide, fonctionnelle, mais déloyale. TTR 27:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Robert, Isabelle S. & Louise Brunette
2016. Should Revision Trainees Think Aloud while Revising Somebody Else’s Translation? Insights from an Empirical Study with Professionals. Meta 61:2 ► pp. 320 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.