revision manual en

8/12/2019 Revision Manual En

1/22

European Commission

Directorate-General for TranslationSpanish Department

Revision Manual

Brussels & LuxembourgOctober 2010


2/22


3/22

Spanish Department

Revision Manual


4/22

Revision Manual 4

CONTENTS

I Foreword 5

II Revision 6

1 Definition2 Aims3 Types of revision

1 Thorough revision2 Cross-reading

4 Quality control levelsIII Principles of revision 8

IV Revision procedure 9

1 Text preparation and delivery2 Receipt3 Reading and comparing4 Changes5 Context consistency6 Overall consistency7 Summing up8 Dialogue9 Arbitration10 Closing formalities

V Appendix 11

1 Revision samples 12A On the screenB On paper

2 Document categories 14A Level 1B Level 2

3 Bibliography 16A InstitutionalB External


5/22

Revision Manual 5

I FOREWORD

he translation work carried out by the European Commission's

Directorate-General for Translation must meet certain watertight qualitycriteria, not only because most of it is the vehicle for the official policies which arethe Commission's raison d'tre, but also because any public service is inextricablyaccountable to the citizens who pay for it.

Since translation is by its very nature susceptible of subjectiveimprovement, institutional translation must be subject to a quality-control process

based on objective and unequivocal criteria, which in turn are fulfilled by meansof revision and evaluation. Although good quality should be an inherent part ofthe translation process itself, all translated texts must undergo some sort of

revision. Revision guarantees final quality via a series of actions which, endorsingor improving the text, result in the best possible rendering.Institutional translation is collective and anonymous. No matter who the

translator of a given text is, DGT translators do not work in isolation. They do notchoose one term over another out of personal preference, nor can they disregardthe plentiful treasure trove of work done by their many colleagues. They feed on awealth of knowledge and experience, and this is ultimately reflected in the qualityof their translations. Revision is a part of this shared endeavour and is therefore anecessary action.

All translators are also revisers, either of their own translations or of thosedone by others, and are well aware of the principles governing good translationand accurate revision. These principles, distilled over the many years of commonexperience of the Commission's Spanish translators, have never been committed topaper. The Spanish Department has decided to consolidate this knowledge andexperience in a document listing the principles and procedures to be followedwhen revising. The purpose is not merely to lay down revision methodology, butalso to serve as a guide and food for thought for future translators.

This document, of which this is just the first draft (it will no doubt beimproved upon over time), is the result of a series of working sessions carried out

during 2010 by an ad hocworking group made up of several members of each ofthe three units of the Spanish Department and its Coordination Team1.

1Unit 1: Laura Campmany, Pedro Delgado, Mara Luisa Feliu, Gonzalo Solano; Unit 2: Jos Bouzas, Mara JessIribarren, Victoria Pagadigorra, Carlos Plaza, Teresa Renales; Unit 3: Victoria Carande, Myriam Garca deLeniz, Miquel Vidal; Web Unit: Mara Jos Otero; Coordination Team: Pollux Hernez, Alberto Rivas.

EN translation by Pollux Hernez, revised by Charles Gittins.

T


6/22

Revision Manual 6

II REVISION

iven the complexity of the revision task and the vagueness of the concept

itself it is necessary, before going into practical aspects in any depth, to setout in theoretical terms the nature and function of revision, and to determine thetype of texts to be revised and the various possible forms of revision.

1 DefinitionComparison of a translation with its original in order to point out and/orcorrect possible shortcomings, both in terms of content and formal

presentation.

2 Aims

In the context of DGT, the aims of revision are threefold:

To improve translation quality. To serve as an instrument for quality control. To provide professional training for translators and revisers alike.

3 Types of revision

1 Thorough revisionThe reviser reads the translation and the original sentence by sentenceand inserts his/her corrections and remarks. This corresponds to the REI(or REX) code in the official classification. In principle, the whole textmust be revised in this way, but in certain circumstances (e.g. if the

translator is an expert in the subject, or if the text is a subsequent versionof a previous translation) partial revision may do.

2 Cross-readingThe reviser reads the translation and, if something strikes him/her as odd,checks against the original to make sure that they match and insertshis/her corrections and remarks. This corresponds to the LEI (or LEX)code in the official classification.

G


7/22

Revision Manual 7

Revision is not:

A mere reading-throughReading a translated text with no reference to the original.

Spot-checkingPartial or selective check of a translated text just to gauge its quality.

4 Quality-control levels

When doing their work revisers shall bear in mind the two levels of qualitycontrol established by DGT (Note KJL/MBR D(2007)24311 of 17.12.2007):

Level 1 corresponds to a high level of quality control to be performed bysomebody other than the translator (revision or cross-reading). SeeAppendix 2A.

Level 2 corresponds to a less exacting quality control requirement to beperformed preferably by somebody other than the translator. SeeAppendix 2B.


8/22

Revision Manual 8

III PRINCIPLES OF REVISION

n order to perform their task in the most effective way possible, revisers shall

observe the following theoretical principles:

1 Assume from the outset that the translation to be revised is of good quality.2 Revision effort should be in proportion to the importance of the text.3 Clearly inadequate translation should be given straight back to the

translator.

4 Do not rewrite a translation.5 Do not present your personal preferences as gospel.6 Make changes whenever you can understand the translation only by

reading the original.

7 The fewer changes, the better.8 Back up any changes that are not self-explanatory with references to

concrete documentary sources.

9 Make sure that the changes you make are relevant.10 Point out borderline cases.11 Dialogue with the translator is of capital importance.12 Always see revision as a training opportunity for revisers and translators

alike.

13 Responsibility for all translation lies with the Department as a whole.Authorship of a given translation is the translators, the reviser's task

being complementary.

I


9/22

Revision Manual 9

IV REVISION PROCEDURE

n order to describe the revision process in a practical manner, the different steps

involved in an ideal revision task are listed below in chronological order. Thosesteps which are the translators responsibility are also included, since he/she is apart of the act of revision. These descriptions are equally valid for revision doneon paper or on screen.

1 Text preparation and deliveryThe translator shall hand in a finished translation (i.e. after self-revision,spell-checking, etc.) indicating any checks, doubts, solutions, and relevant

reference documents. The translation must be delivered with enough time tospare so that it can be revised in the best possible conditions.

2 ReceiptUpon receiving the translation, the reviser shall check the data on theworksheet for any particular instructions and consult the TraDesknote.

3 Reading and comparingThe reviser shall read a segment of the translated text and compare it with itsequivalent in the original.

4 ChangesThe reviser shall clearly indicate, by underlining or any other conventionalsign, all errors, omissions, additions, inaccuracies, inconsistencies or spellingmistakes, so that they can readily be corrected in the translation. Suggestionsshould be indicated in a distinctive way.

5 Context consistencyWhen a change is made, the reviser shall modify the context accordingly,

whenever necessary.

6 Overall consistencyThe reviser must always keep in mind that making a change in one part ofthe text may entail changes in another part.

7 Summing upThe reviser shall go through all the changes made to make sure that they arenecessary and to prepare the dialogue.

I


10/22

Revision Manual 10

8 DialogueIf needed, the reviser shall talk to the translator about the main points ofwhat he/she has changed.

9

ArbitrationWhere translator and reviser disagree, they may by mutual agreement applyto a third party in order to reach the best solution. If the disagreementpersists, the Head of Unit has the final say.

10 Closing formalitiesThe translator shall put the changes indicated by the reviser into thedocument. The translator must accept any changes relating to errors,omissions, additions, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, spelling mistakes,

incorrect or incomplete quotations from official documents, or a breach of theguidelines of the inter-institutional Style Guideor the Department's Guide, orof consolidated or coined terminology on any given topic. They may,however, choose to ignore mere suggestions.


11/22

Revision Manual 11

V APPENDIX


12/22

Revision Manual 12

1 Revision samples

These samples come from texts actually translated in the Spanish Department andrevised by the Quality Working Group in 2008 and 2009.

A On the screenOriginal

(8) Commercial whaling was suspended in 1986 as a result of a moratorium agreed by themajority of countries represented in the IWC. Uncertainties in the scientific analyses

concerning the status of various whale stocks were the main reasons for this pause in

commercial whaling. Ever since, the main issue regularly discussed at IWC meetings iswhether whale stocks have recovered enough to lift the ban on commercial whaling in

a controlled fashion.

(9) The dual mandate of the IWC of both managing whaling and conserving whales hasled to extremely polarised positions over the years between leading 'pro-whaling' States

and 'anti-whaling' ones. Leading pro-whaling States (e.g. Japan, Iceland and Norway)

have consistently contested the moratorium and still carry out whaling for what they

call scientific purposes or other exceptions.

(10) The general ban on commercial whaling decided within the IWC is in line with ECpolicies, as defined by the above-mentioned legislation. It is important that the IWC

ensures the continuation of the moratorium on the basis of the currently available

scientific information. However, in virtually all IWC meetings since the entry into

force of the ban, Japan has proposed amendments to the 'Schedule' to the Convention

to authorise whaling under certain conditions and de facto lift the ban for certain

stocks. Therefore, the 20 EU Member States that are IWC members2have to express at

each IWC meeting their position on such proposals which fall within Community

competence. It is anticipated that this will happen again at the 2008 IWC Annual

meeting in Santiago (Chile) and subsequent meetings.

2 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK.


13/22

Revision Manual 13


14/22

Revision Manual 14

B On paperOriginal

We are of the opinion that the report fulfils the requirements in terms of content in that it

covers most points set out in the draft Article 13 model report.

However, we have the following comments and questions:

(1) It is well appreciated that, in annex to the report, tables with aggregated data from

both the IGAE and the Inspectorates of the Autonomous Communities (IGCCAA)

have been provided. However, my services would also be interested in receiving a

consolidated document summarizing the relevant findings which are mentioned in

the reports prepared by the various IGCCAA. Without wanting to question the

administrative structure or the distribution of competences between the Central

Administration and the Autonomous Communities (CCAA), such a consolidated

document, accompanying the reports by the IGCCAA, could considerably simplify

our analysis of those reports. This document should for example include information

on the follow-up of systems audits, sample checks (irregularities and their nature)

and an overall conclusion on the functioning of the management and control

systems.

With regard to the sample checks pursuant to Art.10-12 of Reg.438/2001, these should be

based on a representative sample of operations, implying a correct distribution over the

various CCAA. In this respect, no data could be found for the Autonomous Community (CA)

of Navarra (in annex VI of the aggregated data) and Murcia (in annexes II and VI). Moreover,

the cumulative amount checked until 31/12/2007 and consequently the control percentage of

expenditure declared seem to be erroneous for the O.P. for Objective 1 areas (CCI

No.2000ES141PO001) as the amounts corresponding to CA Castilla La Mancha have been

included twice.


15/22

Revision Manual 15

Revised text with corrections


16/22

Revision Manual 16

2 Document categories

hese lists are taken from DGT's Communication 1489 of 2006 and they shouldnot be considered either comprehensive or final.

A Quality control level 1 documents

legislative texts: regulations, directives, recommendations, decisions ofthe Council, the EP, the Commission

explanatory memoranda (CLWP) communications from and to the Commission white papers green papers Commission working papers reports on the follow-up of the European Council opinions of the National Parliaments and answers thereto documents linked to budgetary cycle notices for publication in the OJ infringements proceedings answers to written/oral questions procedural documents of the Court of Justice agreements with third countries correspondence with Member States or companies national legislation implementing EU legislation country strategy and programming papers calls for tenders and call for proposals: specifications and contracts competition tests documents linked to legal obligations: early warnings, decisions of the

EEA Joint Committee, common positions, TARIC documents, UN/ECEregulations, EFTA documents, summary reports, etc.

web pages press releases.

T


17/22

Revision Manual 17

B Quality control level 2 documents

summaries of impact assessment financial statements

technical annexes Commission staff working papers annexes to reports on the follow-up of the European Council documents linked to political priorities explanatory memoranda actions taken on Parliament resolutions Commission answers to CoA incoming correspondence from a Member State or company studies or papers from DG, internally drafted or subcontracted

reports not required by legal acts administrative notices forms for staff Appointing Authority decisions other Administration documents leaflets guides on application for Community legislation presentation of the work of a DG to the public articles and speeches ScadPlus newsletters / news releases articles for publication Commission Bulletin meeting reports and notices consultation documents.


18/22

Revision Manual 18

3 Bibliography

A InstitutionalDGT (2004), Normes de qualit de la DGT, annexe 4 in Catgorisation:

.

DGT (2007), Vorschlag fr ein abteilungsweites Qualittssicherungskonzept:Versin inglesa:.

DGT(2008),English Department Quality Control Guidelines[Worddocument]:.

DGT (2008), Qualittskontrolle in der deutschen Sprachabteilung, y Quality Assurance in the

German Language Department:.

DGT, FR-01 (2008), Lignes directrices concernant la rvision interne [Word document]:.

DGT, FR-01 (2008), Lignes directrices destines aux traducteurs chargs d'valuer et de rviser desdocuments traduits en free-lance [Word document]:.

DGT, FR-03 (2008), Recommandations concernant l'introduction des modifications en trackchanges lors des rvisions internes [Word document]:.

DGT, FR-06 (2009), Procdure dvaluation dun document FL [Word document]:.

DGT (2010), Revision of External and Internal Translation [Word document]: [click: zde].

DGT (s.d.) Revision Policy and Practice in the English Department [Word document]:.

LAPPI-SEPPL, Jyrki (2008), Guidelines for Day-to-day Application of the New Quality ControlRules in Directorate A:.

MARTIN, Tim (2005), Revision Management [Power Point presentation]:.

MARTIN, Tim (2007), Managing Risks and Resources: A Down-to-earth View of Revision,in The Journal of Specialised Translation: .

MORFEY, Rosie (2007), Report on Revision Training Pilot Workshops held in Brussels on 5December 2006 and in Luxembourg on 7 December 2006 [Word document]:.

VALVERDE igo et alii (2010), Algunas consideraciones sobre la revisin, 34-38 inpuntoycoma117.
http://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/dept/documents/documents/QualityAssurance.pdhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/dept/documents/documents/QualityAssurance.pdhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/arbeitsgruppen/AG_Qualitaetssicherung.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/arbeitsgruppen/AG_Qualitaetssicherung.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/arbeitsgruppen/AG_Qualitaetssicherung.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/cs/ext.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/cs/ext.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/fr/GTF/gtf_rev_eva.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/arbeitsgruppen/AG_Qualitaetssicherung.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/en/quality/qualitypage.htmhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/lang/de/dept/documents/documents/QualityAssurance.pdhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdfhttp://www.cc.cec/DGT/cdd/policy/archives/2004/20040322_report_doc_quality_normes_an_4.pdf


19/22

Revision Manual 19

B ExternalALLAL, L. / L. CHANQUOY / P. MARGY (2004). Revision. Cognitive and Instructional Processes,

Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.ARTHERN, Peter J. (1983), Judging the Quality of Revision, 53-57 in Lebende Sprachen28.2.BISAILLON, J. (2007), La revision professionnelle : processus, stratgies et pratiques, Editions Nota

Bene, Qubec.BRUNETTE, Louise (2000), Toward a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment: a

comparison of TQA practices, 169-182 in The Translator6.3.BREEDVELD, H. / H. VAN DEN BERGH(2002), Revisie in vertaling: wanneer en wat, 327-345

in Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series 1.CHAKHACHIRO, R. (2005), Revision for Quality, 225-238 in Perspectives: Studies in

Translatology13.3.GAMBIER, Y. / M. SHLESINGER / R. STOLZE eds. (2007) Doubts and Directions in Translation

Studies, Benjamins, Amsterdam.GRAHAM, J. D. (1989), Checking, Revision and Editing, 59-70 in C. PICKENThe Translator's

Handbook, Aslib, London.HALLIDAY, M. A. K. / Ruqaiya HASSAN(1976), Cohesion in English, Longman, London.HINE, J. T. (2003), Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment, 135-156 in Beyond

the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, American Translators Associationscholarly monograph 12, Benjamins, Amsterdam.

HORGUELIN, P. A. / L. BRUNETTE(1998), Pratique de la rvision, Linguatech, Qubec.HORNING, A. / A. BECKER eds. (2006), Revision. History, Theory and Practice, Parlor Press,

Indiana.KNZLI, A. (2005), What Principles Guide Translation Revision? A Combined Product and

Process Study, 31-44 in I. KEMBLE ed., Translation Norms: What is 'normal' in theTranslation Profession? Proceedings of the 4th Translation Conference, University ofPortsmouth (November 2004),University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth.

KNZLI, A. (2006), Teaching and Learning Translation Revision: Some Suggestions Based onEvidence from a Think-aloud Protocol Study, 9-24 in M. GARANTed., Current Trends inTranslation Teaching and Learning, Helsinki University, Helsinki.

KNZLI, A. (2007), The Ethical Dimension of Translation Revision. An Empirical Study, inThe Journal of Specialised Translation: .

KNZLI, A. (2009), Qualitt in der bersetzungsrevision, 291-303 in L. SCHIPPEL / H.KALVERKMPEReds., Translation zwischen Text und Welt, Frank & Timme, Berlin.

LEE, H. (2006) Rvision : dfinitions et paramtres, 410-419 inMeta 51.2.MOSSOP,Brian(2001),Revising and Editing for Translators,St Jerome, Londres.MOSSOP, Brian (2007), Empirical Studies of Revision: What we Knowand Need to Know,

in The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: .PARRA GALIANO, Silvia (2007), Propuesta metodolgica para la revisin de traducciones:

principios generales y parmetros, 197-214 in Trans. Revista de Traductologa11.PICKEN, Catriona ed. (1994), Quality-assurance, Management and Control, Proceedings of the

Seventh Annual Conference of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting, ITIPublications.
http://www.jostrans.org/http://www.jostrans.org/http://www.jostrans.org/


20/22

Revision Manual 20

PRIOU, R. / M. ROCHARD (2007), Economie de la rvision dans une organisationinternationale : le cas de l'OCDE, in The Journal of Specialised Translation:.

ROBERT, Isabelle (2008), Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study, 1-22 inPIETER BOULOGNE ed. Translation and Its Others: Selected Papers of the CETRA ResearchSeminar in Translation Studies2007:.

ROCHARD, M. (2004), Le rviseur : Achille ou Mentor ?, 59-69 in Actes du Colloque SFT-Universit de Grenoble 3: Traduire203, Socit franaise destraducteurs, Paris.

SAMUELSSON-BROWN, Geoffrey (1996), Working Procedures, Quality and QualityAssurance, in R. OWENSed., The Translator's Handbook, Aslib, London.

SEDON-STRUTT, Hugh (1990), The Revision of Translation Work, 28-30 in LanguageInternational2 (3).

TARDGUILA, Esperanza (2009), Reflexiones sobre la revisin de traducciones, 367-376 inMutatis Mutandis2.2:

.

VASCONCELLOS, Muriel (1987), A Comparison of MT Post-editing and TraditionalRevision, 409-416 in K. KUMMER ed., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the

American Translators' Association, Learned Information, Medford, NJ.
http://www.jostrans.org/http://www.jostrans.org/


21/22


22/22

European Commission

revision manual en

Documents