Tomáš Duběda

Native Revision in L2 Translation: A Panacea or a Risk?
Tomáš Duběda, Institute of Translation Studies, Charles University, Prague

L2 translation (i.e. translation into a non-mother tongue) is a fact of life in many European countries. Although it breaks with the generally accepted Mother Tongue Principle (Thelen 2005), it responds to practical needs and market constraints. This is especially true of countries where languages of limited diffusion are spoken (Beeby 2009). While L2 translation is progressively accepted as a standard object of scientific study (Campbell 1998, Adab 2005, Pokorn 2005, Hurtado Albir 2017), the problem of translation revision (Mossop 2001) has received only limited attention in this particular field.

I analyse the assessment of 40 non-native translations from Czech into French, carried out by two French translators with excellent command of Czech. Two text types were tested: promotional and legal. The aim of the assessment was (1) to assign a global mark, (2) to highlight problematic places, and (3) to categorise the errors. The assessment does not yield a revised text; however, it allows measuring the amount of revision needed, i.e. the distance from a correct and natural-sounding translation.

Both the global average mark and the average number or errors are almost identical for both assessors, but their agreement is significantly higher in the promotional text than in the legal text. Despite comparable professional profiles, each of the two assessors has different tolerance thresholds for the individual error categories. The inter-assessor agreement is high for grammatical errors, and much lower for style and terminology.

In a global perspective, native revision undoubtedly brings added value to a non-native translation. However, it also implies several risks, mainly having to do with potential tensions between transfer of meaning and terminology on the one hand, and style on the other hand. Replacing bilingual revision by a monolingual review (in the sense of ISO 17100) can make these risks even more salient.

References

Adab, B. (2005). Translating into a Second Language: Can We, Should We? In: Gunilla Anderman & Margaret Rogers, eds. In and Out of English: For Better, for Worse? Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. pp. 227–241.
Beeby, A. (2009). Direction of Translation (Directionality). In: Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 63–67.
Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the Second Language. New York: Longman.
Hurtado Albir, A., ed. (2017). Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group. Amsterdam – Philadephia: John Benjamins.
ISO17100:2015. Translation services – Requirements for translation services.
Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Pokorn, N. (2005). Challenging the Traditional Axioms. Translation into a non-mother tongue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thelen, M. (2005). Translating into English as a Non-native Language: The Dutch Connection. In: Gunilla Anderman & Margaret Rogers, eds. In and Out of English: For Better, for Worse? Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. pp. 242–255.