EDINA ROBIN TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN REVISED...
Transcript of EDINA ROBIN TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN REVISED...
Eötvös Loránd University
Faculty of Humanities
SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL THESIS
EDINA ROBIN
TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN REVISED TEXTS
Doctoral School of Linguistics
Head: Dr. Vilmos Bárdosi CSc, professor
Translation Studies Doctoral Programme
Head: Dr. Kinga Klaudy DSc, professor
Members of Committe:
Chair: Dr. Janusz Bańczerowski DSc, professor emeritus
Opponents: Dr. Pál Heltai CSc, professor emeritus
Dr. Károly Krisztina PhD, associate professor
Secretary: Dr. Papp Andrea PhD, professor
Members: Dr. Horváth Péter Iván PhD
Dr. Tóth Etelka PhD, college professor
Dr. Seidl-Péch Olívia PhD, senior lecturer
Supervisor:
Dr. Kinga Klaudy DSc, professor
Budapest
2014
1
1. Introduction
One of the core research areas in translation studies seeks to determine the
general linguistic features of translated texts. Several researchers find the
quest for translation universals too ambitious (House 2008), caution against
it (Chesterman 2004), and warn about formulating trivialities (Toury 2004).
However, empirical studies have found evidence for the presence of certain
linguistic features in translated texts (Laviosa 1998, 2009), which are more
common in translation than in original writing, regardless of the systemic
features of the language pair in question and the direction of translation.
These linguistic features include simplification, the avoidance of repetitions,
explicitation, transfer of textual characteristics of the source language, the
unusual distribution of lexical items, conventionality, normalisation, the
lack of target language specific unique items and ‘levelling out’ (Baker
1995, Laviosa 1998, 2009).
Analyses of translation universals, however, often fail to take into
account that the corpora on which the research is based usually consist of
revised translations, which not only exhibit traits of the translators’ strategy
and their transfer operations, but also those of the revisers. This raises the
question how revisers modify the translators’ operations—if they modify
them at all—in the target text. It is also unclear whether the features deemed
to be the result of translation i.e. the linguistic patterns characteristic of
translated texts are in fact universal features unique to translated texts only,
or whether they should be examined in a broader domain of communication.
While analysing translation universals I started to speculate that
revisional modification that are inexplicable, controversial or often deemed
unnecessary might actually be linked to the general linguistic features
described above. Research in translation studies (e.g. Tirkkonen-Condit
2004, Chesterman 2010) suggest that the so called translation universals –
often considered as the distinguishing features of translated texts – primarily
characterise “mediocre” translations. Revisers working with translations and
2
seeking to correct texts by applying global strategies at macro level
(Horváth 2009) while also bearing in mind the norms of the target language
(Mossop 2007, Šunková 2011) might modify translation “anomalies” that
translators might be unaware of. After all, these “anomalies” are not actual
grammatical or spelling mistakes but linguistic features characteristic of the
so-called “third code” (Frawley 1984). Thus, it is worth taking a closer look
at revisers’ work to see whether they influence the dominance of universals.
2. Relevance
At the theoretical level, the results of the study described in the dissertation
can contribute to the analysis of the general characteristics of translated
texts, and also help to pinpoint factors influencing their occurrence (Toury
2004). Studies concerning translation universals, in particular explicitation,
(Pym 2008, Becher 2010, Chesterman 2010, Heltai 2011) increasingly call
for the clarification of the theoretical background behind translation-specific
phenomena. The true nature of these phenomena needs to be established,
since the study of translation universals has practical implications for the
education and professional activities of translators.
The findings might also broaden our understanding of previously
less well-known features of revision, and can contribute to the description
of revisers’ work. I hope that the dissertation will contribute to the literature
about revisers’ activities and serve as a starting point for future research. If
we want revisers to be true professionals doing quality, conscientious work,
they cannot be expected to somehow “pick up” the knowledge necessary for
their profession. Theoretical and empirical research needs to be carried out,
which can then serve as a basis for the training of future revisers.
The practical relevance of the study is twofold: professional
translators and revisers can draw conclusions from the findings concerning
their work, and instructors training future revisers will be able to determine
what to focus on during translation and the revision of translated texts. After
3
all, universals—which can be considered the telltale signs of translation—
primarily characterise “fairly poor” translations, and as such, in theory, can
be eliminated by the conscious improvement of professional competence.
3. Objectives
The aim of the present study was to determine what happens to translation
universals during revision, i.e. whether revisers modify the—presumably—
general linguistic characteristics typical of translations while revising a text.
My research focuses on revision operations, which will be analysed to
determine whether they modify the linguistic features mentioned among
translation universals. I will not seek to ascertain whether translation
universals occur in the texts of the corpus used. As a starting point I take it
as evident that the translation phenomena discussed in the literature are, to
some extent, relevant to the analysed translated texts. Based on the transfer
operations identified during the contrastive text analysis it is possible to
speculate on the presence and dominance of translation universals in the
corpus, these, however, need to be explored in another empirical study.
4. Research questions
In view of the above, my research is primarily concerned with whether
revisers modify the linguistic characteristics typical of translations, the so-
called translation universals, while revising a text. In order to answer this,
additional research question have been formulated, and are listed below:
(1) Are there any statistically measurable differences between draft
translations and revised texts, which could point to the modifications of
translation universals?
(2) Do revisers make modifications to the text in addition to obligatory
corrections? And if they do, what are these modifications?
4
(3) Do revisers perform independent explicitation and implicitation?
(4) Do they change the explicitating and implicitating transfer operations
performed by the translators?
(5) What is the distribution of revisers’ explicitating and implicitating
interventions, and how can the most frequent operations be categorised?
(6) Do revisers modify the level of explicitness in translated texts?
5. Research hypotheses
Translation universals can be considered deviations from target language
norms, since they distinguish translated texts from originals (Baker 1993,
Laviosa 1998). On the other hand, revision can be regarded as conformance
to the norms (Mossop 2007, Šunková 2011). Thus, we might suppose that
revisers—besides checking for equivalence, spelling and grammar—make
modifications in the texts to bring them closer to the target language norms,
thereby reducing the dominance of the linguistic phenomena classified as
translation universals. Based on the research questions, the hypothesis can
be broken down to sub-hypotheses as follows:
(1) There are statistically measurable differences between draft translations
and revised texts, suggesting that translation universals are modified.
(2) Revisers modify translators’ explicitating and implicitating operations,
since the overuse or lack of these might result in the occurrence of
translation universals.
(3) Besides making obligatory corrections, revisers modify translators’
unnecessary transfer operations and perform interventions where the
translator fails to do so.
(4) Besides modifying translators’ operations, revisers perform individual
explicitation and implicitation to optimise the lexical and grammatical
redundancy and explicitness of translated texts.
(5) Revision has its own universal linguistic features.
5
6. The revisional corpus
The revisional corpus contains original English texts, their Hungarian draft
translations and their edited versions. All the analysed texts belong to
contemporary fiction. This genre is characterised by few constraints: its use
of language is not bound by terminology, set phrases and canonical forms
typical of specialised texts, or by peculiarities associated with high
literature. This makes it ideal for analysing general trends. Künzli (2006)
states that in the case of specialised translations, revisers get stuck at the
word level, and disregard text-level problems, which is substantiated by
Horváth’s (2009) research. As translation universals include text-level
phenomena, I needed texts where these are likely to occur.
The texts included in the corpus were selected at random. The date
of publication, however, the genre and the popularity of the Hungarian
edition were taken into account, because I wanted to analyse books that had
been accepted by the readers. The translators and revisers of the texts work
as freelancers, so I could disregard the in-house traditions of the various
publishers. Ten different pairs of translators and revisers worked on the
texts. Only two translators produced more than one translation, but these
were given to different revisers. The texts were provided by the publishers.
7. Research methods
The empirical research conducted for the present dissertation was based on
quantitative and qualitative methods. It combines the advantages of
objective, quantifiable research approaches with focused, in-depth methods,
ensuring validity and reliability. Computer-aided analysis was performed on
the entire revisional corpus. Shifts at text-level were sought to be identified
in the whole corpus. In order to draw general conclusions, the operations
causing the phenomena identifiable at text-level through computer-aided
analysis were also needed to be examined.
6
7.1 Computer-aided analysis
The texts were provided by the publishers in digital format, which made it
possible to subject them to automatic, computer-aided analysis. Since I did
not use annotations int he texts, doing lexicogrammatical analysis was not
feasible, but I was still able to carry out certain statistical calculations. The
computer-aided analysis was aimed at finding the answer to the first
research question described above, that is, whether there are any statistically
measurable differences between draft translations and revised texts, which
could point to modifications of translation universals. The following were
performed on the entire revisional corpus: comparing the length of the texts,
counting the revisional operations, determining the number of sentences and
words, calculating the standardised type/token rate, establishing the unique
vocabulary typical of each text, analysing lexical density, comparing the
lexical profile of the texts, and determining the standard deviation of the
numerical data.
Based on Szirmai’s (2005) suggestions, the analysis was carried
out using version 6.0 of Wordsmith Tools, the Word Count and the Text
Lex Compare function of Lex Tutor. Significance and standard deviation
were calculated using SPSS 14.0, a statistical analysis program. Each
version of a text—the English original, the Hungarian draft translation and
the revised translation—was stored and analysed separately, which enabled
the comparison of the novels and their different versions.
7.2 Contrastive text analysis
During the contrastive, qualitative analysis, I examined twenty sentences
from each version of the ten separate novels. First, I performed contrastive
text analysis on the draft translations and the original source texts to identify
the translator’s explicitating and implicitating operations based on Klaudy’s
7
(1997) typology for transfer operations. Second, following Klaudy’s (1999)
and Englund Dimitrova’s (2005) typology, I grouped the identified transfer
operations into different categories: obligatory rule-based, optional norm-
based and editorial operations. Third, I compared the draft translations to
the revised versions to see how revisers modified the translators’ operations,
and whether they performed any explicitation or implicitation—as well as
the typology of these interventions—independent from the translators’
transfer operations. Fourth, I analysed how the categories of the different
operations performed by the translators and revisers were distributed. Fifth,
I calculated the shifts in the linguistic explicitness of the texts using Makkos
and Robin’s (2011) index of explicitness. Finally, I collated the data and,
supported by significance analysis, interpreted it to determine general
trends. I ensured reliability by using double coding.
8. Summary of results
The aim of my empirical research was to find out whether revisers perform
operations during their work that have the potential to modify the presumed
translation universals. The quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that
revisers carry out operations in the text in addition to correcting translation,
grammatical and spelling mistakes. These additional operations reduce the
dominance of the phenomena classified as translation universals, that is,
they lower the number of text-level “anomalies”.
Computer-aided analysis has shown that the revision process
produces differences between draft translations and revised texts, albeit the
contrast has not proved statistically significant in any of the examined
language variables. Revision can be regarded as tertiary text composition, as
the reviser does not create new text, merely modifies the translation. As a
consequence of the revisers’ work, the length of the texts and the average
length of sentences are generally shortened, while the number of sentences
8
grows. The type/token rate and the lexical density typically increases.
Revised texts have a richer vocabulary and contain more unique words than
translated versions. Furthermore, the ratio of frequent words to all words,
and the distribution of frequent/less frequent words decreases. General
revision trends therefore undermine the dominance of the universals
suggested by Baker (1995), Laviosa (1998) and Tirkonnen-Condit (2004).
Linguistic redundancy, the rate of lexical simplification is reduced.
It was also demonstrated, however, that the revised versions, as
regards their statistical features, resembled each other even more than
translated texts. The data shows levelling out, which supports Baker’s
(1995) earlier hypothesis about this phenomenon in translations. The
translation universal of avoiding repetitions (Toury 1991, Baker 1995) is
further strengthened, not weakened in revised texts. Moreover, revisers, just
like translators, split sentences to facilitate understanding (Fabricius-Hansen
1998). Thus, it can be supposed that some of the language phenomena
previously considered universal to translation are in fact editing strategies,
since editing a text’s redundancy and information content is an integral and
often-used element of both translation and revision (Mossop 2001).
The contrastive analysis of the selected texts revealed which micro-
level operations might contribute to the macro-level differences between the
translated and revised versions. The analysis of the link between translators’
and revisers’ operations confirmed the conclusions of the computer-aided
analysis. Besides checking for equivalence and performing obligatory
corrections in grammar and spelling, revisers first and foremost employ
grammatical and lexical interventions guided by editing strategies to reduce
linguistic redundancy and enrich vocabulary, curbing the dominance of
certain linguistic phenomena that are deemed translation universals, such as
simplification, redundancy and the underrepresentation of unique target
language items. These phenomena may arise from the overuse or lack of
explicitating and implicitating transfer operations of translators.
9
Computer-aided analysis indicated increased deviation from
general revision trends in texts where revisers made a significant amount of
changes. The number and significance of revision operations correlated with
the amount of transfer operations employed by the translators. Revisers
improved the text more where translators had not carried out enough
operations, and reversed the operations where necessary to prevent their
excessive use. While translators primarily employed grammatical transfer
operations, the ratio of grammatical and lexical operations carried out by
revisers varied according to the translators’ operations and the redundancy
of the translated text. Omission was the most frequently implemented
change by revisers in both lexical and grammatical operations. This is
hardly unexpected, as translators make a considerable amount of optional
additions when transferring meaning between languages. Concretisation,
generalisation and addition were also important operations employed by the
revisers. These operations increase the text’s type/token rate and lexical
density, and decrease its grammatical and lexical redundancy. Another
operation facilitating processability apart from splitting sentences is
grammatical transposition, which, however, does not produce statistically
measurable results during computer-aided analysis.
In the texts produced by translators, the majority of grammatical
transfer operations were rule-based or norm-based, while most lexical
transfers were editorial operations. Revisers seem to prefer editorial
operations in both categories. While editing the information content and
redundancy of a text, translators clearly favour explicitation, which proves
Blum-Kulka’s (1986) and Klaudy’s (2001) hypothesis. Revisers, on the
other hand, perform more grammatical implicitation than explicitation. As
far as lexical operations are concerned, revisers prefer explicitation, in
particular concretisation, and overall, they employ more transfer operations
for explicitation. As a result of this, the explicitness of the resulting text
versions was usually increased by both translation and revision.
10
The differences between the data for translated and revised texts
from computer-aided and contrastive analysis may vary from text to text.
Certain variables might produce outliers, or they can even deviate from
general revision trends depending on the peculiarities of the source text, the
quality of translation and individual revision trends. Revisers therefore
differentiate according to the vocabulary and linguistic redundancy of the
given text. They might even go against general revision trends, and increase
redundancy where necessary, limit the avoidance of repetition, decrease the
extent and richness of the vocabulary used, and thus, the information burden
as well. This way, they move these variables closer to the “normal” degree
characteristic of the target language and the style of the source text. The
differences are manifested in the texts’ changes of explicitness, and it can
be stated that the stylistic characteristics and individual drafting features
typical of original texts become more pronounced as a result of revision.
9. Reviewing the hypotheses
Researchers in translation studies warn that translators’ operations using
explicitation or implicitation might develop into a “translators’ disease”
(Levý 1965), which needs to be cured, or lead to “losses” (Blum-Kulka
1986), which need to be made up for. In the translation process this is done
by the reviser, who, besides performing the obligatory corrections, provides
a sort of post-operative pain management or rehabilitation by administering
norm-based and editing interventions. The revisers’ aim is to make the
target language text comprehensible, they improve (Mossop 2001, Martin)
it to make it suitable for the target audience. Since the dominance of
translation universals is linked to the lower quality of the text (Blum-Kulka
1986, Tirkkonen-Condit 2004, Scarpa 2006), I assumed that revisers
employ operations that move the text closer to target language norms and
reduce the dominance of the phenomena classified as translation universals.
This hypothesis can be broken down into several points.
11
9.1 Statistical differences between translated and revised texts
The computer-aided statistical analysis sought to show whether text-level
differences appear between the translated and revised versions as a result of
the reviser’s work. Since researchers of translation universals (Baker 1995,
Laviosa 1998) regard lexical and grammatical redundancy, simplification
and the lack of unique target language elements as general characteristics of
translated texts, and since these phenomena can be linked to a text’s lower
quality (Tirkkonen-Condit 2004, Scarpa 2006, Rabadan et al 2009), I
assumed that revised texts exhibit statistically measurable differences that
point to the reduction of translation universals. The results of the analysis
proved that revisers use operations that reverse the above mentioned trends.
As a result of revision, the length of the texts shortens, the type/token rate
increases, revised texts contain more unique words, and the ratio of frequent
words to all words as well as the distribution of frequent/less frequent words
decreases. Furthermore, the number of sentences grows, while the number
of words drops, which facilitates understanding. Therefore, vocabulary is
enriched (i.e. it shows greater variability), simplification and grammatical
redundancy are restrained. Although the numerical data for the translators’
and revisers’ subcorpora did not demonstrate significant differences—after
all, revision is only tertiary text composition—the results definitely point to
one direction, which is indicative. Based on the above, the first hypothesis
can be considered as confirmed.
9.2 Modifying translators’ operations during revision
Through the contrastive text analysis examining the correlations between
translators’ and revisers’ operations I aimed to find out what operations
revisers employ apart from the obligatory corrections, and whether they
modify the translators’ operations. I hypothesized that revisers modify
12
translators’ explicitating and implicitating operations, since the overuse or
lack of these can result in the occurrence of certain translation universals
(Levý 1965, Pápai 2001). The results of the text analysis show that revisers
do change translators’ operations. They either modify the operations—by
making further explicitation or implicitation—or permanently delete them
from the text, in effect, reversing certain changes. These modifications and
deletions occurred most frequently in texts where the obligatory correction
of translation mistakes was needed or where the translator employed great
quantities of transfer operations producing explicitation or implicitation.
Therefore, on account of the data, the second hypothesis can be regarded as
confirmed as well.
9.3 Deleting unnecessary operations, making up for missing ones
While analysing the operations carried out by translators and revisers,
another hypothesis was formulated stating that besides making obligatory,
rule-based corrections, revisers modify translators’ unnecessary operations
and perform transfer operations in case the translator fails to do so. The
above mentioned modifications and deletions by the revisers primarily
concerned texts where the number of transfer operations producing
explicitation or implicitation was significantly higher than required by the
original text. In these cases, the aim of the revisers with the modification or
deletion of the translators’ operations was—apart from making obligatory
corrections to the translation—to limit linguistic redundancy or to reverse
the translators’ operations producing implicitation. When the translator
made too many additions, the reviser balanced this with omissions, while
ensuring the optimal level of explicitness by concretisation. By contrast,
overuse of omissions were compensated for by additions. Sentences that
had been unnecessarily split, were merged by grammatical contraction,
moving the text closer to the original version. When the translator had not
13
considered the expectations of the recipient, the reviser split sentences to
facilitate understanding. Similarly, norm-based sentence-level elevations
producing grammatical redundancy were compensated for by lowering. So,
the results of the contrastive text analysis confirm the research hypothesis
about revisers curbing unnecessary operations by translators and making up
for missing ones. Thus, revisers’ primary objective is to optimise linguistic
redundancy and the information content of the text.
9.4 Independent interventions
During the contrastive text analysis of translated and revised texts I also
sought to find out whether revisers primarily improve the translations’ use
of language and information content by independent interventions or they
simply modify translators’ operations. I assumed that besides modifying and
deleting translators’ operations, revisers perform individual explicitating
and implicitating interventions guided by editing strategies to optimise the
lexical and grammatical redundancy and linguistic explicitness of translated
texts. The aggregate results of the study indicate that revisers principally
conduct individual operations while checking, correcting and editing texts.
The hypothesis about individual interventions by revisers can therefore be
considered confirmed. However, there are exceptions to the general trend in
revision. In certain cases revisers’ most frequent interventions involved
modification of the translators’ operations. Also, revisers sometimes deleted
the transfer operations that were deemed incorrect or unnecessary, or in
other instances, the number of both modifications and deletions exceeded
the amount of individual interventions. In these texts, however, the number
of modifications and deletions was not higher than usual. The difference
was caused by the low number of individual interventions performed by the
participant revisers.
14
9.5 Universals of revision
On the basis of Horváth’s findings and the studies published about
translation universals I assumed that certain general phenomena might be
observed in revision. The results of the present study contradict Horváth’s
(2009) findings to some extent and suggest that apart from word-level
omissions and additions, sentence-level interventions can be considered
typical revisional interventions. Moreover, since revisers apply global
strategies at macro level when approaching a text, they can “improve” the
whole text by conducting word-level operations. During the computer-aided
analysis it was demonstrated that revised texts, as regards their statistical
features, resembled each other even more than their translated versions, that
is, the research data indicated levelling out. The translation universal of
avoiding repetitions is further strengthened, not weakened in revised texts.
Revisers, just like translators, split sentences to facilitate understanding.
Accordingly, it can be supposed that some language phenomena previously
considered universal translation features are in fact editing strategies, and
editing a text’s information content and linguistic redundancy is part of both
translation and revision (Mossop 2001).
Therefore, in translation studies literature, out of the universal
features deemed typical for translated texts, we should only regard certain
forms of simplification as genuinely translation-related: poor vocabulary—
with the lack of the unique elements characteristic of the target language—,
redundancy and unusual linguistic patterns. On the other hand, editing
encompasses normalisation, the avoidance of repetitions, levelling out, the
push towards better comprehensibility and an increase in the explicitness of
the text. Yet, these trends can also entail risks. The excessive use of some of
these interventions can be “abnormal” (Tirkkonnen-Condit 2004). Revisers
apply global strategies when approaching the texts: when they perceive
explicit saturation (Makkos and Robin 2014), they seek to optimise the text
by limiting redundancy and enriching vocabulary (i.e. increasing the range
15
of words used). The latter phenomenon is perhaps best positioned to lay
claim to the designation “universal of revision”, since the others are part of
both translation and editing.
Both activities, just like written communication in general, are
characterised by risk-aversion, which, according to Pym (2008), is the only
genuine universal in translation. That is why translators and revisers strive
for disambiguation, better comprehensibility and normalisation, almost
obsessively trying to meet recipients’ expectations (Robin 2014a). But
revisers, apart from being risk-averse, are first and foremost optimisers.
They only split sentences when necessary and do not add extensive new
information. What is more, they often employ implicitation and limit
redundancy by omissions. So, they are less prone to the universal of risk-
aversion, which is probably linked to competency: an experienced linguistic
mediator is able to assess that risks and less afraid of losses (Klaudy 1996).
Horváth (2009) also claimed that revision moves the translated text
closer to the target language. This assertion follows logically from the
definition of the reviser and the reviser’s role, which state that revisers
approach their work on the basis of the target language text, and that they
bear in mind the target language norms. This is the main reason why
revisers often find better idiomatic expressions, and enrich the vocabulary
of the text with elements that are typical of the target language. The findings
of the present study also seem to confirm that revisers mostly try to adjust
the texts in line with the expectations of the target language audience, since
they usually make individual interventions. These interventions do not serve
to modify or delete translators’ operations but to adapt the text so as to
satisfy the expectations of target language recipients. Nevertheless, whether
revisers’ text-level interventions do indeed bring the text closer to target
language norms or whether these operations reflect a special revisional
norm, can only be determined by a comparative corpus-based study.
16
Conducting such a study was beyond the objectives of the present
dissertation but my previous research results suggest (Robin 2014b) that, as
regards the type/token rate and lexical density, revision adjusts the text so as
to conform to the norms of the target language, although revised texts
usually do not have as high scores in this respect as originals. But in the
case of avoidance of repetitions, average sentence length and levelling out,
an even stronger force controls these operations than target language norms,
just like in the case of translations. The standard deviation of revised texts’
statistical data is lower than the corresponding values for translated texts
and originals, the effect of levelling out is enhanced, sentences are split and
shortened, and the aggregate ratio of the most frequent words to the less
frequent ones is lower than in texts originally written in Hungarian. This
phenomenon might be explained by the fact that revised translations are
“edited” twice, first during translation and then during revision, while
linguistic mediators try to adjust the text to the presumed expectations of the
recipients. Linguistic mediators follow an editorial norm which does not
necessarily coincide with the norms prevalent in texts originally written in
the target language. This is again a feature characteristic of editing that is
even more conspicuous in revision.
The results of the present research therefore offer no clear answer
as to whether revision has universal linguistic features. During the analysis
of the data I acquired, general revisional trends have been identified, which,
however, only reflect the general linguistic phenomena in translations, since
the number and significance of interventions by revisers is linked to the
amount and significance of transfer operations employed by translators.
Revisers correct mistakes made by translators and try to curb unnecessary
operations, approaching the text at the macro-level. Apart from translators’s
and revisers’ individual trends, the structure of the original text and its
stylistic features, as well as the target language norms, revision is heavily
influenced by the pursuit of optimisation based on differentiation as regards
17
lexical redundancy and the richness of the vocabulary. Revisers perceive
when a target text’s explicitness has reached its saturation point, but this is
currently merely a psychological threshold, as no empirical study has yet
proven when a text’s information burden and grammatical redundancy
become excessive. Therefore, it can be stated with some reservations that
optimisation is one of revision’s general features applied in the case of all
texts and in every revision situation. Yet, in any case, the conclusions drawn
from this dissertation call for further studies in this field.
18
References
Allman, S. 2008. Acknowledging and Establishing the Hierarchy of
Expertise in Translator-Revisor Scenarios as an Aid to the Process of
Revising Translations. Unpublished MA thesis. Birmingham: University
of Birmingham. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-
artslaw/cels/essays/translationstudiesdiss/AllmanDissertation.pdf
Arthern, P. 1991. Quality by numbers: Assessing revision and translation.
In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Institute of Translation
and Interpreting. London: Aslib, The Association for Information
Management. 85–91.
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications
and Applications. In: Baker, M., Francis, G., Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds)
Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam-
Philadelphia: Benjamins. 233–250.
Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in Translation Studies. An Overview and
Suggestion for Future Research. Target Vol. 7. No. 2. 223–245.
Becher, V. 2010. Abandoning the notion of "translation-inherent"
explicitation. Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages
and Cultures Vol. 11. No. 1. 1–28.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In:
House, J. Blum-Kulka, S. (eds) Interlingual and Intercultural
Communication. Discourse and Cognitionin Translation and Second
Language Acquisition. Tübingen: Narr. 17–35.
Brunette, L., Gagnon, C., Hine, J. 2005. The GREVIS project: revise or
court calamity. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 6. No. 1. 29–45.
Chesterman, A. 1993. From ʻIs’ to ʻOught’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in
Translation Studies. Target Vol. 5. No. 1. 1–20.
19
Chesterman, A. 2004. Beyond the Particular. In: Mauranen, A., Kujamaki,
P. (eds) Translation Universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins.
33–49.
Chesterman, A. 2010. Why Study Translation Universals? In: The Digital
Depository of the University of Helsinki.
http://hdl.handle.net/I0138/24319
Cunningham, D. S. 1971. Translation and Editing. Meta Vol. 16. No. 3.
135–152.
Dimitrova, E. B. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation
process. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1998. Informational Density and Translation, with
specisl reference to German – Norwegian – English. In: Johansson, S.,
Oksefjell, S. (eds) Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory,
Method and Case-studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Frawley, W. 1984. Translation: literary, linguistic and philosophical
perspectives. Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
Graham, J. D. 1983. Checking, Revision and Editing. In: Picken, C. (ed.)
The Translator’s Handbook. London: Aslib. 99–105.
Heltai, P. 2011. Az explicitáció mint kommunikációs univerzálé. In:
Navracsics, J., Lengyel, Zs. (szerk.) Lexikai folyamatok egy- és
kétnyelvű közegben: pszicholingvisztikai tanulmányok II. Budapest:
Tinta Könyvkiadó. 124–133.
Holmes, J. 1972. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. 1st. ed:
APPTS Series of the Translation Studies Section, Dept. of General
Literary Studies. Amsterdam: University Press.
Horváth, P. I. 2009. A lektori kompetencia. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
Budapest.
Hosington, B. M., Horguelin, P. A. 1980. A Practical Guide to Bilingual
Revision. Montréal: Linguatech.
20
House, J. 2008. Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation? trans-kom
Vol. 1. No. 1. 6–19. www.trans-kom.eu/bd01nr01/trans-
kom_01_01_02_House_Beyond_Intervention.20080707.pdf
Károly, K. 2002. Az alkalmazott nyelvészeti kutatások néhány alapvető
módszertani kérdéséről. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány Vol. 2. No. 1. 77–
87.
Klaudy, K. 1996. Back Translation as a Tool for Detecting Explicitation
Strategies in Translation. In: Klaudy, K., Lambert, J. and Sohár A. (eds.)
Translation Studies in Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica. 99114.
Klaudy, K. 1997. A fordítás elmélete és gyakorlata. Budapest: Scholastica.
Klaudy, K. 1999. Az explicitációs hipotézisről. Fordítástudomány Vol. 2.
No. 1. 5–22.
Klaudy, K. 2001. Az aszimmetria hipotézis. In: Bartha M., Stephanides É.
(szerk.) A nyelv szerepe az információs társadalomban. A X. MANYE
Kongresszus előadásai. Székesfehérvár: KJF. 371–379.
Künzli, A. 2006a. Translation revision – A study of the performance of ten
professional translators revising a technical text. In: Gotti, M., Sarcevic,
S. (eds) Insights into specialized translation. Bern/Frankfurt: Peter
Lang. 195–214.
Künzli, A. 2006b. Teaching and learning translation revision: Some
suggestions based on evidence from a think-aloud protocol study. In:
Garant, M. (ed.) Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning.
Helsinki: Department of Translation Studies Publication III, Helsinki
University. 9–24.
Künzli, A. 2007a. Translation Revision: a study of the performance of ten
professional translators revising a legal text. In: Gambier, Y.,
Shlesinger, M., Stolze, R. (eds) Translation Studies: doubts and
directions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 115–126.
21
Künzli, A. 2007b. The ethical dimension of translation revision. An
empirical study. The Journal of Specialised Translation No. 8. 42–55.
http://www.jostrans.org
Laviosa, S. 1998. The English Comparable Corpus: A Resource and a
Methodology. In: Bowker, L., Cronin, M., Kenny, D., Pearson, J. (eds.)
Unity in Diversity: Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester:
St. Jerome. 101–112.
Laviosa, S. 2009. Universals. In: Baker, M. (ed.) 2009. Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 306–311.
Leuven-Zwart, K. van 1990. Translation and Original. Similarities and
Dissimilarities II. Target Vol. 2. N. 1. 69–95.
Levý, J. 1965. Will Translation Theory be of Use to Translators? In:
Italiaander, R. (ed.) Übersetzen. Vorträge und Beiträge vom
Internationalen Kongress literarischer Übersetzer in Hamburg.
Frankfurt-am-Main: Athenäum. 77–82.
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2014. Explicitation and Implicitation in Back-
translation. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning Vol.
5. 151–182.
http://www.cttl.org/uploads/5/2/4/3/5243866/nov_27_complete_cttl_e_2
014.pdf
Martin, T. 2007. Managing risks and resources: a down-to-earth view of
revision. The Journal of Specialised Translation No. 8. 57–63.
http://www.jostrans.org
Mossop, B. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Mossop, B. 2007. Empirical Studies of Revision: what we know and need to
know. The Journal of Specialised Translation No. 8.
http://www.jostrans.org/issue08/art_mossop.php
22
Pápai, V. 2001. Az explicitációs hipotézis vizsgálata angol–magyar és
magyar–magyar párhuzamos korpuszok egybevetésével. Doktori
értekezés. Kézirat. Pécs–Győr: PTE–SZIE.
Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In: Pym, A.,
Shlesinger, M., Simeoni, D. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies.
Investigations in homage to Gidon Toury. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 311–
328.
Rabadan, R., Labrador, B., Ramon, N. 2009. Corpus-based contrastive
analysis and translation universals. A tool for translation quality
assessment. Babel Vol. 55. No. 4. 303–328.
Robin, E. 2014a. Nyelvi babona a fordításokban. XXIV. MANYE
Kongresszus. Kolozsvár, BMTE. (26–28 April 2014.)
Robin, E. 2014b. Lektorált fordítások és eredeti magyar szövegek gépi
összehasonlítása. ANYK Konferencia. Nyelv, kultúra és társadalom.
Budapest: Kodolányi János Főiskola. (3–4 November 2014)
Scarpa, F. 2006. Corpus-based Quality-Assessment of Specialist
Translation: A Study Using Parallel and Comparable Corpora in English
and Italian. In: Gotti, M., Sarcevic, S. (eds) Insights into specialized
translation. Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 155–172.
Šunková, J. 2011. Revising Translations: Corpus Investigation of Revision
and Self-revision. Unpublished MA thesis. Brno: Masaryk University.
http://is.muni.cz/th/362729/ff_m/?lang=en
Szirmai, M. 2005. Bevezetés a korpusznyelvészetbe. A korpusznyelvészet
alkalmazása az anyanyelv és az idegen nyelv tanulásában és
tanításában. Segédkönyvek a nyelvészet tanulmányozásához XLVI.
Budapest: Tinta.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2004. Unique items – over- or under-represented in
translated language? In: Mauranen, A., Kujamaki, P. (eds) Translation
Universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins. 177–186.
23
Toury, G. 1991. What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to
Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions? In: van Leuven-Zwart, K. M.,
Naaijkens, T. (eds) Translation Studies: The State of the Art.
Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 179–192.
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Toury, G. 2004. Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. In:
Mauranen, A., Kujamaki, P. (eds) Translation Universals: Do they
exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins. 15–32.
24
Publications and Conference Presentations related to the Research
Publications
Robin, E. 2010. Fordítástudomány 2010. XII. Fordítástudományi
Konferencia és FTT-öregdiák-találkozó. VII. Fordítástudományi PhD-
konferencia. Fordítástudomány Vol. 12. No. 1. 87–92.
Robin, E. 2010. Explicitáció a lektorált fordításokban – az explicitáció mint
szerkesztési művelet. Fordítástudomány Vol. 12. No. 2. 42–66.
Robin, E. 2010. Explicitáció a lektorált fordításokban. Alkalmazott
Nyelvészeti Közlemények Vol. 5. évf. No. 1. 179–190.
Robin, E. 2011. Anthony Pym: Exploring Translation Theories. Recension.
Fordítástudomány Vol. 13. No. 1. 121–128.
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2011. Explicitáció és implicitáció a fordítói
kompetencia függvényében. In: Váradi T. (ed.) V. Alkalmazott
Nyelvészeti Doktorandusz Konferencia online kötete. Budapest: MTA
Nyelvtudományi Intézet. 94–108.
www.nytud.hu/alknyelvdok11/proceedings11
Robin, E. 2011. Horváth Péter Iván: A szakfordítások lektorálása.
Recension. Fordítástudomány Vol. 13. No. 2. szám.
Makkos, A., Robin E. 2011. Explicitáció és implicitáció a visszafordításban.
Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány Vol. 11. No. 1–2. 135–150.
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2012. Fordítói műveletek a kompetencia
függvényében. In: Horváthné Molnár K., Sciacovelli A. (eds) Az
alkalmazott nyelvészet regionális és globális szerepe: alkalmazott
nyelvészeti kutatások az EU magyar elnökség évében. A MANYE
kongresszusok előadásai 8. Budapest–Szombathely–Sopron: NYME.
305–318.
http://www.kjf.hu/manye/2011_szombathely/kotet39_robin_makkos.pdf
25
Robin, E. 2012. Fordítás és újraszerkesztés. Mit tesz a szerkesztő a fordított
szöveggel? Filológia.hu Vol. 3. No. 2. 99–117.
http://www.filologia.hu/images/media/Filologia_2012-2.pdf
Robin, E. 2012. Explicitáció és implicitáció a lektorálásban. In: Váradi T.
(ed.) VI. Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Doktorandusz Konferencia online
kötete. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. 134–139.
http://www.nytud.hu/alknyelvdok12/proceedings12/robin2012.pdf
Robin, E. 2013. Fordítói és lektori műveletek a fordított szövegekben. In:
Tóth Szergej (ed.) Társadalmi változások – nyelvi változások.
Alkalmazott nyelvészeti kutatások a Kárpát-medencében. A XXII.
MANYE Kongresszus előadásai. Budapest-Szeged: MANYE – Szegedi
Egyetemi Kiadó. 188–198.
Robin, E. 2013. Az explicitáció etikája. In: Klaudy K. (ed.) Fordítás és
tolmácsolás a harmadik évezred elején: 40 éves az ELTE Fordító- és
Tolmácsképző Tanszéke. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó. 49–64.
Robin, E. 2013. Egyedi nyelvi elemek a fordításban. Sonia Tirkkonnen-
Condit hipotézisének hatása a fordítástudományra. Fordítástudomány
Vol. 15. No. 1. 92–102.
Robin, E. 2014. Mit árulnak el a statisztikák a lektorált fordításokról? In:
Ladányi Mária, Vladár Zsuzsa, Hrenek Éva (eds) Nyelv – társadalom –
kultúra. Interkulturális és multikulturális perspektívák. A XXIII.
MANYE Kongresszus előadásai. Budapest: MANYE – ELTE. 527–534.
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2014. Explicitation and Implicitation in Back-
translation. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning Vol.
5. 151–182.
http://www.cttl.org/uploads/5/2/4/3/5243866/nov_27_complete_cttl_e_2
014.pdf
Robin, E. 2014. Explicitation and Implicitation in Revised Translations. In:
Proceedings of the 2014 Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium. Olomouc:
Palacký University. (forthcoming)
26
Conference Presentations
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2011. Explicitáció és implicitáció a fordítói
kompetencia függvényében. Presented at: V. Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti
Doktorandusz Konferencia. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. (4
February 2011)
Makkos, A., Robin E. 2011. Explicitáció és implicitáció a visszafordításban.
Presented at: VIII. Fordítástudományi PhD-konferencia. Budapest:
ELTE BTK. (7 April 2011)
Makkos, A., Robin, E. 2011. Fordítói műveletek a kompetencia
függvényében. Presented at: XXI. MANYE Kongresszus. Szombathely:
NYME. (30 August 2011)
Robin, E. 2012. Az explicitáció következménye és etikája. Presented at: IX.
Fordítástudományi PhD-konferencia. Budapest: ELTE BTK. (29 March
2012)
Robin, E. 2012. Fordítás és lektorálás. Fordítói explicitáció és implicitáció a
lektorálásban. Presented at: XXII. MANYE Kongresszus. Szeged:
Szegedi Tudományegyetem. (12–14 April 2012)
Robin, E. 2013. Fordítási univerzálék a lektorált szövegekben. Presented at:
VII. Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Doktorandusz Konferencia. Budapest:
MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. (1 February 2013)
Robin, E. 2013. Mit árulnak el a statisztikák a lektorált fordításoktól?
Presented at: XXIII. MANYE Kongresszus. Budapest, ELTE. (26–28
March 2013)
Robin, E. 2013. Lektori kompetencia a gyakorlatban. Presented at: X.
Fordítástudományi PhD-konferencia. Budapest: ELTE BTK. (18 April
2013)
27
Robin, E. 2014. A lektori kompetencia objektív értékelése. Presented at: XI.
Fordítástudományi PhD-konferencia. Budapest: ELTE BTK. (10 April
2014)
Robin, E. 2014. Nyelvi babona a fordításokban. Presented at: XXIV.
MANYE Kongresszus. Kolozsvár, BMTE. (26–28 April 2014)
Robin, E. 2014. Explicitation and Implicitation in Revised Translations.
Presented at: OLINCO – Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium. Olomouc,
Palacky University. (4–6 June 2014)
Robin, E. 2014. Mi teszi a lektort lektorrá? A lektorképzés kérdései.
Presented at: Fordítók és Tolmácsok Országos Fóruma. Budapest. (28–
29 August 2014)
Robin, E. 2014. Lektorált fordítások és eredeti magyar szövegek gépi
összehasonlítása. Presented at: ANYK Konferencia. Nyelv, kultúra és
társadalom. Budapest: Kodolányi János Főiskola. (3–4 November 2014)