Differentiating Editing, Post-Editing and Revision

Abstract

While several studies report translator resistance to post-editing, translators whose work has followed the evolution of translation technology may consider post-editing to be translation with just another input. The resistance narrative comes from translator perception and from an industry view of post-editing as a low-cost, low-skill, revision task. This chapter challenges contemporary views of post-editing as revision, drawing from academic research, along with descriptions of practices and workflows from the industry, to argue that the addition of machine translation to translation workflows requires even more specialisation of translators. In arguing that post-editing should be viewed as a form of translation, we consider how translators are required to fulfil quality expectations and to perform higher order tasks than swapping words. The central focus of our analysis is the role played by editing, understood as four actions (deleting, inserting, moving and replacing), in distinguishing between the main processes performed by translators. We suggest a threshold that separates editing from translating, along a continuum of editing actions, and we propose that the development of editing support tools based on the four actions may increase efficiency, while also improving the usability and acceptability of the post-editing outcome.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.