This document discusses proofreading and editing in government translation environments. It begins by defining proofreading as checking text for grammar, syntax and spelling errors, similar to what a teacher would do on student work. Editing involves evaluating translation quality against set criteria and improving translations where needed. The document then discusses tools for proofreading, and how proofreading and editing fit within the full translation cycle. It also addresses challenges of editing in the public sector, what errors editors should identify, and evaluation models like TAUS. The document concludes with suggestions for editors and resources for further learning.

1. PROOFREADING IN A
GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT
ANDWORKING AS A
PROOFREADER
ZHEN GUAN
28 MAY 2016

2. ‘SCANDALS INTRANSLATION QUALITY
ASSESSMENT’
• ‘The age-old issue of irrelevant translation theory is a three-fold problem.Firstly, as is
popularly known, there is not even a universally accepted definition of what a translator is or
what translation is. Secondly, there is no standardized translation quality assessment (STQA),
which means no consistency inTQA.Thirdly, instead of improving the testability of new
theories, translation scholars have been digging academic holes—deeper and wider with each
passing year—for themselves.’
• ‘Much debate on translating quality has taken place, but the new millennium has witnessed
neither a breakthrough inTQA, nor agreement on the criteria of a good or successful
translation.’
- Harry Huang, Scandals inTranslation Quality Assessment,LACUS Forum XXXIII 2007

3. CONTENT FOR TODAY
• Definition – proofreading and editing
• Proofreading tools
• Proofreading and editing in a full
translation cycle
• Confusion
• Editing in the public sector
• What mistakes are to be picked up?
• Evaluation – evaluation models
• What an editor should avoid
• Suggestions
• Resources
• Further readings

4. DEFINITION – PROOFREADING
“This is a process whereby the text is
being scanned for grammar, syntax and
spelling errors.This process typically
involves much the same correction as a
secondary school teacher would perform
on a written test.”
- ViktoriaG, the difference between editing and proofreading,
http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/543/1/The-
difference-between-editing-and-proofreading

5. PROOFREADING TOOLS
北京黑马飞腾科技
有限公司（Beijing
Blackhorse)
Grammarly Ginger
Chinese English English
No free services Free to integrate
with your browser
Free
$1000 (￥6980) for
one user
$139.95/yr to have it
on your desktop
http://www.bjhm.co
m.cn/
www.grammarly.com http://www.gingersoft
ware.com/

6. DEFINITION – EDITING
This process concentrates less on the form. Editing involves evaluating to make sure that
translation meets a set of criteria. Editing also requires solid translation capabilities to
discover a better solution to replace the existing one.

7. PROOFREADING AND EDITING IN A TRANSLATION
CYCLE
Proofreading
Reviewing/editing
Quality Assurance Translation - Geoffrey Samuelsson-Brown,
Managing Translation Services 2006

8. PROOFREADING AND EDITING IN A TRANSLATION
CYCLE
QUALITY SYSTEM
PROOFREADING/EDITING

9. PROOFREADING AND EDITING IN A TRANSLATION
CYCLE - Geoffrey Samuelsson-Brown, ManagingTranslation Services 2006

10. WHY AREWE CONFUSED?
Translation Proofreading Editing
$0.20/word $0.05/word (25% of translation) $0.10/word (50% of translation)

11. EDITING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
OUTSOURCE MODEL
Freelancers
Vendors
Translation
Agencies
Clients
GOVERNMENT IN-HOUSE MODEL

12. EDITING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
DIBP
Onshore
Offshore
R
Offshore
S
Offshore
T
TIQ
In-
country
Office
Agency
BCC
Corporate
Services
Korean/Chinese/
(Vietnamese)
BM
Agency

13. EDITING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Government
Organisation
CALD
Officer
Agency

14. WHAT DO WE NEEDTO CHANGE?
- THE ABSOLUTELY NON-NEGOTIABLES

15. TRANSLATION EVALUATION MODELS
• Localisation Industry Standards Association (LISA) Quality Assurance (QA)
• SAE J2450
• The Quality AssessmentTool (QAT)
• TranslationAutomation User Society (TAUS) Dynamic Quality Evaluation
Model

16. - Roberto Martinez Mateo, Miscelanea:A Journal of English and American
Studies 2014

17. TAUS DYNAMIC QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL
• Register withTAUS to become a free or paid user.
• Check industry’s productivity and efficiency benchmark for your language pair(s).
• Integrate your CAT tool withTAUS (by an API key) to run reports on productivity and
efficiency.
• UtiliseTAUS quality evaluation tool to upload translation samples to assign to
your reviewer(s).

18. TAUS DYNAMIC QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yaPhNLEQ1o

19. TAUS DYNAMIC QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7cx9K510w

20. FROMTHE REVIEWER’S END
- Receiving a request from a Project Manager/client via TAUS
TAUS QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL

21. FROMTHE REVIEWER’S END
- Reviewing and evaluating process with embedded criteria (TAUS benchmarks)

22. FROM THE REVIEWER’S END
- Completing a task and sending it to the Project Manager/Client

23. FROM THE PROJECT MANAGER/CLIENT’S END
- Receiving notification of completion from the reviewer

24. FROM THE PROJECT MANAGER/CLIENT’S END
- Checking reports: fluency report, adequacy report and typology report

25. IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR EDITING
• The initiator: the company or individual： the company or individual who needs
the translation.
• The commissioner
• The ST producer
• TheTT producer
• TheTT user: the person who uses theTT, for example as teaching material or
sales literature.
• TheTT receiver: the final recipient of theTT, for example the students in aTT
user’s class or clients reading the translated sales literature.

26. WHAT AN EDITOR SHOULD NOT DO?
• Correct for the sake of correcting.
• Be subjective – “ I never translate it that way”.
• Make inappropriate comments.
• Overpower the translator.
- Martin Boyd, A Crash Course in ProofreadingTranslations
http://dialogos.ca/2014/05/crash-course-proofreading-translations/

27. SUGGESTIONS
• A checklist
• A scoring system
• Make a wise decision when resources are limited
• A general understanding of translation theory

28. A CHECKLISTTO
REFERTO AT ALLTIMES
- Geoffrey Samuelsson-Brown,
ManagingTranslation Services 2006

29. SCORING SYSTEM
- Fernando Prieto Ramos, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

30. TO USE A EDITOR OR NOT?
• “Four eyes are normally more effective than two if they are all qualified professionals
with the right expertise and working in optimal conditions.When this is not the case, a
single qualified legal translator might produce a better translation than a combination of
translator and reviser.”
• – Fernando Prieto Ramos, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

31. TRANSLATION THEORY
• Functional theories of translation
• Discourse and register analysis approaches
• System theories
- Jeremy Munday, IntroducingTranslation Studies

32. RESOURCES
• PublishingTraining Centre: offering Basic
Proofreading,Basic Editing and Grammar at
Work
http://www.publishingtrainingcentre.co.uk/
• Society for editors and proofreaders
http://www.sfep.org.uk/resources/guides/
• Society ofWriters, Editors andTranslators
(SWET)
http://www.swet.jp/

33. RESOURCES
• TAUS – Review: offering Post
editing Course, Quality
Management Course
https://www.taus.net/think-
tank/taus-review
• China’s editing and proofreading nets:
punctuation, common mistakes, etc.
http://www.chinabianjiao.com/
• Chinese Editing net: issues when
converting between simplified Chinese
and traditional Chinese.
http://www.bianjiao.net/

34. FURTHER READINGS
• Fernando Prieto Ramos, Quality Assurance in LegalTranslation: Evaluating Process,
Competence and Product in the Pursuit of Adequacy, International Journal for the Semiotics
of Law 2015
• Minako O’Hagan, Carmen Mangiron,Game Localization:Translating for the Global Digital
Entertainment Industry 2013
• Geoffrey Samuelsson-Brown, ManagingTranslation Services 2006
• Roberto Martinez Mateo, A Deeper into Metrics forTranslation Quality Assessment:A
Case Study, Miscelanea:A Journal of English and American Studies 2014

35. FURTHER READINGS
• Harry Huang, Scandals inTranslation Quality Assessment, LACUS Forum XXXIII 2007
• Jeremy Munday, IntroductionTranslation Studies 2008