Proofreading and editing: the art of knowing when enough is enough
Written by Lara Fasoli, founder of FSL Language Solutions and EN<>IT<ES professional translator, interpreter and copywriter for sports, marketing and manufacturing
On 27 January, YTI (Yorkshire Interpreters and Translators), in collaboration with the Centre for Translation Studies of the University of Leeds, organised a CPD afternoon course on the topic of editing and proofreading. After a very successful presentation at the ITI Conference in Cardiff last year, Marga Burke-Lowe (MITI) was asked to host the session, drawing from her experience as a medical translator from French and Italian into English, and as an editor for academic writers whose native language is not English.
After a nice catch-up chat with tea and biscuits, the many attendees took their places and the session began. The first hour and a half looked into the editing and proofreading of translated texts, and although these are daily tasks we all perform professionally, for agencies and clients, or for our own work, they proved to be less than straightforward. The first big question was related to the different schools of thought on the matter: how much do you interfere with the text? Do you change everything according to your likings, or do you make the least amount of amendments possible? Both sides proved to have a point: on the one hand the reviser should be expected to provide the highest quality text possible and should therefore make changes to the text as much as needed to reach what they think is the best possible solution for their clients; on the other hand a distinction should be made between what can be improved and what should be changed. Amending too much of the text, even things that are correct per se, can easily turn into a waste of resources both for the editor and for the reviser, without taking into consideration the fact that these edits may distract the reviser from issues that actually needed addressing and could potentially insert further errors in the text. Focusing on the major issues and intervening only when the reviser can justify their actions can prevent these pitfalls.
However, there are certain issues to be considered before taking a minimalist approach. Most importantly, we should try and get as much information regarding context as possible, such as what are the client’s needs (have you been requested to check the correctness of the content only? Have you been asked to improve the language?), what is the function of the text (should form be prioritised over content or vice versa? Does the image of the client depend on it? Is it for internal or external use? Will decisions be made on the basis of the text?), and whether the changes that you make are final or can be discussed with the translator.
This information will help us decide what approach to take with the text, especially when it comes to stylistic changes, possibly the trickiest one to handle: we should ask ourselves whether the stylistic change we are about to make is based on our preferences or is it justified as it does not fit the purpose of the translation.
Other tips to prevent unnecessary and distracting changes are to read the target text first in order to evaluate it as a text in its own rights, so that it is easier to spot vague or unclear segments, unidiomatic expressions and so on. This is particularly true for our own translations, where it is more difficult to detach ourselves from the source and evaluate the translation as objectively as possible.
But do not despair, there are strategies to apply in this case too: it is useful to change word editor, switching for example from the CAT tool to a piece of word editing software or edit the text in printed version, changing fonts and sizes to spot errors better. One thing we should aim to do is to come up with our own structured and systematic approach to editing, with a list of priorities to check – Marga suggested the CCC model – that includes common mistakes and, if we are editing our own work, our most common mistakes (everyone has at least one!).
A final point that Marga wanted to stress, and many participants agreed with, was the need for transparency, clear communication and respect needed when our changes are relayed to the translator, especially when a middleman is present in the process. Our feedback should be first of all constructive and respectful, we should clearly indicate what we changed, or want changed, and why, and we should also consider offering alternatives so as to not impose our will on the work of others.
The second part of the talk shifted focus onto editing and proofreading texts written by non-native English speakers, and this is where we highlighted the difference between editing and actual proofreading.
Editing is the process by which a text is corrected and amended (structurally and technically) before it is typeset into what is known as the proof in the publishing industry.
Proofreading, as the name suggests, occurs after the proof has been created and should aim at correcting any mistakes introduced into the text during typesetting and layout issues. However, there is much confusion between these two terms, in the translation industry especially, and it is therefore good practice to check with clients what they mean and what they expect from you.
This type of text presents different issues compared to translations: authors are not linguists, and since they write in their, hopefully, second language, they might resort to old-fashioned language, non-idiomatic expressions, excessively high or low register and their first language can easily interfere in with their English syntax, spelling and vocabulary, as in the case of the dreaded false friends we’re all too familiar with. When approaching this task it is of the utmost importance to respect the voice of the author, as we are mostly dealing with books, articles and scientific submissions. Our focus should be on the layout, commonly mistaken words, syntax and most of all, checking that the text respects the guidelines of the publishing house, journal or outlet our client is addressing.
As you can clearly understand by my quite lengthy account of the talk, Marga provided us with a well-structured, exhaustive and information-dense talk, which not only included tips and tricks but also made us reflect on the differences between the various tasks and what each entails at a deeper level, not just from a practical point of view.
Editing, used here as an umbrella term, is a valuable and marketable skill for us translators (and interpreters), both from a professional and personal point of view. However, this does not mean that we have to overdo it: editing does not mean re-translating something according to our preferences – if a text fulfils the quality criteria it should, we should not waste our time finding the needle in the haystack. Revision should not be valued on a quantitative basis, its value stems from the peace of mind we can give to our client saying “I have checked it, it’s fine”. Amending something just for the sake of it is a dangerous path that leads to serious pitfalls and waste of resources. To avoid this, we should create our own systematic and structured way to approach editing, understanding where that fine line between beneficial amendment and personal preference stands. After all, we all know very well that there is no one way to translate, and we should respect everyone’s voice.
What are your thoughts on editing and proofreading? Do you offer them as a professional service? Do you have a specific approach to it? Have you experienced or noticed any recurrent issues? Tell us about it here, on Twitter or LinkedIn!
