源优先还是目标优先?用深度访谈透视复习中的阅读顺序

Q2 Arts and Humanities Hermes (Denmark) Pub Date : 2022-12-12 DOI:10.7146/hjlcb.vi62.128664
Aurélien Riondel
{"title":"源优先还是目标优先?用深度访谈透视复习中的阅读顺序","authors":"Aurélien Riondel","doi":"10.7146/hjlcb.vi62.128664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While revision procedures have been studied in some detail in the literature on revision, the question of the order of reading during bilingual revision has hardly been investigated. This article explores this issue by analysing in-depth interviews conducted in Switzerland with translators in different professional contexts. It discusses the practices described in the interviews and analyses the reasons given by the participants for choosing their method. It shows that both orders of reading are well represented in the dataset: 10 participants read the source first during the bilingual check, 9 read the target first, and only 3 alternate between both orders. No pattern was found according to sector activity or languages, but trends emerge at the level of translation departments. The justifications provided by translators appear very similar: all participants who read the source first stated they seek to better spot discrepancies in meaning, whereas participants who read the target first indicated they want to avoid interferences between the languages or better appreciate the readability or correctness of the target language.","PeriodicalId":38609,"journal":{"name":"Hermes (Denmark)","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Source First or Target First? Insight into the Order of Reading in Revision Using In-depth Interviews\",\"authors\":\"Aurélien Riondel\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/hjlcb.vi62.128664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While revision procedures have been studied in some detail in the literature on revision, the question of the order of reading during bilingual revision has hardly been investigated. This article explores this issue by analysing in-depth interviews conducted in Switzerland with translators in different professional contexts. It discusses the practices described in the interviews and analyses the reasons given by the participants for choosing their method. It shows that both orders of reading are well represented in the dataset: 10 participants read the source first during the bilingual check, 9 read the target first, and only 3 alternate between both orders. No pattern was found according to sector activity or languages, but trends emerge at the level of translation departments. The justifications provided by translators appear very similar: all participants who read the source first stated they seek to better spot discrepancies in meaning, whereas participants who read the target first indicated they want to avoid interferences between the languages or better appreciate the readability or correctness of the target language.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hermes (Denmark)\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hermes (Denmark)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.vi62.128664\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hermes (Denmark)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.vi62.128664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

虽然有关复习的文献对复习过程进行了较为详细的研究,但对双语复习中的阅读顺序问题却鲜有研究。本文通过分析在瑞士对不同专业背景下的翻译进行的深度访谈来探讨这一问题。它讨论了在访谈中描述的做法,并分析了参与者选择他们的方法的原因。这表明两种阅读顺序在数据集中都得到了很好的体现:10名参与者在双语检查时首先阅读源文本,9名参与者首先阅读目标文本,只有3名参与者在两种阅读顺序之间交替。没有根据部门活动或语言发现模式,但趋势出现在翻译部门层面。译者给出的理由似乎非常相似:所有先阅读原文的参与者都表示,他们是为了更好地发现意义上的差异,而先阅读译文的参与者则表示,他们是为了避免两种语言之间的干扰,或者更好地欣赏译文的可读性和正确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Source First or Target First? Insight into the Order of Reading in Revision Using In-depth Interviews
While revision procedures have been studied in some detail in the literature on revision, the question of the order of reading during bilingual revision has hardly been investigated. This article explores this issue by analysing in-depth interviews conducted in Switzerland with translators in different professional contexts. It discusses the practices described in the interviews and analyses the reasons given by the participants for choosing their method. It shows that both orders of reading are well represented in the dataset: 10 participants read the source first during the bilingual check, 9 read the target first, and only 3 alternate between both orders. No pattern was found according to sector activity or languages, but trends emerge at the level of translation departments. The justifications provided by translators appear very similar: all participants who read the source first stated they seek to better spot discrepancies in meaning, whereas participants who read the target first indicated they want to avoid interferences between the languages or better appreciate the readability or correctness of the target language.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hermes (Denmark)
Hermes (Denmark) Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Master Narratives in US Contemporary War Discourse: Situating and Constructing Identities of Self and Other Discourse Analysis of the 2022 Australian Tennis Open: A Multimodal Appraisal Perspective Strategies of Justification in Resolving Conflicts of Values and Interests. A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Argumentation in Cases of Animal Sacrifice consentimiento informado en la comunicación médico-paciente: análisis crítico del marco legislativo Introduction: Evaluation, Argumentation and Narrative(s) in Conflicting Contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1