## Source First or Target First? Insight into the Order of Reading in Revision Using In-depth Interviews

## 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.

## Keywords

revision; bilingual revision; revision procedures; reading order; interviews

## 1. Introduction

Translation revision - or, more simply, revision - can be defined as 'revising somebody else's draft translation'  (Künzli  2007:  116).  It  hence  refers  to  the  editing  of  a  translation  carried  out  by  a human,  as  opposed  to  the  editing  of  machine-translation  output.  Over  the  last  15  years  or  so, revision has become a sub-field of Translation Studies in its own right, as shown by the significant development of research in this area (see recent literature reviews: Koponen et al. 2021 and Robert 2018). As such, it raises its own problems and questions. In practice, revision is a common activity in  the  day-to-day  work  of  translators 1 .  However,  it  can  be  very  different  from  one  context  to another, in terms of what is revised and how it is carried out. For example, in multilingual public institutions,  e.g.,  government  bodies  of  official  multilingual  countries  or  intergovernmental organisations working with several languages like the EU or the UN, revision may concern every text or only those from junior translators (Drugan 2013: 127-145, Riondel 2021). In the translation industry,  the  ISO  17100  standard  requires  that  all  texts  undergo  bilingual  revision  before  being delivered  to  the  client  (ISO  2015).  Even  if  revision  is  mainly  written  and  bilingual,  other procedures are possible. In some departments, revision is oral (Allain 2010), while some authors favour  monolingual  revision,  i.e.,  reading  of  the  target  text  plus  ad  hoc  use  of  the  source  text (Mossop 2020, Nord 2018).

1 This is the case for 36 of the 42 translators interviewed for this study, i.e., for all translators except those who do not revise at all and those who do not translate and revise anymore (two heads of big translation departments). In comparison, the use of post-editing among the participants was scarce at the time of the study (2019 and 2020).

*  Aurélien Riondel Faculty of Translation and Interpreting University of Geneva aurelien.riondel@unige.ch

Revision procedures have been taken up in many descriptive or experimental studies ever since empirical  research  on  revision  began  flourishing  in  around  2005.  Descriptive  studies  have  been conducted with questionnaires or a combination of questionnaires and interviews. Schnierer (2019: 185-187) pointed out that, in Austrian translation agencies, bilingual revision prevails, sometimes preceded or followed by a monolingual check of the target text, whereas monolingual revision is scarce.  For  Danish  translation  agencies,  Rasmussen/Schjoldager  (2011:  104-105)  showed  that about  two  thirds  of  the  respondents  (15/22)  submit  all  or  almost  all  translations  to  a  bilingual revision, although the comparison does not always concern the whole text. Scocchera (2017: 13) found that 40% of the Italian literary revisers surveyed read the source text in full or in part before the revision itself,  and the  exact  same  proportion  do  the same  with  the  target text.  Prior to this, Morin-Hernández (2009: 137) revealed that 53% of her French participants - a great majority of which are freelancers - do a bilingual revision, 17% do a bilingual check preceded by a reading of the source text, while 16% do a monolingual revision and 2% do a monolingual revision preceded by a reading of the source text. In a double survey of Belgian agencies, Robert (2008: 8-12) found a predominance of two-steps procedures (bilingual revision, followed or preceded by a reading of the target text), and little use of bilingual revision alone or monolingual revision. Experimental studies have sought to determine which procedure leads to the better revised translation.  Brunette et al. (2005)  compared  monolingual  and  bilingual  revision.  The  most  comprehensive  study  was conducted by Robert (2012, 2013, 2014) and Robert/Van Waes (2014), who measured the effect of different  revision  procedures  on  time,  error  detection  and  the  quality  of  the  revised  translation. Overall,  the  experimental  research  indicates  that  bilingual  revision  produces  better  results  than monolingual revision.

In  real  contexts,  revision  is  often  carried  out  in  a  single  step,  with  bilingual  revision (Horguelin/Brunette  1998,  Morin-Hernández  2009,  Schnierer  2019).  During  bilingual  revision, there are two possible methods: starting by reading either a part of the target text or a part of the source  text.  The  order  of  reading  has  been  investigated  in  three  evaluative  studies  and  two descriptive  studies  (one  survey  and  one  eye-tracking  study),  and  the  topic  is  also  addressed  by Mossop  (2020)  in  his  handbook.  In  a  qualitative  analysis  linking  up  process  (using  TAP)  and product  (analysis  of  the  revised  translation),  Künzli  (2006:  13)  recommended  that  revisers  start with the target text, since it tends to produce better results. Later on, he conducted a quantitative analysis on the same data set, linking the quality of the output with post-task interview data (Künzli 2009). He found that the revisers who started reading the target performed significantly better in one of the three texts of the experiment. With the same kind of data (product data and post-task interview  data),  Ipsen/Dam  (2016)  showed  that  participants  who  are  likely  to  detect  the  highest number of errors in  a  draft  translation  all  take  the  target  text  as  a  point  of  departure.  As  far  as theoretical  literature  is  concerned,  only  Mossop  (2020)  suggests  a  modus  operandi.  He  strongly advocates beginning with the target text, arguing that this method enables the reviser to 'have a golden opportunity to see the translation from the user's point of view' (Mossop 2020: 176). In a descriptive study that included a questionnaire on revision and post-editing, Girletti (2022) found that there was equal representation for starting with the source and starting with the target among respondents who carry out segment-by-segment bilingual revision (the vast majority). In an eyetracking experiment with student translators, Huang (2018) showed that, depending on the different phases  of  the  revision  task,  almost  all  to  all  participants  started  by  reading  the  source,  but  the quality of the outcome was not analysed because of the descriptive nature of the study. It is also worth mentioning another study that uses eye-tracking technology to examine revision. Schaeffer et al.  (2019)  measured  the  eye  movement  of  students  and  professional  translators  while  revising, without any specific reference to the order of reading. They revealed that professionals perform better  than  students  and  demonstrate  more  strategic  reading  behaviour:  they  use  the  source  text only when it matters.

The question of reading order also applies in post-editing which 'can be defined as editing and correcting machine-translation output' (Koponen/Mossop/Robert/Scocchera 2021: 2). The order of reading  has  been  even  less  studied  in  post-editing  than  in  revision.  Volkart  et  al.  (forthcoming) analysed the behaviour of translation students when the source or the target segment is shown first. While  there  is  no  statistically  significant  difference  in  the  time  spent  and  the  number  of  errors corrected, there is a difference  when it comes to optional modifications, which are greater when students  see  the  source  segment  first.  In  a  survey,  Girletti  (2022)  showed  that  a  majority  of respondents (55%) adopt a segment-by-segment reading with the source as a starting point as their main  strategy,  while  34%  read  segment-by-segment  with  the  target  as  a  starting  point.  Beyond these two very recent studies, eye-tracking has also been used in earlier studies to investigate postediting behaviour, but not reading order itself. In two exploratory studies, Carl et al. (2011: 140) argued that post-editing certainly begins with the reading of a target-language segment, which is then  compared  with  the  corresponding  source-language  segment,  while  Mesa-Lao  (2014:  236) stated  that  'post-editors  generally  only  refer  to  the  source  text  after  reading  the  target  text  and before or after editing the MT output'. In both cases, the target segment therefore seems to be the starting  point,  not  the  source  segment.  Finally,  post-editing  teachers  were  surveyed  about  the recommendations  they  give  to  their  students  with  regard  to  the  order  of  reading  (Ginovart Cid/Colominas Ventura 2021). Half do not recommend any particular method (49%), while a third favour  starting  with  the  source  (33%)  and  about  a  sixth  advise  students  to  start  with  the  target (18%). No conclusions can be drawn from the above since the available results point in different directions.

This  overview  of  the  literature  gives  rise  to  three  observations.  First,  although  revision procedures have resulted in a number of studies, the order of reading in bilingual revision remains largely unknown. Second, research seeking to give recommendations suggests starting by reading the target ,  even though there is little evidence to support this recommendation; at the same time, two descriptive studies show that starting with the source is common. Third, reading order has been slightly  more  studied  in  revision  than  in  post-editing,  where  no  tendency  emerges.  This  article further explores the issue of the order of reading in revision with interview data collected among professional  translators  working  in  different  contexts  in  Switzerland.  It  aims  at  answering  the following research question: what order of reading do translators adopt during bilingual revision and how do they justify their choice?

## 2. Method

This  article  originates  from  an  extensive  research  project  dedicated  to  revision  and  translatorreviser communication, for which 45 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted in public multilingual institutions, private companies with in-house translation departments and translation agencies,  as  well  as  with  freelance  translators.  The  translation  departments  were  chosen  to represent  the  different  aspects  of  specialised  translation  in  Switzerland  and  to  encompass  the diversity of revision policies (e.g., horizontal model of revision, in which revision is advisory, with the final say by the translator, and vertical model of revision, in which revisions are corrections; for a discussion of these two models in institutions, see Lafeber 2018: 74-76).

The 22 interviews analysed here come from a larger pool of interviews with translators who revise  (n=28)  and  heads  of  department  who  manage  revision (n=10).  (The  original  data  set  also includes 4 translators who do not revise, 2 project managers and 1 proofreader). In 26 interviews, the issue of the order of reading was brought up. Four of these interviews have been left out from this analysis due to ambiguous statements.

The interviews took place between March 2019 and October 2020. Access to the field was first negotiated with the department heads, after which other staff were interviewed (the freelancer was contacted through a professional association). Participants were recruited via email. Within each department, an effort was made to meet participants with the most varied profiles, as a search for diversity is a major factor that boosts validity in qualitative approaches (Flick 2018, Saldaña 2011). All interviews were face-to-face, with two exceptions, which took place via videoconference, due to pandemic restrictions. Interviews were mainly conducted in French (20 out of the 22 analysed here), some were in German (2/22). They were conducted in a mode inspired by the concept of 'responsive interviewing', as defined by Rubin and Rubin (2012), which is characterised by the involvement of the interviewer in the conversation and their responsiveness to what the interviewee says. Interviews drew on a general interview guide customised for the situation (see Appendix for an example of an interview guide). They were transcribed verbatim by the researcher according to transcription  and  spelling  conventions  developed  for  the  study,  which  adhere  to  a  denaturalised approach,  i.e.,  full  transcription  without  involuntary  vocalisation  and  with  some  grammatical corrections  (Oliver  et  al.  2005).  The  transcripts  were  then  coded  with  the  software  QDA  Miner Lite, following the 'Template Analysis' approach (King 2004, 2012). Template Analysis combines deductivity  and  inductivity:  the  template,  i.e.,  codebook,  takes  the  interview  guide  as  a  starting point, but evolves with the coding. According to King, Template Analysis 'works particularly well when the aim is to compare the perspectives of different groups of staff within a specific context' (King 2004: 257).

This study adopts a qualitative approach and is based on interview data, which have benefits and limitations.  Qualitative  research  'is  a  means  for  exploring  and  understanding  the  meaning individuals  or  groups  ascribe  to  a  social  or  human  problem'  (Creswell  2009:  4).  As  with  other qualitative methods, in-depth interviewing helps produce rich, contextual data (Miles et al. 2014, Rubin/Rubin 2012). Here, 'contextual' means that data refer to actual situations and are embedded in  lengthy  discussions.  As  interviews  provide  extensive  personal  accounts,  they  are  useful  to understand motivation and justification (the latter being one of the focuses of this article). On the other  hand,  interview  data  are  indirect.  Hence,  interviews  do  not  provide  information  on  what people are actually doing, but what they think they are doing, which has its own value. Perceptions and  practices  are  both  part  of  reality,  and  perceptions  provide  information  on  the  meaning  that practices have for the agents (Olivier de Sardan 2008: 321).

This  study  received  ethical  approval  from  the  Ethical  Review  Board  of  the  Faculty  of Translation  and  Interpreting  of  the  University  of  Geneva.  The  participants  were  given  an Information and Consent Form, which they had to sign before the start of the interview. They could choose not to be recorded and their right to withdraw from the study was clearly stated. Data are stored on a server at the University of Geneva and recordings will be deleted when the study has been completed.

## 3. Results

The results section is divided into four sub-sections. First, the frequency of the different methods is described  for  the  data  set  and  subgroups.  Second,  the  particular  methods  adopted  by  three participants  are  discussed  in  more  detail.  Third,  the  reasons  provided  by  the  interviewees  are analysed. Finally, a small subsection is devoted to the notion of influence, which was a recurrent topic in the participants' discourse.

The data set consists of 22 participants: 10 translators from the Swiss Confederation, 4 revisers 2 from an intergovernmental organisation based in Geneva, 6 in-house translators working for two different  companies  operating  in  the  financial  sector,  1  translator  in  a  medium-size  Swiss translation  agency,  and  1  freelancer.  15  participants  are  French-speaking  translators  (10  work mainly from German, 5 from English), 5 are German-speaking, and 2 are Italian-speaking.

2 In intergovernmental organisations, revisers are senior translators who are authorised to revise (and who still translate).

## 3.1 Frequency of the different methods

Target first and source first are equally represented in the data, while other methods, called hybrid, are scarce (see Table 1). Of the 22 participants, 10 read the source first during the bilingual check, 9  read  the  target  first,  while  3  use  a  hybrid  method  (see  section  3.2  for  a  discussion  of  the  last category).  The  results  do  not  differ  in  the  two  main  sub-categories  of  the  data  set:  in  the institutional  sector,  6  participants  begin  with  the  target  and  5  with  the  source  (plus  3  hybrid), whereas, in the private sector,  3  begin  with  the  target  and  5  with  the  source.  Nor  are  there  any fundamental changes from one target language to another: of the 15 French-speaking interviewees, 7 read target first, 5 source first, and 3 use a hybrid method; in the less represented languages, the 2 German-speaking translators use the target as point of departure and 3 use the source, and the 2 Italian-speaking translators read the source first.

Table 1 . Methods distribution in the data set, sorted by participants' code

|     | Participant   | Context                        | Sector        | Reading order   |
|-----|---------------|--------------------------------|---------------|-----------------|
|  1. | A1f05         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Target          |
|  2. | A1f06         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Hybrid          |
|  3. | A2f02         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Hybrid          |
|  4. | A2f03         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Source          |
|  5. | A2f06         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Source          |
|  6. | A2f07         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Target          |
|  7. | A2f08         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Target          |
|  8. | A2fR          | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Source          |
|  9. | A5fRs         | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Hybrid          |
| 10. | A5iR          | Swiss Confederation            | Institutional | Source          |
| 11. | B1f09         | Intergovernmental organisation | Institutional | Target          |
| 12. | B1f10         | Intergovernmental organisation | Institutional | Source          |
| 13. | B1f11         | Intergovernmental organisation | Institutional | Target          |
| 14. | B1f12         | Intergovernmental organisation | Institutional | Target          |
| 15. | C1d02         | Private company                | Private       | Source          |
| 16. | C1d03         | Private company                | Private       | Source          |
| 17. | C1f01         | Private company                | Private       | Source          |
| 18. | C2d02         | Private company                | Private       | Target          |
| 19. | C2d03         | Private company                | Private       | Target          |
| 20. | C2i01         | Private company                | Private       | Source          |
| 21. | D2d01         | Translation agency             | Private       | Source          |
| 22. | Ef01          | Freelancer                     | Private       | Target          |

As far as patterns at the departmental level is concerned, certain tendencies can be observed. The study mostly took place in translation departments, which are designated with the two first letters of  a  participant's  code  (e.g.,  A2,  B1,  C1,  C2).  In  department  B1,  the  target-first  method  is predominant (3 target vs. 1 source) and in department C1, source-first is the only method described (3  source  vs.  0  target).  Even  if  it  may  be  a  sign  of  patterning,  it  cannot  lead  to  any  definitive conclusions, because of the small number of interviews in these departments and the absence of information on where participants derive their practice from.

Department A2 presents a different scenario. Here, data are available for a higher number of participants (n=6) and the order of reading has been discussed among members of the team. On the whole, 3 translators read the source first, 2 read the target first, and 1 alternates between reading target and source. Among the 3 who begin with the source are the head of the department and his deputy. Both deemed this method to be the best way to proceed and said that they recommend it. This  department  is  characterised  by  a  high  level  of  communication  and  collaboration:  frequent questions  to  colleagues,  post-revision  talk  between  translator  and  reviser,  shared  coffee  breaks, continuous  training  (including  on  revision).  Given  the  expressed  willingness  of  the  managers  to recommend a method and the lively exchanges within the team, it is not surprising that the order of reading was discussed. These discussions seem to have an effect, as demonstrated by the person who alternates between methods. This translator reported that she used to start with the target but changed her practice after a team discussion in which colleagues encouraged her to begin with the source. Now her practice varies: sometimes she starts with the source, sometimes with the target. The two people who indicated that they begin with the target are the two who joined the team most recently.  It  is  possible  that  the  transfer  of  norms  will  continue  and  that  they  will  change  their approach over time.

Another conclusion that can be drawn from Table 1 is that translators are inclined to choose one method and use it in all situations, as indicated by the low number of participants who use a hybrid method. This contrasts with the variety of approaches observed for the whole data set, in which both orders of reading are well-represented. Hybrid cases are dealt with in detail in the following sub-section.

## 3.2 Three alternative practices and a natural tendency to start with the target

The situation of the three people who said they alternate between reading the source and the target first  is  worth  examining,  because  they  can  be  regarded  as  extreme  cases,  which  are  of  great significance  in  qualitative  research.  Analysing  extreme  cases  provides  a  means  of  giving  a  full account of the phenomenon under study or, to put it in Becker's words 'to refine the portrait of the whole-to offer, in the end, a convincing representation of its complexity and diversity' (Becker 1998: 284).

The first person who varies her practice has already been mentioned in the previous sub-section. While she used to read the target first, she now alternates as a result of team discussions. Although she did not specify the criteria for choosing between the two methods, she said that, in her opinion, when starting with the target, the translation is less put into question, whereas when starting with the source, one compares it with one's mental translation and tends to intervene more in the draft translation.

The second person indicated that he has no preference between the two orders of reading, so he alternates following an a-b-b-a-a pattern: as long as he does not encounter any problems, he reads the source and verifies it with the target; he then continues with the target text and reads a new sentence, then checks it against the source, and so on. In his view, this method is automatic, and allows him to go faster and is less tiring for his eyes. He described the texts he has to revise as high quality, which may be why he uses this particular method, which is certainly most feasible when the reviser only has to occasionally stop reading to edit the text.

The  third  person  indicated  that  her  approach  differs  according  to  her  confidence  in  the translator's ability to do a good job, in particular their understanding of the source language and ability to work meticulously. When she has some doubts, she reads the source first, then the target, and possibly the source again. When she thinks the translator has done a good job, she reads the target first, then the source. She added that she spontaneously reads the target first.

That person was not the only one to mention a natural tendency to read the target first. At the level of the whole data set, two people who begin with the source mentioned this tendency as well. The first said that she intuitively or automatically tends to look at the target first but refrains from doing  so  because  she  believes  it  is  better  to  start  by  reading  the  source.  The  second  participant stated several times that his standard practice is to read the source first. Yet, at one point in the interview,  he  indicated  that  when  he  is  absorbed  with  the  text  and  the  translation  is  good,  he sometimes switches for a while and spends some time on the target, before verifying the transfer with the source text. These statements suggest that reading the target first might be more natural.

## 3.3 Reasons for choosing to read the target or the source first

This  section  describes  the  justifications  given  by  participants  who  said  they  have  a  preference between target and source. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the rationale by reading order. Of the 19  participants  who  said  they  began  with  the  target  or  the  source,  7  did  not  provide  any justification.  The  high  proportion  of  lack  of  justification  originates  in  the  method  used  (semistructured interviews). Participants where not specifically asked to justify their revision procedure and the content analysed here is drawn from long answers in which participants described how they proceed  in  revision  in  general.  The  missing  data  are  not  problematic  since  the  analysis  aims  to develop a deeper understanding of the order of reading in revision, rather than estimate proportions. Of the 12 for whom there is a justification, 8 begin with the target and 4 with the source.

Table 2 . Rationale for reading the source or target first

| Participant   | Reading order   | Rationale                                    |
|---------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------|
| A1f05         | Target          | Interference                                 |
| A2f07         | Target          | None                                         |
| A2f08         | Target          | Interference + Readability                   |
| B1f09         | Target          | Readability + being in the reader's position |
| B1f11         | Target          | Readability                                  |
| B1f12         | Target          | Readability                                  |
| C2d02         | Target          | Interference                                 |
| C2d03         | Target          | Interference                                 |
| Ef01          | Target          | Correctness                                  |
| A2f03         | Source          | Meaning                                      |
| A2f06         | Source          | None                                         |
| A2fR          | Source          | Meaning                                      |
| A5iR          | Source          | None                                         |
| B1f10         | Source          | None                                         |
| C1d02         | Source          | None                                         |
| C1d03         | Source          | None                                         |
| C1f01         | Source          | Meaning                                      |
| C2i01         | Source          | Meaning                                      |
| D2d01         | Source          | None                                         |

The  justifications  given  by  those  who  begin  by  reading  the  target  can  be  divided  into  two categories. A first group of participants seem to be particularly attentive to interferences between languages. One translator simply said that he starts with the target 'in order not to be influenced [by the source text]' 3 . Another indicated that she starts with the target 'because [she] know[s] there are interferences between the two' 4 .  A  third  said  that  she  starts  with  the  target  to  detach  herself from the source language, so that she can evaluate the target sentence independently, because if she looks  at  the  source,  she  is  'so  focused  on  the  structure  and  then  can  no  longer,  like,  switch  to another language' 5 .

A second group of participants pay special attention to the readability of the target text and the correctness of the language. One stated that she starts with the target and tends to 'stop at what seems to be poorly worded or strange' 6 . Another participant simply said that he 'tend[s] to read the translation  first,  to  see  if  it  reads  well' 7 before  saying  that  he  'obviously'  compares  it  with  the source,  afterwards.  A  third  said  that  she  'really  need[s]  to  be  immersed  in  French  [her  target language] to see if the sentence is correct in French' 8 .

3 « pour ne pas être influencé »

4 « parce que je sais qu'il y a des interférences entre les deux »

5  «wie auf die Struktur da fixiert und kann das dann wie nicht mehr umdenken in eine andere Sprache»

6  « m'arrêter sur ce qui me semble mal formulé ou étrange »

7 « j'ai tendance à lire d'abord la traduction, à regarder si elle se lit bien »

Another interviewee linked the issue of idiomaticity to the position of the reviser. She said that she starts with the target to see if there is 'something [that] doesn't sound quite right', adding that sometimes 'as a reader, it isn't working for me' 9 .  She emphasised that 'the reviser is actually a reader in the first place'. 10  This participant's effort to put herself in the reader's shoes echoes some of the literature. Mossop (2020) encourages revisers to put themselves in the position of the final reader and Brunette (2007) puts great emphasis on the reviser as the first reader of a translation, as the  reviser  has  more  distance  from  the  text  and  works  with  bigger  units  of  meaning  than  the translator.

Interferences  between  languages  and  the  fluidity  of  the  translated  text  are  discussed  in  the following  quote  from  an  interview  with  an  experienced  translator  working  for  the  Swiss Confederation, who mainly translates from German into French:

I  read  French  first  (Q:  yes)  because  I  have  the  feeling  that  if  I  read  German  first,  my perspective is less fresh, I let myself be  influenced a little. I think I could make the same translation mistakes as the translator. (Q: mhm) So I prefer to read the French first to see if it... if there are things that are just a bit strange. Sometimes, there are turns of phrase... yes, that are not what we expect or that are not very fortunate in French... and that strikes us less if we have the German text in our head. (Q: yes) So I read the French first 11 .

The second part of the quotation makes it clear that concerns about source language interference are linked to the readability of the target text. To her, it is easier to assess the readability of a text and, hence, to avoid interferences when reading the target first. Second, having fresh eyes relates to the idea of aiming to distance oneself from the source text, and, in doing so, getting closer to the position  of  the  final  reader.  Finally,  she  says  that  she  starts  with  the  target  in  order  not  to  be influenced, a point that will be addressed in section 3.4.

The four interviewees who read the source first and justified their practice substantiate it on the grounds of meaning transfer. One translator stated that she reads the source first 'in order not to be influenced by possible transfer errors or the like' 12 .  A second said that she always starts with the source, because 'otherwise you start to be influenced by the translation', further stating that she 'really want[s] to see [things] from the point of view of the source language, and then compare [them]' 13 .  A  third  commented that starting with the source allowed her to see 'right away if the translator  has  understood  the  sentence  in  the  same  way',  pointing  out  that  she  'like[s]  to  know what it was about before seeing the translation' 14 .

The  following  quote  illustrates  the  view  that  it  is  easier  to  detect  possible  discrepancies  in meaning by reading the source first. The interviewee is the head of department A2, mentioned in section 3.1, where most translations are German-French. He compares revision with the scenario of being in a corridor with different doors (each representing different interpretations), and checking if the translator has selected the correct door, i.e., the one that conveys the meaning of the source text:

8 « j'ai vraiment besoin d'être ancrée dans le français pour voir si la phrase est correcte en français »

9 « un truc qui cloche » ; « en tant que lectrice, ça ne me parle pas »

10 « le réviseur, en fait, il est d'abord lecteur »

11 « Je lis d'abord le français (Q : oui) parce que j'ai l'impression que si je lis d'abord l'allemand, j'ai le regard moins

frais, je me laisse un peu influencer. Je pense que je pourrais faire les mêmes erreurs de traduction que le traducteur. (Q : mhm) Donc je préfère lire d'abord le français pour voir si ça... s'il y a des trucs qui sont juste un peu bizarres. Des fois, il y a des tournures… oui, qui ne sont pas ce qu'on attend ou qui ne sont pas très heureuses en français… et ça nous frappe moins si on a le texte allemand dans la tête. (Q : oui) Donc je lis d'abord le français. »

12  « pour ne pas être influencé par les éventuelles fautes de sens ou comme ça »

13  « autrement, on commence à se faire influencer par la traduction » ; « je veux vraiment voir du point de vue de la langue source, et puis comparer »

14 « tout de suite si la traductrice l'a comprise de la même manière » ; « J'aime bien savoir de quoi ça parle avant de voir la traduction. »

some read the French before the German and I'm in the camp that says you may go faster, but  you  get  a  bit  lulled  to  sleep  by  a  well-written  text  in  French.  And  when  you're  in  a corridor of 20 doors and it's just next door, it's very challenging... it's more challenging to see when you've read the French beforehand. Whereas when you read the German, without any  other  influence...  because  we're  in  German-French...  you  read  the  source  and  you understand, you stage the text, you put it into perspective. Then, when it's just next door, it jumps out at you 15 .

According to the interviewee, reading the target first goes faster, but it presents a higher risk of being fooled by the draft translation, which is why he advocates for reading the source first. In this quote, the notion of influence is again evoked. This recurrent topic is addressed in the next section.

## 3.4 The influence of the first version that is read: a recurrent theme

The concept of influence is recurrent in the rationale put forward by translators to justify the way they revise. It is present in the two long quotes analysed in the previous section, as well as in the narratives of four other participants. The argument of not being influenced is present in both groups of translators - those who start with the target and those who start with the source. This might seem contradictory but is not if one considers what one is trying not to be influenced by. When starting with the target, it is a matter of not being influenced by the source text, i.e., to avoid interference and to examine the wording without any reference to the source language. When starting with the source,  it  is  about  not  being  influenced  by  the  translation,  i.e.,  starting  by  understanding  the meaning of the text to be translated before comparing it with the meaning of the draft translation. As bilingual revision must be grounded in both source and target text, it would be irrelevant to try to free oneself entirely from the influence of one of the texts. In other words, the influence of both texts must be accepted, although one of them is initially set aside. It might therefore be better to refrain from using the term 'influence'.

## 4. Discussion

This section discusses the respective proportions of the two main methods (source first and target first), the low number of hybrid methods, and the justification given by participants for choosing one of the two orders of reading.

As  shown  in  section  3.1,  both  orders  of  reading  are  well  represented  in  the  data  set:  10 participants read the source first, while 9 read the target first. In other words, a high proportion of translators  start  by  reading  the  source  text  during  bilingual  revision.  This  contrasts  with  the literature:  the  most  quoted  textbook  on  revision  firmly  advocates  for  starting  with  the  target (Mossop  2020:  176-177),  and  there  is  empirical  evidence  suggesting  that  this  procedure  brings better  results  (Ipsen/Dam  2016,  Künzli  2009).  Nevertheless,  it  must  be  stressed  that  empirical evidence  is  scarce.  In  the  one  experiment,  participants  were  students  (Ipsen/Dam  2016),  and Schaeffer  et  al.  (2019)  convincingly  proved  that  professionals  do  not  behave  the  same  way  as students during revision. In the other experiment, no significant effect on the quality of the final text was found for two of the three texts (Künzli 2009). The results of the present study are more in line with Girletti (2022), who found that starting with the target is as common as starting with the source, and Huang (2018), who put forward that, depending on the different phases of the revision task, very few to no participants started by reading the target. Regarding the latter, the conditions of the experiment must be taken into account when analysing the results: participants were students, the texts were very short, and the reading behaviour was not linked to the quality of the outcome.

15 « certains lisent le français avant l'allemand et moi, je suis de la paroisse qui dit : on va plus vite, mais on se fait un peu endormir par un texte bien fait en français. Et quand dans un couloir de 20 portes, c'est juste la porte à côté, c'est très difficile… c'est plus difficile à voir quand on a lu le français avant. Tandis que quand on lit l'allemand, sans influence… puisqu'on est en allemand-français… on lit la source et on comprend, on met le texte en scène, on le met en perspective. Après, si c'est la porte juste à côté, ça saute aux yeux. »

All in all, there seems to be a gap between the recommendation in the literature - read target first - and the practices reported (this study and Girletti 2022) or observed (Huang 2018), where starting with the source seems to be more common. This gap is difficult to explain. It may lie in the validity of the results: Huang (2018) and Ipsen/Dam (2016) studied students' performance, and the present study and Girletti (2022) are based on indirect data. Until further evidence is available, it must be acknowledged that (i) translators use both orders of reading and (ii) the method that brings the best results remains unclear, either in absolute terms or in certain conditions, e.g., for different kind of texts, with different time limits or with different draft-translation qualities.

Another striking result of this study is that very few participants use both methods. Only three participants alternate between the two reading orders, compared to the 19 who stated that they only use  one.  This  stability  in  the  order  of  reading  could  suggest  that  translators  consider  that  one method is preferable (some said so expressly). This result is in line with Künzli (2009: 300), who argued that systematic reading behaviour may have a greater effect than the order of reading.

As far as justifications for starting with the target or source are concerned, they are  both very disparate from one group to the other, and very similar within the two groups. The main reasons for starting  with  the  target  are  to  avoid  interferences  between  languages  and  better  assess  the readability of the target text. The secondary reasons are to verify the correctness of the language and put oneself in the reader's shoes. As for starting with the source, the only reason put forward by  participants  is  to  better  spot  transfer  errors.  This  uniformity  must  be  tempered  by  the  low number of participants who explained why they read the source first (n=4). These reasons can be considered to be quite predictable. It seems logical that reading the target first makes it easier to assess the elements specific to the target language (readability, correctness), whereas reading the source enables a better comparison of the meaning of both texts. The same was argued almost 40 years ago in an old institutional resource (Secrétariat d'Etat du Canada 1985), which recommends starting  by  reading  the  whole  source  or  target  text  but  leaves  the  reviser  free  to  choose  which method to apply. The advantages of each procedure listed in the guide are quite similar to those mentioned by the participants of this study: reading the source first helps the reviser gain their own insight into the text, while reading the target first helps the reviser correct language errors as well as spot the ambiguities, incoherencies, and obscure, incomprehensible and unnatural passages. The stability of arguments over time is noteworthy, as is the correspondence between reasons given in a Canadian practical  guide and  those  expressed  by translation  professionals  in  Switzerland.  These three  elements  -  stability  over  time,  concordance  between  guide  and  data,  and  similarity  across countries - are advances that can only be identified by conducting an empirical study like the one described here. The predictability of arguments also points to another result: the subconceptualisation of revision, which the unsurprising nature of arguments would seem to support.

## 5. Conclusion

In this article, the reading behaviour during revision of translators working in different translation sectors  in  Switzerland  (n=22)  was  analysed.  The  study  shows  that  the  two  orders  of  reading  source first  and  target  first  -  are  well  represented  (source=10,  target=9).  This  contrasts  with  the literature, which  recommends  starting  by  reading  a part of the target text, although the recommendation is empirically not  very  well founded  (see  previous  section).  The  results  of  this study can be viewed as putting into question this recommendation or calling for it to be clarified through  further  research.  At  the  same  time,  only  three  participants  use  both  orders  of  reading, which indicates that the great majority of translators have their routine and behave the same way in all situations. In the data set as a whole, no particular pattern is found in terms of sector activity or languages. At the departmental level, trends seem to emerge, especially in one department, where the head and his deputy advocate for starting by reading the source. The justifications for choosing one method over another do not reveal any major surprises: participants who read the target first said that they wish to avoid interference between the languages or better appreciate the readability or correctness of the target language, while those who read the source first do so in order to better spot  discrepancies  in  meaning.  However,  the  uniformity  in  the  discourse  of  the  two  camps  is striking:  among  those  who  justified  using  the  target  language  first,  all  participants  referred  to interference, readability, or correctness. This uniformity is even greater in the source group, where all  participants talked about assessing meaning. The predictability of the reasons could be a sign that the revision has not been sufficiently reflected upon. Another element of homogeneity is the idea of influence, which is present in both groups: for those who start with the target, it is about not being  influenced  by  the  formulations  of  the  source  language,  and  for  those  who  begin  with  the source, it is about not being influenced by the translator's interpretation. As the reviser should be influenced by both texts (source and target), it is advisable not to use this concept. The final result is that reading the target first seemed more natural to several participants, even for some who start by reading the source.

The main limitation of this study lies in the component that deals with practices, which is reliant on the statements of participants. Interviews can only provide access to claimed practices, and it is quite likely that the observation of actual practices would produce other results, as people usually do not behave in (exactly) the same way they claim to. One main difference might be that actual reading behaviours may be more complex than they appear to be in interviews. Participants may have focused on their typical way of behaving and, in doing so, put aside secondary behaviours or micro-variations.  Eye-tracking  studies  can  reveal  behavioural  patterns  at  the  micro  level,  while long-term observational studies in authentic setting, e.g., ethnographic studies, may reveal whether or not revisers always behave in the same way, as they state in this study, or whether they alternate more than they claim to.

This analysis opens up potential avenues of research. The first is to find out whether one of the two reading orders is preferable (i) in absolute terms or (ii) in  certain conditions, for example in different time conditions or for different types of text (where importance of e.g., meaning transfer or  smoothness  have  different  weight).  Research  of  this  type  would  be  very  much  in  line  with studies that have tried to establish which revision procedure produces the best revised translation (Brunette et al. 2005, Ipsen/Dam 2016, Künzli 2009, Robert 2012, 2013, 2014, Robert/Van Waes 2014). More specifically, it would be interesting to test the hypotheses that can be derived from the justifications put forward by the participants: (i) starting with the source leads to a better detection of errors in meaning, and (ii) starting with the target leads to a better identification of interferences and language errors. Furthermore, other statements from the participants could be investigated, i.e., whether  starting  with  the  target  is  faster  or  whether  starting  with  the  source  leads  to  more intervention in the text (which is one of the results of Volkart et al. (forthcoming) in their study of post-editing). All these goals could be achieved by carrying out an analysis of revised translations produced  in  an  experimental  setting  that  restricts  the  order  of  reading,  then  calculating  the proportion of errors corrected in the different categories (meaning, smoothness, correctness…), the time spent, and the total number of interventions. This would mean conducting a study for reading order that is comparable to the one conducted by Robert (2012, 2013, 2014) and Robert/Van Waes (2014) on revision procedures.

## Acknowledgments

I  am  deeply  indebted  to  all  participants  for  their  valuable  time.  I  owe  a  special  thanks  to  the department heads, who opened up the doors to their office and extended a very warm welcome to me.

## Funding

This  research  was  partly  supported  by  the  Swiss  National  Science  Foundation  (Grant  No. P1GEP1\_195089).

## References

- Allain, Jean-François 2010: Repenser la révision. Défense et illustration de la relecture croisée. In Traduire 223, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.4000/traduire.316.
- Becker, Howard S. 1998: Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
- Brunette,  Louise  2007:  Relecture-révision,  compétences  indispensables  du  traducteur  spécialisé.  In  Lavault-Olléon, Elisabeth (ed.), Traduction spécialisée : pratiques, théories, formations . Berne: Peter Lang, 225-235.
- Brunette,  Louise/Gagnon,  Chantal/Hine,  Jonathan  2005:  The  GREVIS  project:  revise  or  court  calamity.  In Across Languages and Cultures 6(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.3.
- Carl, Michael/Dragsted, Barbara/Elming, Jakob/Hardt, Daniel/Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke 2011: The Process of Post-Editing: a Pilot Study. In Copenhagen Studies in Language 41, 131-142.
- Creswell, John W. 2009: Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . 3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, etc.: Sage.
- Drugan, Joanna 2013: Quality in professional translation: assessment and improvement . London: Bloomsbury.
- Flick, Uwe 2018: Managing quality in qualitative research . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, London, etc.: Sage.
- Ginovart Cid, Clara/Colominas Ventura, Carme 2021: The MT post-editing skill set: Course descriptions and educators' thoughts.  In  Koponen,  Maarit/Mossop,  Brian/Robert,  Isabelle  S./Scocchera,  Giovanna  (eds.), Translation  revision and post-editing: industry practices and cognitive processes . Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 226-246.
- Girletti,  Sabrina  2022:  Working  with  Pre-translated  Texts:  Preliminary  Findings  from  a  Survey  on  Post-editing  and Revision Practices in Swiss Corporate In-house Language Services. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation . Ghent, Belgium: European Association for Machine Translation, 269-278. https://aclanthology.org/2022.eamt-1.30.
- Horguelin, Paul A./Brunette, Louise 1998: Pratique de la révision . Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.
- Huang,  Jin  2018:  Working  styles  of  student  translators  in  self-revision,  other-revision  and  post-editing.  In  Walker, Callum/Federici, Federico M. (eds.), Eye Tracking and Multidisciplinary Studies on Translation . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 145-184. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.143.08hua.
- Ipsen,  A.  Helene/Dam,  Helle  V.  2016:  Translation  Revision:  Correlating  Revision  Procedure  and  Error  Detection.  In Hermes. Journal of Language and Communication in Business 55, 143-156. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i55.24612.
- ISO,  International  Organization  for  Standardization  2015: ISO  17100  Translation  services  -  Requirements  for translation services . Geneva.
- King, Nigel 2004: Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell, Catherine/Symon, Gillian (eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research . Los Angeles, London, etc.: Sage, 256-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119.n21.
- King,  Nigel  2012:  Doing  Template  Analysis.  In  Symon,  Gillian/Cassell,  Catherine  (eds.), Qualitative  Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges . 426-450. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473983304.n3.
- Koponen,  Maarit/Mossop,  Brian/Robert,  Isabelle  S./Scocchera,  Giovanna,  (ed.).  2021. Translation  revision  and  postediting: industry practices and cognitive processes . Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
- Künzli, Alexander 2006: Teaching and learning translation revision: Some suggestions based on evidence from a thinkaloud  protocol  study.  In  Garant,  Mark  (ed.), Current  Trends  in  Translation  Teaching  and  Learning .  Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 9-23.
- Künzli, Alexander 2007: Translation Revision: a study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text.  In  Gambier,  Yves/Schlesinger, Miriam/Stolze, Radegundis (eds.), Translation Studies: doubts and directions . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.14kun.
- Künzli, Alexander 2009: Qualität in der Übersetzungsrevision -eine empirische Studie. In Kalverkämper,

- Hartwig/Schippel,  Larisa  (eds.), Translation  zwischen  Text  und  Welt.  Translationswissenschaft  als  historische Disziplin zwischen Moderne und Zukunft . Berlin: Frank & Timme, 291-303.
- Lafeber,  Anne  2018:  The  Skills  Required  to  Achieve  Quality  in  Institutional  Translation:  The  Views  of  EU  and  UN Translators and Revisers. In Prieto Ramos, Fernando (eds.), Institutional Translation for International Governance. Enhancing Quality in Multilingual Legal Communication . London/New York: Bloomsbury, 63-80. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474292320.0014.
- Mesa-Lao,  Bartolomé  2014:  Gaze  behaviour  on  source  texts:  An  exploratory  study  comparing  translation  and  postediting. In O'Brien, Sharon/Winther Balling, Laura/Carl, Michael/Simard, Michel/Speccia, Lucia (eds.), Post-editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications . Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 219-245.
- Miles, Matthew B./Saldaña, Johnny/Huberman, A. Michael 2014: Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook . 3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, etc.: Sage.
- Morin-Hernández,  Katell.  2009. La  révision  comme  clé  de  la  gestion  de  la  qualité  des  traductions  en  contexte professionnel . Thèse de doctorat, Université Rennes 2. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00383266/fr.
- Mossop, Brian 2020: Revising and editing for translators . 4th ed. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
- Nord, Britta 2018: Die Überzetzungsrevision - ein Werkstattbericht. In trans-kom 11(1), 138-150. http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd11nr01/trans-kom\_11\_01\_07\_Nord\_Revision.20180712.pdf.
- Oliver, Daniel G./Serovich, Julianne M./Mason,  Tina L. 2005: Constraints and Opportunities with Interview Transcription: Towards Reflection in Qualitative Research. In Social Forces 84(2), 1273-1289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0023.
- Olivier  de  Sardan,  Jean-Pierre  2008: La  rigueur  du  qualitatif :  les  contraintes  empiriques  de  l'interprétation  socioanthropologique . Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant.
- Rasmussen, Kirsten  Wølch/Schjoldager,  Anne  2011:  Revising  Translations:  A  Survey  of  Revision  Policies  in  Danish Translation Companies. In The Journal of Specialised Translation 15, 87-120. https://jostrans.org/issue15/art\_rasmussen.php.
- Riondel, Aurélien 2021: Two approaches to quality in institutional settings: Comparison of the revision policies of an intergovernmental organisation and the Swiss Confederation. In MikaEL 14, 82-96. https://www.sktl.fi/@Bin/2652223/MikaEL14+-+Riondel.pdf.
- Robert, Isabelle S. 2008: Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study. In Boulogne, Pieter (ed.), Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/robert.pdf, 1-25.
- Robert,  Isabelle  S.  2012: La  révision  en  traduction  :  les  procédures  de  révision  et  leur  impact  sur  le  produit  et  le processus de révision . Thèse de doctorat. Anvers: Universiteit Antwerpen.
- Robert,  Isabelle  S.  2013:  Translation  revision:  Does  the  revision  procedure  matter?  In  Way,  Catherine/Vandepitte, Sonia/Meylaerts, Reine/Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena (eds.), Tracks and Treks in Translation Studies. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Leuven 2010 . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.05rob.
- Robert,  Isabelle  S.  2014:  La  relecture  unilingue :  une  procédure  de  révision  de  traduction  rapide,  fonctionnelle,  mais déloyale. In TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction 27(1), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.7202/1037120ar.
- Robert, Isabelle S. 2018: La recherche en révision : portrait bibliométrique, questions de recherche et méthodologies. In Parallèles 30(2), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.17462/para.2018.02.07.
- Robert,  Isabelle  S./Van  Waes,  Luuk  2014: Selecting  a  translation  revision  procedure: do  common  sense  and  statistics agree? In Perspectives 22(3), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.871047.
- Rubin, Herbert J./Rubin, Irene S. 2012: Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data . 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Saldaña, Johnny 2011: Fundamentals of qualitative research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Schaeffer,  Moritz/Nitzke,  Jean/Tardel,  Anke/Oster,  Katharina/Gutermuth,  Silke/Hansen-Schirra,  Silvia  2019:  Eyetracking revision processes of translation students and professional translators. In Perspectives 27(4), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1597138.
- Schnierer, Madeleine 2019: Qualitätssicherung: Die Praxis der Übersetzungsrevision im Zusammenhang mit EN 15038 und ISO 17100 . Berlin: Frank & Timme.
- Scocchera, Giovanna 2017: Translation Revision as Rereading. In Mémoires du livre 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7202/1043122ar.
- Secrétariat d'Etat du Canada, Bureau des traductions 1985: Guide du réviseur . Ottawa.
- Volkart,  Lise/Girletti,  Sabrina/Gerlach,  Johanna/Mutal,  Jonathan  David  /Bouillon,  Pierrette  (forthcoming):  Source  or target  first?  Comparison  of  two  post-editing  strategies  with  translation  students.  In  review,  preprint  available  at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03546151/.

Est ce que vous pourriez me raconter votre parcours, comment vous êtes arrivé-e ici ?

## Appendix: Interview guide example

· Adaptation à la personne

Une vs plusieurs méthodes ( y comp. papier-écran)

(plutöt en rév, mais aussi en trad)

· Adaptation au texte : importance,

Suggestions vs corrections (responsabilité sur le texte) portée, etc.

Après la révision qu'est-ce qui se passe ? Les feedbacks

Commentaires pdt la trad (commentaires du traducteur) ou la rév (commentaires du réviseur)

Questions

Contact avant/pdt/après révision

Qu'est-ce que vous trouvez difficile dans la révision ? (et facile)

Qu'est-ce que vous aimez et qu'est-ce que vous n'aimez pas lorsque vous révisez ?

Qu'est-ce que vous aimez et qu'est-ce que vous n'aimez pas lorsque vous êtes révisé-e ?

Comment est-ce que vous vivez la révision ?

Quels sont les bons cõtés et les mauvais côtés de la révision ?

À quoi sert la révision ?

Bon et mauvais réviseur ? Bonne et mauvaise révision ?

Changements avec le temps, par rapport à quand vous avez commencé ?

Formation en révision ? souhaitable ? souhaitée ?

Est-ce qu'il y a une productivité à atteindre ? Quel est le ratio trad-rév ? difficile à atteindre ?

Pistes d'amélioration

Collaboration service

Bcp d'échanges ? Réunion, formations, trad à pls

Au-delà du cadre prof. pause-café, repas de midi, autres ?

sur la trad sur la révision sur la collaboration traducteur-réviseur