Translated Text Polishing Editing and Proofreading Services

ISO 17100 gives one-line definitions to check, revision, review, and proofread, and editing is not among those names.¹ Two of the four differ mainly in whether the person doing the work is reading the source language alongside the English. A request to polish a translation names none of them, and leaves the choice to whoever picks the file up.

Four operations, and what tells two of them apart

ISO 17100:2015 sets requirements for translation services, and its second clause defines these four among other terms. A check is an "examination of target language content carried out by the translator."¹ A revision is a "bilingual examination of target language content against source language content for its suitability for the agreed purpose."¹ A review is a "monolingual examination of target language content for its suitability for the agreed purpose."¹ To proofread is to "examine the revised target language content and applying corrections before printing."¹

Revision is bilingual and review is monolingual, and only the first names the source language content. The standard also says what happens to the word editing. Its note to revision says that "the term bilingual editing is sometimes used as a synonym for revision."¹ Its note to review says that "the term monolingual editing is sometimes used as a synonym for review."¹ The same division runs through the people, since a reviser "revises target language content against source language content" and a reviewer "reviews target language content."¹

A second vocabulary for machine translation output

ISO 17100 defines post-edit at 2.2.4 as "edit and correct machine translation output."¹ Its scope clause nonetheless states that "the use of raw output from machine translation plus post-editing is outside the scope of this International Standard."¹ The term is defined there and the work is governed elsewhere.

ISO 18587:2017 covers the ground the older standard set aside. Its scope reaches "the process of full, human post-editing of machine translation output and post-editors' competences."² Full post-editing is a "process of post-editing to obtain a product comparable to a product obtained by human translation."² Light post-editing is a "process of post-editing to obtain a merely comprehensible text without any attempt to produce a product comparable to a product obtained by human translation."² The requirements clause covers the first of those two.

What a certification fixes in place

Some federal rules describe the translator rather than the translation. Under 45 CFR 92.4, a qualified translator "has demonstrated proficiency in writing and understanding both written English and at least one other written non-English language."³ The second half of the definition covers ability, and it runs as one clause. That clause reaches translating "effectively, accurately, and impartially," using specialized vocabulary "without changes, omissions, or additions and while preserving the tone, sentiment, and emotional level of the original written statement."³

Other rules attach the promise to the document. Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3), "any document containing foreign language" submitted to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services needs "a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate."⁴ The translator's certification of competence accompanies the document as well.⁴ A nonprovisional patent application filed in another language requires an English translation, "a statement that the translation is accurate," and a processing fee.⁵

Readability is required, in different rules again

Medicaid managed care regulations put a readability duty in writing, addressed to the state. Under 42 CFR 438.10(d)(6), the state must provide, and require "MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, PCCMs, and PCCM entities" to provide, "all written materials for potential enrollees and enrollees" on stated conditions.⁶ Two of those conditions are to "use easily understood language and format" and to use a font size "no smaller than 12 point."⁶ Paragraph (d)(3) has the state require "each MCO, PIHP, PAHP, and PCCM entity" to make its materials critical to obtaining services available in the prevalent non-English languages in "its particular service area."⁶ Those materials include, "at a minimum, provider directories, enrollee handbooks, appeal and grievance notices, and denial and termination notices."⁶ Requirements of that kind speak to how a finished text reads, and say nothing about its relation to a source.

ASTM F2575-23 moves the question earlier. The practice "is intended to apply to all translation projects regardless of the translation service provider selected."⁷ It is built around specifications agreed between requester and provider before production begins.⁷

The part of this we can take

We are not a translation service and we do not certify translations. We do not set an English text beside a source in another language, and we reach no conclusion about fidelity. That comparison is the operation ISO 17100 calls revision, and it belongs to a bilingual professional. Our reading is monolingual by necessity, covering sentence structure, article and preposition use, a term rendered three ways across thirty pages, and the punctuation that decides where a clause attaches. A client's document is confidential the moment it reaches us.

The sequence matters as well as the name. A proofread, in the standard's definition, examines "the revised target language content."¹ That definition assumes a revision has already happened. A scope of work that asks for proofreading, without saying whether a revision has taken place, has settled less than it appears to.

ISO lists ISO 17100:2015 as an International Standard to be revised, with one amendment from 2017 and ISO/AWI 17100 under development.⁸ A contract naming the standard without an edition year points at a document its publisher has marked for revision. What the next edition does to these definitions is the part worth watching.