Poetry Translating as Expert Action Processes, priorities and networks

Chapter 5. Five translators translate 

code no. tape-units/

minutes

description

Dra2/RT2: Revising Version 2 into handwritten Version 3

Dr2/Ma2.1 114tu/9m Revises Lines 1-2 (Stanza I)

Dr2/Ma2.2 26tu/2 m Revises Line 3 (Stanza I)

Dr2/Ma2.3 58tu/4m Revises and rewrites all Stanza I

Dr2/Ma2.4 45tu/3m Revises Line 4 (Stanza II)

Dr2/Ma2.5 120tu/9m Revises Line 5 (Stanza II)

Dr2/Ma2.6 13tu/1m Evaluates all Stanza II

Dr2/Ma2.7 106tu/8m Revises all Stanza III

Dr2/Ma2.8 12tu/1m Revises Stanza IV: 1st clause

Dr2/Ma2.9 71tu/5m Revises Stanza IV: 2nd and 3rd clause

Dr2/Ma2.10 13tu/1m Backtracks to title

Dr2/Ma2.11 16tu/1m Repeats whole poem so far to establish meaning of 3rd clause in Stanza IV

Dr2/Ma2.12 33tu/3m Revises Stanza V: 1st clause

Dr2/Ma2.13 12tu/1m Revises Stanza V: 2nd clause

Figure 36. Toen wij: chain of macro-sequences (Irene, Draft2/RT2)

larger stanza- or poem-sized unit (Dr2/Ma2.3), and/or to help tackle a problem-

atic Line/clause by reactivating a wider text-world schema (Dr2/Ma2.10–2.11).

Shorter orienting or checking runs-through became gradually more common

over the poem’s translating lifetime, and dominated Hugo’s, Irene’s and my Draft 3.

These contained one macro-sequence, or very few, showing that the translator’s

scope of attention was widening from analytic to wholist – from tackling the ver-

sion as a series of clauses, lines and stanzas to tackling it as a whole poem.

At this point it is worth checking which poem Lines dominated translators’

attention – that is, were particularly problematic. Figure 38 shows how each trans-

lator distributed his or her total working time across the eleven Lines. Only Line 1

deviates markedly from the norm, with translators spending over twice as much of

their time on it as on the other Lines. The transcripts show that the main problem

with Line 1 is its reactivated stroked-hands-heart idiom, but that this is compound-

ed by the fact that its first two words give the poem title. Even so, only Geoff (22%),

Hugo (31%) and I (40%) spent significantly more time on Line 1 than the other

Lines^14. Fleur and Irene, by contrast, spent a roughly similar amount of time on

14. Shapiro-Wilk statistic: Geoff 0.80, p 0.01; Hugo 0.51, p 0.00; Francis 0.57, p 0.00 – all high-
    ly significant.