Poetry Translating as Expert Action Processes, priorities and networks

 Poetry Translating as Expert Action

Geo Hugo Irene Francis Draft 2 Draft 3

Fleur .82 .78 .80 .73 Draft 1 .86

Geo .86 .96 .98 Draft 2 .92

Hugo .78 .80

Irene .94

Figure 40. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (inter-translator and inter-draft correlations)^18

strong .86 and a very strong .92. Nevertheless, similar overall priorities may con-

ceal differences on certain key micro-sequences. These are discussed where rele-

vant in the following sub-sections, which examine individual foci.

5.3.5.2 Lexis

Translators spent a striking amount of time seeking equivalents for words and fixed

expressions: Lexis took up no less than 31.4% of strategic working time (Figure

39), especially in Draft 1 (Figure 41). Transcripts reveal that translators concen-

trated in Draft 1 on establishing a lexical-equivalence framework. Drafts 2 and 3

involved trouble-shooting and fine-tuning, and searching for receptor-language

items that conveyed the precise nuances and multiple meanings of problematic

source lexis. In the Draft 2 extract below, for example, Geoff uses a range of re-

sources (dictionary, source-poet input and thesaurus) to tackle Line 5’s strovuur:

Draft 1

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Percentag of tape-units

Draft 2 Draft 3

RHYME

INTERTEXTUALITY

PARALLELISMSOUND (MISC.)TEXT-HELPER

E VALUAT ERHYTHM

SPONTANEOUS CHANGE

GRAM/DISCFEEL/FLOW

SCANIMAGELEXIS

Figure 41. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (percentages by Draft, all translators combined)

18. Pearson r; all are highly significant.