Poetry Translating as Expert Action Processes, priorities and networks

 Poetry Translating as Expert Action

Figure 32. Toen wij: Draft 2 alternative-solutions working version

(Geoff )

121

Figure 33. Toen wij: Draft 2 working version (Francis, Lines 1–3) 122

Figure 34. Toen wij: Draft 2 final pure-line version (Geoff ) 123

Figure 35. Toen wij: run-through length (tape-units) 125

Figure 36. Toen wij: chain of macro-sequences (Irene, Draft2/RT2) 127

Figure 37. Toen wij, Version 3 (Irene, Draft 2; Line

and Stanza numbers added)

128

Figure 38. Toen wij, Line-specific time per Line

(percentage per translator, all Drafts)

129

Figure 39. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (percentages, all

translators and drafts combined)

129

Figure 40. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (inter-translator

and inter-draft correlations)

130

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

all translators combined)

130

Figure 42. Kameni spavač/Stone Sleeper and Soneti/Sonnets: Covers 148

Figure 43. Krik: BCS source text + English interlinear 150

Figure 44. Krik: English version after Draft 3 151

Figure 45. Krik/Cry: Published English version 151

Figure 46. Tape-units per common lexical item, by Draft:

Toen wij vs. Krik

153

Figure 47. Krik: Notes and version after Draft 1 (title and Lines 1–2) 154

Figure 48. Krik: Version after Draft 2 (Lines 1–2) 154

Figure 49. Run-through length: Toen wij vs. Krik 155

Figure 50. Average macro-sequence length per draft: Toen wij vs. Krik 157

Figure 51. Percentage of tape-units per focus (all drafts combined):

Toen wij vs. Krik

158

Figure 52. Semantic-field shifts on common lexical items in Toen wij

and Krik

165

Figure 53. Poetry translating action: A revised model 174