Chapter 5. Five translators translate
solutions, this real-world dimension was often important. Instead of denying the
relevance of authorial intent in a work’s interpretation (as did the New Critics:
Matterson and Jones 2000: 78), therefore, these translators saw it as invaluable (as
argued by Boase-Beier 2004: 26). Nevertheless, the prime inspiration for the trans-
lators’ solutions remained the source poem’s words, not the poet’s comments – ex-
cept when the words had no obvious translation equivalent (as with Geoff ’s inter-
pretation of strovuur as a room fire).
In stating that he did not wish his explanations to determine the translators’
solutions, the source poet allowed the translators autonomy of operation; moreover,
they did not ask him for advice on receptor-language solutions. As in Chapter 4,
therefore, the source poet’s role was to give crucial input – but not the only input –
to the translator’s reading of the source poem. Fellow translators, by contrast, could
give input to the translator’s textual decisions – but again, not the only input.5.4.4 Community
This study also gave clues to how translators’ practices reflected second-order is-
sues, especially of expert field and translating habitus.5.4.4.1 Cognitive habitus
In terms of the cognitive processes and written outputs analysed above, this study’s
poetry translators shared a remarkable amount of ground. They and their Chapter-4
peers, therefore, may be seen as following a common “cognitive habitus”
(extrapolating from Marjoribanks 2001: 50, and from Nash 2005) – a concept that
highlights how the cognitive and social are intertwined. Three mutually reinforc-
ing processes serve to intertwine them:- Cognitive universals generate and constrain shared norms and practices.
- Socially negotiated norms and practices are internalized to shape a translator’s
cognitive structures (as in Bourdieu’s habitus: 1998: 5). - These norms also constrain each translator’s potential cognitive approaches
(as in Marjoribanks’ and Nash’s cognitive habitus).
Beginning with cognitive universals, these are shared mental processes and per-
ceptions which arise because humans tackle similar tasks (such as translating
poems) with similar cognitive and practical equipment (such as minds and eyes,
reference and writing materials). In this study, translators faced similar cognitive
challenges in understanding the same complex, allusive and subtly musical poem,
and in finding English-language equivalents for its linguistic and phonic effects.
This implies a similar time spent tackling these challenges. It also implies that
translators manage the overall activity with a similar hierarchy of nesting actions