Chapter 5. Five translators translate
arguably, is how cognition becomes socialized and socialization influences cogni-
tion: that is, how cognitive habitus are maintained and evolve within poetry-trans-
lating and similar expert fields.5.4.4.2 Variation between translators
How, then, does this picture of broad consensus between translators square with
the inter-translator differences emerging from Chapter 4? Admittedly, Chapter 4’s
translators did show consensus in the crucial area of shared loyalty to source poet
and target reader – an attitude which almost certainly explains why all Chapter 5’s
translators tried to balance accurate source-poem reporting with target-poem
quality. And conversely, differences between this chapter’s translators emerged in
two key areas, which echo – but also complicate – two of Chapter 4’s continua.
Firstly, this chapter’s front-loaded vs. even-loaded contrast in relative draft time
resembles the speedy ↔ steady Translating-Speed Continuum (Figure 19, p. 181)- but here a third, mid-loaded pattern also emerges. Secondly, this chapter’s trans-
lators show differences in personal correspondence hierarchy – though what sepa-
rates them is arguably a split between prioritizing semantics and prioritizing prag-
matics, which both lie at one pole of Figure 21’s Correspondence-Hierarchy
Continuum (p. 185).
Nevertheless, differences between this chapter’s translators are less radical
than those between Chapter 4’s Derek and Carl, say. Several possible reasons might
be suggested for this. One is that none of this chapter’s translators resemble the
highly analytic, writer-oriented, semantics-prioritizing Derek or the highly
wholist, form-focused Carl. This chapter’s translators, therefore, are more like
Alan, Bruce and Ellen, who show few consistent differences.
A second possibility is that differences in how translators see themselves trans-
lating are stronger than differences in how they actually translate. Alternatively,
translators might report differences which do exist, but which are relatively pe-
ripheral overall. Hence this chapter’s translators confirmed Figure 18’s Early-Ver-
sion Wording difference (p. 180) between preferring alternative-solutions and
pure-line first versions – but this distinction soon turned out to be unimportant,
because afterwards they all alternated between both version types.
A third possibility is that Toen wij’s free-verse format did not force translators
to make choices that might have placed them towards the extremes of certain con-
tinua. Derek and Carl, for example, often translate source poems with rhyme and
rhythm, which might well force them to choose between approaches focused on
lexical vs. formal equivalence – but if they had both translated Toen wij, differ-
ences between them might have been less marked. The potential effects of poetic
form on strategies and shifts are explored in Chapter 6.