Poetry Translating as Expert Action
However, all the source languages examined in depth are modern, and most
(except for two Turkic languages used by a translator from Chapter 4) are Euro-
pean. Though differences between these languages seemed not to affect attitudes,
processes and textual decisions, it would be useful to see if this holds true with
older source languages, or language pairs that are culturally or linguistically more
diverse. For example, Yù jiē yuàn in Chapter 1 shows Chinese classical poetry’s
exceptional semantic and metrical density, and its richness of allusion to a long-
gone world that is little known in other continents. Continuing the pioneering
work of Lam (1991) and Liao (2002) by further investigating the real-time proc-
esses of translating such poems into a modern European language would almost
certainly add to this book’s picture of poetry-translating challenges and solutions.
Similarly, the only receptor language examined in depth was modern English.
Though this makes this book’s studies directly comparable, it would be useful to
see how far its production-team and interest-network findings hold true with oth-
er translation directions than dominated → dominant language, or (as mentioned
earlier) in other socio-political settings than those of civil conflict: the translation
of French poetry into Danish or Thai, for instance. Adding other receptor lan-
guages and times of translating would also show which norms and habitus seem
specific to certain receptor cultures, and which seem more widespread.
There are also still gaps in our knowledge of factors and settings. Firstly, re-
constructing the anatomy of poetry translation projects after the event, as in
Chapters 2 and 3, is a useful exploratory technique. But there is also a need for
insider and ‘ethnographic’ reports on poetry translation projects as they unfold –
following Buzelin’s report on a literary prose translation project (2006), or Kosk-
inen’s ethnography of European-Union translators (2008).
Secondly, the studies in this book do not directly address the issue of poetry
translation quality. But it would be useful to know what the consensuses and dif-
ferences are among those who judge whether poetry translations are fit for pur-
pose: what their acceptability threshold might be, for example, and or how they
distinguish between acceptable and excellent translations.
Another set of questions relates to poetry-translator training and develop-
ment: for instance, what are the differences between novices and experts in process
and product terms, and how do novices become experts? Here one could further
explore the routes followed by the two types of novice in Liao’s study (2002): train-
ee prose translators and trainee poets respectively. This in turn points to the need
for research exploring the links and differences between translating poetry and
writing original poetry – for example, comparing how the first literal translations
and original-poem sketches are developed into viable poems.
In all the above directions, this book’s model can supply a powerful frame-
work for research. It would show, for example, how we could analyse a novice