Poetry Translating as Expert Action Processes, priorities and networks

 Poetry Translating as Expert Action

The poem’s or work’s translatability was another crucial selection criterion.

Translatability judgements were metacognitive, comparing the poem’s difficulty

against an assessment of one’s own expertise – what Carl called the “gut feeling ‘can

I do it?’”. This expertise could be extended by text helpers: access to the source

poet’s feedback, for instance, was a condition Carl reported setting when

considering a commission. Conversely, it could be restricted by poetic form: two

translators mentioned that they would refuse to work on rhymed originals. This

reluctance to work beyond one’s expertise contrasts with the attitude of Flynn’s

interviewees, who claimed that they would select poems “typical of a given poet”

even if they proved too challenging to translate adequately (2004: 276).

Interestingly, source-language knowledge emerged not as a selection criterion

but as a continuum of working patterns, because other translating agents could

provide that knowledge: see Figure 16. Some translators (Bruce and Derek) re-

ported translating only from languages they knew very well, and therefore worked

solo on early drafts. Alan, by contrast, reported translating mainly from a lan-

guage he did not know, which meant relying on co-translating partnerships. Oth-

er translators (Carl and Ellen), though mainly working from languages they knew

well, reported sometimes tackling source languages they knew less well or did not

know, helped by source-poem informants and co-translators respectively. No

interviewees claimed full insight into a source work’s meanings and allusions,

however, which meant that even solo early-drafters reported using source-poem

informants’ input for later drafts. Just one interviewee (Ellen) claimed native-level

knowledge of a source language, and thus reported using informants very rarely

for that language. Working with co-translators and informants is examined fur-

ther below (pp. 97–99).

Non-human resources are another way of augmenting knowledge. Besides us-

ing paper and electronic dictionaries (bilingual, source-language only and target-

language-only), translators mentioned annotated academic editions of the source

poems, and historical source-language dictionaries – which brings us to the proc-

esses of translating proper, the topic of the next section.

Full SL knowledge, solo early dras No SL knowledge, co-translating

Bruce Carl Alan

Derek Ellen

Figure 16. Source-Language Knowledge Continuum