Poetry Translating as Expert Action
Geo Hugo Irene Francis Draft 2 Draft 3
Fleur .82 .78 .80 .73 Draft 1 .86
Geo .86 .96 .98 Draft 2 .92
Hugo .78 .80
Irene .94
Figure 40. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (inter-translator and inter-draft correlations)^18
strong .86 and a very strong .92. Nevertheless, similar overall priorities may con-
ceal differences on certain key micro-sequences. These are discussed where rele-
vant in the following sub-sections, which examine individual foci.
5.3.5.2 Lexis
Translators spent a striking amount of time seeking equivalents for words and fixed
expressions: Lexis took up no less than 31.4% of strategic working time (Figure
39), especially in Draft 1 (Figure 41). Transcripts reveal that translators concen-
trated in Draft 1 on establishing a lexical-equivalence framework. Drafts 2 and 3
involved trouble-shooting and fine-tuning, and searching for receptor-language
items that conveyed the precise nuances and multiple meanings of problematic
source lexis. In the Draft 2 extract below, for example, Geoff uses a range of re-
sources (dictionary, source-poet input and thesaurus) to tackle Line 5’s strovuur:
Draft 1
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Percentag of tape-units
Draft 2 Draft 3
RHYME
INTERTEXTUALITY
PARALLELISMSOUND (MISC.)TEXT-HELPER
E VALUAT ERHYTHM
SPONTANEOUS CHANGE
GRAM/DISCFEEL/FLOW
SCANIMAGELEXIS
Figure 41. Toen wij: tape-units per focus (percentages by Draft, all translators combined)
- Pearson r; all are highly significant.