Chapter 7. Conclusion
If unmotivated creative transformations do happen, writers’ and readers’ sche-
mata will probably place the text in the category of ‘imitations’ or ‘adaptations’
rather than ‘translations’. Just one translator in this book (David Harsent again:
p. 72) has been identified as using such techniques, which has two possible impli-
cations. One is that it is a fairly marginal practice – as suggested by that fact that
even receptor-language poets like Alan followed similar norms as their ‘linguist’
peers (see also the accounts of Ted Hughes’s translating practice in Csokits 1989,
and in Hughes 1989). Another is that this book’s aim of researching poetry transla-
tion meant that little data would be gathered about poetry adaptation.
Norms and habitus, however, also vary according to time, place and social
context. Close semantic loyalty may well be typical of the recent English-language
translators examined here. Thus 17th-century forebears, by contrast were much
less reluctant to use creative transformations (see, for instance, the translation ex-
amples in Weissbort and Eysteinsson 2006).7.2.4 Areas of variation
Perhaps surprisingly, the processes and practices identified in these studies ap-
peared unaffected by differences between source languages. They also stayed large-
ly similar between translators and between poems, but there were some inter-
translator and inter-poem differences, as summarized below.7.2.4.1 Between translators
Within the broad consensus shared by this book’s poetry translators, some differ-
ences emerged. Thus emotion appears more important to some translators than to
others (e.g. Derek and Ellen respectively).
Cognitively, there were two main areas of difference. Firstly, translators have
different energy economies. They differ in translating speed and momentum, in
preferred number of drafts and draft length profile, but also in how much time
they are prepared to spend recreating complex intrinsic-form and stylistic fea-
tures, such as reactivated idioms, or rhyme and rhythm. Secondly, these studies
suggested differences in cognitive orientation. Of the ten translators studied
closely, one claimed a strongly analytic, item-by-item focus, one claimed to prefer
wholist work, and eight alternated, or claimed to alternate, between both orienta-
tions. This might well reflect the bell-curve typical of many psychological orienta-
tions, where most people take a middle position, with fewer at either extreme. As
this conclusion is based on two small-scale studies with different subjects and
methods, however, it must remain a hypothesis until confirmed or disconfirmed
by a larger-scale study.