Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 14:1 (2002) ► pp.1–41

Evaluating translations of surrealist poetry

Adding Note-Down Protocols to Close Reading

 | University of York
Evaluating translations of poetry will always be difficult. The paper focuses on the problems posed by French surrealist poetry, where the reader was held to be as important as the writer in creating interpretations, and argues that evaluations involving these poems inevitably require reader-response data. The paper explores empirically, in the context of André Breton’s “L’Union libre”, whether a modification of Think-Aloud procedure, called Note-Down, applied both to the original text and to three English translations, can contribute useful information to a traditional close reading approach. The results suggest that comparative Note-Down protocols permit simple cost-benefit analyses and allow one to track phenomena, like the persistence of an effect through the text, which might be hard to obtain by other methods.
Keywords: translation evaluation, poetry translation, Breton, readerresponse, Think-Aloud, Note-Down, Surrealism, hypothesis testing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Translating poems: General considerations
    • 2.1Why surrealist texts constitute a serious problem for translation
    • 2.2Evaluating a translation of a poem
    • 2.3Close reading and reader response
  • 3.Breton’s “L’Union libre”: Conclusions from close reading
    • 3.1The poem and its composition
    • 3.2The translations
    • 3.3A close reading of the poem and published critical analyses
      • 3.3.1Structure and support
        • Translation 1: Antin
        • Translation 2: Cauvin and Caws
        • Translation 3: Howard
      • 3.3.2The metaphoric images
        • Ln1Ma femme à la chevelure de feu de bois
        • Ln2Aux pensées d’éclairs de chaleur
        • Ln3A la taille de sablier
        • Ln4Ma femme à la taille de loutre entre les dents du tigre
        • Ln5Ma femmeà la bouche de cocarde et de bouquet d’étoiles de dernière grandeur
      • 3.3.3The global structure of the poem and its message(s)
      • 3.3.4The translations
        • Translation 1: Antin
        • Translation 2: Cauvin and Caws
        • Translation 3: Howard
  • 4.Eliciting readers’ responses
    • 4.1Creating a Note-Down design for “L’Union libre”
      • 4.1.1Design and method
      • 4.1.2Subjects
      • 4.1.3Validation
        • French group
        • English group
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 January 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.1.02low
References (43)
References
Adamowicz, Elza. 1989. “Narcisse se noie: L’Union libre d’André Breton”. Romanic review 80:4. 571–581.Google Scholar
. 1998. Surrealist collage in text and image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Cambridge Studies in French, 56.]Google Scholar
Antin, David, tr. 1982. “Free union”. Paul Auster, ed. The Random House book of twentieth century poetry. New York: Random House. Republished by Vintage, 1984. 183–185.Google Scholar
Aspley, Keith. 1992. “Surrealism: The assault on meaning and the cult of the image”. Keith Aspley and Peter France, eds. Poetry in France: Metamorphoses of a muse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992. 219–235.Google Scholar
Bassnett, Susan. 1998. “Translating across cultures”. Hunston 1998 :72–85.Google Scholar
Besa, Josep. 1997. “Title, text, meaning”. Textual practice 11:2. 323–330.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bleich, David. 1978. Subjective criticism. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bonnet, Marguerite. 1975. André Breton: Naissance de l’aventure surréaliste. Paris: Corti.Google Scholar
et al., eds. 1988, 1992. André Breton: Œuvres Complètes. Paris: Gallimard. [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade.] Vol.I1 (1988), Vol. II1 (1992). Abbreviated as OCI and OCII, respectively.Google Scholar
Cauvin, Jean-Pierre and Mary Ann Caws. 1982. Poems of André Breton: A bilingual anthology. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Eliot, T.S. 1940/1971. The wasteland and other poems. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Verbal reports on thinking”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in second language research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1987. 22–54.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley E. 1980. “Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics”. Jane P. Thompkins, ed. Reader-response criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. 164–184.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Ray W. and Jody Bogdonovich. 1999. “Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor”. Metaphor and symbol 14:1. 37–44.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 1999. “Implications of research into translator invisibility”. Target 11:2. 201–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 1981. A model for translation quality assessment (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Politeness and translation”. Leo Hickey, ed. The pragmatics of translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998. 54–71.Google Scholar
Howard, Richard, tr. 1968. “Free union”. Nadeau 1964/1968 :284–285.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, ed. 1998. Language at work. Clevedon: BAAL/Multilingual Matters. [British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 3.]Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E.. 1998. “Why isn’t translation impossible?” Hunston 1998 :86–97.Google Scholar
Kintgen, E.R. 1977. “Reader response and stylistics”. Style 111. 1–18.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 202–251.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Low, Graham D. 1995. Answerability in attitude measurement questionnaires: An applied linguistic study of reactions to ‘Statement + Rating’ pairs. University of York. [DPhil thesis.]Google Scholar
. 1996. “Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis”. Applied linguistics 17:1. 1–37.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. “What respondents do with questionnaires: Accounting for incongruity and fluidity”. Applied linguistics 20:4. 503–533.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martineau-Genieys, Christine. 1969. “Autour des images et de l’érotique surréalistes: L’Union libre ”. Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Nice, 8 2 e tr. 171–186.Google Scholar
Matthews, J.H. 1967. André Breton. New York: Columbia University Press. [Columbia Essays on Modern Writers, 26.]Google Scholar
1977. The imagery of Surrealism. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Maurice. 1964/1968. The history of Surrealism, tr. Richard Howard. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1985. “The translation of metaphor”. Wolf Paprotté and René Dirven, eds. The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. 295–326.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polizzotti, Mark. 1995. The revolution of the mind: The life of André Breton. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Prendergast, Christopher, ed. 1990. Nineteenth century French poetry: Introductions to close reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Ivor A. 1926. The principles of literary criticism, 2nd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
. 1929. Practical criticism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Russo, J. Edward, Eric J. Johnson and Debra L. Stephens. 1989. “The validity of verbal protocols”. Memory and cognition 17:6. 759–769.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. forthcoming. “Metaphor and translation”. To appear in Journal of pragmatics.
Soon, Peng Su. 1994. Lexical ambiguity in poetry. London: Longman. [Studies in Language and Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Spector, Jack J.. 1997. Surrealist art and writing 1919/39: The gold of time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stratman, James F. and Liz Hamp-Lyons. 1994. “Reactivity in concurrent think aloud protocols: Issues for research”. Peter Smagorinsky, ed. Speaking about writing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994. 89–112.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Low, Graham
2005. Explaining evolution: the use of animacy in an example of semi-formal science writing. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 14:2 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Low, Peter
2003. Singable translations of songs. Perspectives 11:2 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.