Page 82 - AC-3-3

Arts & Communication Advanced macro-image model for poetry translation

defined by their mutual interdependence. Recognizing this the text structure and compliance with the poetic model.
interdependence leads to a more flexible presentation of Translation studies often treat dominance separately from
both plans within literary works. The idea that the plan poetics. For instance, the Revzin–Rosenzweig scheme
29
of expression of a work encompasses both expression and attempted to merge the classifications of translation by
content of the language is well articulated in Hjelmslev’s implementation types (literal, simplifying, interlinear,
24
work, where the plan of the content of the work should exact, free, or adequate translation) with classifications
be understood as an artistic structure. The specificity based on language function (business, sacred, journalistic,
26
of poetic language as a special language function lies in or artistic). However, these efforts have not been fully
the fact that this “further” or “wider” meaning does not realized. Similarly, Newmark categorized texts based on
have its separate sound form; rather, it serves as a form of stable dominants – symbol-oriented, symptom-oriented,
another meaning that is understood literally. and signal-oriented – while Reiss’s classification was
30
The literary nature of the texts allows us to understand based on Bühler’s language functions (form and address,
31
how specific forms actualize the artistic structure of a content orientation), allowing the opportunity to discuss
specific text under the plan of expression. The content informative, expressive, and operative translation texts.
plan of the text is outlined by its poetic model, which The limited effectiveness of these classifications is
Vyacheslav Ivanov first introduced in translational studies. associated with excessive linguisticity and immanence
This researcher defined the poetic model as a meaning that with the actual process of translation. As Torop suggests,
transcends literal translation; it encompasses not just the such classifications often confine translators within rigid
direct content but also the structure inherent in poetry. linguistic frameworks rather than considering broader
The poetic model of a poetic text should be a matter of stylistic dimensions. 3
literature, not the psychology of the author or individual Given that dominant relationships play an important
recipients. The poetic model actualizes the semantic role in translation, this clarification occurs during
27
structure while remaining influenced by genre, style, synthesis: analysis clarifies facts, while synthesis clarifies
historical context, national-cultural traditions, and forms. relationships. “Synthesizing is primarily a struggle
Only by elucidating the relationship between content with a multiplicity of impressions. A person strives to
and expression, we can discuss adequate translation and grasp the essence, to distinguish the important from the
understand why statements identical at the linguistic countless mass and discard the insignificant.” 32(p522) This
level may lose their identity within an entire text. The understanding of analysis and synthesis aligns with the
recognition that “if the forms are demarcated, then goal to replace the issue of free and literal translation with
semantic equivalence is distinguished a priori,” 28(p70) does the more significant problem of various dominants in the
not negate translatability. translation process – specifically, the distinction between
Explaining the significance (functions) of the elements the translator-oriented and reader-oriented approaches. 33
in the content and expression plans through their Nida and Levý identified three stages in translation:
23
34
interrelationship highlights a fundamental concept in with Nida emphasizing analysis (reduction of the original
poetic translation studies: the dominant. This concept work to nuclear constructions), switching (transposition of
refers to the essential elements and their relations within meanings into the target language based on the simplest
a poetic work, which guides the translator’s choices. Given structures), and changing the structure (creating a stylistic
that lossless translation is unattainable, the translator’s task and semantically equivalent expression in the translated
involves identifying which elements are most crucial in the language), and Levý focused on understanding,
34
translated work, which involves an objective analysis of the interpretation, and re-expression of the original work. In
23
text.
contrast, Torop offers a binary model consisting of analysis
The dominant is defined as the focal component of the and synthesis as two distinct stages. In addition, during
work of art; it controls, conditions, and transforms other translation, a literary text’s unified structure involves two
components, ensuring structural integration. It is inherently processes: recoding the expression plan into the target
objective and must arise from the artwork itself, rather than language’s expression plan and transposing the content
from historical contexts or consciousness of the recipient. plan into the content of the translation. While transcoding
This concept is necessary for analyzing the original text is mainly formal and linguistic, transposition involves
to facilitate adequate translation and for evaluating understanding the content, text structure, and poetic model,
translations based on their adherence to this dominant. In making it a literary and artistic process. Despite these
this context, additional elements and assumptions can be theoretical frameworks suggesting the interdependence
understood more clearly, as well as their functions within between processes in adequate translations, practical
3

Volume 3 Issue 3 (2025) 4 doi: 10.36922/ac.5990