over the SL function into the TT (Baker, 1998, p. 194). According to Baker (1998) Gardner’s translations of Dutch poet Remcc Campert (2007) suggested that successful translation of poetry does not depend upon the reader’s belief that the translated poem is an original (p. 195). Yet translators like Minhinnick pointed out that they attempt to ‘restyle’ the poems where necessary (Baker, 1998, p. 195).
Meanwhile, Baker (1998, p. 196), elaborated the idea that there is something peculiar to poetry which, if captured in translation, will allow the poetic effects of the original to be recreated is implicit in descriptions of poetic translation as writing which captures what Pope called the ‘spirit’ or Rowan Williams the ‘energy’ of the original poem. One way of making this abstract notion more concrete is to equate it with style, because style can be seen as the result of the poet’s choices and therefore the embodiment of poetic voice or mind as well as that which engages the reader (1998, p. 197). In fact, this focus on style as central to poetic translation is found especially in the writings of:
1. Translators who are themselves poets and can be assumed to have an inherent (perhaps unconscious) knowledge of how poetry works (e.g. Pope, Paterson or Williams).
2. Critics who take the view that a theoretical understanding of poetry is essential not only to the reading of translated poetry but also to the act of translation.
Some of the elements that have been put forward as distinctive of poetic style are:
1. Its physical shape including use of lines and spaces on a page
2. Its use of inventive language and, in particular, patterns of sound and structure
3. Its openness to different interpretations
4. Its demand to be read nonpragmatically
5. Its openness to different interpretations
6. Its demand to be read nonpragmatically
Discussions on the nature of poetry suggested that there might be poetic characteristics that are universal; Yet poetic traditions vary from one culture to another this is also an important consideration in translating poetry (Baker, p. 199).
Translators often try to recast the original in terms of the poetics of their own culture, simply to make it pleasing to the new audience and, in doing so, to ensure that the translation will actually be read. Some rules a good translator needs to observe are:
1. To find between the poetics of the original and the poetics of their culture provide fascinating insights into the process of acculturation and incontrovertible evidence of the extent of the power of a given poetic
2. The translator must be observed with greater diligence in languages that have not yet become established in the field of art than in others.
3. The translator should observe the figures of speech, namely that he should link and arrange words with such sweetness that the soul is satisfied and the ears are pleased. He should never object to harmony in language (Levefere, 1992, pp. 24-27).
4. The translator must understand to perfection the meaning and the subject matter of the author he translates. If he understands this he will never be obscure in his translation and if the author he translates is in no way obscene, he will be able to make him easily and perfectly intelligible.
5. The translator should know the language of the author he translates to perfection and that he should have achieved the same excellence in the language he wants to translate into. In that way he will neither violate nor denigrate the splendor of one language or the other the translator also must understand that every language has its own characteristics, and therefore its diction, its patterns of speech, its subtleties, and its power must be translated accordingly. If the translator does not know this, he will hurt the author he translates and also the language he translates him into, for he will neither represent nor express the dignity and the riches of the two languages he has taken in hand.
6. When s/he translates s/he should not enter into slavery to the point of rendering word for word. Whoever translates in this way does so because his mind is poor and deficient. In other words, he will work with sentences and not care about the order of the words, and he will see to it that the author’s intention is expressed while miraculously preserving the characteristics of both languages (Baker, 1998, pp. 196-7).
Nida (as cited in Venuti, 2000) believes that in translating poetry:
“There is obviously a greater focus of attention upon formal elements than one normally find in prose. Not that content is necessarily sacrificed in translation of a poem, but the content is necessarily constricted into certain formal molds.” Nida (as cited in Venuti, 2000) elaborated that only rarely can one reproduce both content and form in a translation, and hence in general the form is usually sacrificed for the sake of the content. On the other hand, a lyric poem translated as a prose is not an adequate equivalent for the original. Though it may reproduce the conceptual content, it falls far short of reproducing the emotional intensity and flavor. However, the translating of some types of poetry by prose may be dictated by important cultural consideration (p.154).
2.8.2. Types of Poetry Translation
Lefevere (1992, p. 34) elaborated on this issue and regarded translation as “rewriting by means of which new concepts, genres and devices are introduced to the target literature. He (1992) also stated that the history of translation is also the history of literary innovation, of the shaping power of one culture upon another (p. 34). Lefevere (1992) pointed out the shaping effect of one culture over another can most vividly be seen in the translation of a literary text, for literature poetry in particular- is the expression of a nation’s sorrow, happiness, etc. it is through translation that a nation can share its experiences with others. Therefore, the translators of literary texts must be familiar with the culture of the source language and culture and try to make their best to make use of the most effective strategies in order to translate a literary text (p. 34).
Lefevere (1992) discusses: “different poetics dominant at different stages in the evolution of a literary system will judge both writings rewritings, in different, irreconcilable ways, all based on good faith and conviction that each is the representative of truth (p. 34).” He (1992) also believed that when translating a poem , the translator must be aware of the dominant poetics because the poetics of a given period in a given culture often’ forces translators to privilege one strategy at the expense of the original at the expense of the second, due to different language differences (p. 34).
Raffel (1991) pointed out poetry represents writing in its most compact, condensed and high-tened form, in which the language is predominantly connotational rather than denotational and in which form and content are inseparably linked. Poetry is also informed by a ‘musical mode’ or inner rhythm, regardless of whether there is any formal meter or rhyming pattern, which is one of the elusive yet essential characteristics of the work that the translator is called upon to translate (p. 95).
Jones (1997) (as cited in Ghanooni, 2008) discussed four different levels or types of poetry translation:
1. Literal Translation
Literal translation is similar to ‘formal equivalence’, regarding which Nida (1964, p. 159) writes:’ formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in source language’ (cited in Jeremy Munday, 2001, p. 41).
Catford (1965, p. 27) used the term ‘formal correspondence’ and describes it as ‘target language category (unit, class, element of structure, etc.) which can be said occupy, as nearly as c
egory occupies in the source language’ (as cited in Munday, 2001, p. 60). Newmark (1981) maintained that ‘communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best; it’s the only valid method of translation’ (p. 39). Beekman and Callow (1974/1989, p. 23) argued that ‘modified literal translation’ in which some lexical and grammatical adjustment are made in order to avoid the errors which may arise for literalism.
As quoted by Hatim and Mason (1990), Nabokov (1964) said that literal translation is rendering as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Only this is true translation. It is when the translator sets out to render the ‘spirit’, and not the mere sense of the text, that he begins to traduce his author (pp. 14-15).
Approximation is another level or type of poetry translation in which the translator is faithful to some sensible translation may be produced; in adaptation, faithfulness to the original is less than that in approximation (Ghanooni, p. 38).
According to Jeremy Munday (2001, p. 58) adaptation involves changing the cultural reference when a situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture. In other words, adaptation, as Vinay and Darbelnet cited (in L. Vnuti, 2000, p. 90) is used in cases where the type of situation being referred to by the source language message is unknown in the target language culture.
Imitation creation of a new poem in the target language with the theme of that in the source language this type of poetry translation is mostly practiced by poet translators. As R. Jackson (2001) writes in ‘from translation to imitation’, ‘Ben Johnson had defined imitation in his Timber as merely a poem loosely based on another poem’. Regarding imitation, Jackson quotes Dryden as saying: “the translation(if now he has not lost that name)assumes the liberty, not only to vary words and sense, but to forsake them both as he sees occasion; and only taking some general hints from the original, to run division on the groundwork, as he pleases(p. 3).”
As Dryden (1680/1992, p. 17) stated imitation is a kind of translation and is more or less similar to adaptation. In imitating a poem, the imitator learns from it in order to create a poem of his own, retaining the theme of first in new one. Therefore although the two poems are different in the wordings, they are similar to each other in having the same theme.
Dryden (1680/1992, p. 17), as quoted by Jeremy Munday (2001, p. 25) reduced all translation to three categories:
1. ‘Metaphrase’: ‘word-by-word’ and line by line translation, which corresponds to literal translation.
2. ‘Paraphrase’: ‘translation with latitude, when the author is kept in view by the translation, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense’; this involves changing whole phrases and more or less corresponds to faithful or sense-for-sense translation.
3. ‘Imitation’: for saking’ both words and sense; this corresponds to Cowley’s very free translation and is more or less adaptation.
2.8.3. Methods of translating poetry
Bassnet and Lefevere (1990) note some methods by English translators in translating Catullu’s poems:
1. Phonemic translation attempts to recreate the sounds of the SL in the TL. And at the same time the translator tries to transfer the meaning. According to lefevere, in general the result sound awkward and sometimes leaves some parts of the original meaning behind.
2. Literal translation means word-for-word translation. This method will not be able to transfer the original meaning; while the phrase and sentence structures tend to fall by the way side in the TL.
3. Metrical translation emphasizes the reproduction of