Edinburgh Research Archive

Exploring (un)translatability: a practice-based case study on translation of Norwegian poetry

dc.contributor.advisor
Puzey, Guy
dc.contributor.advisor
Susam-Saraeva, Sebnem
dc.contributor.advisor
Thomsen, Bjarne
dc.contributor.author
Rankin, Rachel
dc.date.accessioned
2024-06-24T10:15:14Z
dc.date.available
2024-06-24T10:15:14Z
dc.date.issued
2024-06-24
dc.description.abstract
This thesis explores the feasibility of three different poetry translation approaches for two contrasting styles of Norwegian poetry using a practice-based, case-study methodology. The poetic styles in question are the rhyming, metrical poetry of Halldis Moren Vesaas (1907–95) and the hybrid, genre-transgressing poetry of Cecilie Løveid (1951– ). The poetry translation approaches in question are the literal approach, as championed by Stanley Burnshaw and Vladimir Nabokov; the double-aim approach, as championed by James S. Holmes; and the poetically viable approach, as championed by Barbara Folkart. By exploring the feasibility of these approaches for these two styles of poetry, I aim to find out how effective practice-based research can be in terms of creatively illustrating scholarly debates within Translation Studies, with the debate explored in this thesis being the question of poetic (un)translatability. This debate can also be described as the tension between instrumentalist and hermeneutic approaches to translation, as outlined by Lawrence Venuti. The three poetry translation approaches explored in this thesis have therefore been chosen based on their respective positions within this debate. The literal approach is a strictly instrumentalist approach as it takes the alleged untranslatable nature of poetry as a given and dictates that a literal translation must include an extensive analytical commentary. The double-aim approach dictates that a translation must reflect enough of the source poem content and microstructures for it to be considered a translation yet still function as a poem in its own right, and this approach can, therefore, be described as hermeneutic. The poetically viable approach dictates that the translator cut ties with the source poem as ruthlessly as may be necessary in order to create an entirely new poem, and this approach can be said to contain elements of both instrumentalism and hermeneutics. By engaging with the source poems using these three approaches, I aim not only to explore the feasibility of these approaches, but also to show how practice-based research can be used within the discipline of Translation Studies and to outline the benefits of engaging with this methodology, particularly in light of the appreciation of translation and creative writing as research in their own right.
en
dc.identifier.uri
https://hdl.handle.net/1842/41911
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4634
dc.language.iso
en
en
dc.publisher
The University of Edinburgh
en
dc.subject
Norwegian poetry
en
dc.subject
poetry translation
en
dc.subject
Halldis Moren Vesaas
en
dc.subject
Cecilie Løveid
en
dc.subject
literal translation
en
dc.subject
double-aim translation
en
dc.subject
poetically viable translation
en
dc.subject
practice-based research
en
dc.title
Exploring (un)translatability: a practice-based case study on translation of Norwegian poetry
en
dc.type
Thesis or Dissertation
en
dc.type.qualificationlevel
Doctoral
en
dc.type.qualificationname
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
en

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
Rankin2024.pdf
Size:
1.12 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)