André Lefevere classifies translation into several categories: phonemic, literal, metrical, rhymed, prose rendering, blank verse, and interpretative translation, each with distinct aims regarding sound, meaning, and form. His approach emphasizes that translation is not merely a word-for-word process but involves cultural, literary, and ideological considerations. Ultimately, Lefevere highlights the delicate balance between preserving the original's essence and allowing for creative adaptation in the target language.

1. Andre Lefevere’s classification
of translation
1. Phonemic translation: this aims at reproducing the sound of the SL text in the TL text.
2. Literal translation: this aims at word for word translation
3. Metrical translation: this aims at reproducing the matter of the original text in the
translation.
4. Rhymed translation: this aims at reproducing the rhyme of the SL text in the TL language
text.
5. Prose rendering: this aims at rendering a poem into a prose translation.
6. Blank verse: this aims at translating a rhymed poem by turning it into a blank verse poem.
7. Interpretative translation: this translation does not stop with word for word translation. It
aims at the translator interpreting the SL text according to his own light.

2. PHONEMIC TRANSLATION:
1. Phonemic translation aims to recreate the sounds of the source language (SL) in
the target language (TL). Simultaneously, the translator strives to convey
the meaning of the original text.
2. By focusing on sound patterns, phonemic translation seeks to capture the poetic
essence without sacrificing semantic content.
3. It works best when it translates least—meaning that it is moderately successful
when it avoids excessive distortion of the target text.
• In summary, Andre Lefevere’s phonemic translation emphasizes the
delicate balance between sound and meaning, allowing poetry to
resonate across linguistic boundaries.

3. LITERAL TRANSLATION:
• In this approach, the translator aims to reproduce the source
language (SL) text word-for-word into the target language (TL).
• Rather than focusing on interpretation or creative adaptation,
literal translation prioritizes maintaining the exact linguistic
elements of the original poem.
• It can be seen as an attempt to capture the phonemic aspects of
the source text, including its sounds and rhythm.

4. METRICAL TRANSLATION:
• Translation in which there is an attempt at metrical reproduction.
Like literal translation, concentrating on the metre might result in
distortion of sense and the overall qualities of the text as a whole.
Poetry into prose: This can capture the sense, but the poetic
qualities tend to get lost.

5. RHYMED TRANSLATION:
1. In rhymed translation, the translator faces the challenge of maintaining both
the metrical structure (such as the rhythm and syllable count) and the rhyming
pattern of the original poem.
2. To achieve rhyme, the translator may need to change the communicative value of
certain words or use ready-made utterances in the target language. However, this can
sometimes distort or decrease the communicative impact of the original words.
3. The delicate balance lies in preserving the poetic form while ensuring that the translated
text remains meaningful and resonant in the target language.
• André Lefevere’s approach recognizes that translation involves more than just
matching words on the page; it requires understanding the cultural, literary,
and ideological considerations that shape the choices made by translators.

6. BLANK VERSE TRANSLATION:
1. Lefevere’s blank verse translation strategy deals with the use of traditional iambic pentameter or
a freer form.
2. The metrical scheme can be either traditional (following established patterns) or self-
imposed (created by the translator).
3. It involves a delicate balance between adhering to a scheme and deviating from it, allowing
room for both rules and exceptions.
• In summary, Lefevere’s metrical translation strategy acknowledges the rhythmic and
metrical aspects of poetry, while also allowing for creative adaptation within the
target language

7. PROSE RENDERING TRANSLATION:
• Lefevere believed that the translator’s task is to make the source text accessible to
readers who might not be familiar with its variations. To achieve this, the translator
replaces the original author’s variations with their equivalents in a different
language, time, place, and tradition.
• In prose rendering, the focus is on conveying the meaning of the original poem
rather than adhering strictly to its poetic form (such as rhyme or meter).
• The translator aims to create a readable and coherent prose version that captures
the essence of the source text while allowing for cultural and linguistic adaptation.
• Essentially, prose rendering prioritizes clarity and accessibility, making poetry more
approachable for a wider audience

8. INTERPRETATIVE TRANSLATION:
• Lefevere considered translation as a form of rewriting. He likened it to the refraction of light,
where the source text acts as a beam of light, and the translator functions as a prism. The
translator bends and manipulates the source text, allowing different colors (or
interpretations) to emerge.
• In interpretative translation, the focus is not merely on linguistic fidelity but
on reinterpreting the original text within the cultural and ideological context of the target
language.
• The translator engages with the source text, making choices that align with
specific ideologies or poetics, resulting in a new version that reflects both the original and
the translator’s creative input.
• Essentially, interpretative translation acknowledges that every act of translation involves
interpretation, adaptation, and the negotiation of cultural meanings. It goes beyond literal
rendering to capture the spirit and resonance of the original work.

9. THANKYOU