Comparison, Translation & Performance

I can distinguish supplied meaning from a translator’s interpretive choice and explain the effect of that choice.

Write one sentence describing rain without using the word rain. Compare two classmates’ versions. Which details came from the event, and which came from the writer?

1. What information or image appears to be preserved?
2. What has been compressed, expanded, specified, or omitted?
3. What happens to syntax, sound, line length, or ambiguity?
4. Does the translator explain something the source leaves uncertain?
5. What can we claim from the English versions—and what remains unknowable without the source language?

This is a course-created simulation, not a historical poem and not a real translation. The “source packet” supplies meaning only so we can isolate translation-like decisions.

Write 180–250 words comparing Versions A and B. Make one claim about a tradeoff: precision vs. ambiguity, image vs. literalness, sound vs. directness, or distance vs. intimacy.

Underline one sentence in your response that clearly separates evidence from inference.

I can compare two authentic translations using named criteria and accurate attribution.

Record: poet, source language when known, translator A, translator B, edition/source, date if available, and access location. Translation wording belongs to the translator as well as to the source tradition.

Use the Poetry Hall to locate a poem available in two lawful English translations or a dossier that identifies multiple versions. Complete the matrix and write a 250–350 word comparative paragraph.

Required claim form: “Translation A emphasizes ___, while Translation B preserves/creates ___; this difference matters because ___.”

“More literal,” “more beautiful,” and “more accurate” are not self-explanatory judgments. What criterion would make each defensible?

I can create a performance map that distinguishes punctuation, line break, enjambment, caesura, stanza break, pace, and emphasis.

Use evidence. A comma may slow the phrase; a period closes a sentence; a caesura creates an internal interruption; enjambment can pull syntax across the line; a stanza break may create a larger conceptual shift. A line ending alone does not always require a pause.

Mark / for light pause, // for strong pause, underline emphasis, draw an arrow through enjambed syntax, and circle one place where silence matters.

Read the poem twice with different plausible performance maps. Write 160–220 words explaining how one change in pause, pace, or emphasis changes the listener’s interpretation.

Revise four lines of your own poetry using punctuation as a guide to voice and pace. Then test the revision aloud. Keep the version that better serves meaning—not the one with more punctuation.

I can create the fourth Unit 4 poem and prepare an evidence-based performance plan.

Write an original 16–28 line poem designed to work both silently and aloud. It must contain a meaningful turn or shift. Your lineation, punctuation, sound pattern, repetition, pace, or silence should serve that turn.

Draft by hand, type directly, or use one of the optional studio tools. Writer’s Grove may generate constraints only; it may not generate the poem. PROSE may organize and preserve versions after intellectual work exists.

Select one poem from the four-poem portfolio for formal reading. Rehearse at least three times, changing only one variable each time: pace, emphasis, or pause. Keep notes about what improved and what became distorted.

Include planning or Draft 1 evidence and at least one meaningful revision for each portfolio piece.

Write 500–700 words comparing two English translations of one poem. Use an authentic pair from the Poetry Hall when accessible. Identify translators and source information. Develop a defensible claim about at least two dimensions: image/diction, syntax/lineation, sound/rhythm, ambiguity, cultural reference, tone, or implied speaker.

Fallback: if an authentic lawful pair is not accessible, use the Day 56 course simulation and explicitly label it a simulation. Analyze versioning choices; do not claim historical or linguistic accuracy.

Perform one portfolio poem in approximately 2–3 minutes including a brief introduction. Submit the annotated performance map showing breath, emphasis, pace, and the poem’s turn. Your introduction should name the poem and one interpretive choice—not explain the whole poem in advance.

Write 200–300 words: Which revision across the four poems most changed meaning? Which performance choice most changed meaning? What do you now understand about the relationship among page, sound, reader, and interpretation?

Mastery = 8/10. Below mastery: identify the lowest rubric dimension, complete targeted corrective practice, revise that dimension, and resubmit. The standard does not decrease.