This study offers a schema-theoretic framework for comprehending the translation process of classical Arabic poetry into English, highlighting the significance of schematic ideation in the target text and schematic comprehension in the source text. Four categories of schemata are distinguished in this model: culture-free, culture-bound, culture-sensitive, and language-bound. These four schematic categories are used to evaluate human, ChatGPT, and Gemini translations of a poetic corpus consisting of six individual verses and six stanzas. The findings show that the three translators perform very well in rendering thematic elements that feature culture-free and culture-bound schemata. However, ChatGPT and Gemini lag seriously behind human translation when handling culture-bound and culture-sensitive schemata, especially when they feature allusions to proper nouns, which causes them to offer incomprehensible translations. In terms of prosody, humans and ChatGPT lead the way, with Gemini falling behind by a small margin, especially when aligning thematic elements with prosodic features in culture-free and culture-bound schemata. In fact, the two AI systems present themselves as strong competitors to human translation in this regard. The conclusion emphasises the necessity of human expertise in capturing cultural nuances in poetic texts, as well as stressing the clear and valuable advantages of using AI-based systems in translating poetry while referring to some weaknesses.

Keywords: Poetry Translation; Schema Theory; Cogno-Prosodic Approach; Human Translation; AI-Powered Translation

Adams, R. M. (1973). Proteus, His Lies, His Truth: Discussions of Literary Translation. Norton.

Alowedi, N. A., & Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H. (2023). Artificial Intelligence based Arabic-to-English machine versus human translation of poetry: An analytical study of outcomes. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33, 1523–1538. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.800

Al-Salman, S., & Haider, A. S. (2024). Assessing the accuracy of MT and AI tools in translating humanities or social sciences Arabic research titles into English: Evidence from Google Translate, Gemini, and ChatGPT. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 8(4), 2483-2498.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.5.009

Boase-Beier, J. (2013). Poetry translation. In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies (pp. 475-487). Routledge.

Botirova, P., & Sobirova, R. (2019). Features of the Translation of Poetry into English. Theoretical & Applied Science(6), 383-387.

Burkhanov, I. (2003). Translation: Theoretical Prerequisites. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.

Dahlgren, M. (2019). Poetry translation and pragmatics. In R. T. L. Desilla (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics (pp. 239-256). Routledge.

Dastjerdi, H. V., Hakimshafaaii, H., & Jannesaari, Z. (2008). Translation of poetry: Towards a practical model for translation analysis and assessment of poetic discourse. Journal of Language & Translation, 9(1), 7-40.

Farghal, M. (1999). Failing the Discourse in Translation: A Schematic Perspective. International Journal of Translation, 1(2), 85-102.

Farghal, M. (2004). 'Two Thirds of a Boy are his Uncle's': The Question of Relevance in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 5(2), 257-269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1556/acr.5.2004.2.6

Farghal, M. (2023). Highlights from Classical Arabic Poetry in English Translation: A Schematic Model. Eliva Press.

Farghal, M., & Al‐Masri, M. (2000). Reader responses in Quranic translation. Perspectives: studies in Translatology, 8(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2000.9961370

Farghal, M., & Haider, A. S. (2024). Translating classical Arabic verse: human translation vs. AI large language models (Gemini and ChatGPT). Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2410998. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2410998

Gao, R., Lin, Y., Zhao, N., & Cai, Z. G. (2024). Machine translation of Chinese classical poetry: a comparison among ChatGPT, Google Translate, and DeepL Translator. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-10.

Gutt, E.-A. (1996). Implicit information in literary translation: A relevance-theoretic perspective. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 8(2), 239-256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/target.8.2.03gut

Haider, A. S., & AlKhatib, R. (2024). Subtitling English Legal Acronyms into Arabic: Human vs Machine. Kutafin Law Review, 11(4), 810-842. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2024.4.30.810-842

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English. Routledge.

Hamat, A. (2024). The Language of AI and Human Poetry: A Comparative Lexicometric Study. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 30(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2024-3002-01

Lahiani, R. (2020). Poetry in Translation: Traveling Pleonasm and Beyond. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 26(3), 96-109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2020-2603-08

Lahiani, R. (2022). Aesthetic poetry and creative translations: a translational hermeneutic reading. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01481-1

Lahiani, R., Alfalasi, T., Alzaabi, A., & Alhassani, N. (2023). Translations of overtones in classical Arabic poetry: Optimality theory as a quality assessment framework. Ampersand, 11, 100143. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100143

Munday, J., & Blakesley, J. (2016). Introduction Poetry Translation: Agents, Actors, Networks, Contexts. In (Vol. 25, pp. 1-9): Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF UK.

Munday, J., Pinto, S. R., & Blakesley, J. (2022). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Routledge.

Niknasab, L., & Pishbin, E. (2011). On the translation of poetry: A look at Sohrab Sepehri's traveler. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 5(1), 2-23.

Obeidat, M. M., Haider, A. S., Tair, S. A., & Sahari, Y. (2024). Analysing the Performance of Gemini, ChatGPT, and Google Translate in Rendering English Idioms into Arabic. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.51709/19951272/Winter2024/1

Pajares, E., & Romero, F. (1997). Translating and the reading process. Babel, 43(4), 289-302. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.43.4.02paj

Pallavi, K., & Mojibur, R. (2018). A preliminary pragmatic model to evaluate poetry translation. Babel, 64(3), 434-463.

Tsur, R., & Gafni, C. (2022). Metre, rhythm and emotion in poetry: A cognitive Approach. In R. Tsur & C. Gafni (Eds.), Sound–Emotion Interaction in Poetry (pp. 291-328). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Venuti, L. (2017). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.

Welch, R. A. (1972). The Translation of Poetry: Some Principles. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 61(244), 326-342.