Constraints in Lin Shu’s Literary Translation: A Social-Cultural Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lin Shu was one of the most famous translators in modern China. He was a monolingual who had to rely heavily on his collaborators in his translation. Therefore, translators or critics often find faults with him, criticizing that Lin Shu seemed to have been more concerned about spinning his own yarn than acting as a faithful intermediary between the original writer and his Chinese reader. Most of these studies on Lin’s translation were carried out through traditional linguistic approach. The traditional translation study focuses on the analysis of linguistic transformation and puts the principle of “faithfulness to the original” on the first place, ignoring the social-cultural factors. Based on Lefevere’s view of constraint, this paper tries to make a detailed analysis of ideological and poetical factors that manipulated Lin Shu. It comes to the conclusion that the ideology and poetics of the target culture are the most important factors that influenced the translator when he selected, understood and reproduced the sour text. Key words: Lin Shu’s literary translation; Ideological constraint; Poetical constraint
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".