Book Illustration as (Intersemiotic) Translation: Pictures Translating Words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines book illustrations through the prism of Translation Studies. It mainly suggests that the pictures in illustrated books are (intersemiotic) translations of the text and that, as such, they can be analyzed making use of the same tools applied to verbal interlingual translation. The first section deals with the theoretical bases upon which illustrations can be regarded as translations, concentrating on theories of re-creation, as illustration is viewed essentially as the re-creation of the text in visual form. One of the claims in this section is that, because illustration is carried out in very similar ways as interlingual translation itself, the term “intersemiotic” relates more to the (obvious) difference of medium. For this reason the word is most often referred to in parentheses. The second section discusses three particular ways through which illustrations can translate the text, namely, by reproducing the textual elements literally in the picture, by emphasizing a specific narrative element, and by adapting the pictures to a certain ideology or artistic trend. The example illustrations are extracted from different kinds of publication and media, ranging from Virgil’s Aeneid, Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to an online comic version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".