Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article takes a look at the translation of children’s literature intended for reading aloud. The pragmatic (or theoretical) point of departure is a ‘narrative contract’ between the child (audience) and the reader as in the oral tradition of yesteryear. It is therefore argued that, at least initially, children’s literature for reading aloud was a continuation of the narrative tradition in the extended family adapted to the conditions and mores of the nuclear family. The nuclear family was a 19th century innovation promoted by the new middle classes, and they best carried on the narrative tradition by means of stories such as those of the brothers Grimm in Germany and Hans Christian Andersen in Denmark. Referring to an informal questionnaire among Translation Studies scholars covering eleven countries, it is concluded that the tradition of reading aloud for children is alive and well. This leads to a model for the translational situation for read-aloud literature that calls for guiding principles in the exploration of differences between ‘originals’ and ‘translations.’ Having introduced such layers, viz. the structural, the linguistic, the content and intentional ones, a paratextual and chronological layer are also called for, because of the ubiquity of modern co-prints and the need to introduce diachronic perspectives. The article discusses decision-makers in the process of translation, such as publishers and the like, and also briefly views questions of translational traditions before it discusses translations of the Grimm Tales into English and Danish, to conclude that there are two different schools of ‘respectable translators,’ one targeting stories for reading aloud and another for silent reading, even though the translators may not be aware of this. The final part takes up questions concerning the translation of names, rhymes, and a highly complex text which is discussed in depth. The conclusion is that translation for reading aloud is an art requiring great competence of translators. It also ought to attract more attention from Translation Studies scholars because it questions fundamentals in translation work that are also found in other types of translation. Readers should read aloud the passages cited in order to appreciate the commentary!
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.067 |
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".