Translating Gender in the 1980s: A New Historicist Perspective to Translations of Gladys Yang’s Love Must Not Be Forgotten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article investigates the translation of Love Must not be Forgotten by British translator Gladys Yang from the perspective of New Historicism, focusing especially on the gender issues in the translation. The research first introduces New Historicism and explores the possibility of combining New Historicism and translation studies together. Then, case studies are conducted. The analysis of the translation, along with the analysis of many other texts, both literary and non-literary, such as newspaper or journal articles, considers three aspects. These are, namely: the translator’s manipulation of the text; the ideas that the translator holds, and how all those texts, or discourses, create the positive representation of China in terms of gender issues in the 1980s. The paper, by using a Foucauldian approach, links translation, gender, and New Historicism together and thus successfully creates an interdisciplinary zone of enquiry. Overall, it can serve as a good example of how New Historicism and translation studies can be combined.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".