The Reception of Wuthering Heights in China: English-Chinese Translation, Dissemination, and Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights has been translated, disseminated, and adapted for various Chinese audiences. This study employed historical and archival research methods to probe this phenomenon. We retrieved data from Wuthering Heights and its Chinese-translated versions, children’s literature works, monographs, academic papers from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and comments from the Douban Movie website. First, the researchers investigated Wuthering Heights’ translation in China from monographs and academic papers to explore the features of representative Chinese-translated versions. Second, the researchers explored Wuthering Heights’ dissemination in foreign literature education and literary study in China by analyzing the literature textbooks and academic papers. Third, the researchers examined the features of children’s literature works adapted from Wuthering Heights and the comments viewers made on the films adapted from the novel. The researchers found that the past nine decades witnessed the successful reception of Wuthering Heights in China for four reasons. First, the policies in the literary field contributed to its translation. Second, the reviews of the work in British literature textbooks and academic studies promoted the original text’s dissemination. Third, disseminating the movie adaptations enables more Chinese readers to know the classic, contributing to the original text’s dissemination. Fourth, the transmission of the children’s extracurricular bilingual reading material adapted from it gave Chinese teenagers a chance to know the novel’s plot and enhanced their reading ability, promoting the dissemination of Wuthering Heights in China.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".