A Study on the Translation Strategies of Chinese Culture Loaded Words from the Perspective of Domestication and Foreignization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of global economic integration, the political, economic and cultural exchanges between countries around the world are getting closer and closer. Translation has become one of the key means in cross-cultural communication and is indispensable. Because of different geographical environments and cultural backgrounds, countries all over the world have formed their own distinctive language and culture, among which culture loaded words have also been born. The task of translation is to use the cultural details of one language to transform the cultural details of another language, so the final translation effect is related to the translator's grasp of the two cultures. Based on this, translation theorists propose two translation strategies, namely, domestication and foreignization. Culture loads the command of cultural connotation carried by words, so it is more difficult to fully convey such words than to translate them into ordinary languages. In this regard, this paper studies the translation of culture loaded words, and explores the translation strategies of Chinese culture loaded words from the perspective of domestication and foreignization.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it