Retranslation of Children's Books as Evidence of Changes of Norms

Miryam Du-Nour

Abstract

By comparing translations and retranslations of several children's books into Hebrew done over a span of 70 years we try to find out what linguistic and translational norms prevailed at different periods and what changes occurred in these norms, in a framework of the changing historical, cultural and linguistic situation. In recent years there has been a growing tension between the acceptability of the "commissioners" and that of the "customer"—the child. This study found that recent retranslations tend to lower the high literary style customary in previous translations and comply with up-to-date linguistic norms. This concurs with a tendency to put "readability" as a central issue.

Table of contents

A translated text can be accounted for from many points of view and positioned along various scales, such as adequacy vs. acceptability (as defined e.g. in Toury 1980), or scopus vs. loyalty (as defined in Reiß and Vermeer 1984, Vermeer 1990, and especially Nord 1991). However, as already maintained in House (1977) and Vermeer (1983), these scales themselves can only be established in relation to the respective positions of the source and target texts in situations of their respective worlds. These situations include language- and [ p. 328 ]culture-bound constraints and norms, which are subject to changes along with changes of situation. The description of a number of texts which came into being under similar circumstances, and of their positions on the various scales can convey to us conventions and norms valid for a certain type of texts at a certain time in a certain culture (see e.g. the studies by Vanderauwera 1985; Van Gorp 1985; Lambert et al. 1985). By contrast, comparing translations of the same texts which were done in different periods of time will convey to us the dynamics of these conventions and norms (see e.g. Toury 1980a; Roberts 1992). The present study is an attempt to trace some of the changes of norms of translation into Hebrew, especially in the linguistic-stylistic domain, by comparing a series of revisions and retranslations of the same books, all designated for the young reader, over a period of seventy years.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Agmon-Fruchtman, Maya
1984 “Ha-laŝon ha-meduberet ke-me’afyenet signon be-ŝirat ha-yeladim ha-ivrit”. Baruch and Fruchtman 1984: 185–194.Google Scholar
Baruch, Miri and Maya Fruchtman
eds. Mexkarim be-sifrut yeladim Jerusalem Ocar Hamore
Ben-Shahar, Rina
1983Lešon ha-di’alog ba-drama ha-Ivrit. Tel-Aviv University. [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.]Google Scholar
1989 “Alisa be-erec ha-pla’ot: kavim lešoniyim-signoniyim le-tirgumo šel Aharon Amir”. Ma’gale kri’a 18. 75–89.Google Scholar
Bergson, Gershon and Arie Levy
1975 “Mexkar be-kri’at yeladim”. Sifrut yeladim vanoar 4. 4–6.Google Scholar
1984 “Mexkar be-kri’at yeladim”. Sifrut yeladim vanoar 39–40. 18–20.Google Scholar
Bialik, Haim Nachman
1935Dvarim še-be’alpe. Tel-Aviv: Dvir.Google Scholar
Du-Nour, Miryam
1992 “Ha-lašon ašer bamaxaze ‘Alla Karim’”. Uzzi Ornan, Rina Ben-Shahar and Gideon Toury, eds. Ha-Ivrit safa xaya. Haifa University 1992 175–188.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Basmat
1992 “Translation Policy in Hebrew Children’s Literature: The Case of Astrid Lindgren”. Poetics Today 13:1. 231–245.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1979 “Polysystem Theory”. Poetics Today 1:1–2. 287–310.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1987 [11978] “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem”. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13:2. 107–115.Google Scholar
Fichman, Jacob
1921 “Al ha-gan we-sifruto”. Ha-xinux 5. 110–115.Google Scholar
1927 “Ha-yeled ha-kore: ha-yeš sifrut yeladim?Ha-xinux 10. 40–47; 81–85.Google Scholar
Gertz, Nurith
1983Xirbet Xiz’e ve-ha-boker šelamoxorat. Tel-Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
Harel, Shlomo
1983 “Mi-Bialik ad Atlas”. Adir Cohen, ed. Iyunim be-sifrut yeladim vano’ar. Haifa: Haifa University 1983 8–30.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
ed. 1985The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1977A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lambert, José, Lieven D’hulst and Katrin van Bragt
1985 “Translated Literature in France, 1800–1850”. Hermans 1985: 149–163.Google Scholar
Langerman, Shoshana
1959 “Ma kor’im talmide kitot xet”. Megamot 10:1. 3–11.Google Scholar
Ma’apil, Avi
1989Icuv u-meci’ut ba-siporet šel S. Yizhar. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.]Google Scholar
[ p. 346 ]
Nord, Christiane
1991 “Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ofek, Uriel
1975 “Siyur be-mamlexet ha-tirgum”. Sifrut yeladim va-noar 4. 27–37.Google Scholar
1985 “Tirgum ma’ase omanut”. Sifrut yeladim va-noar 42–43. 33–35.Google Scholar
Pinchover, Shoshana, Ofra Hirshenberg and Michael Hen
1958 “Ma kore ha-noar”. Megamot 9:4. 3–14.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-theorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Roda P.
1992 “The Concept of Function of Translation and Ist Application to Literary Texts”. Target 4:1. 1–16.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Shavit, Zohar
1981 “Translation of Children’s Literature as a Function of Its Position in the Literary Polysystem”. Poetics Today 4:2. 171–179.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Avraham
1960 “Sifrut yeladim o sifrut yaldutit”. Yalku Ešel. Merxavia: Hakibutz ha-artzi 1960 154–157.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1977Normot šel tirgum ve-ha-tirgum ha-sifruti le-Ivrit, 1930–1945. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1980a “German Children’s Literature in Hebrew Translation: The Case of Max und Moritz”. Toury 1980: 140–159.Google Scholar
1992 “ ‘Lower-Paradise’ in a Cross-Road: Sifting a Hebrew Translation of a German Schlaraffenland Text through a Russian Model”. Harald Kittel, ed. Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung /Histories, Systems, Literary Translations. Berlin: Erich Schmidt 1992 46–65.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985 “The Response to Translated Literature: A Sad Example”. Hermans 1985: 198–214. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gorp, Hendrik
1985 “The European Picaresque Novel in the 17th and 18th Centuries”. Hermans 1985: 136–148.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J.
1983Aufsätze zur Translationstheorie. Heidelberg: mimeo.Google Scholar
1990 “Texttheorie und Translatorisches Handeln”. Target 2:2. 219–242.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Walden, Zvia
1984 “Šibušim, šipucim ve-xidušim”. Baruch and Fruchtman 1984: 195–205.Google Scholar
Weissbrod, Rachel
1989Megamot be-tirgum siporet me-Anglit le-Ivrit, 1958–1980. Tel Aviv University. [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.]Google Scholar
Zehavi, Alex
1980 “He’arot axadot al lešon ha-tirgum be-sifre yeladim”. Sifrut yeladim va-noar 23. 17–19.Google Scholar
Zmora, Israel
1979 “Al tadunu et ha-yeladim le-lašon dala!". Sifrut yeladim va-noar 21. 33–35.Google Scholar