世界文学根据维基百科的流行和书籍翻译:现代意大利诗人的情况

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE
J. Blakesley
{"title":"世界文学根据维基百科的流行和书籍翻译:现代意大利诗人的情况","authors":"J. Blakesley","doi":"10.3366/ccs.2020.0373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most studies of world literature ignore statistics about the translation, circulation and reception of literary works, since no way exists to find such information on a global scale. Because of this, Western scholars generally assume that certain figures are canonical everywhere in the world, such as Shakespeare and Dante. This paper proposes a new and different approach to the study of literary canonicity, by drawing on an almost completely untapped dataset (the 310 global Wikipedias) and comparing Wikipedia popularity and newly collected data on book translations. By examining diverse measures of global popularity of a corpus of 101 modern Italian poets, I aim both to integrate a new resource (Wikipedia) into the study of world literature as well as to newly problematize the very concept of world literature. I will show how shifting one's criterion of canonicity – whether the number of translations or the number of Wikipedia pageviews of an author – affects our understanding of what makes an author canonical or not. In the end, I argue, we have not yet developed a subtle enough way to determine the canonicity of authors. But this dual strategy of comparing translations and Wikipedia popularity does show us a potential way forward.","PeriodicalId":42644,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Critical Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"World Literature According to Wikipedia Popularity and Book Translations: The Case of Modern Italian Poets\",\"authors\":\"J. Blakesley\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/ccs.2020.0373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most studies of world literature ignore statistics about the translation, circulation and reception of literary works, since no way exists to find such information on a global scale. Because of this, Western scholars generally assume that certain figures are canonical everywhere in the world, such as Shakespeare and Dante. This paper proposes a new and different approach to the study of literary canonicity, by drawing on an almost completely untapped dataset (the 310 global Wikipedias) and comparing Wikipedia popularity and newly collected data on book translations. By examining diverse measures of global popularity of a corpus of 101 modern Italian poets, I aim both to integrate a new resource (Wikipedia) into the study of world literature as well as to newly problematize the very concept of world literature. I will show how shifting one's criterion of canonicity – whether the number of translations or the number of Wikipedia pageviews of an author – affects our understanding of what makes an author canonical or not. In the end, I argue, we have not yet developed a subtle enough way to determine the canonicity of authors. But this dual strategy of comparing translations and Wikipedia popularity does show us a potential way forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Critical Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Critical Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/ccs.2020.0373\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Critical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/ccs.2020.0373","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

大多数对世界文学的研究忽略了有关文学作品翻译、流通和接收的统计数据,因为没有办法在全球范围内找到这些信息。正因为如此,西方学者通常认为某些人物在世界各地都是典型的,比如莎士比亚和但丁。本文提出了一种新的、不同的方法来研究文学经典性,方法是利用一个几乎完全未开发的数据集(全球310个维基百科),并将维基百科的流行程度与新收集的书籍翻译数据进行比较。通过研究101位现代意大利诗人的全球受欢迎程度的不同衡量标准,我的目标是将一种新的资源(维基百科)整合到世界文学的研究中,并对世界文学的概念提出新的问题。我将展示如何改变一个人的标准 – 无论作者的翻译数量还是维基百科页面浏览量 – 影响我们对一个作家是否规范的理解。最后,我认为,我们还没有开发出一种足够微妙的方法来确定作者的经典性。但这种比较翻译和维基百科受欢迎程度的双重策略确实向我们展示了一条潜在的前进道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
World Literature According to Wikipedia Popularity and Book Translations: The Case of Modern Italian Poets
Most studies of world literature ignore statistics about the translation, circulation and reception of literary works, since no way exists to find such information on a global scale. Because of this, Western scholars generally assume that certain figures are canonical everywhere in the world, such as Shakespeare and Dante. This paper proposes a new and different approach to the study of literary canonicity, by drawing on an almost completely untapped dataset (the 310 global Wikipedias) and comparing Wikipedia popularity and newly collected data on book translations. By examining diverse measures of global popularity of a corpus of 101 modern Italian poets, I aim both to integrate a new resource (Wikipedia) into the study of world literature as well as to newly problematize the very concept of world literature. I will show how shifting one's criterion of canonicity – whether the number of translations or the number of Wikipedia pageviews of an author – affects our understanding of what makes an author canonical or not. In the end, I argue, we have not yet developed a subtle enough way to determine the canonicity of authors. But this dual strategy of comparing translations and Wikipedia popularity does show us a potential way forward.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信