53

0045-6713/02/0300-0053/0 � 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Children’s Literature in Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2002 (� 2002)

Akiko YamazakiAkiko Yamazaki holdsan M.A. in Area Studiesfrom the University ofTokyo and an M.A. inChildren’s Literaturefrom the University ofSurrey Roehampton.She is presently study-ing for a Ph.D at theUniversity of Tokyo, fo-cusing on the represen-tations of time intwentieth-century En-glish children’s litera-ture.

Why Change Names? On theTranslation of Children’s Books

Translation of a literary work is never an automatic process butalways poses many problems caused by the differences between twolinguistic and cultural systems. The difficulty seems to be enhancedif the work to be translated is for children who have little knowl-edge about the culture from which the text originates. At least, thatmust be the idea behind the practice of replacing ‘foreign’ nameswith familiar ones, a practice still common in English and Germantranslations. The present argument is that this change not onlyshows a lack of respect toward other cultures but also deprives childreaders of the chance to realize the wealth of cultural diversity thatsurrounds them.

KEY WORDS: translation; cultural context adaptation; intercultural power balance.

Cultural diversity has always been a big part of my reading experi-ence. I am Japanese, but I started school in Germany, where I lived fortwo years, and learned to read German as well. Until September 2001I lived in the United Kingdom for about two years, studying children’sliterature, which means that I read a lot in English. Even during theyears I spent in Japan, about half or more of the books I read inJapanese originated from cultures other than Japanese, such as British,American, German, Swedish, Australian, New Zealand, French, Cana-dian, Swiss, Austrian, Dutch, Russian, Italian, and Hungarian. Beingfamiliar with the practices of translation (as a reader and also as atranslator) as well as fluent in two foreign languages made me realizethat there are many different ways of translating. I also noticed thatbasic attitudes to translation differ from culture to culture and that itis especially obvious between Japanese and English/German transla-tions. This difference has a political implication, for translation isnever a purely linguistic matter. The attitude toward and practice oftranslation reflect intercultural power balances. Translated texts notonly reveal what kind of relationship the target culture (to which thetranslation is aimed) has with the source culture (where the texts

54 Children’s Literature in Education

come from), but also affect that relationship by presenting a certainimage of the source culture. From this standpoint, I am going to focuson and argue against the replacing of ‘foreign’ names with more famil-iar ones, a practice of translation that seems to be still common inEnglish and German translation.

The first time I realized the different ideas underlying the practice oftranslation was when I was about nine years old. In the local libraryof the Japanese town where I was living at the time, I found a bookwritten by the Swedish author, Astrid Lindgren, who was one of myfavorites. When I saw the illustration on the cover, I noticed that I hadread it already, but there was something wrong about it. The titleshowed that the protagonist’s name was Emil in this Japanese version,whereas he had been called Michel in the German version I had previ-ously read. I later found out that Emil was the name given to him inthe original text. I was shocked and became indignant at this changeof names. I felt that I had been cheated by the German translation. Forme it was a matter of credibility, and it was my first lesson on howarbitrary a translation can be.

Another example I came across is the English translation of Erich Kast-Erich Kastner, Emil unddie Detektive ner’s Emil und die Detektive (Emil and the Detectives).1 The first

thing I noticed was that the preface was gone, the part titled ‘DieGeschichte fangt noch gar nicht an (The story has not even begunyet)’ where Kastner speaks directly to readers about how he came towrite the story of Emil. This incorporation of direct address into thestory is a style unique to Kastner, through which he establishes a kindof personal relationship with the readers, making his sometimes mor-alistic stories less priggish and less didactic. Since he neither speaksdown to children nor changes his humorous but ironical tone in orderto appeal to them, the message in his books becomes more like anexpression of personal belief rather than the voice of authority. It iswhat made Kastner’s books special to me as a child, and I feel verysorry for English children when I think about their loss as readers.

When I actually started reading the English version, I realized thatmore small changes had been made in the text. The names of Emiland other central characters are kept, but minor characters, whoseoriginal names seem to have struck the translator as too long or as tooGerman-sounding, are given new names. For example, Krummbiegelis shortened into Krumm, and Zerlett somehow becomes Meyers.Characters also sound different when they speak in English. As nei-ther English nor German is my native language, I will not go into theirmodes of speech, but there are instances where they express theirfeelings much more mildly in English. This happens most often withEmil’s cousin, Pony Hutchen. For example, her straightforward words

The Translation of Children’s Books 55

to her father, Mr Heimbold: ‘Alle Wetter, Heimbold, bist du ein Dreck-schadel (Dear me, Heimbold, what a numbskull you are)’ (p. 157), issubdued into a quite ordinary ‘You are silly, Dad’ (p. 215), which failsto convey her personality, characterized by a sharp tongue and awarm heart.

In the paragraphs and rhythm lies another difference between theoriginal text and the English translation, which cannot be explainedby the difference between the two languages. As a means of compari-son, I cite two paragraphs from the English translation (A) and at-tempt a faithful translation of the corresponding German passage,making as little change as possible about the length of sentences andparagraphs, the order of events, the way the situation is described,and so on (B).2

(A):

Emil leaned out of the window of his carriage to look for the guard.Then suddenly, a little distance away in the stream of departing pas-sengers, he saw a bowler hat. At once he thought—“Ah! Mr Grundeis!”Had he not left the train after all, but only skipped out of one compart-ment and into another while the train stopped and Emil was asleep?Without another thought, Emil was out on the platform. He forgot theflowers on the luggage rack, but just had time to scramble back afterthem, dashing in and out of the train as quickly as he could. Then,flowers in one hand and suitcase in the other, he scurried off towardsthe exit. People leaving the train were packed tight near the barrier,and could hardly move. In the crush, Emil found he had lost sight of thebowler hat, but he blundered on, stumbling round people’s legs andbumping into them with his suitcase; but he kept doggedly on till hesaw it again. But then, all at once there were two bowler hats.

The suitcase was so heavy it slowed Emil down terribly, but it mightget stolen if he put it down somewhere so that he could run after hisman. He just had to plunge on, and at last came nearly level with thebowler hats. But which was the right one? One man seemed too short.Emil twisted in and out of the crowd after the other, like a Red Indianon the trail, and was just in time to see his man push through thebarrier, evidently in a great hurry. (pp. 64–65)

(B):

Emil leaned out of the window, looking for the conductor. Then he saw,at some distance and among many people, a black bowler hat. Could itbe the thief? Maybe he did not get out of the train at all, after he hadrobbed Emil, but had just gone to another carriage?

At the next moment Emil stood on the platform, put down his suit-case, went aboard once more because he forgot the flowers which layon the luggage rack, got out again, clutched the suitcase, lifted it highand ran to the exit as fast as he could. Where was the bowler hat? Theboy bumped against the people in front of him, shoved them with his

56 Children’s Literature in Education

suitcase and ran further. It became more and more crowded, more andmore difficult to go through all those people.

There! The bowler hat! Gosh, there’s another one over there! Emilcould hardly drag his suitcase any longer. He wished he could simplyput it down and leave it there. But then it would be stolen too!

At last he managed to come quite close to the bowler hats.

This one could be the man! Was it?

No.

There was the next one.

No. This man was too short.

Emil snaked his way through masses of people like an Indian.

There, there!

This was the one. Thank god! This was Grundeis. He was just push-ing through the barrier and seemed to be in a hurry.

The paragraphing of the original text is completely ignored in A andKastner’s descriptive and dynamic tone is replaced by an explanatoryone. Example A seems to me to be a retelling of the original ratherthan a translation. It has a distinctly different style.

What is the reason for doing such things? Research into the translationof children’s books and translators’ comments testify that it was andprobably still is a common practice in Europe to make deliberatechanges in the process of translation. It is known as ‘cultural contextadaptation’ (1986, p. 12). Gote Klingberg exemplifies one extremeGote Klingberg, Chil-

dren’s Fiction in theHands of the Transla-tors

type of this practice and names it ‘localization,’ in which the namesand the whole location are changed by the translator, and the story isset in a place familiar to the readers: the original German story, Kin-derleben oder Karl und Marie, was transplanted to Sweden, andHamburg became Stockholm (1986, p. 15). He then cites TorbenTorben Weinreich, “In-

ternational book pro-duction for childrenrelated to the children’slocal experiences andlocal consciousness”

Weinreich as an advocate of this idea (1978, p. 16). Concerning thosebooks ‘which above all aim to describe universal human conditions,where the outlines of the local milieu are blurred just because thebook has to be not too specific, but universal’ (p. 155), Weinreichargues that localization is a useful technique which can ‘give the audi-ence an opportunity to concentrate on the performers as well as pos-sible’ (p. 157).

The idea that foreign things stand in the way of young readers’ appre-ciation of translated books is also shared by Anthea Bell, an EnglishAnthea Bell, “The nam-

ing of names” translator of German and French children’s books. According to heressay about the problems inherent in translation, she gives due regardto the preservation of the original atmosphere and does not go so faras to transplant a story to England, although she sometimes anglicizes

The Translation of Children’s Books 57

the names of the characters. She explains that it is necessary becauseof ‘the in-built English distrust of, and resistance to, anything foreign.It seems to afflict us—from the publishing point of view—frompicture-book age onward, once the words begin to assume equal im-portance with the illustrations’ (1985, p. 3). She seems to think thatthis is more so with younger children: ‘Obviously “difficult” foreignnames will be least acceptable in picture books for the very young’(p. 7). Similarly, Klingberg, who does not quite agree with Weinreichand who asserts that ‘the source text is to be manipulated as little aspossible’ (1986, p. 17), makes a concession about this point and ad-mits that ‘it may very well be that, say, books for little children dealingwith their own experiences in the immediate environment could betransferred to a milieu with which they are familiar, especially sincethey do not yet know so much of foreign countries’ (p. 17).

Maria Nikolajeva follows the same line of argument using the con-Maria Nikolajeva, Chil-dren’s LiteratureComes of Age: Towardsa New Aesthetic

cepts of cultural context and semiosphere which is ‘the semioticspace necessary for languages to exist and function’ (1996, p. 28). Sheargues that semiotic signs in a children’s book, which are known tothe reader from previous experience, help the child ‘to relate detailsto a whole system existing outside the text’ (p. 30), whereas a trans-lated book presents the reader with unknown or misleading signs:

When signs are transposed into another cultural context they are dis-connected from the original sign system and can no longer fill the “tell-ing gaps” in the same manner. Moreover, when the target-text readerplaces them into a new semiotic space, these signs are interpreted in anew way which, from the point of view of the original context, is mostoften incorrect. (p. 30)

Illustrating how semiotic signs concerning such areas as everyday life,human relationships, and language can be misunderstood betweenSweden and America, America and Russia, Russia and Sweden, sheconcludes pessimistically that ‘children’s literature is basically non-translatable, since children’s semiotic experience does not allow themto interpret the signs of an alien semiosphere’ (p. 35).

I admit that a translation inevitably entails a certain degree of culturalcontext adaptation, because the act of translation is in itself a sort ofadaptation, but surely there is no point in translating a book if it losesall trace of the country where it comes from? As I understand it, thereare two main reasons (apart from a commercial one) for translating abook, whether it is for children or for adults. One is to make a bookof high quality available to a wider audience, and the other is to pro-vide a perspective into another culture. The one reason is just as im-portant as the other. It is actually impossible to accomplish the formerobject at the expense of the foreign cultural elements, for something

58 Children’s Literature in Education

vital would be lost from the book with them. Based on this belief, Iargue against excessive adaptation in translation and question the twoassumptions underlying the statements I cited above: firstly, foreignelements in a story are distracting or confusing for children; secondly,knowledge about a different culture is necessary in order to acceptthe culture. The two of them intertwine and seem to form a viciouscircle: since foreign things discourage children from reading, theyshould not appear in children’s books; the result is foreign things re-main foreign for good and children never learn to accept another cul-ture.

I contend, however, that this vicious circle does not really exist.Firstly, can young children tell something foreign from something be-longing to their own culture? Bell uses the word ‘in-built’ in describ-ing the English people’s antipathy toward foreign things, but I wouldsay that this reaction to foreignness must be something imprintedthrough the surrounding culture and cannot be inborn because lan-guage itself, including one’s mother tongue, is learned only throughexperience. Which language and culture a person first acquires de-pends totally on the environment in which s/he grows up. Accord-ingly, whether one has any negative feelings toward something foreignor, for that matter, what one regards as foreign, is determined throughone’s experience in childhood. To put it more simply, almost every-thing is foreign or new for a very young child, regardless of the cul-ture to which the thing belongs. If you think of the popularity ofDisney characters and Thomas the Tank Engine among Japanese chil-dren, or that of Japanese comics and computer games such as Poke-mon in America and in Europe, it seems more probable that childrendo not make cultural distinctions but just accept what they find attrac-tive from the things promoted.

Secondly, older children are more likely to recognize the foreignnessof unfamiliar semiotic signs, but I think this does not necessarily dis-courage them from reading a translated book. Difference can be asource of attraction, as it is with the genre of fantasy. The appeal offantasy summarized by Ruth Nadelman Lynn also holds true for storiesRuth Nadelman Lynn,

Fantasy Literature forChildren and YoungAdults: An AnnotatedBibliography

set in other countries: ‘Unlike other genres, which tend to offer eithera total escape from or total immersion in reality, fantasy can meetboth needs’ (1989, p. xxi). The only difference is that fantasyland isimaginary while foreign countries really exist. Just as the different,sometimes even peculiar semiotic signs such as magic and dragon donot confuse the readers of fantasy, children reading a translated bookwould react differently from when they are reading a story with afamiliar setting. Instead of simply relating the semiotic signs to theirown semiosphere, they would suspend their automatic reaction to doso and try to make out from the signs what this unknown system

The Translation of Children’s Books 59

looks like. It is actually better not to change names but to leave themas they are as a signal to remind the readers of their entrance into adifferent system that requires a different mode of reading. If pronun-ciation causes trouble, as in an example Bell cites (1985, p. 7), thiscan be solved by using notes as aids (1978, p. 137).Birgit Stolt, “How Emil

becomes Michel—Onthe translation of chil-dren’s books” One piece of evidence I can give to support my argument is the situa-

tion in Japan, where translated books hold a substantial share in thetotal publication market and translation is taken very seriously. Thegenre of children’s books is no exception. The proportion and theimportance of translated books are just as high as in other genres, ifnot higher. As is shown in the previously cited example of Lindgren’sbook, it can be generally said that Japanese translation of children’sbooks pays due regard to faithfulness compared with its Europeancounterparts. The Japanese translation of Emil und die Detektive,which is the version I first read, makes no alteration in names, con-tent, or structure, and succeeds in re-creating the atmosphere of theoriginal text. Foreign names and customs do not seem to keep Japa-nese children from reading and enjoying translated books. Birgit Stoltgives an example of Japanese children who liked Astrid Lindgren’sAlla vi barn i Bullerbyn (The Bullerby Children) so much that ‘theywrote letters to the author, asking whether there really was a Bull-erby, where it was situated in Sweden and whether one could movethere and live there’ (1978, p. 132), and it is not difficult to findsimilar examples.

In her examination of cultural context adaptation, Stolt argues that itsoveruse reveals a lack of respect for children, children’s books, andtheir authors, since faithfulness to the original text is a central issue inthe translation of nonchildren’s texts. The change of names is a resultof ‘the preconceived opinion of adults about what children want toread, value and understand,’ in other words, ‘an underestimation ofthe child reader’ (1978, p. 134). I agree with this view, but I thinkthere is yet another factor underlying the arguments in favour of cul-tural context adaptation—the lack of respect for other cultures. Thisis what makes the rejection of foreign names seem trivial and in moreextreme cases excuses the violation of the source text in the name ofeducation. The concern of this ‘educational intention’ (Stolt, p. 134)is nothing but the reinforcement of a target culture, the inculcation ofits values, and the obliteration of its taboos through alteration of theoriginal text, and the accurate presentation of source culture is disre-garded.

There is indeed a vicious circle at work here, but it is not the one Imentioned above, which assumes children’s inability to cope with for-eign things. The real vicious circle has more to do with adults who,

60 Children’s Literature in Education

entangled in the general disrespect for children’s capacity, children’sbooks, and Otherness, fail to see the real potential of translated books.The change of names creates a false impression of a homogenous world,only to discourage children from learning about other possibilities,enhancing the feeling of strangeness when children actually comeacross foreign names in real life. On the contrary, translated books thatretain signs of their source cultures can provide children with excellentopportunities to realize the existence of other cultures and to becomefamiliar with them, experiencing them not as something foreign but assomething that is a part of the environment. Having fully enjoyed theadvantage of faithfully translated children’s books, I believe that theyare an effective way to break the vicious circle of disrespect and igno-rance. As I argued earlier in this essay, children are more flexible thanadults, and the possibility of change lies in them.

One problem about this might be that children’s books give only adisproportionate representation of cultures, even if all of them wereto be translated. Not all cultures have children’s literature of theirown, it being a concept that originally belongs to the tradition of theWestern cultures. The countries that do have children’s books differfrom one another in the number of books they produce. When itcomes to the selection of the books to be translated, political, eco-nomic, and cultural relationships between countries also play an im-portant role. According to Lars Furuland, when English books re-Lars Furuland, “Sweden

and the internationalchildren’s book market:History and present sit-uation”

placed German books to become the predominant source text forSwedish translation in the 1850s, it was due to the development ofthe economic link between the two countries as well as the increasedoutput of children’s books in England (1978, p. 65). In Britain andAmerica, where there are many children’s books available withouttranslation, it is difficult to find commercial and cultural incentives topublish translated books.

In Japan, where its own children’s literature was established under astrong Western influence, the majority of translated books come fromWestern countries, and other parts of the world are given insufficientrepresentation on the bookshelves. This should at least partly accountfor the strange fact that almost all universities have an English depart-ment that attracts many students, whereas to study Chinese or Koreanliterature is not so common in spite of the geographical proximity andcultural similarity. As an avid reader of translated books, I myself suf-fer from this disproportion. I am familiar with Western names and cantell female names from male ones in most cases, but when it comes toChinese names, for instance, I have hardly any notion.

This last example about Japan and myself testifies to what a big differ-ence the existence of translated books can make to the knowledge,

The Translation of Children’s Books 61

image, and feeling one has about another culture. Supported by thisconviction, my conclusion is that there is no good reason to discardforeign names from translation for children. On the contrary, it is im-portant to leave them as they are. The earlier children get used tothem, the better. It is an unalterable fact that there are many differentkinds of people and many different ways of doing things, and bookscan be a great help to cope with that reality, if they are translatedproperly. Even though they cannot be the perfect solution for all inter-cultural problems, they can at least introduce children to the idea ofdiversity. If only a small number of books are translated in English-speaking countries, it is all the more important that they are faithfullytranslated.

Appendix

Emil beugte sich weit aus dem Fenster und suchte den Zugfuhrer. Daerblickte er, in einiger Entfernung und zwischen vielen Menschen,einen steifen schwarzen Hut. Wenn das der Dieb war? Vielleicht warer, nachdem er Emil bestohlen hatte, gar nicht ausgestiegen, sondernnur in einen anderen Wagen gegangen?

Im nachsten Augenblick stand Emil auf dem Bahnsteig, setzte den Kof-fer hin, stieg noch einmal ein, weil er die Blumen, die im Gepacknetzlagen, vergessen hatte, stieg wieder aus, packte den Koffer kraftig an,hob ihn hoch und rannte, sosehr er konnte, dem Ausgang zu.

Wo war der steife Hut? Der Junge stolperte den Leuten vor denBeinen herum, stieß wen mit dem Koffer, rannte weiter. Die Men-schenmenge wurde immer dichter und undurchdringlicher.

Da! Dort war der steife Hut! Himmel, da druben war noch einer! Emilkonnte den Koffer kaum noch schleppen. Am liebsten hatte er ihneinfach hingestellt und stehen lassen. Doch dann ware ihm auch dernoch gestohlen worden!

Endlich hatte er sich bis dicht an die steifen Hute herangedrangt.

Der konnte es sein! War er’s?

Nein.

Dort war der nachste.

Nein. der Mann war zu klein.

Emil schlangelte sich wie ein Indianer durch die Menschenmassen.

62 Children’s Literature in Education

Dort, dort!

Das war der Kerl. Gott sei Dank! Das war der Grundeis. Eben schob ersich durch die Sperre und schien es eilig zu haben. (pp. 60–61)

Notes

1. The first translation in Britain was published in 1931. A new translation bythe same translator was issued in 1959, which is still in print.

2. Dr. Gillian Lathey helped me with the translation. See appendix for origi-nal German version.

References

Bell, Anthea, “The naming of names,” Signal 1985, 46, 3–11.Furuland, Lars, “Sweden and the international children’s book market: History

and present situation,” in Children’s Books in Translation, Gote Klingberget al. eds., pp. 60–80. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1978.

Kastner, Erich, Emil und die Detektive, Munchen: Deutscher TaschenbuchVerlag, 1999. (Original work published 1929)

Kastner, Erich, Emil and the Detectives, transl. Eileen Hall. London: Red Fox,1959.

Kastner, Erich, Emil to Tantei-tachi, transl. Taro Komatsu. Tokyo: IwanamiShoten, 1953.

Klingberg, Gote, Children’s Fiction in the Hands of the Translators. Malmo:Liber, 1986.

Lynn, Ruth Nadelman, ed., Fantasy Literature for Children and YoungAdults: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: R. R. Bowker, 1989.

Nikolajeva, Maria, Children Literature Comes of Age: Toward a New Aes-thetic. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996.

Stolt, Birgit, “How Emil becomes Michel—On the translation of children’sbooks,” in Children’s Books in Translation, Gote Klingberg et al. eds., pp.130–46. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1978.

Weinreich, Torben, “International book production for children related to thechildren’s local experiences and local consciousness,” in Children’s Booksin Translation, Gote Klingberg et al. eds., pp. 147–58. Stockholm: Alm-qvist & Wiksell, 1978.