The history of (the western) children’s literature is connected to the development of the concept of childhood (Oittinen 2000:43). According to Puurtinen (1995:18), in Europe the distinction between childhood and adulthood did not exist prior to the 17th century, and for long, children where regarded as miniature adults whose needs were not recognized. As Nikolajeva (2005:
xii) points out, it was not until 18th century that childhood was considered a specific part of life course. In Finland, childhood was acknowledged in 19th century among peasants as the first children’s books and factory-made toys were manufactured (Oittinen 2000:43). Therefore, it can be said childhood as a social phenomenon has formed gradually and is relatively young.
According to Ghesquiere (2005:23), an inherent thought that shaped childhood was that chil-dren were allowed to be small and innocent. This also meant that certain topics in literature, such as sex and violence, became taboo issues and were viewed as unfit for children.
Oittinen (1993: 16, 29) similarly argues that writings, illustrations, and transla-tions that are created for children reflect the way in which childhood and children are viewed and defined in society and what is expected of children. Thus, the idea of children as well as their needs and abilities determine what kind of themes, literary elements and language are considered suitable for children. As cultures and societies change, so does the definition of what is inappropriate and what are avoidable or even taboo subjects in literature and children’s liter-ature. Similarly, studying children’s literature can partly reveal how children and childhood are viewed and defined in a specific culture at a specific time.
Since the concept of childhood and cultural meanings attached to it change, it is not easy to define children’s literature. As Lathey (2016:1) argues, the distinction between adults’ and children’s literature is not always simple because some books are targeted at both children and adults. Furthermore, Nikolajeva (2005: xiv) notes that there are no specific themes
26
or features that would only be found in either children’s or adult’s literature. According to some approaches, children’s literature has been described as having stylistically and thematically spe-cific characteristics such as a child protagonist (Lathey 2016:2). As Lathey (2016:2) points out, the definition of children’s literature can be as simple as books targeted at children or books that are read by children. Oittinen (1993:38) focuses on intentionality, which means that books specifically targeted at children are children’s literature (1993: 38). Oittinen (1993: 37) also presents Hunt’s (1992: 60–64) idea that children’s literature is defined in terms of the reader.
This means that children’s literature is made for children, not by children, whereas adult’s lit-erature is written by adults for adults. In addition, Oittinen (1993: 38–39) points out that some-times a book which has not originally been written as a children’s book has become children’s literature, one example of which is Swifts Gulliver’s Travels. Similarly, Kåreland (2001:26) reminds that for example Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe has become children’s literature despite the fact that it was written for adults, and Lathey (2006: 14) notes that Grimms’ tales were not originally written for children.
Rastas (2013:7) argues that children’s literature has several functions. It gives children aesthetic pleasure, helps children develop their linguistic and reading skills as well as socializes children into members of society. Oittinen (2000:67) also underlines the importance of the emotions that books and reading evoke in children. Literary texts thus offer readers means to understand their cultural surroundings, but they also directly and indirectly convey values.
According to Nikolajeva (2005: xiii), the literary aspects of children’s literature have not always been acknowledged and they are often still considered secondary to the educational features.
Similarly, Alvstad (2010:22) argues that children’s literature typically has pedagogical goals as children are expected to learn while they read. However, the main function or purpose of chil-dren’s literature may vary or change. This means that at times children’s literature may have strong pedagogical undertones and sometimes it may even be used as an ideological instrument (Puurtinen 1995:22). Of course, the primary function of children’s literature can be to offer readers stories that are enjoyable and engaging. According to Puurtinen (1995:52) in Finland the dominance of didactic and religious children’s literature began to diminish at the end of the 19th century, and since then, literature has been regarded more, but not entirely, as entertain-ment. Similarly, Nikolajeva (2005: xvi) argues that children’s books have started to question their educational and even suppressive function. This means that literary representations of childhood can be more versatile, and stories do not necessarily have strong moral undertones.
27
Nikolajeva (2005: xv–xvi) acknowledges the imbalanced power relations as well as adult normativity that define children’s literature. This means that adults predominantly de-cide what children read as children’s books are almost without exception written and translated by adults, and other mediators, such as publishers, are adults as well (Nikolajeva 2005: xv–xvi).
Similarly, Puurtinen (1995: 19) reminds that adults set the prevailing trends in the children’s literature and Oittinen (1993: 44-45) argues that children’s literature is based on adults’ point of view, adult likes and dislikes. In addition, the contents of books may reproduce the power asymmetry between adults and children, as they rely on cultural, historical and social under-standing and idea of childhood, children and the correct behavior of children (Nikolajeva 2005:
262–263).
Children’s books can be subversive and question the cultural expectation on how children should act or what childhood should be like, but according to Nikolajeva (2005: xvi) children’s literature tends to confirm to the prevailing cultural and social norms. In addition, Puurtinen (1995:45) argues that breaking the literary and linguistic norms is more difficult in children’s literature than in adults’ literature because children’s ability to grasp, for instance, linguistic or structural strangeness is often considered lower than that of adults. Lathey (2016:30) argues that children are often regarded as inexperienced readers and therefore trans-lators may adapt their written style, vocabulary and syntax to the assumed abilities and needs of the target group of the text. Similarly, Haapakoski (2011:70) argues that simplicity is a cen-tral norm that guides writing children’s literature. This can mean that, for example, the ending of a story is not open to interpretation. However, Haapakoski (2011:70) further argues that simplicity can mean that a story becomes unoriginal and predictable.
As Puurtinen (1995:53) notes, the norms that direct the translation of children’s books in Finnish are based mainly on the notion or idea of children’s comprehension and read-ing abilities as well as their likes and dislikes. Moreover, Lathey (2016:28) points out that de-spite the fact that there are studies that focus on actual children’s reactions, children’s responses to translation are mainly based on speculation. Therefore, it is viable to ask to which extent the question is actually about what is considered suitable, scary, incomprehensible or too difficult for children in a society or a culture. In addition, it can be discussed what is strange or unusual for children. A situation that is somehow exceptional for adults or deviates from the social or cultural norm can be normal or usual for some children, since it may have been familiar to them all their lives.
28 3.2 Dual audience and the implied reader
Children’s literature must typically appeal to both children and adults (Oittinen 1993: 40;
Lathey 2016:2), since adults as parents and often as teachers are gatekeepers who decide what children read (Puurtinen 1995:19). Therefore, children’s books are often aimed at two groups of audiences (Puurtinen 1995:19). According to Puurtinen (1995:20), the term ambivalent text is used to describe those texts that addresses both children and adults. The idea is that children read the text on one, conventional level whereas a more satirical and ironic level is targeted at adults. Examples of such texts are Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland as well as A. A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh (Puurtinen 1995:20). Haapakoski (2011:102) refers to Puurtinen (2000:108–109) who points out that there are two strategies for translating ambiva-lent texts. Firstly, the ambivaambiva-lent features can be retained in a translation, which means that the text can have more than one interpretative level. Secondly, an ambivalent text can be translated as a univalent text, which means that the text is meant to be understood on one level. In such cases, parts that contain literary devices such as irony or sarcasm may be omitted.
Another way of conceptualizing the phenomenon is to talk about dual address or double address (Puurtinen 1995:19) and double audience or dual audience (Nikolajeva 2005;
Puurtinen 1995; Wall 1991). Nikolajeva (2005:263) as well as Wall (1991:35) make a distinc-tion between the terms double address and dual address. Firstly, double address refers to the unequal positions of child and adult readers. In such cases, the adult audience can be addressed over the child’s head, and the experiences or actions of children are ridiculed. Nikolajeva (2005:
263) further explains that this was typical of nineteenth-century children’s literature. According to Wall (1991:35) as well as Nikolajeva (2005: 263), dual address refers to a situation where the adult and child readers are treated equally. Nikolajeva (2005:263) futher argues that while adults may understand the irony or intertextual elements of the book, this does not take anything away from children or demean them.
Single address or single audience in its turn refers to those works that intentionally address only children and have only one interpretative level (Puurtinen 1995:20). Wall (1991:
9) argues in her book written in 1991 that single address is a distinctive feature of children’s literature in the 20th century, and it is a result of a change in attitude toward children as well as the diminishing need to take potential adult readers into consideration. However, as O’Sullivan (2010:6) argues, it has become increasingly popular in the early 21st century to target books at both juvenile and adult audiences – the internationally popular Harry Potter books by J.K.
29
Rowling are a good example of this. In addition, as O’Sullivan (2010:6) further notes, more and more texts are marketed as literature for all ages. Such books contain elements that may appeal to variety or readers at different ages, and O’Sullivan (2010:6) therefore argues that it would be more appropriate to talk about a multiple address rather than double address –or single address, I might add.
Nikolajeva (2005: 262) criticizes the concept of single address. In her view, adults who write children’s books cannot escape their position and points of view as adults despite the fact that they have been children, and therefore they in some way address their own group as well. Similarly, Haapakoski (2011:73) notes that adults who write children’s literature reflect their own impressions and ideas about youth and childhood. Therefore, stories about children are always to some extent written from the adult perspective. It might also be worth discussing if the books targeted at children rather appeal to adults’ views about what is appropriate and educational for the child reader.
The dual readership is one of the reasons why children’s literature is difficult to define (Lathey 2016:2). However, as Lathey (2010:161; 122) explains, sometimes (re)transla-tions of children’s classics may have separate audiences, and retransla(re)transla-tions can be aimed at scholarly audience or nostalgic adults who want to read the classics of their childhood. The (re)translations aimed at scholars usually have their historical elements preserved whereas the versions targeted at children may be more adapted. Oittinen (2006:36) points out that of the four Finnish (re)translations of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the two first, by Anni Swan (1906), and Eeva-Liisa Manner and Kirsi Kunnas (1972), are clearly targeted at children, while the latter two retranslations by Alice Martin (1995) and Tuomas Nevanlinna (2000) are aimed at adult readers. This illustrates Lathey’s (2006:14) notion that the tension between addressing either the child or adult audience is a typical feature (re)translating children’s classics.
The term ‘implied reader’ is used to describe the abstract idea of the audience to whom the book is written. As Nikolajeva (2005: 253) points out, the implied reader is inscribed in the text in the sense that the contents mirror those themes and elements that the reader is assumed to understand. The perceptions of children’s skills or knowledge are context-bound and therefore vary depending on time and place (Nikolajeva 2005: 253). Similarly, Oittinen (2000:25, 41) argues that translations of children’s literature are always aimed at an image of a child. This image is formed of translators’ perception of children, their own childhood, and the history of childhood as well as prevailing ideas of childhood. Lathey (2016:23) points out that
30
a translator sometimes writes for a child reader that is living in a different cultural context than the implied reader of the source text. The translator may then have to follow the norms of the source culture regarding what the reader is expected to understand and what is considered ap-propriate contents and language for the reader.
As Nikolajeva (2005: 253) reminds, the implied reader is not the same as the pub-lisher’s or writer’s definition of the targeted readership, such as children of a specific age. In fact, the age recommendation may even conflict with the actual implied reader of the text. It is possible, for instance, that understanding the nuances of a story that is said to address 8-year-old children might in fact require the level of knowledge that is typical of 8-year-older children.
The concept of implied reader contains perceptions of children and their abilities as well as what is regarded as correct behavior (Nikolajeva 2005: 253). In addition, it includes assumptions about, for instance, religion, gender, ethnicity, religion, politics and level of cul-tural background as the text addresses themes or points of views, which are relatable to the implied reader. Nikolajeva (2005: 253) further argues that ‘certain settings and events will feel alien or even offensive to ethnic readers or members of a particular religious confession…’.
The idea is easy to agree with, however, I find the expression ethnic reader problematic since it reflects and reinforces the idea that a white reader is the ordinary, the norm, while those who are different from the norm are labelled as “ethnic”.
3.3 Features of translating children’s literature
According to Puurtinen (1995:21), in the 1990s a notable part of the literature that children in Finland read or were read to consist of translations. Similarly, Haapakoski (2011:20) notes that translations have a central role in children’s and youth literature in Finland, since, for example, in 2010 two thirds of published books for children and youth in Finland were translations.
Puurtinen (1995:21–22) therefore argues that translated literature affects children’s language development and the way children experience literature. However, Nikolajeva (2005: 241) re-minds that children themselves are rarely aware that a translated text that they are reading is in fact a translation, which affects, and is affected by, the way children’s texts are translated.
Puurtinen (1995:22) argues that children’s comprehension, reading abilities, ex-perience and knowledge of the world is generally not considered to be same as that of adults.
Therefore, the abundance of foreign titles, terms and measurements, allusions or unfamiliar
31
cultural references may form a barrier for reading (Puurtinen 1995:22). Similarly, Nikolajeva (2005: 241) claims that the tolerance for strangeness is often lower in children’s texts, and this must be taken into consideration when translating children’s literature. However, Van Coillie (2006: 137) notes that the choice between domesticating and foreignizing strategies is linked to cultural views of children’s ability to understand. Thus, the amount of strangeness that children are expected to tolerate is to some extent culture-bound and it can be connected to how much foreignness a culture in general is used to in its translated literature.
Puurtinen (1995:22) notes that the principles and norms of a society at a given time determine what kind of children’s literature is and is not written, translated and published.
Desmidt (2006:86) similarly claims that translation, like any social activity, is affected by norms, and sometimes a translator must choose from norms that to some extent collide. The translator must decide whether to strive for adequacy or acceptability, whether to prioritize aesthetics norms or fluency and so on. Desmidt (2006:86) further argues that translating chil-dren’s literature is complex because it is affected by general sets of norms that govern transla-tion as well as norms that are specific to children’s literature. Norms governing translation of children’s literature include, for instance, didactic norms, pedagogical norms, and technical norms. Didactic norms determine a text should enhance children’s emotional and intellectual development (Desmidt 2006:86). Pedagogical norms aim to ensure that the text fits to the lan-guage skills and the knowledge of the children at whom the text is targeted. Technical norms and requirements relate to such questions as what to do with illustration and the layout of the translations, for example, whether the illustration should be changed or whether some parts should be added or removed (Desmidt 2006:86). Desmidt further (2006:88) notes that the source-text norms can collide with, for example, pedagogical norms, if the translation is modi-fied to fit the target reader’s expected level of knowledge.
According to Puurtinen (1995: 23), translated children’s literature tends to con-form to the norms and conventions of the target language and literature and thus acceptability rather than adequacy is prioritized in translation. In addition, a larger amount of manipulation is allowed in children’s literature than in adults’ literature, which means that a translator is freer to alter the language and contents of the book. This is partly because, as mentioned previously, children’s reading abilities, level of experience and knowledge as well as tolerance for strange-ness are considered lower than those of adults. Oittinen (2000:68) as well as Desmidt (2006), however, point out that modifications are accepted also because children’s literature and its
32
aesthetic values are considered secondary to adult’s literature. Similarly, Shavit (2006:26) ar-gues that translators of children’s literature can take more liberties than translators of adults’
literature because children’s literature is in peripheral position within the literary system, i.e.
less valued than adults’ literature.
There are various translation strategies involving modification that are typical of children’s literature. According to Nikolajeva (2005:237), adaptation in general refers to mak-ing a shorter and a more accessible version of a book to a child audience. In translation, this often means that the translator retells the central episodes of the story rather than translates pieces of the text. However, Oittinen (2000: 77) points out that adaptation may mean different things. It can refer to an abridged version of a book and in such a case, adaptation is often considered less valuable than the source text. Adaptation may also refer to a work that is trans-ferred from one format to another and, for example, a film can be an adaptation of a book (Oittinen 1993:88). In the context of translation, some definitions make a distinction between a translation and an adaptation, and while a translation is considered loyal to the source text, adaptation is a changed version of the original story and therefore of less value. Oittinen (2000:80) argues that the main distinction between an adaptation and translation does not nec-essarily mean that there would be clear or concrete differences between the two, but the ques-tion is rather related to attitudes. As Oittinen (2000:77–78) points out, from a more abstract perspective all translations can be considered adaptations, and each translator to some extent adapts their texts so that they will be understandable to the readers.
According to Nikolajeva (2005: 238) alteration means that parts of the text are
According to Nikolajeva (2005: 238) alteration means that parts of the text are