Den autobiografiske pagt oversat
En undersøgelse af Édouard Louis’ Changer: méthode på dansk og engelsk
Nøgleord:
Autofiction, translation, social class, autobiography, sociology of translationResumé
This article aims to map out some of the unique challenges that arise in the translation of autobiographical literature which deals with questions of social class. Through a comparative analysis of French author Édouard Louis’ Changer: méthode and the Danish and English translations, the study finds that translators tend to refine the language of the text, fail to be consistent in their translation of class-related terms, and struggle to convey the myriad of connotations related to sociolects and dialects to the new audience. In the case of Changer: méthode, the discrepancy between the original and the translation is larger in the English version than the Danish. I argue that this difference might be explained by norms in the Anglophone literary sphere, but that tailoring the translation to accommodate the target audience nonetheless compromises the premise of the genre and shifts the reader’s focus away from the text’s more sociological dimensions, effectively diminishing the work’s potential to spark debate in the public sphere.
Referencer
Académie française. (u.å.). Les missions. Hentet 16. april 2026 fra https://www.academie-francaise.fr/linstitution/les-missions
Barthes, R. (1995). Death of the author. I S. Burke (red.), Authorship: From Plato to the postmodern: A reader. Edinburgh University Press.
Berman, A. (1985). La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger. I Texte, 4. Toronto University Press.
Dansk Sprognævn. (u.å.). Opgaver. Hentet 16. april 2026 fra https://dsn.dk/organisation-og-lovgivning/opgaver/
Dix, H. (2018). Introduction. I H. Dix (red.), Autofiction in English. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89902-2
Eribon, D. (2009). Retours à Reims. Champs.
Hansen, M.-B. M. (2000). Om at beskæftige sig med det talte sprogs grammatik: Definitioner, karakteristika og metoder. RIDS, 149.
Korzen, I., & Lundquist, L. (2010). Dansk og andre indoeuropæiske sprog: Strukturelle forskelle mellem tekster på endocentrisk dansk og eksocentriske romanske sprog. NyS – Nydanske Sprogstudier, 38, 107–142.
Lejeune, P. (1975). Le pacte. I Le pacte autobiographique. Éditions du Seuil.
Levey, S. (2024). Standard and non-standard English. I S. Fox (red.), Language in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press.
Louis, É. (2021). Changer: méthode. Points.
Louis, É. (2024). Change: A method (J. Lambert, Trans.). Harvill Secker.
Louis, É. (2022). Forvandlingens metode (F.-E. Grodin, Overs.). Gyldendal.
Louis, É. (2025). Que faire de la littérature? Flammarion.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). Det kommunistiske manifest. Forlaget Tiden.
Nielsen, B. S. (2024, 5. september). Kan klasselitteratur kun sælges i Danmark, hvis det lugter af mønsterbrud og dramatik? Information. https://www.information.dk/kultur/2024/09/kan-klasselitteratur-kun-saelges-danmark-lugter-moensterbrud-dramatik
Sayers, D., & Henderson, L. (2024). Language policy and planning in Britain and Ireland. I S. Fox (Red.), Language in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press.
Schleiermacher, F. (2021). On the different methods of translating. I The Translation Studies Reader. Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2017). Invisibility. I The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
Vieira, E. R. P. (1999). Liberating Calibans: Readings of Antropofagia and Haroldo de Campos’ poetics of transcreation. I S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Red.), Post-colonial translation. Routledge
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2026 Author and Journal of Language Works
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse – Ikke-kommerciel – Ingen Bearbejdede Værker (by-nc-nd).
Forfatteren/forfatterne har ophavsret til de artikler der bringes i tidsskriftet, og har ret til at genbruge dem hvis de nævner LWorks som oprindelig udgiver.
