{"id":260236,"date":"2008-02-12T19:08:56","date_gmt":"2008-02-12T19:08:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wdev.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent-dev\/2008\/02\/12\/to-be-translated-or-not-to-be-part-ii\/"},"modified":"2018-04-16T17:34:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-16T17:34:34","slug":"to-be-translated-or-not-to-be-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/College\/translation\/threepercent\/2008\/02\/12\/to-be-translated-or-not-to-be-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"To Be Translated or Not To Be: Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following up on my earlier post<\/a> I want to summarize the statistics that Esther Allen cites in her essay “Translation, Globalization, and English” that open the To Be Translated or Not To Be<\/i><\/a> report from PEN<\/span> and the Institut Ramon Llull.<\/p>\n

One of the things worth pointing out is how shoddy all the data is for literature in translation published in English. In contrast to other countries, we come off as an ass-backward second-rate country. Case in point: in 2000, when switching databases, Bowker—the central place where publishing statistics are recorded—quit tracking the number of titles published in translation. Nice. Every year Bowker is able to report on the number of sports books published, but not translations.<\/p>\n

So all of the numbers cited are a bit shady. Nevertheless, as you can see below, a number of organizations have attempted to come up with a figure (often around 3%, which, ahem, is the basis for the name of this blog), although most of these studies provide summary data without many details. All of these studies led to our creation of the 2008 Translation Database, which hopefully will support the findings below while also providing detailed information about each work in translation so that the complete list can be added to, analyzed, and manipulated in various ways.<\/p>\n

Anyway, here are the studies and stats Esther summarizes in this essay:<\/p>\n