French-Australian Writing: Expanding Multilingual Australian Literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 'Australian Literature-International Contexts' (2007), Robert Dixon called for what he termed 'a transnational practice of Australian literary criticism ' (19).In this article, Dixon traced the history of Australian literary criticism, noting in particular the influence of 'world literature' and transnational studies since the 1990s.In a six-point plan that aimed to develop a transnational approach to Australian literature, he suggested literary critics pay greater attention to transnational Australian writers and to the influence of multicultural backgrounds upon the shape of Australian literature.He argued that it was now time to move beyond cultural nationalism to 'explore and elaborate the many ways in which the national literature has always been connected to the world' (20).Indeed, the attention to minority writers that had been gradually growing for several decades had extended to lively discussion of transnational writing by the early twenty-first century.Two years after the publication of Dixon's field-leading article, Michael Jacklin declared a 'transnational turn,' pointing to a 'surge of references in Australian literary studies over the last few years to the transnational dimensions of the national literature' (1).Against the backdrop of debates in world literature, Dixon's call was apt.In the wake of the popularity of the field of world literature that had spread so rapidly in the US, how could Australian literature be reconsidered?David Damrosch's hugely influential work pushes literary critics to reconsider some of the time-honoured categories that have organised our disciplinary enquiry.From What is World Literature? (2003) through his many collaborative works, such as How to Read World Literature, Teaching World Literature and The Longman Anthology of World Literature (all 2009), Damrosch suggests new modes of interpretation and of identification, suggesting that 'a work enters world literature by a double process: first, by being read as literature; second, by circulating out into a broader world beyond its linguistic and cultural point of origin ' (2003, 6).Do Australian texts correspond to such a theory?It is worth pausing to consider these two stipulations in terms of Australian literary studies.Looking at Damrosch's first condition, are Australian texts read as literature and, if so, by whom?Are Australian authors considered favourably by readers in other parts of the world, both Englishspeaking and non-English-speaking? Damrosch's second condition raises two separate but interlinked questions regarding Australian texts.First, do they circulate out into a world beyond their Australian 'cultural point of origin'?Do they find a readership in other Anglophone spaces, for example?Do they form part of a canon of literature in English?Are they included in University curricula-particularly in the US-inspired 'World Literature' programs?Pascale Casanova suggested in The World Republic of Letters that literary markets revolve around cosmopolitan capitals-Paris, London, New York-that bestow recognition on literary texts.Do Australian texts circulate in these capitals?And are Sydney, Melbourne or Perth, for instance, such cosmopolitan capitals?Second, do Australian texts circulate beyond their 'linguistic point of origin'?This question raises the issue of translation.Are Australian texts translated and made available to readers in non-Anglophone areas?It also raises the question
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».