MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4321360820 · doi:10.1353/crc.2021.0042

Cultural Transfer Reconsidered: Transnational Perspectives, Translation, Processes, Scandinavian and Postcolonial Challenges ed. by Steen Bille Jørgensen and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink

2021· article· en· W4321360820 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adnan Mahmutović

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian review of comparative literature · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTranslation Studies and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInterpretation (philosophy)Cultural studiesSociologyEpistemologyAnthropologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Cultural Transfer Reconsidered: Transnational Perspectives, Translation, Processes, Scandinavian and Postcolonial Challenges ed. by Steen Bille Jørgensen and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink Adnan Mahmutović Steen Bille Jørgensen and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink, eds. Cultural Transfer Reconsidered: Transnational Perspectives, Translation, Processes, Scandinavian and Postcolonial Challenges. Brill, Rodopi, 2021. Pp. 267. US$132.00 hardcover, US$132.00 ebook. In this fascinating collection of essays, Steen Bille Jorgensen and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink propose a new paradigm in “(inter)cultural studies” pushing for the use of “cultural transfer” as a way of avoiding the inherent imprecision of older concepts such as “cultural relations,” “cultural exchanges,” “literary influences,” and “cultural circulations.” The aim is to connect the field to, and use advances from, linguistics, anthropology, literary theory, and translation studies (1). They follow the notion that “any cultural artifact transferred between different cultures […] undergoes a process of transformation, of re-semanticization, re-interpretation and […] re-reading” (2) and “the fundamental conviction that translation always means shifting [End Page 571] […] between two cultures” (3). Theirs is a decidedly “agent-centered approach” (3), that conceptualizes cultural relations “as fundamentally dynamic and multilateral, as well as asymmetric and […] reciprocal” (4). The more general conclusions and developments of concepts and methodologies stem from, among other things, a uniquely Scandinavian focus. The goal is not to substitute other existing and working theories but to “reconsider the complexity of relatively abstract research questions and paradigms seeking nonetheless to provide new insights through new framings and analyses” (12). This outline, or groundwork, is quite evident from the ten interconnected essays, split into three sections: “Transnational Processes of Cultural Mediation,” “Aspects of Textual Transfers,” and “Perspectives.” Though no review can do justice to such a rich repository of analyses and conclusions that have both general interdisciplinary value and specific field bound knowledge, I will briefly address each section. Part I, “Transnational Processes of Cultural Mediation,” showcases three excellent analyses that largely seek to subvert the centre-periphery dichotomy, which is typical of, for instance, Pascale Casanova’s world literary paradigm, and successfully stress the role played by individual agents. A strong critique of the supremacy of the nation in grounding World Literature Studies is much appreciated. Magnus Qvistgaard’s notion that the transfer process is one of metamorphosis, which is made through the case of Ibsen, is a particularly useful and telling example. The critique of nations as “independent containers” (44) and of the “a priori definition of the writer” is effectively shown to be lacking nuance. There is a stress on the fact that “what is at stake is never merely the fate of the objects of transfer themselves but always the concepts used in framing them” (54). While I agree that “methodological nationalism” (61) poses a problem, I do find that the argument is somewhat susceptible to devil’s advocacy because the examples and the argument itself are conditioned on resisting, stretching, challenging, and manipulating national categories (61). This could be read as a confirmation of at least a softer version of the Pascalian notion of the a priori of the nation(alism). Michel Espagne’s chapter shows cultural transfer in which Scandianavia relates to well identified centres such as France and Germany. This is a rich and persuasive outline, which still makes me wonder if cultural transfer with another semi-European centre/periphery, in fact Turkey, has become too invisible or if it is simply not on a par with these other centres. Sweden in particular has a long history of cultural transfer with the Turks, from the Ottoman Empire on, involving some enormous leaps in several spheres of social life and governance. One wonders if that national centre has become obscured by other European centres in academic discourse only, or in reality. Espagne’s emphasis on the transformation of the receiving cultures has great resonances with Petra Brooman’s “cultural transmitters” in the second chapter. Likewise, Anne-Estelle Leguy’s analysis of the practice of Impressionist painting by Norwegian and Finnish women offers a particular possibility for dialogue with Espagne’s points about Scandinavian mirroring of French culture, especially since, as the editors put it, “processes of reception...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,020
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,060

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,020
Communication savante0,0200,027
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian review of comparative literatureMême sujetTranslation Studies and PracticesTravaux en français237 207