Lorsque la traduction sert de frontière entre deux cultures : une analyse traductologique de la voix-over dans la version anglaise de Léolo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La traduction de films peut en dire long sur les relations entre deux cultures, ce qui en fait un sujet d'étude des plus fascinants. En tant qu'espace de pratique discursive, les films et autres produits audiovisuels et leur traduction jouent effectivement un rôle important dans l'articulation de concepts culturels, comme, par exemple, la féminité, la masculinité et l'altérité (Díaz Cintas 281). Un cas de figure intéressant en traduction audiovisuelle est le film québécois Léolo, qui constitue l'un des rares exemples où un produit cinématographique est adapté vers l'anglais - donc, d'une communauté périphérique vers une culture dominante. Cet article analyse le rôle de la voix-over dans Léolo et son doublage en version anglaise et propose une interprétation idéologique de l'adaptation en tenant compte de son contexte sociopolitique. La notion de voix-over telle que conceptualisée en études cinématographiques ainsi que quelques précisions terminologiques sur cette même notion en traductologie mènent ainsi à une analyse idéologique et culturelle de l'accent en traduction audiovisuelle. Cet article suggère que la traduction, au lieu de construire des ponts entre les cultures, sert parfois de frontière entre celles-ci. En effet, un contexte sociopolitique donné a d'importants impacts, directs ou indirects, sur les choix et stratégies de traduction de produits culturels. Dans le cas précis de Léolo, cet article conclue que la traduction joue un rôle dans la construction d'identités distinctes et dans la formation d'une frontière entre ces dernières. Translated movies can say a lot about the relationships between two cultures, which makes audiovisual translation a fascinating area of research in Translation Studies. As Jorge Díaz Cintas puts it, «[a]s a site of discursive practice, audiovisual media and its translation play a special role in the articulation of cultural concepts such as femeninity, masculinity and Otherness, among others.» (Díaz Cintas 281) One interesting case study is the movie Léolo, from Québec, which is one of the few movies that was translated into English - that is, from a peripheral community to a dominant culture. This paper analyses the role of voice-over in Léolo as well as its dubbing in English, and suggests an ideological interpretation of its adaptation, considering its sociopolitical context. The notion of voice-over, as studied in Film Studies, as well as some clarification about the terminological vagueness surrounding that same notion in Translation Studies bring us to a cultural and ideological analysis of the accent in audiovisual translation. This article argues that instead of building bridges between cultures, translation can sometimes serve as a boundary between them. A given sociopolitical context certainly has important repercussions, direct or indirect, on the choices and decisions made in the process of translating cultural products such as movies. In the case of Léolo, this paper highlights the role of translation in the articulation of separate identities and in the construction of a boundary between them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".