Traduction et réception d’une auteure victorienne en France : le cas de George Eliot1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
George Eliot n’a jamais connu un grand succès en France et c’est ce problème de réception qui m’a poussée à me pencher sur les traductions françaises de son oeuvre. The Mill on the Floss, son deuxième roman, a fait l’objet de six traductions, dont trois sont étudiées dans cet article : la première par François D’Albert-Durade (1863), la deuxième par Lucienne Molitor (1957) et enfin la dernière par Alain Jumeau (2003). Il semble bien qu’un aspect de la prose éliotienne résiste à la traduction vers le français ; il s’agit de la présence de voix multiples dans le roman, dont plusieurs qui relèvent du sociolecte paysan anglais du XIXe siècle. Grâce à l’étude de la voix d’un personnage et de la voix narrative, cet article offre la confrontation des trois traductions couvrant une période d’un siècle et demi, afin de retracer le parcours traductif d’un roman victorien dans l’Hexagone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".