Le mouvement de la création dans la traduction littéraire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an empirical study of literary perception in the translation process. Four translators have been asked to record their comments while translating selected passages of a Hungarian literary text into French. The notion of “pre-translation” is defined as a transcription of thinkaloud protocols, and their subsequent translations. In order to discover marks of literary perception and its apprehension, this corpus has been analyzed using four criteria: semantic, formal, and narrative devices, and preferences in translation strategies. The results show that the specificity of literary translation is expressed in all the criteria, and that it implies expert knowledge on the part of the reader and the translator. Although one cannot generalize, due to the limited number of examples in the research project and the influence of social variables, the results highlight the wide range of sensitivity to literariness expressed by the translator. For example, the working strategies of some translators are more oriented towards rhythm (supra-syntagmatic level), while others prefer working on the lexical and connotative aspect (paradigmatic level).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".