Literary Translation and (or as?) Conflict between the Arab World and the West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major developments in the translation of literary works from Arabic into French and English and vice versa tend to indicate that it has been influenced by the geopolitical relationship between the Arab world and Western countries. In my paper I try to show how the essence of this translation history has taken root in the power differentials and conflicts between these two entities by analyzing three different phases of translation, namely: - Napoleon Bonaparte’s Expedition to Egypt in the 18th century and the translation movement that followed in the 19th century. - Post-Second-World-War phase including the intense translation activity during the Nasser era. - From 1988 (when Mahfouz was awarded the Nobel Prize) to the post-9/11 era. I will also explain how translators (like Canadian-born Johnson-Davies) played a key role in these times of war and/or peace. The work of some of them can also be considered as a form of resistance against prevailing (often negative) representations of the Other and its culture. The article ends with reflections on the current (and future) situation of the translation of Arabic literature into English and French.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".