Handmaidens to Translators versus Feminist Solidarity – Opposing Politics of Translation in the Galician Literary System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lori Chamberlain’s eye-opening article “Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation”, originally published in 1988, first described translators in general as “handmaidens to authors”. This fruitful analysis helped open up interesting avenues for feminist translation. On the one hand, it highlighted the need for a reformulation of the actual theoretical concepts underlying traditional translation theory; while on the other, it opened up questions regarding the status of women translators in practice. However, further studies have questioned this idea of the translator as female and inferior. For example, postcolonial approaches have shown that Western translators have usually exercised their power to interpret the Other in ways that were complicit with colonial endeavours. It is in this framework that this article explores the power implications of translation for the Galician literary system. The Galician literary system may be interesting as it can be seen as a non-hegemonic system (inside Europe) or a hegemonic one (outside Europe). The analysis of two translations, that of Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea by Manuel Forcadela, and that of Sandra Cisneros’ Loose Woman by Marilar Aleixandre shall explore two opposing trends. The first one is a trend in which the discourse of the non-hegemonic position of Galician actually allows for patriarchal and colonial interventions in translation, while the other one takes feminist solidarity as a base for a relationship with the female postcolonial Other.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".