Translators on a Tight Rope: The Challenges of Translating Edwidge Danticat’s Breath, Eyes, Memory and Patrick Chamoiseau’s Texaco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translators on a Tight Rope: The Challenges of Translating Edwidge Danticat's Breath, Eyes, Memory and Patrick Chamoiseau's Texaco — For Caribbean intellectuals and scholars, translation of Caribbean literary texts has a key role to play for breaching the language barriers in the Caribbean and fostering regional integration. However, most publishing houses are located in the industrialized North, i.e. in countries which had colonial interests in the region. The targeted market of these publishers is located in a region which tends to exoticize the Caribbean. Henceforth, translating Caribbean literature can be like walking on a tight rope, since the translator would have to negotiate carefully between exoticism and faithfulness to the Caribbean culture. In addition, at least for the Dutch, French and English-speaking Caribbean, there is also the issue of bilingualism: use of French in relation with use of Haitian / Martinican / Guadeloupian Creole, use of English with Jamaican / Trinidadian Creole or a French-based Creole (Dominica, Grenada, and St Lucia). Against this background, we examined two translations, one from English into French (Edwidge Danticat's Breath, Eyes, Memory, 1994), the other from French into English (Patrick Chamoiseau's Texaco, 1992). We analyzed the translators' strategies in order to convey the Haitian and Martinican cultures. We also discussed their rendering of the bilingual shifts present in both texts. One translator was more successful than the other, which also raised the issue of 'scholar' translation versus 'non scholar' translation. In conclusion, Caribbean academics have to be watchful of the translations of literary works of the region since these translations, which do not aim primarily at the regional audience will nevertheless impact on cultural relationships in the region.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".