Translating Breaches of Intersubjective Constraints on Interaction: the Case of Swearing in Roddy Doyle’s Novel The Commitments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the translation of breaches of Gricean maxims (and other constraints on interaction) in situations where the “same” maxim/constraint displays different normative strengths within two cultures. It is argued that if a breach of such constraints is transferred directly, the result will be a different degree of attention-getting effect and a possible change in the implicature in the target text. This point is illustrated by the analysis of the Norwegian translation of the Irish novelThe Commitments. Here the translator perhaps unwittingly ignores the fact that the “swearing constraint” is stronger in Norwegian than in Irish English. Many of the breaches are transferred more or less directly, which means that the translation contains a number of potential shifts: the potential attention-getting effect is far stronger, and the (social) implicature is most likely skewed, at least for a generalized segment of the audience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".