La traduction à l’épreuve des poèmes d’Emily Dickinson : l’impossible protocole ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peut-on élaborer un protocole de traduction de la poésie ? Le présent article examine cette question à partir d’analyses contrastives de poèmes d’Emily Dickinson et de certaines de leurs traductions françaises. La tentative d’édification de règles globales dans le transcodage poétique se heurte à la résistance de la langue poétique à toute fixation sémantique, comme en atteste l’idiolecte dickinsonien, plurivoque, voire opaque, riche en néologismes, en jeux syntaxiques et référentiels. On peut toutefois mettre en oeuvre des stratégies ponctuelles pour rendre certains aspects du lexique et de la prosodie. Mais de tels procédés laissent de côté le socle figural de la langue poétique : la métaphore. Témoignant d’un rapport dialectique entre le sujet parlant – le « je » poétique – et le monde, entre les représentations propres à ce sujet et celles que les conventions socio-culturelles inscrivent dans des dénominations figées, la métaphore invite à redéfinir la notion de protocole de traduction poétique en termes de « dispositif dialogique » privilégiant la mise en tension du sens dans la traduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".