“legally binded and linguistically bounded: the Quijote, forbidden sex and the law in translation”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Quebec, Canada)Abstract. If, on the one hand, legal translation - as one of the most specialized forms of translation practice - has received scholarly attention within the fieldof Translation Studies itself, on the other, little critical attention has been paid to the way in which the concepts of ‘law’ and ‘legal discourse’, to name only the most obvious, have been dealt with in literary translation. Focussing on the 400-year history of translation into English of Cervantes’s Don Quijote (1605), and especially by looking closely at 10 translations of a very specific- and somewhat controversial - passage in Part I, Chapter 22 (often called “the episode of the galley slaves”), the article argues that translation might be better suited than any other practice to illustrate the extent to which legal concepts are (and are not) linguistically, culturally and, in this case, chronologically bounded. Referring extensively to the analysis of this “episode of the galley slaves” by Roberto Gonzalez Echevarria in his brilliant Love and the Law in Cervantes (2005), and in particular to his discussion of the story of whom he calls the “prisoner of sex”, the article uses translation and translated texts to propose how “love and the law” might even be more intricately related than what has been suggested by the famous Yale Hispanist in his work on the subject. Keywords: Don Quijote; history of translation into English; legal discourse
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".