Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade, e.g. through post-colonial studies, research on cultural identity construction has been focusing on aspects as “multilingualism” or “language plurality.” Heteroglossia or literary language plurality is the presence in the text of foreign idioms or social, regional, historical. . . varieties, considered in this paper not from an anecdotic or normative but from a functional, institutional viewpoint. Functional research on heteroglossia in “original” literary prose has developed a solid tradition in Canada, but it has remained virtually unknown in Descriptive Translation Studies. How heteroglossic can (or must) a translation be in a certain context? What are the modalities and identity functions of literary language plurality in literary translations? Until now, these questions have not got the attention they deserve. Because translation is a cross-cultural process between cultures maintaining unequal power relations (cf. Robyns 1994), its degree of language plurality can be loaded with the highest symbolic importance. Therefore, functional descriptive studies of heteroglossia in translated prose can offer a possible correction of a certain idealizing monolingualism of translation studies’ models and enhance our understanding of literary identity construction and cultural dynamics. The present paper tries to put forward some hypotheses inspired by research on translations of Flemish novels into French during the 20s and 30s of the twentieth century in Belgium.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".