Is Habitus as Conceived by Pierre Bourdieu Soluble in Translation Studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This translation studies article aims to locate the notion of habitus within the context of the sociological theory of P. Bourdieu by defining it in relation to the other heuristic notions of field and illusio. Two illustrations in literary translation are provided in an attempt to show the relevance of the notion of habitus within translation studies: those of the two major twentieth-century French translators, Maurice-Edgar Coindreau and Marcel Duhamel. Under examination are the primary and specific habitus of Coindreau and Duhamel in relation to each other. In order to define the notion of habitus, it is important to ask whether there is such a thing as a field (in Bourdieu’s sense) of translation, because certain traits of translating are likely to be formed in the field on which the translation depends. In fact, we do not believe that a field of translation currently exists, although incipient signs of the emergence of such a field appear to be emerging in the technical and specialized domains. On the other hand, in translation studies it seems clear that a specific and autonomous field emerged at the turn of the 1970s–1980s. Almost on a daily basis, one can observe its effect in the form of unified stakes of translation expressed in multiple structures (associations, symposia and conferences, reviews and specific collections, etc.). We conclude with some remarks on the habitus of the translation studies scholar/researcher while emphasising the reflexive return to be performed in an effort to promote self-reflexivity (Bourdieu), one of the conditions of progress in translation studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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 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".