MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015157441 · doi:10.7202/1068199ar

La composante russe du Nadsat et ses métamorphoses en français, en russe et en bulgare

2020· article· fr· W3015157441 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elena Meteva-Rousseva

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article traite des problèmes particuliers que pose la composante russe dans la traduction du Nadsat, l’argot qu’Anthony Burgess a inventé pour les jeunes voyous de son roman dystopiqueA Clockwork Orange(1962). Celui-ci se range parmi les meilleurs romans écrits en anglais. Le russe est la composante dominante du Nadsat. Exotique pour un anglophone, il pose de sérieux problèmes en traduction, surtout si celle-ci se fait vers le russe ou vers une autre langue slave, comme le bulgare. L’analyse partira des motifs qui ont poussé Burgess à doter ses personnages de ce langage crypté et à choisir le russe pour le forger. Seront détaillées la composition de cette couche lexicale et son incorporation à l’anglais pour étudier par la suite les solutions qu’ont trouvées les traducteurs vers le français, le russe et le bulgare pour reproduire l’effet de ce lexique russifié dans leurs traductions. Nos observations porteront sur la traduction française de Georges Belmont et Hortense Chabrier, parue en 1972 sous le titreL’Orange mécanique, sur celles, vers le russe, de Vladimir Bošnâk et d’Evgenij Sinelʹŝikov, toutes deux parues en 1991, ainsi que sur les deux versions de la traduction bulgare de Mariana Ekimova-Melniška, publiées respectivement en 1991 et en 2009.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteurs→Same topicTranslation Studies and Practices→French-language works237,207→