When Body, Emotion, and Translation Meet: A Proposal for a Reader- and Translator-Oriented Approach to Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to explore, in a theoretical manner, some possible ways in which translation may question binaries and authority by creating links between sex-gender non-conforming experiences, and translation. I suggest a flexible, reader-oriented and translator-oriented approach to translation based on performativity, narrativity, theory of emotions and affect theory, feminist theory, and queer theory that can possibly contribute to the transformation of some still rigid expectations about translation as a process, a product, and a phenomenon. The article discusses how emotions and performativity elements used by feminist and queer translation may contribute to a reconceptualization of translation based on a questioning and undermining of binary thinking—and of related concepts such as equivalence, fidelity, unity, coherence, and homogeneity—through repetition, difference, and provisionality. A central point is that the ambiguity that can arise from breaking away from binary thinking in translation and in sex-gender non-conforming bodies and experiences through mechanisms of performativity and of emotions as cultural practices can become an ethical space of resistance and activism. Such a space may denounce the arbitrariness of meaning-producing practices, propose other sites of meaning and knowledge, and construct more flexible narratives. This may be accomplished through the construction of productive shame and discomfort, emotions which are impressed on the body. These emotions can become a link between reader and translator thereby contributing to the transformation of translation and of translation-reading expectations, paradigms, and practices.
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 | 0.038 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".