French-Australian Writing: Expanding Multilingual Australian Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 'Australian Literature-International Contexts' (2007), Robert Dixon called for what he termed 'a transnational practice of Australian literary criticism ' (19).In this article, Dixon traced the history of Australian literary criticism, noting in particular the influence of 'world literature' and transnational studies since the 1990s.In a six-point plan that aimed to develop a transnational approach to Australian literature, he suggested literary critics pay greater attention to transnational Australian writers and to the influence of multicultural backgrounds upon the shape of Australian literature.He argued that it was now time to move beyond cultural nationalism to 'explore and elaborate the many ways in which the national literature has always been connected to the world' (20).Indeed, the attention to minority writers that had been gradually growing for several decades had extended to lively discussion of transnational writing by the early twenty-first century.Two years after the publication of Dixon's field-leading article, Michael Jacklin declared a 'transnational turn,' pointing to a 'surge of references in Australian literary studies over the last few years to the transnational dimensions of the national literature' (1).Against the backdrop of debates in world literature, Dixon's call was apt.In the wake of the popularity of the field of world literature that had spread so rapidly in the US, how could Australian literature be reconsidered?David Damrosch's hugely influential work pushes literary critics to reconsider some of the time-honoured categories that have organised our disciplinary enquiry.From What is World Literature? (2003) through his many collaborative works, such as How to Read World Literature, Teaching World Literature and The Longman Anthology of World Literature (all 2009), Damrosch suggests new modes of interpretation and of identification, suggesting that 'a work enters world literature by a double process: first, by being read as literature; second, by circulating out into a broader world beyond its linguistic and cultural point of origin ' (2003, 6).Do Australian texts correspond to such a theory?It is worth pausing to consider these two stipulations in terms of Australian literary studies.Looking at Damrosch's first condition, are Australian texts read as literature and, if so, by whom?Are Australian authors considered favourably by readers in other parts of the world, both Englishspeaking and non-English-speaking? Damrosch's second condition raises two separate but interlinked questions regarding Australian texts.First, do they circulate out into a world beyond their Australian 'cultural point of origin'?Do they find a readership in other Anglophone spaces, for example?Do they form part of a canon of literature in English?Are they included in University curricula-particularly in the US-inspired 'World Literature' programs?Pascale Casanova suggested in The World Republic of Letters that literary markets revolve around cosmopolitan capitals-Paris, London, New York-that bestow recognition on literary texts.Do Australian texts circulate in these capitals?And are Sydney, Melbourne or Perth, for instance, such cosmopolitan capitals?Second, do Australian texts circulate beyond their 'linguistic point of origin'?This question raises the issue of translation.Are Australian texts translated and made available to readers in non-Anglophone areas?It also raises the question
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".