La rencontre des langues dans le cinéma francophone: Québec, Afrique subsaharienne, France-Maghreb by John Kristian Sanaker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
syntax of many passages. In most instances, the terms validation/invalidation, nécessaire , possible, probable, douteux, souhaitable, regrettable, obligatoire, redouté might have served the author’s purposes equally well. San Diego State University (CA) Thomas J. Cox SANAKER, JOHN KRISTIAN. La rencontre des langues dans le cinéma francophone: Québec, Afrique subsaharienne, France-Maghreb. Québec: PU de Laval, 2010. ISBN 978-27637 -9048-0. Pp. 175. $24,95 Can. The study of contact between French and other modern languages, as well as between “standardized” French and regional or national “versions,” has long been at the forefront of diverse scholarship in many disciplines. Despite the broad treatment of these topics in a variety of critical methodologies and from many theoretical perspectives, the question of the textualization of linguistic encounters in French-language cinemas has received little academic attention. Sanaker’s book seeks to fill that void. With a background in French literature and linguistics, Sanaker sets out in this interdisciplinary work to explore “la mixité langagière” (backcover) in contemporary filmmaking from Quebec, Sub-Saharan Africa (notably Senegal and Burkina Faso), and the Maghreb (mostly Algeria). As the series director of the collection Cinéma et Société, Yves Laberge prefaces the book by questioning whether la francophonie is implicitly bilingual and discussing the link between multilingualism and the world of film. Laberge also provides important preparation for Sanaker’s coinage and treatment of hétérolinguisme, which is to say “le fait de recourir à plusieurs langues dans un même contexte narratif” (xx). Sanaker’s book and its preface highlight productive and unique relationships among the fields of linguistics, film, and Francophone studies. Sanaker begins with a concise overview of the history and theory concerning the studies of l’autre langue and linguistic encounters found in literature and cinema . It provides a clear lens through which Sanaker analyzes each “national” cinema and its mise en langue in subsequent chapters. Film scholars without a strong background in linguistics might find some of the terminology and concepts difficult to grasp. Sanaker is to be applauded, however, for striking an effective balance between discipline-specific vocabulary and non-specialized terms through employing a clear treatment of content matter that should appeal to and satisfy both specialists and novices alike. In the three major chapters of the book, he explores themes found in various Francophone cinemas. To begin, he analyzes the topic of hétérolinguisme in Québécois cinema through a discussion of a half dozen contemporary films that juxtapose the uses of French and English. He then studies hétérolinguisme in relation to cinema from Africa “dite francophone” (104) through a brief discussion of Souleymane Cissé’s, Idrissa Ouedraogo’s, and Cheick Oumar Sissoko’s work (among others) and a more complete treatment of Ousmane Sembène’s corpus. Finally, he explores connections between hétérolinguisme and history with regard to the conflicted historical relationship between France and Algeria, as represented linguistically in six well-known war genre films. In his conclusion, Sanaker highlights the main arguments of the preceding chapters and situates them within the context of “l’altérité [linguistique] au cinéma” (159). While the book is an excellent contribution to the question and study of linguistic encounters in French-language cinemas, Sanaker’s study of each “national” 608 FRENCH REVIEW 85.3 cinema is somewhat unbalanced. His treatment of Québécois cinema is the most complete and is approximately twice the length of the other two studies. One might wonder how Sanaker’s research could also inform and be impacted by the study of Maghrebian films (and/or films made in France by émigré filmmakers and French filmmakers of North African heritage) that are not limited to the subject matter of the French-Algerian war or situated in a colonial context. In addition , the book would benefit from the inclusion of an index, which would enhance its practical use for research and classroom purposes. Despite these limitations, Sanaker presents his arguments clearly and convincingly, while developing solid analyses and providing stimulating original reflection. This book will be of interest to scholars and students in French and Francophone studies as well as to...
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".