Argumentative Voice in English Eighteenth-Century Translations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social (1762)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares two contemporary English translations of one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s major works on the nature of society and the institution of political sovereignty,Ducontrat social; ou principes du droit politique(1762). The case study intends to elucidate the extent and nature of translators’ interpretative discursive presence in their rendering of philosophical discourse. The analysis considers a selection of excerpts in source and target texts and traces instances of the implicit argumentative mediation of the translator, which mainly surfaces in the addition of rhetorical emphasis (amplificatio) and the explicit expression of implied meaning, but also in the alteration of denotation and down toning or omission of arguments (brevitas). The discussion reveals that both the 1764 and 1791 translations of theSocial Contractprimarily render the author’s arguments in a more emphatic and explicit tenor, which indicates the translators’ “associative attitude” (Hermans, 2010) to the discourse represented. The 1791, “revolutionary” rendering ofDu contrat socialmoreover shifts the meaning of the proposition in places by introducing a clearer connotation of despotism in references to royal power.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".