La poétique bilingue de Patrice Desbiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilingualism is a recurring feature in Franco-Ontarian writer Patrice Desbiens' work. However, Desbiens' critics generally consider his bilingualism from an angle that is more social than formal. In this thesis, we study the literary forms of Desbiens' bilingual writing. We situate this bilingualism in the broader context of Bakhtinian heteroglossia, and reflect on the relationship between bilingualism and the plurality of voices (heterophony) and of points of view (heterology) within the literary text. In the first chapter, we distinguish four forms of bilingualism, three of which are employed by Desbiens. The next three chapters are thus devoted to the study of these forms. We first look at the "heterophonic-heterological" form, in which a diversity of voices, languages and points of view are intermingled. We then analyze the "monophonic-heterological" form, which integrates two languages and two points of view within a single voice. Finally, in the fourth chapter, we observe the "monophonic-monological" form, which unites languages around a single voice and a single point of view.In our conclusion, we show that Desbiens' bilingual writing participates in both a "particularist" and a "universalist" aesthetics, and that through the combination of these aesthetics, the writer tries to find a "third way" (Lucie Hotte). In L'homme invisible/The Invisible Man, Desbiens uses the many facets of plurilingualism to problematize the notions of "knowledge" and "truth". However, this "third way," which makes particularist and universalist issues overlap, is abandoned after L'homme invisible/The Invisible Man in favour of another way. Our reading of Desbiens' collections of poems shows an increasing homogenization of plurilingualism: in the period between 1980 and 1995, heterogeneous forms dominate, but they are progressively replaced in the 2000s by a much more homogeneous form, the monophonic-monological one. While successively expressing particularistic and universalistic considerations, this form restricts the heterogeneous potential of plurilingualism: it retains from the latter only the diversity of languages, eliminating the plurality of voices and of points of view.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".