This week the Pittsburgh Review of Books will be publishing an experiment in collective translation featuring a French-language original literary text, its translation as rendered by students in Carnegie Mellon University Teaching Professor Sébastien Dubreil’s course “L’apprenant comme locuteur/acteur” or “The Learner as Speaker/Social Actor.” Part 1 is below.
Introduction
By Isabelle Chen, Assistant Professor of Global French Studies, Carnegie Mellon University
“Traduttore, traditore”––“Translator, traitor.” As suggested by the classic Italian adage, translations have historically been judged according to the impossible standard of “faithfulness” to an original text’s phrasing. However, the last century has seen a gradual shift away from this goal of formal equivalence and toward a dynamic or functional equivalence: one that prioritizes the meaning, intent, and semantic nuance over strict word-for-word accuracy. This opens up a wider conception of, to borrow Walter Benjamin’s phrase, the “task of the translator”: if texts can be said to circulate across geographical and cultural as well as linguistic borders, then translation necessitates a multilayered approach that accounts for these different dimensions.
In fact, this notion is inherent to the very etymology of the term “translation,” derived from the Latin roots “trans” and “lātus,” which together mean “to carry, lead, or bear across.” But what, precisely, is being carried, and across which sociocultural contexts? The translator must decide not only what the words themselves mean, but especially the cultural weight that they bear––what deeper worldviews and values are being ferried by the text––and how these insights might then shape their own rendering.
Focusing on the cultural elements of translation comes with a unique challenge: it compels the translator to grapple with, negotiate between, and bridge the many “givens” taken for granted in both source and target contexts. How does one go about translating grammatically gendered terms into a non-gendered language? How can one balance the existence of what some call “untranslatables”––turns of phrase whose cultural specificity means no easy equivalent in other languages––with the fact that these have been, and continue to be, and must be, translated? And in the French context specifically, what choices might govern a translation of the famous “liberté, égalité, fraternité,” a deceptively simple phrase in which a direct translation would hide the specific cultural connotations that each word has in the context of French national values?
The translators of the “Sociolinguistics of the Francophone World” seminar work through these same questions in their collaborative renderings––and, in doing so, point to the task of the contemporary translator as, ultimately, one of intercultural communication and mediation. The course focused on “l’apprenant comme locuteur-acteur” (the learner as speaker–social actor/agent), a term coined by Rick Kern and Anthony Liddicoat in their article of the same name. In exploring this concept, students focused on two main questions: What does it mean for a language learner to take their place in a multilingual discourse community? And how can our language choices and the symbolic objects we put out into the world shape social action (ours and others’)? Their translation work brings to an English-speaking readership some sociocultural preoccupations in contemporary France: how to deal with the unbridled rise of AI and the way it is shaping our world and social relationships; the rise of the far right; and the collusion between technological power and political power.
Introduction to Salomé Saqué and her book
By Sébastien Dubreil, Teaching Professor of Global French Studies, Carnegie Mellon University
Salomé Saqué has imposed herself on the French journalistic scene by the high quality of her investigative work, the depth of her reporting, and the pertinence of her analyses, which she distills in a clear, direct, documented, and far-reaching prose. Having earned degrees in Political Science and English, and a Master’s Degree in International Law, Salomé Saqué studied abroad in Spain before starting her career as a journalist interested in economical issues. In 2021, she joined the independent online media Blast where she continues her work on the economy and increasingly started to focus on issues pertaining to global climate change, feminism, and social justice, as circumstances demanded it. In addition to having become one of the most recognizable voices in today’s French media landscape (contributing to numerous journalistic venues in print, radio, TV), Salomé Saqué has published two books books: Sois jeune et tais-toi: Réponse à ceux qui critiquent la jeunesse (‘Be young and shut up’ — 2023, Éditions Payot) accounts for the complex predicament of today’s youth facing economic and ecological turmoil while often being ignored or discounted. In 2024, she published Résister (‘Resist’ — Éditions Payot), in which she documents and analyzes the rise of the far right and calls for a resistance, leading to death threats from the far right. Having sold more than 400,000 copies, the book was expanded and republished in late 2025. In 2026, Salomé Saqué was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Leuven (Belgium), which noted that “she exposes the mechanisms underlying socio-economic inequalities” and “makes visible certain forms of suffering that are not given a voice.”
Original text in French
Introduction
Une balle dans la nuque.
C’est ce que préconise le site d’extrême droite Réseau libre pour se débarrasser des “fouille-merde”: journalistes, avocats et syndicalistes méthodiquement identifiés dans une liste noire largement diffusée de personnes à abattre. Je n’étais pas surprise d’y figurer: cette menace publique venait s’ajouter à d’autres, plus ciblées. Une plainte collective a été déposée, mais l’information n’a pas suscité d’attention médiatique ou politique particulière. Et pour cause, depuis quelques années, les menaces de mort et appels à tuer des membres de la société civile émanant de sites d’extrême droite se multiplient.
Les spécialistes de ce courant se sont peu à peu accoutumés à ces techniques mafieuses d’intimidation, à l’image d’Edwy Plenel, le fondateur de Mediapart, Pierre Plottu, journaliste d’investigation pour Libération, ou Djaffer Ait Aoudia, gravement menacé dans le cadre de l’une de ses enquêtes sur un candidat du Rassemblement national (RN). Idem pour la journaliste Nassira El Moaddem, présentatrice d’Arrêt sur images, submergée d’insultes racistes et de menaces, jusqu’à son domicile, au printemps 2024. Même sort pour les journalistes Karim Rissouli, présentateur de C ce soir et d’En Société sur France 5, et Mohamed Bouhafsi, chroniqueur de C à vous sur France 5 et coprésentateur de 20 h 22 sur France 2, tous deux victimes de vagues d’insultes racistes et de menaces de mort pendant la campagne des dernières élections législatives. Pas étonnant donc que Mathieu Molard, le rédacteur en chef du site d’information StreetPress, ait fait le choix de consacrer une partie significative du budget de ce média indépendant qui enquête sur l’extrême droite en mesures de sécurité, à la suite des menaces reçues par l’ensemble de sa rédaction. Là encore, pas de tollé médiatique ou politique malgré le danger démocratique que représentent ces entraves à la liberté d’informer.
Les avocats ne sont pas épargnés non plus: Mireille Damiano, Lucie Simon, Arie Alimi ou encore David Metaxas dénoncent depuis des années les menaces de mort qu’ils reçoivent de la part de l’extrême droite. De même chez des militants, moins médiatisés mais tout autant menacés voire agressés, à l’image des membres de SOS Racisme par exemple, et de certains activistes et élus, plus largement.
Si les personnalités dans le viseur des islamistes radicaux sont, à raison, soutenues collectivement et souvent mises sous protection policière–comme la journaliste Ophélie Meunier en 2022 par exemple–, la société civile et les institutions paraissent bien moins réactives lorsque le danger vient de l’extrême droite. Et ce en dépit d’une montée en puissance inquiétante depuis plusieurs années, au point d’être devenue le deuxième risque terroriste sur le sol européen selon Europol.
La menace est donc là, tristement banale, commune, si bien que nous, journalistes qui travaillons sur le sujet, l’avons intégrée dans notre quotidien. Voilà bientôt dix ans que j’exerce dans les médias: c’est peu, et pourtant, tout a changé en une décennie. Parler d’inégalités sociales ou d’urgence climatique est désormais perçu comme un acte militant, couvrir une simple manifestation équivaut aujourd’hui à prendre un risque – physique et juridique – et diffuser son travail peut exposer à de sérieuses menaces. En revanche, applaudir la flambée de la bourse, parler de “wokisme” ou de “crise migratoire en France” c’est neutre. Si en deux ans, le nombre de bulletins pour l’extrême droite a explosé, la victoire la plus écrasante ne se déroule pas dans les urnes, mais dans les esprits.
Usés par la peur, l’intolérance et la haine, les piliers de la République – Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité – s’érodent et peuvent voler en éclats à la faveur d’une crise économique, politique ou informationnelle. C’est le résultat d’un travail long, insidieux, mais terriblement efficace, qui mène au réveil brutal et stupéfait d’une partie des Français un soir de premier tour, une nouvelle fois contrainte au barrage suite à la percée sans commune mesure de ces idées qu’on croyait marginales. Mais jusqu’à quand tiendra-t-il, ce barrage fissuré?
En une vingtaine d’années, on est passé de “I’impensable” à “l’inéluctable” – en glissant de “l’inadmissible” au “tolérable.”
La menace que l’extrême droite fait peser sur la démocratie et les valeurs de ce pays est pourtant bien réelle, il est temps d’en prendre conscience collectivement, et vite, pour pouvoir agir. Parce qu’il est encore temps de résister à ce rouleau compresseur. Il est encore temps de mettre en place une véritable résistance civique. Parce que défendre des valeurs humanistes ne devrait pas être une extravagance ou l’apanage d’une poignée de militants criminalisés: ce pourrait être la norme, comme ce le fut pendant des années. Parce que les heures les plus sombres de notre histoire devraient nous avoir appris qu’on ne peut pas faire l’économie des valeurs de tolérance et de respect qui constituent le socle de notre démocratie.
Je ne me prononcerais jamais de cette façon contre un autre courant politique. C’est parce que l’extrême droite n’est pas une formation comme une autre, parce qu’on ne revient pas d’un tel régime, parce que son arrivée au pouvoir constitue une véritable bascule que j’écris ces lignes. À toutes fins utiles, je précise que je n’écris en soutien à aucun parti politique. Je m’appuie sur des éléments historiques, sociaux et géopolitiques pour mettre en évidence les dérives auxquelles nous sommes confrontés aujourd’hui: si cette analyse porte sur le danger que représente l’extrême droite, elle n’exempte aucunement tous les autres partis de faire une sévère autocritique et d’identifier leurs responsabilités dans la déroute intellectuelle et morale à l’œuvre.
Je veux simplement faire mon travail de journaliste. Documenter l’histoire, le programme et l’action de l’extrême droite, qui en dépit de ses affirmations n’est pas juste un courant politique comme les autres. Expliquer comment elle mène une bataille culturelle redoutable, et pourquoi ses idées qui infusent dans la sphère publique sont incompatibles avec les valeurs républicaines. Démontrer pourquoi, si une forme de résistance collective ne se développe pas rapidement, nous risquons non pas de faire élire le RN et ses alliés, mais carrément de franchir un point de bascule vers un régime mettant nos libertés individuelles en péril. Et parce que mes recherches ont aussi pour but de proposer des modes d’action à tous ceux qui se sentent démunis et impuissants dans la situation actuelle : j’esquisse des pistes de gestes et de réflexes qui, à plus ou moins grande échelle, peuvent participer à refonder le vivre-ensemble et protéger la démocratie.
J’ai l’audace de croire que ce n’est pas de l’idéalisme, que “liberté,” “égalité,” et “fraternité” ne sont pas des signifiants vides de sens sur les façades de nos mairies, que la France est un pays où l’on défend la démocratie et l’information, pas un pays où on met une balle dans la nuque des journalistes.
Collective Translation by Yukiko Ito, Lucky Lillygreen, Inès Maquaire, and Katherine Purse
Introduction
A bullet in the neck
The far right website Réseau Libre advocates this method for getting rid of the “shit-diggers”: journalists, lawyers, and union workers who are methodically named in a black list mostly composed of people to be killed. I was not surprised to appear in it: this public threat is one of many, more targeted others. A collective complaint was filed but the information didn’t garner much political or media attention. This is because during the past few years, there has been a sharp increase in death threats and calls to kill civilians coming from sources on the extreme right.
Specialists of this field have become accustomed bit by bit to these mafia-like intimidation strategies, in the image of Edwy Plenel (founder of Mediapart), Pierre Plottu (investigative journalist for Libération), or Djaffer Ait Aoudia, who were all seriously threatened during one of their investigations on a candidate for the Rassemblement National (RN – one of France’s far right parties). Likewise for the journalist Nassira El Moaddem, host of Arrêt sur images, who was inundated with racist insults and threats even reaching her home, in the spring of 2024. And the same fate for the journalist Karim Rissouli, host of C ce soir and of En Société on France 5, and Mohamed Bouhafsi, columnist for C à vous on France 5 and cohost of 20:22 on France 2, both victims of waves of racist insults and death threats during the campaign for the last legislative elections. It’s not surprising, then, that Mathieu Molard, editor-in-chief of news site StreetPress, chose to dedicate a significant part of the budget of his independent media site, that investigates the far right, to security measures following threats received by its entire editorial staff. Yet again, no media or political outcry despite the democratic danger these hindrances present to the freedom to inform.
Lawyers aren’t spared either: Mireille Damiano, Lucie Simon, Aerie Alimi and even David Metaxa have denounced for years the death threats they have received from the far right. The same is true for activists, who have been less publicly but similarly violently threatened; for example, members of SOS Racisme, and more broadly several activists and elected officials.
If people targeted by Islamist extremists are, rightly so, collectively supported and often put under police protection — like the journalist Ophélie Meunier in 2022 — society and institutions seem much less reactive towards the danger coming from the far right. And this despite a worrying increase in power over the past several years, to the point of Europol designating it the second largest terrorist threat on European soil.
Thus, the threat is there, sadly banal and common, if even we, journalists who work on the topic, have integrated it into our everyday life. I have worked in media for almost ten years now: not very long and yet, everything has changed in one decade. Speaking about social inequalities or the climate emergency is now perceived as a militant act, to cover a simple demonstration now amounts to taking a risk – physical or legal – and to broadcast your work can expose you to serious threats. In contrast, applauding the stock market surge, speaking of “wokeness” or the “migratory crisis in France,” is neutral. Although the number of votes for the far right has drastically increased over the past two years, the most crushing victory is not occurring in the ballot boxes, but in the minds of the masses.
Worn out by fear, intolerance and hate, the pillars of the Republic — liberty, equality, and fraternity — are eroding and can shatter in the wake of an economic, political, or informational crisis. This is the result of a long, insidious, but terribly effective work, which leads to the brutal and stunned awakening of a part of the French people on the evening after the polls close on the first electoral round, once again forced to form a sheltering dam for democracy following an unprecedented breakthrough of ideas we thought to be marginal. But how long will this cracked dam hold?
In twenty years, we have gone from “the unthinkable” to “the inescapable” — while sliding from “the unacceptable” to “the tolerable.”
However, the threat that the far right exerts on democracy and the values of this country is very real, and it is time to collectively grow awareness, and quickly, to be able to act. Because there is still time to resist this steamroller. There is still time to put into place a movement of genuine civic resistance. Because defending humanist values doesn’t have to be an extravagance or the privilege of a handful of criminalized activists: it can be the norm, like it was for years. Because the darkest hours of our history should have taught us that we cannot dispense with the values of tolerance and respect that constitute the foundation of our democracy.
I would never speak out this way against another political movement. I write these lines because the far right isn’t a political movement like any other, because one does not come back from such a regime, because its coming to power is truly a tipping point. For all practical purposes, I specify that I do not write to support any particular political party. I rely on historical, social, and geopolitical elements to shed light on the abuses that we are confronted with today: although this analysis focuses on the danger represented by the far right, it does not exempt any other parties from making a severe self-criticism and identifying their responsibilities in the intellectual and moral collapse playing out today.
I simply want to do my work as a journalist. Documenting the history, doctrine and action of the far right, which despite its assertions is not just a political movement like the others. To explain how it leads to a formidable cultural battle, and why its ideas which spread in the public sphere are incompatible with the values of the Republic. Demonstrating why, if a collective form of resistance does not develop quickly, we run the risk of not simply electing the RN and its allies, but also frankly of crossing a watershed towards a regime that puts our individual liberties in peril. And since my research also has the goal of proposing modes of action to all who feel deprived and powerless in the current situation, I sketch gestures and reflexes which, at a greater or lesser level, can participate in remaking communal life and protecting democracy.
I have the audacity to believe that this isn’t just idealism, that “liberty,” “equality,” “fraternity” aren’t meaningless signifiers that grace the facades of our city halls; that France is a country where we defend democracy and information, not a country where we put bullets in the necks of journalists.
Explanatory Essay by Yukiko Ito, Lucky Lillygreen, Inès Maquaire, and Katherine Purse
While maintaining the most direct translation of ideas from French to English, it becomes almost impossible to translate each aspect across cultures due to differences in context and understanding between groups. Considering confusing vocabulary as a whole phrase, not just an individual word, enables inference of meaning based on context. Yet, each culture has their own myths, identities, and nuances integrated in a long history. As translators, it was difficult to preserve the original meaning syntactically in English—especially since the United States has different cultural references than France. Sometimes there are no perfect translations for certain words, so comparing each person’s translation helped us find the best choices. Additionally, there were certain structural issues that cannot be ignored. French writes differently than American English: each have their own quotation mark and sentence structure (parentheses, commas). There are translators who choose to alter everything into the translation language, or some who translate as directly as possible; we decided to meet in the middle. For example, the sentence “Et ce en dépit d’une montée en puissance inquiétante depuis plusieurs années, au point d’être devenue le deuxième risque terroriste sur le sol européen selon Europol” directly translates to “And this despite a worrying show of power over the past several years, to the point of having become the second terrorist risk on European soil according to Europol”; however, given the context and flow, it makes more sense to translate it as “And this despite a worrying show of power over the past several years, to the point of Europol designating it the second terrorist risk on European soil.” This semantic shift allows for better audience comprehensibility because of the adapted sentence structure. Therefore, an artistic and culturally adept translation style allowed us to maintain as clear of a restatement as possible.
Furthermore, the three pillars of the République (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité), are essential to French culture—something an outsider would not immediately understand. It may seem like a simple phrase, yet the importance runs deep: the French people are united in these principles, something that has evolved from the revolution of 1848, which was a grueling fight against absolute power—and implements them into each aspect of life. Each citizen learns these identities at birth: they are reinforced by institutions, workplaces, schools, and even on buildings. One needs to understand that “Liberté” in France does not equate freedom in the US. Moreover, freedom implies different things in both countries, such as guns, land, and freedom of speech, in America. For the French Liberté is the freedom to live as an equal citizen under the law, free of oppressions. An example that diverges from the notion of freedom in the US is “Laïcité”, the separation of church and state, which is completely enforced in France. Secondly, “Fraternité” may imply brotherhood upon direct translation. However, in French the word has no gendered connotation and has a deeper meaning than its English counterpart. It means taking care of one another and doing good for the country, both as a governmental entity and as a people. Lastly, “Égalité” means more than just equality. Citizens are all equal – independent of their race, religion, or origins – and all protected under the same laws. These principles are heavily ingrained in each section of civil society. Each citizen is born with these three rights, grounded in common good. It was important for us to attempt to preserve the significance of these rights, that would be automatically understood by a French citizen, in our English translation.
