Translator Training has, for a number of years, been a key topic of research in Translation Studiesâits methods, techniques and paradigms having been the subject of discussion for decades (Holmes 1972; Pym 2009). Some studies have weighed the effectiveness of process-oriented vs product-oriented approaches (Gile 2009; Orlando 2012), while others have focused specifically on the impact of translation technology and its most recent developments (Pym 2003, 2012; Marshman and Bowker 2012; Doherty 2016). Kiralyâs (2000) social constructivist approach to training distinguishes between translation and translator competence, the former focusing mainly on the linguistic skills needed to âproduce an adequate target textâ (2000, p. 10) and the latter encompassing a wider set of skills relating to the effective use of technological tools (2000, pp. 9â13). This can be seen as a further attempt at underpinning practice-based activities within traditional theoretical frameworks and at fostering best practices in academia . Reliance on consolidated practices in translator training becomes particularly poignant when translators are faced with areas of knowledge for which no such practices are available and challenges arise. This has implications for the translatorâs set of ideals, values, beliefs and (identity) needs affecting, in turn, the pedagogy of their taught courses. This is also particularly true for translationâs sister discipline, i.e. Interpreting.
Gender Studies is a representative example of such areas of knowledge lacking specific training benchmarks that can help translators overcome the challenges posed by sexual/identity discourse from one language into another. As a matter of fact, suitable tools or sensitivity to deal with the issues at hand may not have been developed or implemented in the relevant target languages/cultures. Gender as such is to be considered as a cross-cutting theme that affects the private and the public sphere alike andâalthough to a different extentâall professions and disciplines.
Since gender equality has become one of the primary goals promoted by large world organizations such as the Commonwealth and the International Labour Organization, gender training has increasingly been perceived as a need and, at the same time, as an essential tool to enhance mainstreaming, i.e. âa strategy for making womenâs as well as menâs concerns and experiences an integral dimension in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuatedâ (International Labour Office 1998).
The advocates of gender mainstreaming have usually been the members of non-governmental organizations and development agencies that have approached governmental institutions to get their support for promoting suitable training strategies, mainly in economic development. This urge has mostly interested sectors such as health, agriculture and energy (i.e. those more directly linked to economic sustainability). Education is one of the sectors contributing to economic sustainability as pointed out by the World Economic Forum (2015), which states that âeducation provides the skills people need to thrive in the new sustainable economy, working in areas such as renewable energy, smart agriculture, forest rehabilitation, the design of resource-efficient cities, and sound management of healthy ecosystems. Perhaps most important, education can bring about a fundamental shift in how we think [and] actâ (our emphasis). As a matter of fact, Higher Education (HE) institutions have recently started integrating gender-inclusive agendas in their strategic plans as part of their equality and diversity policies.
Translation practices in academia have also been reconceived as a trigger for social change (Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002); for example, as a means by which the gender bias inherent in the textsâand that translators (sub)consciously risk transmitting in their workâmay be questioned and possibly reversed. At the same time, gender-inclusive language practices have started to spread more widely across countries (Farid 2016) as a result of the feminist campaigns aimed at implementing the use of non-sexist language in political and institutional contexts in the 1990s (Miller and Swift 1995; Sabatini 1987). However, the application of feminist translation strategies has usually been perceived as a form of manipulation , which is irreconcilable with real-life assignments, and there does not seem to be a unanimous consensus about the feasibility of such implementation. Similarly, gender-sensitivity is not perceived as being a pressing need by all agents involved in the translation process. This is because gender tends to be regarded as something intimate, not as an integral dimension of someoneâs professional duties.
In the last few years, there have been lacklustre attempts at using the translation classroom as a way to enhance gender awareness , in the hope of instilling the habit of thinking of gender as all-encompassing and affecting all spheres of life, including work responsibilities (Corrius et al. 2016; De Marco 2011).
In this volume, such practices are explored from a variety of perspectives and by contributors whose academic, professional and personal experience informs their pedagogy. The range of fields included in this volume include the translation of literature, legal translation , pedagogy/curriculum design, interpreting, the translation of advertising, and audiovisual translation .
Vigoâs opening chapter (Chapter 2) offers an overarching perspective that transcends disciplinary boundaries, her claim being that a successful translator training model is one that aims to develop opportunities for critical reflection on linguistic behaviours rather than technical skills to apply hard and fast rules. According to the author, this goal can only be achieved by integrating a framework that combines cognitive linguistics and critical discourse analysis , since both approaches are concerned with the relationship between lexical choices and social actions. In the field of literary translation , BarrĂłs and Alcalde (Chapter 9) explore the use of literary texts in a third-year undergraduate class of English as a Foreign Language to discuss the implementation of a three-phase methodology for the purpose of testing students â perceptions of womenâs roles in society and, eventually, developing their critical thinking on the translation process when gender issues are at stake. Along the same lines, Santaemilia (Chapter 8) provides an interesting insight into the discussions that have arisen from the analysis of the publishedâas well as students ââtranslations of legal thrillers and uses these to interrogate the androcentric logic underpinning the patronizing representation of women in the legal profession. Henry-Tierney (Chapter 3) also takes literatureâand more specifically contemporary womenâs writingâas a backdrop to inspect the institutional challenges that impinge on the design of a module in translating gender and sexuality . At the same time, she illustrates the extent to which modern Virtual Learning platforms can positively encourage studentsâ discussions and help them tackle these tricky/sensitive topics. Henry-Tierneyâs perspective on the challenges and rewards of using educational tools to promote a gender-inclusive approach to teaching and learning aligns us closer to areas in which gender features prominently but that have long remained uncharteredâthat is, curriculum design, localization and interpreting. In describing the classroom-based activities designed with the aim of integrating a feminist/queer pedagogy into her translation courses, Baldo (Chapter 6) voices her criticism against the constraints posed by British neoliberal HE institutions. The author argues that while gendered perspectives keep being used as objects...