The Linguist

APRIL/MAY The Linguist 27 OPINION & COMMENT process within many professions, and the translation world is no exception. As well as perennial (yet unfounded) fears of replacement, technology usage forces us to (re)consider questions of confidentiality, data privacy, fair practice, quality, copyright and ownership of resources, as well as feeding into the other issues alluded to here. For instance, technological developments continue to expand our collective carbon footprint and apply downward pressure to rates – whether in the form of discounts for translation memory matches, machine translation usage and post-editing, or its impact on wider understandings of translation. As powerful advances such as neural machine translation continue to develop, we risk falling even further behind if we don't start tackling these areas in earnest. Moving forwards Ultimately, as translators we are often embedded within institutional and political contexts that force us to balance a diverse range of (sometimes competing) duties, responsibilities, interests and aims. This is something alluded to by the likes of Christiane Nord, and yet our considerations extend far beyond the texts, authors, clients and readers we are directly linked with. We as translators need to consider our place in the world, both in terms of our impact outwardly – not just our individual footprint, but also a collective social responsibility that accompanies any forward-thinking profession – and our position inwardly, so to speak. Importantly, many translators stake out their own position in the world, and some argue that in order to empower professionals and shape understandings, we should seek to be seen as an active intermediary rather than an invisible, neutral conduit. While reiterating the urgency of considering the environmental impact of translation practices, Michael Cronin helps pull these threads together by noting that "translators cannot remain neutral in the debates that concern us all." 5 Within this, we must allow space for our personal need to survive, a kind of economic and social self- interest: the need to pay the rent, to increase our productivity, to decide where we stand on global issues and where the balance lies in terms of personal gain and sacrifice, which can clash with wider ideological beliefs. We must also accept that there are limits to a translator's agency. Anthony Pym put it best when he said, "asking a translator to save the world is sometimes like asking an infant to read." 6 However, it is crucial to remember that we are all in this together, and that counts for something. When it comes to rates or payment practices, gendered language, representation and demographics, recognition, roles, copyright and legal status, and technological terms and conditions, we stand for or against certain practices together, and that can act as a valuable tool in ensuring that we survive and thrive in the long term. Notes 1 Nord, C (2001) 'Loyalty Revisited'. In The Translator 7:2, 185-202 2 Berman, A (2004) 'Translation and the Trials of the Foreign'. In Venuti, L (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, London/New York: Routledge, 284-97 3 Pym, A (2021) 'Cooperation, Risk, Trust: A restatement of translator ethics'. In Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, 1:2, 5-24 4 Chesterman, A (2016) 168 Memes of Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins 5 Cronin, M (2021) 'World in our Hands?' In The Linguist, 60,2 6 Pym, A (2012) On Translator Ethics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Phillippa May Bennett MCIL CL is a Portuguese-English translator specialising in medicine, and a Lecturer in Translation and English at Coimbra University; phillippa.bennett@uc.pt. Dr Joseph Lambert is a Lecturer in Translation Studies at Cardiff University and a freelance translator (French-English). His main research interest is the ethics of translation; LambertJ3@cardiff.ac.uk. @Linguist_CIOL © SHUTTERSTOCK

• Cover