Teaching & Learning Guide for: Bridging Across Feminist Translation and Sociolinguistics

This guide accompanies the following article: Emek Ergun, ‘Bridging Across Feminist Translation and Sociolinguistics’, Language and Linguistics Compass 4/5 (2010): 307–318. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749‐818X.2010.00209.x Author’s Introduction This article explores the ways in which feminist sociolinguistic studies and feminist translation studies can inform and empower each other in terms of theory, practice, and research. While the discussion of the theoretical intersection between the two fields focuses on the feminist critiques of sexist language from the perspective of language philosophy, the second part on how the fields intersect on a pragmatic level is more specific and focuses on the critique of the so‐called ‘generic’ masculine nouns and pronouns. The third part argues that both fields would benefit from a research‐based cooperation and discusses how such a cosupportive relationship can be built. By presenting an overview of such interconnections, the article aims not only to expand related scholars’ interdisciplinary understandings of gender dynamics with regard to language and translation, but also to provide them with a springboard to initiate cross‐disciplinary dialogues. The teaching and learning guide, by presenting ideas on how to apply the multiple intersections between feminist translation and feminist sociolinguistics in classroom contexts, extends the article’s scope by highlighting how these fields could further be interconnected through pedagogy. The Author Recommends: Simon, Sherry. 1996. Gender in translation: cultural identity and the politics of transmission . NY: Routledge. This book, which is the first comprehensive study of feminist issues within the context of translation studies, is one of the must‐reads in the field of feminist translation. The book not only presents the history of feminist translation within the diglossic context of Quebec, Canada, and beyond but also provides an accessible discussion of the thorny concepts of translation, identity, culture, and gender from the perspective of cultural studies and feminist theories. The book is arranged thematically in five chapters: (1) the development of feminist translation in relation to the feminist politicization of language and the practice of feminist experimental writings and translations; (2) a selective historical overview of women translators from the Renaissance onward; (3) transatlantic travels of French feminism into the Anglo‐American context through translation; (4) debates surrounding the controversial feminist translations of the Bible; and (5) potential partnerships that could take place between translation studies and cultural studies accompanied by a discussion of Spivak’s postcolonial feminist translation theory. Chapters 1 and 4 are the most relevant ones for scholars looking at the intersections of feminist sociolinguistics and feminist translation. Flotow, Luise von. 1997. Translation and gender: ‘translating in the ‘era of feminism.’ Manchester: St. Jerome. Another must‐read in the field of feminist translation, this short book offers a great introduction to the basic concepts and questions regarding the relations between translation and gender studies. The text starts with a historical overview of the Western women’s movement’s problematization of ‘patriarchal’ language and the subsequent rising of experimental feminist writing and translation practices in Canada. Then, it addresses the issues of the feminist translator’s interventions, in/visibility, and political identity. In Chapter 4, the author illustrates the various projects that the term ‘feminist translation’ encompasses: reading, criticizing, and retranslating existing ‘patriarchal’ translations; feminist retranslations of the Bible; recovering ‘lost’ women translators’ works, etc. The book ends by responding to the criticisms directed toward feminist translators. Scholars looking at the intersections of feminist sociolinguistics and feminist translation could benefit especially from Chapters 1, 2, and the part of Chapter 4 on the retranslations of the Bible (pp. 52–57). Baxter, Robert Neal. 2005. On the need for non‐sexist language in translation. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture , 15. Online version http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/ARTICLES/2005/15‐1.htm accessed December 20, 2009. This pedagogical article argues that the topic of non‐sexist and non‐heterosexist language should be incorporated into translation courses to give translation students an understanding of the political implications of their linguistic choices. Baxter notes that because translators are social agents who are always embedded in heteropatriarchal social contexts, they interpret the world and texts through their social conditioning and thus reflect (often unconsciously) their hetero/sexist biases onto their translations reproducing gender hierarchies and heteronormativity. To illustrate the urgency of such training, he discusses a translation experiment where he asked his students to translate a gender‐neutral Galician sentence into English describing a romantic scene. The findings reveal how heteronormativity is persistently re/produced in translations. Baxter also discusses a second study exploring how translation students stereotypically assign gender to the seemingly gender‐neutral categories such as doctor, teacher, secretary, prime minister, patient, and student. The article is useful not only because it shows the importance of integrating feminist sociolinguistics into the translation curricula, but also because it provides the test sentences used in the experiments, which can be adapted by other scholars to conduct similar experiments in other sociolinguistic contexts or to create classroom exercises (see ‘Learning exercise # 4’ below for details on how to incorporate this source in language and translation courses). Newmark, Peter. 1994. Sexist language in translation. Lebende Sprachen , 39(3). 114. This one‐page essay discusses the topic of translating sexist language and argues for the elimination of sexist translation. Newmark talks about the need for translators to avoid using linguistic ‘he/man’ forms and reproducing gender inequalities in their works, and the responsibility of translation teachers to train their students on this crucial issue. Emphasizing the tenacious nature of the systematic male oppression and exploitation of women, he claims that the termination of gender oppression and exploitation can happen only slowly through constant and persistent activism and humorously ends the essay saying that ‘for this reason, as a teacher of translation, I condemn and cross out sexist language, but I don’t take off marks for it – yet’. Due to its brevity, this essay can easily be squeezed into both feminist translation and sociolinguistics syllabi. Susam‐Sarajeva, Şebnem. 2005. A course on ‘gender and translation’: as an indicator of certain gaps in the research on the topic. Gender, sex and translation: the manipulation of identities , ed. by José Santaemilia, 161–76. Manchester: St. Jerome. In this pedagogical essay, the author first describes the ‘translation and gender’ course that she taught in a Finnish university and then discusses the problems, implications, and potentials of the course for both translation and women’s studies disciplines. Overall, she argues that while the course was useful in increasing the students’ awareness of gender politics in relation to translation issues, some difficulties arose with regard to the target audience, genre of the source text, the global positions of the languages involved, the issue of fidelity, and the feminist perspectives underlying translation practices. This could be a useful source for both teachers of translation and sociolinguistics as it highlights the importance of including linguistic gender issues in translation courses, especially in the beginning of the semester, as these con

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.