10
Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation Mercedes Bengoechea University of Alcalá, Calle Trinidad, 3, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain article info synopsis Available online 19 July 2013 In this paper I discuss why specialised professional translation in Spain has taken no interest in incorporating feminist proposals. Firstly, feminist translatology has focused on literary translation mainly; seldom has it dealt with translation as a professional practice. Secondly, feminist translation has been considered a North-American literary activity, far from practitioners' concerns. Furthermore, Translation Studies have magnified the subversive role of feminist translation, making it difficult to incorporate feminist proposals to professional activity. As a result, feminist Translation Studies have not joined the linguistictranslatology debate of the last decade, and there is a conspicuous lack of contributions on feminist aspects of technical translation in essays and journals. Application of the notion of discursive genre does not collaborate with feminist translation either. And there is also a shortage of data bases, glossaries or software which, from a tentative, provisional and temporary nature, may offer feminist textual models to practitioners of non-literary translation. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Some years ago during a conference in Spain which focused on gender and translation, one of the participants in the subsequent discussion claimed that a large number of transla- tion professionals showed no enthusiasm for feminist transla- tion. Indeed, despite the fact that feminist translatology and feminist translation practice have existed for over 25 years, they have little visibility in Spain. This situation seems to be particularly true in the area of specialised technical translation, where feminist translation is met with simple disinterest. In this article, I discuss some of the reasons which may have led to this marginality. Given the attitude-shaping role of Translation Studies at university, I concentrate first on how Spanish Translation Studies deal with feminist translation. Then, I will focus on certain professional procedures. The role of Translation Studies in professional disinterest in feminist translation Rejection of feminist translation may be due in the first place to the reception of feminist Translation Studies at Spanish universities, characterised by the five elements set out below. Feminist translation is seen exclusively as a North-American/ Canadian literary phenomenon The main reason for professional disinterest in feminist translation is feminist translatology's excessive concentration on literary translation. Furthermore, the expression feminist translationcontinues to be largely associated with and even restricted to Canadian methods and strategies 1 (Martín Ruano, 2008, p. 50). In fact, few Spanish translation handbooks include a section on the feminist perspective. Those which do include it tend to simply repeat the experiences and comments of North-American (literary) translators over and over again, in particular of those Canadian translators who first approached translation from a feminist viewpoint in the 1980s and 1990s. 2 As Flotow (1997), Moya (2007) and Martín Ruano (2008) have already noted, Spanish translation handbooks convey the idea that feminist translation is the unique product of a particular place and moment in history. They tend to present Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94103 0277-5395/$ see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.06.009 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Women's Studies International Forum journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif

Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Women's Studies International Forum

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /ws i f

Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators'disinterest in feminist translation

Mercedes BengoecheaUniversity of Alcalá, Calle Trinidad, 3, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

0277-5395/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.06.009

s y n o p s i s

Available online 19 July 2013

In this paper I discuss why specialised professional translation in Spain has taken no interest inincorporating feminist proposals.Firstly, feminist translatology has focused on literary translation mainly; seldom has it dealtwith translation as a professional practice. Secondly, feminist translation has been considereda North-American literary activity, far from practitioners' concerns. Furthermore, TranslationStudies have magnified the subversive role of feminist translation, making it difficult toincorporate feminist proposals to professional activity.As a result, feminist Translation Studies have not joined the ‘linguistic’ translatology debate ofthe last decade, and there is a conspicuous lack of contributions on feminist aspects oftechnical translation in essays and journals. Application of the notion of discursive genre doesnot collaborate with feminist translation either. And there is also a shortage of data bases,glossaries or software which, from a tentative, provisional and temporary nature, may offerfeminist textual models to practitioners of non-literary translation.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Some years ago during a conference in Spain which focusedon gender and translation, one of the participants in thesubsequent discussion claimed that a large number of transla-tion professionals showed no enthusiasm for feminist transla-tion. Indeed, despite the fact that feminist translatology andfeminist translation practice have existed for over 25 years,they have little visibility in Spain. This situation seems to beparticularly true in the area of specialised technical translation,where feminist translation is met with simple disinterest.

In this article, I discuss some of the reasons which mayhave led to this marginality. Given the attitude-shaping roleof Translation Studies at university, I concentrate first on howSpanish Translation Studies deal with feminist translation.Then, I will focus on certain professional procedures.

The role of Translation Studies in professional disinterestin feminist translation

Rejection of feminist translation may be due in the firstplace to the reception of feminist Translation Studies at

ll rights reserved.

Spanish universities, characterised by the five elements setout below.

Feminist translation is seen exclusively as a North-American/Canadian literary phenomenon

The main reason for professional disinterest in feministtranslation is feminist translatology's excessive concentrationon literary translation. Furthermore, the expression ‘feministtranslation’ continues to be largely associated with – and evenrestricted to – Canadian methods and strategies1 (MartínRuano, 2008, p. 50). In fact, few Spanish translation handbooksinclude a section on the feminist perspective. Those which doinclude it tend to simply repeat the experiences and commentsof North-American (literary) translators over and over again, inparticular of those Canadian translators who first approachedtranslation from a feminist viewpoint in the 1980s and 1990s.2

As Flotow (1997), Moya (2007) and Martín Ruano (2008)have already noted, Spanish translation handbooks conveythe idea that feminist translation is the unique product of aparticular place and moment in history. They tend to present

Page 2: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

95M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

feminist translation as a North American/Canadian product ofthe period between the 1980s and 1990s when feminismblossomed. During those years translators attempted to createécriture féminine, understood as an experimental discoursewhere women sought the identity denied under patriarchy, onthe assumption that identity could be forged by deconstructingpatriarchal language and creating a new feminine language.While North-American/Canadian women sought to definethemselves, feminist translation (essentially in Canada) setabout converting French verbal experiments into English,thereby co-operating in the re-creation of this new language.This experimentation was aided by a favourable political climatewhich allowed some translators like Lotbinière-Harwood topublish with feminist publishing companies or for institutionsthat really were patrons of the arts (Brufau Alvira, 2009a, p. 385).

By identifying feminist translation almost exclusively withthose first North American/Canadian translators of the 1980sand 1990s, Spanish translation handbooks have ignored for-midable previous and subsequent Spanish feminist contribu-tions to translation, such as those fromCarmendeBurgos in theearly 20th century (Simón Palmer, 2010) and Rivera-Garretas(Woolf, 2003) in the early 21st century, in the fields ofjournalistic and essayist translation respectively.

Furthermore, Spanish translation handbooks give the im-pression that no feminist translations or feminist theoreticalcontributions have come from anywhere else in the world fromrecent years. The few handbooks that include feminist contri-butions to translatology and translation history reiterativelyemphasise Canadian translations of experimental French fem-inist texts into English, female American translators' transla-tions of Latin-American literary texts with a clear misogynistcontent and the recovery of lost or silenced literary workstranslated by women throughout history. There is constantrepetition of the names of five feminist translators, Levine,Maier, Lotbinière-Harwood, Godard and von Flotow, and only inconjunction with their works prior to 1995.

The combination of these factors has created a distancebetween feminist translation and the concerns and interestsof specialised professional translators in Spain.

Invisibility of feminist translations and the subsequent lack ofmodels for professionals

Although gender studies have contributed enormously toliterary studies in Spanish university departments of Philology,Modern Languages, Comparative Literature or Literary Theory,translatology rarely contemplates these contributions as afeminist translation exercise. Why then do Spanish TranslationStudies not consider texts translated by declared feministscholars as feminist translations?

One possible explanation is the traditional separation ofliterary and linguist studies in Spain. Although translatologyoscillates between and is influenced by linguistic-orientedand cultural studies (both complementary, as Baker (1996),House (2008) and many other scholars point out), the fact isthat in most Spanish university departments translatologyhas tended to be absorbed by linguistic studies, and literarytranslation by literary-philological studies. This division isfurther reinforced by the secondary position of genderstudies in Spain. By way of example: works published bySpanish feminist publishers are not considered in official

assessments of the research excellence of university staff.Some feminist scholars may therefore prefer their research tocome under the umbrella of philological studies rather thanunder feminist studies. Actually, only a few Spanish univer-sities have incorporated gender courses in their degree andMaster programmes of Translation.

There are, in fact, feminist translations into Spanish, Galicianand Catalan. Examples include the translations into Spanish ofworks by the trobairitz (Catalan and Provençal troubadours ofthe 12th and 13th centuries) byMaríaMilagros Rivera-Garretasand Ana Mañeru Méndez (Martinengo, 1997); the anthologySentir los mundos. Poetas en lengua inglesa, edited by RosaGarcía Rayego, director of the Feminist Research Institute atComplutense University in Madrid, and feminist critic EstherSánchez-Pardo (García Rayego & Sánchez-Pardo, 2001); or thetranslation of Chicanawomenwriters into Catalan by one of thecontributors in this issue (Godayol, 2001). However, very fewof those cited have circulated sufficiently, thus their legacyrarely appears in the translation handbooks used in faculties.

Consequently, prospective translators have little access tofeminist translations to help them in their work. Even thoughmeanings are never fixed, permanent or stable, all translatorsneed models to guide and inspire them.

Translatology has magnified the alleged manipulative egocentricrole of feminist translation at oddswith the ideology of equivalence

Anyone (a potential translator) looking for succinct infor-mation on feminist translationwould probably not go directly tothe primary sources such as statements and manifestos writtenby self-declared feminists, nor even translations claiming to befeminist. They would probably consult first recent handbooksand treaties on trends in translation theory and practice, used asbasic texts in Spain's universities. Two of the most recenthandbooks on gender studies in translatology are by Moya(2007) and Hurtado Albir (2008) respectively. In both cases,they are new editions of previous handbooks with somechanges incorporated.

HurtadoAlbir dedicates just four pages to feminist translationin a 795 page manual (Hurtado Albir, 2008, pp. 626–630). Shestarts by claiming feminist translation “rejects translator invis-ibility3 and defendsmanipulation” (Hurtado Albir, 2008, p. 626).She defines it as “female rewriting which seeks to subvertpatriarchal language” (p. 628), enabled “by the existence of afeminist intertext, of intertextual complicity and to a corpus offeminist works which have created a context favourable totransgression serving to inspire infidelity” (p. 629). “Variouskinds of mechanisms are used for this feminist rewriting andthree interventionist practices [have been identified]” (p. 629).She concludes: “Nevertheless, the most radical feminist empha-sis is still occasional and to a certain extent experimental… andthere is no consensus over its appropriateness” (p. 629).

Moya (2007) more generously dedicates an entire chapterto the topic (‘Feminism and translation’) out of the eightchapters in his book. In contrast to Hurtado Albir's objectivesuccinct style, Moya's prose is awash with subjectivity,changes in register, expressivity and verbal flourishes. However,the central points of his discussion are the same, that is,“feminist translation practice constantly avers a right andfreedom to intervene in the text being translated, to correct orcensure (depending on how you look at it) by order” (Moya,

Page 3: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

96 M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

2007, p. 197). “Feminist translation practice has a great desire toreinforce translator visibility” (p. 198). Theoretical feministtranslators do not envisage “translation as surrendering to thetraditional idea of equivalence at all times, but as a writtencreative event where production and reproduction go hand inhand” (p. 198). “This feminist rewriting practice” (p. 201) iscalled “experimental literature” (p. 202), “translation forgedfrom creativity” (p. 203) which “intervenes in the text by order,and censures it on behalf of a cause” (p. 204). “What [SuzanneJill Levine] and other translators generally defend on behalf ofthe feminist movement is their right to manipulate the textsthey translate, especially when that expressed therein does notcoincide with their ideas or their cause” (p. 205). This approachis “textual interventionism” (p. 207)where “the translator's egois greatly inflated” (p. 210), that is, “egocentrism or the feministcry I'm the translator” (p. 210). “Their visibility is likewise patentin their creativity” (p. 211). Moya also states: “Some translatorsforce programmatic narcissism so much, as can be seen in theiruse of foreign terms and other similar aspects of theirtranslations, that they have been accused of elitist” (p. 211).

Prior to these two handbooks, Vidal Claramonte had alsodedicated one of the nine chapters of her book El futuro de latraducción (Vidal Claramonte, 1998) to the topic: ‘Teoríasfeministas de la traducción’. She aims to situate feministtranslation theories in the historical context, acknowledgingtheir debtwith deconstructionism alongwith post-modern andpost-structuralist language theories. She thus links feministtranslation directly to a new view on translation, consideringit an interpretative event far removed from the traditionalconception of linguistic equivalence. The following is an extractfrom that chapter:

[Feminist translators] blatantly disarrange the originaladapting it to the translator's ideology. Themodest invisibletranslator is a figure of the past. For feminist translators,translation is a political activity which must make thefemale subject visible via language.

[Vidal Claramonte, 1998, p. 102]

Translation necessarily becomes a manipulative activity,and the translator a reader–interpreter (p. 108).

Rather than reproduction, translation is production, rewritingand manipulation (p. 110).

As the previous quotes show, a third reason for theexclusion of feminist translation may have something to dowith the fact that the handbooks approach feminist translationwith an unflagging emphasis on itsmanipulative, experimentaland creative aspects. This perspective may have hindered theincorporation of feminist translation proposals in professionalnon-literary translation.

Fear of feminist translation

A certain fear of feminist translation may also explainthe negative reception to feminist translation proposals evenwithin the feminist movement (Simon, 1996). Such pro-posals have certainly been warily received by dominantTranslation Studies, where feminist translations are con-sidered ‘radical’ and having ‘gone too far’. Fear of feminist

translation is a topic dealt with in another paper of this issue(see Palacios), but it must also be added to the factors thatmay well have contributed to its rejection. This fear is shownin the description accompanying the presentation of theirproposals and achievements, as I will try to illustrate.

With reference to Levine's decision to add the wordwee inher English translation of the sentence from Cabrera Infante'snovel “ningún hombre puede violar a una mujer” (“no weeman can rape a woman”), Virgilio Moya asserts:

One could talk about betrayal or subversion. That is, if weconvert Levine's example of rape into standard practice orinto a paradigm to be followed by feminist theorists… wewould have to talk about deliberate manipulation, falsifica-tion of truth, undue appropriation, violation, hijack of theoriginal, etc. And those are very serious matters! Moreover,it would mean over-interpretation subjected to groupinterest, proselytism, censorship, intolerance, translatorfundamentalism… It is a pity to see the radicalism andreductionism of some feminist formulae and practices sullythe ideas of tolerance and generosity present in the origin offeminism. (2007, pp. 206–7)

Moya sees the textual intervention practice advocated bytranslators like Lotbinière-Harwood as ‘radicalism’ (Moya,2007, p. 207) following an allegedly non-feminine stance, ashis intrinsically essentialist comment below reveals:

To sum up, they appropriate an object and space belongingto others. And they do so violently because one cannot saytheir approach to the otherness of the text is exactly gentleor dialogical. Thus, they lose the opportunity of using aquality traditionally considered feminine, such as softness,to ‘conquer’ the rigidity and hardness of the foreign text.

[Moya, 2007, p. 226]

Similarly and prior to Moya, Vidal Claramonte (1998)had already mentioned the “radicalism” of certain feministtranslators. In her text, the only ones with a voice are thosewho she considers the “most radical” translators (she saysnothing about the “least radical” ones she must be comparingthem with). For Vidal Claramonte, “the problem is that themost radical feminist theories are based on misunderstoodpost-structuralist ideas and end up making translation asviolent as the activity they are trying to sweep away.” (1998,p. 117)

I have no wish to overwhelm the reader with quotes aboutfeminist translators' ‘radicalism’, which abound in Spanishtranslatology not only in reference to feminist incursions inexperimental writing. Some of their translation proposals,which in my view are perfectly legitimate from a conventionaltranslating perspective, are also kept fearfully at distance.

North-American feminist translators have claimed thattheirs is a political subversive activity. I would, however, liketomake a point about the supposed violent feminist ‘radicalism’.Despite the rejection it seems to cause, feminist translation hasnot only not gone ‘too far’, but it has also manipulated muchless than innumerable translations circulating around us. Forexample, the critic José María Guelbenzu reported in Spain'sleading daily newspaper, El País, up to 10 examples ofalterations, distortions or suppressions encountered in one ofthe chapters of the Spanish version of the anti-Catholic novel

Page 4: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

97M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

Villette, by Charlotte Brontë, published in 1996 and reprinted in2002 by Rialp, an Opus Dei and as such, a staunchly Catholic,publisher. Guelbenzu criticised a translation which, carriedaway by religious zeal, did not hesitate to mutilate, censor andchange the meaning of paragraphs referring to the CatholicChurch (Guelbenzu, 2005). I have also analysed Jorge LuisBorges' textual manipulations in his translation of VirginiaWoolf's essay A Room of One's Own (Bengoechea, 2009, 2011a,2011b).

The translations of Shakespeare into Spanish by Neruda andMacpherson (1966) or Astrana Marín (1932) could also bedeemed free versions which have gone ‘too far’, yet they areconsidered seminal, particularly Astrana Marín's translation. Incontrast, Levine's (1983, 1991) and Maier's (1985) supposedinterventions are scant and infrequent (Flotow, 1997, pp. 26–27). Lotbinière-Harwood (1986, 1989) translated feminist textsin collaboration with the author, Lisa Gauvin. Maier also had thetranslated author's (Guillermo Cabrera Infante) approval. AndBarbara Godard (1983, 1986, 1991a, 1991b), who enjoysinflating her prefaces and swamping her translation withexplanatory footnotes on French culture and literature, ismerely doing what is expected of any canonical critical editionof a literarywork. Flotowuses a similar argument (Flotow, 1997,p. 79) to defend the use of a complex paratextual apparatus inan anthology intended to help North-Americans discover Indianpoetry written by women (Tharu & Lalita, 1991/1993). In thisregard, Pilar Godayol's call for a standard paratextual apparatuscapable of explaining any translation is highly opportune:

On the understanding that all translation is difference, thetranslation apparatus is the element that makes thatdifference accessible, justifying the translator's choicesand interventions, making translation a dialectic practiceof constructive criticism. Despite the decisive power ofthe publisher and the institutions financing the transla-tions, the apparatus accompanying the translation shouldbe a standardised element in translation practice.

[Godayol, 2005, p.70]

In fact, as Flotow (1997, pp. 96–97) noted, feministtranslators honestly and openly reveal their ideology andpolitical positioning and assume their liability for the endproduct. After all, since the so-called cultural turn in transla-tion, non-feminist translatology already accepts that:

translation is not innocent (Bassnett & Lefevere, 1990, 1998);it is a political act (Álvarez Rodríguez & Vidal Claramonte,1996); a social activity (Robinson, 1997, pp. 192–193; Venuti,1996) imbued with political, aesthetic and ideologicalimplications (Lane-Mercier, 1997; Tymozcko, 2000, 2003).Martín Ruano (2005a, p.78).

Furthermore, Godard's translation of the word-play inBrossard's and Théoret's écriture féminine is genuine literaryrecreation and would probably be acclaimed if the word‘feminist’ was omitted. Certainly, like any experimentalwriting, these texts are hard to read and, in this sense,legitimately accused of being elitist (Gillam, 1995; Voldeng,1985). Experimental art is elitist by definition though.

Despite the above, the myth of feminist translation as aninnovative, interventionist, manipulative experiment unrelatedto ordinary ‘legitimate’ translation remains.

Feminist Translation Studies have not joined the ‘linguistic’translatology debate of the last decade

Imustmention a final elementwhichmayhelp to explain thedivorce between feminist practices and specialised professionalsand that is the non-incorporation of feminist translatology in the‘linguistic’ translatology debate of recent years.

Translation handbooks published in the last decade seem tosuggest that feminist translatology has made no progress sincethe 1990s. The latest reference mentioned by Amparo HurtadoAlbir (2008) in her handbook Traducción y Traductología isdated 2000, nothing worthy of mention was found between2000 and 2008, date of the latest edition of hermanual. VirgilioMoya in his La selva de la traducción: Teorías traductológicascontemporáneas (2007) mentions no feminist translatologypublication after Luise von Flotow's book in 1997.

This state of affairs was not exclusive to Spain, at least in2006. Mary Snell-Hornby comments on scant interest infeminist translatology and gender studies in European Trans-lation Studies and in many journals, in contrast to greaterimpact of post-colonial translation:

In the climate of the early 1990s, such a rousing topic[feminism and gender studies] might have been seen toinvite intense exploration, but whereas postcolonial studiesflourished during the course of the decade and soon was“imported” into research on translation, interest in feministperspectives largely remained limited to those (feminists)immediately concerned, and in EuropeanTranslation Studiesthis field of research was for years more or less ignored.There is a conspicuous lack of contributions on feministaspects of the discipline in the journals TextConText, Target,and The Translator, and there is no relevant entry in theRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.4

[Snell-Hornby, 2006, p. 101]

One important explanation for these data is that self-declared feminist translatologists, who joined in the richintense debate of the last decade in European TranslationStudies, did so as cultural translators.

Feminist Translation Studies, together with post-structural,deconstructive, and post-colonial Translation Studies, comeunder one of the dominant paradigms, the cultural paradigm(the other being the linguistic paradigm). These paradigmssplit Translation Studies in two, according to political, ideolog-ical, socio-educational and geographical criteria (Baker, 1996,pp. 11–14). And despite attempts to unify and integrate bothparadigms (Baker, 1996, 2002; Bassnett & Lefevere, 1998;House, 2008, among others), European Translation Studies inthe last decade have tended more to focus on the linguisticplane, on the search for equivalences (although no longercalled this) and on fidelity to the original. ‘Linguistic’ Transla-tion Studies have also researched into descriptive and manda-tory translation aspects, developing corpora, automatic toolsand electronic documentation. They have shown interest intraining prospective professionals as well. Furthermore, theyhave accused cultural Translation Studies of being elitist andof restricting their work to the field of literary translation,overlooking the fact that translation most commonly involvestranslating works like commercial texts, reports, etc. (Baker,1996, p. 17).

Page 5: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

98 M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

Naturally, given their starting assumptions in cultural studies,feminist Translation Studies have found it very difficult to engagein work from a linguistic perspective. The linguistic approachis based on the belief that it is possible to transfer objectivemeanings in a neutral, stable and fluid way, while silencingwhatever is different and minoritarian, thus perpetuatingdominant discourses (not all linguistic approaches follow thattendency, of course; approaches informed by Critical Linguis-tics share culturalist disbelief in stability of meaning). I amunaware of any purely feminist response to Baker (1996) orBassnett and Lefevere (1998), although Baker came underheavy criticism from post-structuralist Arrojo (1998). It wouldcome as no surprise to find that cultural feminist TranslationStudies feels the same profound distrust as Arrojo towards, forinstance, Mona Baker's (old) desire to turn translation into arational predictable science, with an incontrovertible teachingsystem for guiding and training translators (Arrojo, 1998,pp. 34–35). In any event, the fact is that feminist translatologistshave not fully entered the ‘linguistic’ translatology debate, whichcould have been enriched by feminist contributions. By shyingaway from it, they have to a certain extent excluded themselvesfrom teaching and professional practice. Most of them havechosen to continue advancing in the cultural paradigm, eitherwith third wave feminist studies (Mills, 2003), as Castro hasdone (Castro Vázquez, 2009), or post-colonial feminist studies(Godayol, 2005; Vidal Claramonte, 2007).

However valid and respectable the option of such feministtranslators may be, it is regrettable that their works have hadso little influence on more ‘linguistic’ studies. They couldhave enriched and updated the initial feminist contributionto translation, with emphasis on how gender affects anytranslation, as Martín Ruano (2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2008,2009) and Brufau Alvira (2009b) have tried to do. Such anapproach could have incorporated the gender perspective inmainstream linguistic translation.

In conclusion

The translatologyhandbooks used inmost translation schoolsin Spain describe feminist translation as an activity solely centredon literary translation and characterised as creative, meta-textual, elitist and sterile, in the best case producing resistant,non-fluid difficult-to-read texts where the translator highlightsher presence to egocentric levels. Furthermore, feminist transla-tion is described as being interpretative-interventionist (oropenly manipulative) and, in this regard, excessively political,radical, violent and reprehensible. Moreover, it is exclusivelypractised by women and only interests them.

Feminist translation in specialised translating practice

Could any of the features supposedly characterising feministliterary translation mentioned above interest or describe the‘other’ translation, that is, texts of a technical and specialisednature? With great difficulty, given those descriptions, whattechnical translator would venture into that jungle? Thespecialised translator who normally charges fees according tohours worked, often during marathon working days, cannotafford to use paratextual elements, intervene in prefaces andfootnotes, produce difficult-to-read texts, or adopt a radicalposition.

In particular, specialised translators have only limitedopportunity to exploit their creative and subversive poten-tial. Firstly, because their professional activity is governedby speed, market demands and fear of risk. And secondly,because they resort more and more systematically to twoelectronic-conceptual resources which block this potential:the discursive genre, to which the metatext would ascribe, asto a template to be faithfully and submissively followed; andthe available electronic documentation. I will discuss howthese may shorten the odds of feminist translation practice.

The discursive genre

Aswe know, translation is a communicative event, that is, thecontext in which it takes place must be considered, likewise itshistorical, cultural, economic, ideological and political conditions,not to mention its addressee and purpose. Furthermore, thetranslation must consider the discursive genre or textual type ofthe original text and the discursive genre of the target text. Theconcept of discursive genre refers to the fact that messages,depending on their communicative purpose and function, arestructured following conventional styles and textual guidelineswhich have been termed textual or discursive genres. Instancesof such discursive genres include chequebooks, applicationforms, scientific essays, instruction booklets, letters of recom-mendation, requests of information over the telephone, salescontracts, wills…

Adhesion to the discursive genre of the target language is adeterminant of vital importance in specialised professionaltranslation, frequently based on the translation of texts ascribedto a specific discursive genrewhich the professional communityin question recognises as its own. The importance of recognisingand knowing the specific textual genres and sub-genres ofboth the source and target linguistics communities in profes-sional translations is unanimously admitted, at least in highlyformalised fields such as law (García Izquierdo, 2005; MonzóNebot, 2002, 2003). So much so, that a study among Spanishprofessionals qualified for sworn translations revealed that66.2% use texts from the same discursive genre as a toolfor doing their translations (Monzó Nebot, 2005, p. 132).Genre-based approaches are often used in translation training(Kelly, 2002; Montalt Ressurrecció, Ezpeleta Piorno, & GarcíaIzquierdo, 2008). In fact, practitioners to be are taught to“translat[e] into textual genres”, as the significant title of anarticle by Montalt Ressurrecció and García Izquierdo (2002)states. The title graphically conveys the shaping role of discursivegenres, which act as ‘containers’ for the target text.

The notion of discursive genre has been claimed byTranslation Studies for professional use (García Izquierdo,2005; Hatim & Mason, 1990; Montalt Ressurrecció & GarcíaIzquierdo, 2002) and as a tool to develop translation compe-tence (Gamero, 2001; Kelly, 2005; Montalt Ressurrecció et al.,2008). However, Bakhtin (2000 [1986]) is responsible forthe initial concept of ‘speech (or discursive or textual) genre’referring to the different types of stable utterances whichorganise speech and transmit certain expectations as regards itscontents, style and structure. According to the Russian linguist:

Language is realised in the form of individual concreteutterances (oral or written) by participants in the variousareas of human activity. Their utterances reflect the specific

Page 6: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

99M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

conditions and goals of each such area not only through theircontent (thematic) and linguistic style, that is, the selectionof the lexical, phraseological, and grammatical resources ofthe language, but above all through their compositionalstructure.… Each separate utterance is individual, of course,but each sphere in which language is used develops its ownrelatively stable types of utterances. Thesewemay call speechgenres. (2000, p. 83) (His emphasis)

To illustrate Bakhtin's words, I refer to Borja Albi, whoexplains ‘the legal genre’ concept as follows:

Legal texts have their conventions, routines, clichés, topicsand recurrent structures. In other words, we can claim thereare some rigid repetitive models imposed by inherited legalculture, professional habits, social customs and even aca-demic training. All this forms a selection of contents, amanner of setting forth the facts, a rhetoric and a perceptionof the world which appear unmistakeably in each textualrealisation of the legal domain. If we add a clear communi-cative objective or specific legal function to this textualrealisation, the result is the ‘legal genre’ concept.

[Borja Albi, 2007, p. 144]

Each discursive or textual genre contains different sub-genres. For example, in relation to legal genres again, Monzódistinguishes within the ‘commercial document’ genre, thesub-genres of: ‘commercial contracts’, ‘commercial lease con-tracts’, ‘service contracts’, ‘supply contracts’, etc. ‘Commercialcontracts’ in turn contain the sub-genres: ‘commercial contractformalisation’, ‘commercial contract clauses’; and within these:‘special clauses’, ‘general clauses’, ‘compulsory clauses’ and‘specific clauses’ (Monzó Nebot, 2005, p. 128).

The penultimate sentence in the above quote fromBakhtin encapsulates one of the problems facing feministtranslation. Although the final utterance (the target text) willbe an individual product of the translator's subjectivity, s/hemust adapt it to the dominant model of the discursive genre,that is, to the “relatively stable type of utterance” corre-sponding to its discursive genre. However, not all genres areequally conducive to the expression of individual subjectivityand creativity. Except in genres of an artistic nature, in manygenres individual styles find few opportunities for expres-sion. According to Bakhtin:

But not all genres are equally conducive to reflecting theindividuality of the speaker in the language of the utterance,that is, to an individual style. The most conducive genres arethose of artistic literature.… The least favourable conditionsfor reflecting individuality in language are obtained in speechgenres that require a standard form, for example,many kindsof business documents, military commands, verbal signals inindustry, and so on… In the vast majority of speech genres(except for literary-artistic ones), the individual style doesnot enter into the intent of the utterance, does not serve asits only goal, but is, as it were an epiphenomenon of theutterance, one of its by-products. (2000, p. 86)

The use of standardised sanctioned textual genres hasimportant consequences for feminist translation. Specialisedtranslation is based on the equivalence or transferral of textualgenres, and there is little room for the epithetswhich supposedly

characterise feminist translation, that is, radicalism, creativity,resistance (following Venuti) and the emphatic presence of thetranslator.

Moreover, one of the problems for all specialised transla-tors is that discursive genres not only structure discourse butalso structure their own subjectivity. According to Bakhtin,speech genres are “relatively stable and normative forms ofthe utterance” (Bakhtin, 2000, p. 92) which “are not createdby [the speaker] but given to him [sic]” (p. 92); “they aremandatory”, “they have a normative significance” (p. 92).Therefore, they delimit what can be uttered. Bakhtin wenteven further:

The forms of language and the typical forms of utterances,that is, speech genres, enter our experience and ourconsciousness together, and in close connection with oneanother. … Speech genres organise our speech in almostthe same way as grammatical (syntactical) forms do.(2000, p. 90)

Translation faculties teach students that in order to workcomfortably and easily as translators, that is, to have translationcompetence, they must become competent in the use of thediscursive genres of the speciality (legal, medical-sanitary,administrative, etc.). Monzó turns to Bourdieu (1992) and hisconcepts of illusio and habitus to explain how resorting to thediscursive genres of professions affects our subjectivity andreinforces the hegemonic position of current professional texts(in her case, legal):

To access information which is useful for us we must thinkabout how a jurist would need it, and this process becomespart of our informative competence and professional habit,that is, our subjectivity structured by the social space,whichalso provides our professional competence. Thus, from aBourdieuan viewpoint (Bourdieu, 1992), the structure isreproduced within us: society legitimates certain meansbefore our eyes and, in doing so, exercises a symbolicimposition which creates an illusio over our possibilities,trapping us within the rules of an alien field. […] Byaccepting this fiction, we reproduce the structure and ouractions reinforce the illusion that everything is as it is,because there is no way for it to be different, or at leastnot without important losses. Thus, we incorporate thatstructure in our habit and strengthen the jurists' dominantposition.

[Monzó Nebot, 2005, pp. 125–126]

Translation based on comparison and the search forequivalences among discursive genres does not rest solely onits macro-structure. The genre acts as a template to which thetranslated document must adapt. Translation practice makesthis adaptation use not only the genre macro-structure in thetarget language, but also the hegemonic introduction or closingformulae, terminology, lexical collocations, idiomatic expres-sions and particularly its, normally androcentric, orientation.Among other factors, androcentrism reveals itself in thediscursive genres that have been created assuming only male(and not female) addressees and human beings. An example ofandrocentrism can be found in the template document foraccepting guardianship (by a man or a woman, of a female ormale minor), which is frequently issued by Spanish courts in

Page 7: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

100 M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

cases of immigrantminors. This template document retains themasculine gender as the sole personal reference throughoutthe text, some of whose paragraphs are reproduced here. Themasculine gender appears underlinedwhen used as generic. Ascan be appreciated, according to this document there are nofemale judges or guardians, female minors with guardians orincapacitated female minors.

Comparece a fin de tomar posesión del cargo de tutor deldeclarado incapaz para el que ha sido nombrado, y juradesempeñarlo bien y fielmente, y cumplir las obligacionesinherentes al mismo.En este acto se informa al comparecienteque son obligaciones inherentes al cargo:

- Velar por los intereses del tutelado, procurarle alimentos ypromover la recuperación de su capacidad y mejor inserciónsocial.

- Hacer inventario de los bienes del tutelado dentro del plazode sesenta días desde la toma de posesión del cargo.

- Representar al menor incapacitado.- Informar anualmente al Juez sobre la situación personal delincapacitado y rendir cuenta anual de su administración.

[He appears to assume the appointment of tutor for the partydeclared incapacitated for whom he has been appointed, and heswears to carry out this task correctly and faithfully, and to meetthe obligations inherent in the same.In this same act, theappearing party (he) is informed of the obligations inherent inthe post:

- To look after the interests of the protected party, to obtainfood for him and foster the recovery of his capacity andbetter social insertion.

- To make an inventory of the protected party's assets withinsixty days of accepting the appointment.

- To represent the incapacitated minor (male).- To inform the Judge (male) annually of the incapacitatedparty's personal situation and to give annual account of hisadministration.]

[Ministerio de Justicia. “Plantillas para los Juzgados en CD”,[Ministry of Justice, “Templates for the Courts in CD”], 2011]

Thus we can see the difficulty of incorporating feministrewriting in a specific discursive genre, as it clashes with thetemplate document conventions.

Electronic resources and documents: dictionaries, glossaries andinternet

Furthermore, someof themostwidely used resources todayin technical and specialised translation are generally electronic.They enable extraction of unknown data, text comparison,information management and specific problem solving.

Electronic resources, however, have “their limits andshortfalls” as indicated in the excellent article by MartínRuano (2005a, p. 78). Documentation includes dictionaries,glossaries and terminology banks. These, according to MartínRuano, provide “directly generalisable data, for translators touse efficiently, and in theory with absolute guarantees andprofitability” (Martín Ruano, 2005a, p. 79). Translators seekoptimum equivalences in a kind of imaginary warehouse

with stocks of the target language or corresponding specialitylanguages in order to replace:

a batch of foreign terms with others provided by thedistributor of the normalising instances of the language,although never as the creators of contingent equivalences,ideal for the occasion but not necessarily in other contextsand circumstances, and much less as inventors of solutionsto achieve such equivalences (Her emphasis).

[Martín Ruano, 2005a, p. 79]

If electronic document resources always have ‘limitsand shortfalls’, then these are even greater for feministtranslation. As Bengoechea and Cabellos have already discussed(2012), androcentric thought and language are reproduced intranslators' resources. Virtually all the bilingual, trilingual ormultilingual terminology banks available for Spanish translatorssubsume women to men, and feminine to masculine, whileproviding themasculine term for person denomination. Not onlyis the feminine term not provided, which undoubtedly consti-tutes a problem given the complexity of gender morphologicalconstruction in Spanish, but data bases often provide incorrectdefinitions by identifying the masculine with the human being.Inscribing sexual differences in translations into Spanish whenusing terminology banks requires careful attention in the targetlanguage, since the mere existence of only the masculine termin the bank legitimises an impulsive option which tends toreproduce the androcentrism of the document resource. Thisproblem has already been mentioned by Fuertes-Olivera,Montero-Martínez and García de Quesada (2005), who followBowker (2001). Bowker criticised the lack of sensitivity togender questions from terminologists, standardising committeesand terminological guides.

To illustrate my claims I provide examples from one of theterminological bases which my research team has analysedin depth to propose modifications to complement it with agender perspective. 32 léxicos trilingües de deportes y medios decomunicación para los Juegos Olímpicos y Mediterráneos is a verycomprehensive trilingual glossary on sports terminology. Note inthe examples following the androcentrismof the three languages(e.g. men are ‘jueces’ [judges], not ‘jueces masculinos’ [malejudges], whereas women are ‘female judges’). Also note thesexist French and Spanish terms: e.g. they are not ‘juezas’/‘juges’[judge-she] or ‘árbitras’/‘arbitres’ [referee-she], perfectly stan-dard terms, but ‘jueces femeninos’/‘juges féminins’ [feminine-hejudge-he] or ‘árbitros femeninos’/‘arbitres féminins’ [feminine-he referee-he].

female judges/jueces femeninos/juges féminins

judge/juez/juge

female referees/árbitros femeninos/arbitres féminins

referee/árbitro/arbitre[Ordoño Muñoz, 2004, Vol. 1 [English–Spanish–French],

16.Karate]

Another resource Martín Ruano warns us about is Internet,

which leads us towards the supremacy of statisticallybinding in the construction of meaning, to the detriment

Page 8: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

101M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

of idiolectal, marked, specific and subjective uses. [… T]hevirtual library might be an accomplice to the flatteningof our capacity to give texts some meaning, insofar as weare blinkered by its little respect for the peripheral, theminoritarian. (2005a, pp. 88–89)

If we consider that both the expression of sexual differencein language and the representation of neuter are surelystill minority utterances frequently rejected by the Norm,specialised translators might jeopardise feminist practice byseeking majority utterances and broadly accepted iterativelinguistic realisations in (frequently sexist and almost invari-ably androcentric) speech. AsMartín Ruano says, Internet ‘putsa brake, a restriction on the advancement of speech, since itlimits the possibilities of realisation to what is pre-existing(or rather exists on paper or in the virtual sky), documented,standardised’ (Martín Ruano, 2005a, p. 89).

One might venture that rejection of feminist translationgenerally shows a fear of risk, aversion to ignoring the rulesand is the result of excessively conservative caution. MartínRuano claims that frequently,

in order to legitimise their proposals, translationshide behinddictionaries, terminology databanks, referenceworks, in sum,behind what has been accepted and standardised, behindwhat has been filtered by regulating bodies, behind theagreed, the systematic, behind what has been idolized ascorrect, and raised to the category of norm. (2005a, p. 89)

In fact, Martín Ruano points out that

translations generally tend to behave like conservativebodies, in that they observe and, while doing so, reinforceestablished guidelines for correct language. …T]oday'spredominant discourses in relation to translation generallyurge translators to take refuge in prudence, regularity,traditional established rules and the norm… [T]ranslationsoften relinquish the experimental, creative and creatorfacet. (2005a, p. 89)

Indeed, normative resources like the dictionaries, bulle-tins and grammar published by the Spanish Academy of theLanguage and electronic synonym dictionaries do not favoura minoritarian feminist translation out of step with theacademic standard. It will not often be easy to find feminineterms which express non-hegemonic sexual, professional orcultural identities, due to the lexical silences and vacuums inregulatory glossaries and normative dictionaries.5

Conclusions

Specialised professionals face many theoretical–conceptualand practical hurdles to the incorporation of feminist practicein their work.

Firstly, Spanish translatology has generally treated feministtranslation as an exclusively literary, foreign, totally subversive,manipulative and radical phenomenon not suitable for in-corporation in mainstream teaching or professional practice.Therefore, students and professionals either lack feministtranslation models to apply or flee from feminist translation.

Secondly, specialised practice bases its everyday work ondictionaries, terminology databases and internet, which are

electronic resources governed by androcentrism, sexism anddominion of the majoritarian. Application of the notion ofdiscursive genre does not collaborate with feminist transla-tion either, since legal, economic and scientific discursivegenres often take time to adapt to the society to which theybelong, maintaining obsolete structures with their oftenandrocentric and sexist features.

Although not the sole explanation, the confluence of theseconceptual and practical aspects surely justifies in part thelack of interest in the feminist approach detected amongspecialised translators. Although my claim does not attemptto have universal validity, these facts may be similar in othercultures.

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the FEM2009-10976 Research Projectfunded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Endnotes

1 All translations of quotes from works written originally in Spanish aremine.

2 This is an exceedingly blunt statement, of course, as Santaemilia(2005) or Taillefer de Haya (2008) demonstrate.

3 All underlining is mine.4 The latest editions of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies

have incorporated an entry on ‘gender and sexuality’ (2009, 122–125; 2011,143–147).

5 For a feminist criticism of Spanish monolingual dictionaries you mayconsult: Bengoechea (2000, 2008), Guerrero Salazar (2004), Lledó Cunill,Calero, and Forgas (2004), Lledó Cunill (2005, 2007), Medina Guerra (2004),or Vargas et al. (1998).

References

Álvarez Rodríguez, Román, & Vidal Claramonte, M. Carmen África (1996).Translating. A political act. In Román Álvarez Rodríguez, & M. CarmenÁfrica Vidal Claramonte (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp. 1–9).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Arrojo, Rosemary (1998). The revision of the traditional gap between theoryand practice, and the empowerment of translation in postmodern times.The Translator, 4(1), 25–48.

Astrana Marín, Luis, Trans. (1932). Obras Completas de William Shake-speare. Madrid: Aguilar.

Baker, Mona (1996). Linguistics and cultural studies: complementary orcompeting paradigms in translation studies? In Angelika Lauer,Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller, & Erich Steiner (Eds.),Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festchrift für Wilss zum 70.Geburtstag (pp. 9–19). Tübingen: Narr.

Baker, Mona (2002). Aspectos pragmáticos del contacto intercultural y falsasdicotomías en los estudios de traducción. In Román Álvarez (Ed.),Cartografías de la Trducción. Del Post-estructuralismo al Multiculturalismo(pp. 43–57). Salamanca: Ediciones Almar.

Bakhtin, Mikhael (2000). The problem of speech genres. In David Duff (Ed.),Modern Genre Theory (pp. 82–97). London: Longman (Originally publishedin English in Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (Eds), Speech Genres andOther Late Essays (Vern W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of TexasPress, 1986).

Bassnett, Susan, & Lefevere, André (1990). Translation, History and Culture.London: Cassell.

Bassnett, Susan, & Lefevere, André (1998). Constructing Cultures. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Bengoechea, Mercedes (2000). La perspectiva femenina: ausente ydesautorizada en el Diccionario de la Real Academia Española de laLengua. In Alicia Gil, & Ana Mª. Portal Nieto (Eds.), Mediar paracomunicarnos y encontrarnos desde/en otros lugares, Vol. 9. (pp. 73–93)Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.

Bengoechea, Mercedes (2008). Textualización de una identidad genéricafemenina homogeneizada: Rasgos esencialistas en el Diccionario de laRAE. In Ann Davies, Parvathi Kumaraswami, & Claire Williams (Eds.),

Page 9: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

102 M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

Making Waves Anniversary Volume: Women in Spanish, Portuguese andLatin American Studies (pp. 71–91). Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarPublishing.

Bengoechea, Mercedes (2009). Embodying the sexed subject in VirginiaWoolf's A Room of One's Own. European Journal of Women's Studies,16(2), 185–190.

Bengoechea, Mercedes (2011a). (In)fidelidad al proyecto de A Room of One'sOwn en la asignación de sexo a los pronombres en las traducciones aespañol. In Gloria Bazzocchi, & Raffaella Tonin (Eds.), Identità e genere inambito ispanico (pp. 33–82). Milano: Franco Angeli.

Bengoechea, Mercedes (2011b). Who are you, who are we in A Room ofOne's Own? The difference that sexual difference makes in Borges' andRivera-Garretas' translations of Virginia Woolf's essay. European Journalof Women's Studies, 18(4), 411–426.

Bengoechea, Mercedes, & Cabellos, María Rosa (2012). Underlyingprinciples of Gentyll English-Spanish non-sexist glossaries: Aresponse to a need. In Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld, & Julie Matilde Torjusen(Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress(pp. 1003–1007). EURALEX OSLO: EuropeanAssociation for LexicographyRetrieved from: URL: http://www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2012/pp1003-1007%20Bengoechea%20and%20Cabellos.pdf

Borja Albi, Anabel (2007). Los géneros jurídicos. In Enrique Alcaraz Varó, JoséMateo Martínez, & Francisco Yus Ramos (Eds.), Las lenguas profesionalesy académicas (pp. 141–153). Barcelona: Ariel.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Les règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champlittéraire. París: Editions du Seuil.

Bowker, Lynne (2001). Terminology and gender sensitivity: a corpus-basedstudy of the LSP of infertility. Language in Society, 30, 589–610.

Brufau Alvira, Nuria (2009a). Traducción y género: propuestas para nuevas éticasde la traducción en la era del feminismo transnacional. (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.

Brufau Alvira, Nuria (2009b). Escollos de la traducción jurídica no sexista ysu didáctica. In Luis Pegenaute, Janet Decesaris, Mercé Tricás, & ElisendaBernal (Eds.), La traducción del futuro: mediación lingüística y cultural enel siglo XXI, Vol. I. (pp. 15–26)Barcelona: AIETI.

Castro Vázquez, Olga (2009). (Re)examinando horizontes en los estudiosfeministas de traducción: ¿hacia una tercera ola? MonTI, 1, 59–86.

Flotow, Luise von (1997). Translation and Gender.Manchester: St. Jerome's Press.Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A., Montero-Martínez, Silvia, & García de Quesada,

Mercedes (2005). Modelos culturales y discursivos en la traducción detextos de comercio internacional: problemas y soluciones. Babel, 51(4),357–379.

Gamero, Silvia (2001). La traducción de textos técnicos. Descripción y análisisde textos (alemán-español). Barcelona: Ariel.

García Izquierdo, Isabel (Ed.). (2005). El género textual y la traducción. Reflexionesteóricas y aplicaciones pedagógicas. Berna: Peter Lang.

García Rayego, Rosa, & Sánchez-Pardo, Esther (Eds.). (2001). Sentir losmundos. Poetas en lengua inglesa. Madrid: Huerga & Fierro.

Gillam, Robyn (1995). The Mauve file folder. Notes on the translation ofNicole Brossard. Paragraph, 17(2), 8–12.

Godard, Barbara (1983). Translator's Preface to These Our Mothers, by NicoleBrossard. Toronto: Coach House Press.

Godard, Barbara (1986). Translator's Preface to Lovhers, by Nicole Brossard.Montreal: Guernica Editions.

Godard, Barbara (1991a). Translator's Preface to The TangibleWord, An Anthologyof Work by Frances Théoret. Montreal: Guernica.

Godard, Barbara (1991b). Translator's Preface to Picture Theory, by NicoleBrossard. Montreal: Guernica.

Godayol, Pilar (Ed. and Trans.) (2001). Veus xicanes. Contes. Vic: EUMO Editorial.Godayol, Pilar (Ed.). (2005). Documentarse para el Otro: Traducción/

diferencia/multiculturalismo. & Sales Salvador, Dora (Ed.). (2005). LaBiblioteca de Babel: Documentarse para Traducir. (pp. 67–76). Granada:Editorial Comares.

Guelbenzu, José María (April 2). En dos palabras. El País, 11.Guerrero Salazar, Susana (2004). La imagen de la mujer a través del diccionario:

duales aparentes y definiciones disimétricas. In AdelaMartínez García (Ed.),Cultura, lenguaje y traducción desde una perspectiva de género (pp. 93–114).Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.

Hatim, Basil, & Mason, Ian (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London:Longman.

House, Juliane (2008). Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualisation and a Third Space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia,7, 149–176 (http://www.lans-tts.be/img/NS7/House.pdf).

Hurtado Albir, Amparo (2008). Traducción y traductología. Introducción a latraductología (4th ed.)Madrid: Cátedra.

Kelly, Dorothy (2002). Un modelo de competencia traductora: bases para eldiseño curricular. Puentes, 1(enero), 9–20.

Kelly, Dorothy (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers.Manchester: St. Jerome.Lane-Mercier, Gillian (1997). Translating the untranslatable: the translator's

aesthetic, ideological and political responsibility. Target, 9(1), 43–68.

Levine, Suzanne Jill (1983). Translation as (sub)version: on translatingInfante's Inferno. SubStance, 42, 85–94.

Levine, Suzanne Jill (1991). The Subversive Scribe: Translating Latin AmericanFiction. Minneapolis: Greywolf Press.

Lledó Cunill, Eulàlia (2005). L'espai de les dones als diccionaris: silencis ipresències. Vic: Eumo.

Lledó Cunill, Eulàlia (2007). La parla de les dones en el Diccionari General dela Llengua Catalana. Comparació amb d'altres diccionaris. Entorn ivigència de l'obra de Fabra. Actes del II Colloqui Internacional ‘La lingüísticade Pompeu Fabra’ (pp. 337–345). Valls: Cossetània.

Lledó Cunill, Eulàlia, Calero, M. Ángeles, & Forgas, Esther (2004). De mujeresy diccionarios. Evolución de lo femenino en la 22ª edición del DRAE.Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer.

Lotbinière-Harwood, Suzanne de (1986). Translating Nicole Brossard.Writing Magazine, 16, 36–41.

Lotbinière-Harwood, Suzanne de (Trans.) (1989). Letters from An Other, byLise Gauvin. Toronto: Women's Press.

Maier, Carol (1985). A woman in translation, reflecting. Translation Review,17, 4–8.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2005a). Los caveats a la panacea: El papel de ladocumentación en la traducción al trasluz. In Dora Sales Salvador (Ed.),La Biblioteca de Babel: Documentarse para Traducir (pp. 123–146).Granada: Comares.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2005b). Gender(ing) theory: rethinking thetargets of translation studies in parallel with recent developments infeminism. In José Santaemilia (Ed.), Gender, Sex and Translation. TheManipulation of Identities (pp. 27–38). Manchester: St. Jerome.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2005c). La transmisión de la cultura en latraducción jurídica: nuevas estrategias, éticas alternativas. In M. GraciaTorres, & M. Ange Bugnot (Eds.), Traducción y cultura. El referente culturalen la comunicación especializada (pp. 165–204). Málaga: ENCASA.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2006). Gramática, ideología y traducción: problemasde la transferencia asociados al género gramatical. In Pilar Elena, & Josse deKock (Eds.), Gramática y traducción (pp. 205–238). Salamanca: Universidadde Salamanca.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2008). La resistencia al trasluz: la traducciónfeminista en examen. DeSignis, 12, 49–56.

Martín Ruano, M. Rosario (2009). La neutralidad a examen: nuevos asiderospara el ejercicio de la traducción jurídica. In Jesús Baigorri Jalón, & HelenCapbell (Eds.), Reflexiones sobre la traducción jurídica (pp. 73–89)Reflectionson Legal Translation (pp. 73–89). Granada: Comares.

Martinengo, Mariri (1997). Las trovadoras, poetisas del amor cortés. (M. MilagrosRivera-Garretas & Ana Mañeru Méndez, Trans.). Madrid: Horas y horas.

Medina Guerra, M. Antonia (2004). El diccionario de la Academia y el léxicode los oficios, profesiones y cargos de responsabilidad desde laperspectiva de género. In Adela Martínez García (Ed.), Cultura, lenguaje ytraducción desde una perspectiva de género (pp. 115–134). Málaga:Universidad de Málaga.

Mills, Sara (2003). Third wave feminist linguistics and the analysis of sexism.Discourse Analysis Online (Retrieved from: http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/).

Montalt Ressurrecció, Vicente, Ezpeleta Piorno, Pilar, & García Izquierdo, Isabel(2008). The acquisition of translation competence. Translation Journal, 12(4, October) (Retrieved from: URL: http://translationjournal.net/journal/46competence.htm).

Montalt Ressurrecció, Vicente, & García Izquierdo, Isabel (2002). Translatinginto textual genres. Lingüística Antverpiensia, vol. I. Linguistics andTranslation Studies. Translation Studies and Linguistics (pp. 135–145).Brussels: L. van Vaerenbergh.

Monzó Nebot, Esther (2002). La professió del traductor jurídic i jurat.Descripció sociològica de la professió i anàlisi discursiva del transgènere.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.

Monzó Nebot, Esther (2003). Las socializaciones del traductor especializado: Elpapel de los géneros. Revista de la Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, 6, 15–29.

Monzó Nebot, Esther (2005). Cómo traducir derecho sin ser jurista: Nuevasfuentes y métodos documentales para la traducción jurídica. In DoraSales Salvador (Ed.), La Biblioteca de Babel: Documentarse para Traducir(pp. 77–95). Granada: Editorial Comares.

Moya, Virgilio (2007). La selva de la traducción. Teorías traductológicascontemporáneas (2nd ed.)Madrid: Cátedra.

Neruda, Pablo, & Macpherson, Guillermo (Trans.) (1966). Romeo y Julieta byWilliam Shakespeare. Buenos Aires: Losada.

Ordoño Muñoz, Antonia (Ed.). (2004). 32 léxicos trilingües de deportes ymedios de comunicación para los Juegos Olímpicos y Mediterráneos, 3 vols,Almería: Asociación de Prensa de Almería and TCI.

Robinson, Douglas (1997). What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, CriticalInterventions. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Santaemilia, José (Ed.). (2005). Gender, Sex and Translation. The Manipulationof Identities. Manchester: St Jerome.

Simon, Sherry (1996). Gender in Translation. Culture and Identity and thePolitics of Transmission. London: Routledge.

Page 10: Feminist translation? No way! Spanish specialised translators' disinterest in feminist translation

103M. Bengoechea / Women's Studies International Forum 42 (2014) 94–103

Simón Palmer, María del Carmen (2010). Carmen de Burgos, traductora. ARBORCiencia, Pensamiento y Cultura CLXXXVI (Junio). , 157–168 (Retrieved from:http://arbor.revistas.csic.es/index.php/arbor/article/view/1202/1207).

Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigmsor Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Taillefer de Haya, Lidia (2008). Origenes del feminismo. Madrid: Narcea.Tharu, Susie, & Lalita, Ke (Eds.). (1991/1993). Women Writing in India, Vols. I, II,

New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.Tymozcko, Maria (2000). Translation and political engagement. Activism,

social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts. TheTranslator, 6(1), 23–47.

Tymozcko, Maria (2003). Ideology and the position of the translator: in whatsense is a translator ‘in-between’? In María Calzada (Ed.), Apropos ofIdeology. Translations Studies on Ideology—Ideologies in Translation Studies(pp. 181–201). Manchester: St. Jerome.

Vargas, Ana, Lledó, Eulalia, Bengoechea, Mercedes, Mediavilla, Mercedes,Rubio, Isabel, Marco, Aurora, et al. (1998). Lo femenino y lo masculino en

el Diccionario de la Real Academia Española. Madrid: Ministerio deTrabajo y Asuntos Sociales. Instituto de la Mujer.

Venuti, Lawrence (1996). Translation as a social practice: or, the violenceof translation. In Marilyn G. Rose (Ed.), Translation Horizons. Beyondthe Boundaries of ‘Translation Spectrum’, Translation Perspectives IX(pp. 195–213). Binghamton: Center for Research in Translation, Stateof New York.

Vidal Claramonte, M. Carmen África (1998). El futuro de la traducción.Últimas teorías, nuevas aplicaciones. Valencia: Institució Alfons elMagnànim.

Vidal Claramonte, M. Carmen África (2007). Traducir entre Culturas: Poderes,Diferencias, Identidades. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Voldeng, Evelyne (1985). The Elusive Source Text. (Review of These OurMothers by Nicole Brossard, trans. by Barbara Godard). CanadianLiterature, 105, 138–139.

Woolf, Virginia (2003). Un cuarto propio. (M. Milagros Rivera-Garretas, Trans.).Madrid: Editorial hora y HORAS.