Translation Ethics

Translation Ethics
Translation Ethics introduces the topic of ethics for students, researchers,

and professional translators. Based on a successful course and written by
an experienced instructor, the Introduction and nine core chapters offer an
accessible examination of a wide range of interlocking topic areas, which
combine to form a cohesive whole, guiding students through the key debates.
Built upon a theoretical background founded in philosophy and moral
theory, it outlines the main contributions in the area and traces the develop-
ment of thought on ethics from absolutism to relativism, or, from staunchly
argued textual viewpoints to current lines of thought placing the translator
as agent and an active –even interventionary –mediator. The textbook then
examines the place of ethical enquiry in the context of professional trans-
lation, critiquing provision such as codes of ethics. Each chapter includes
key discussion points, suggested topics for essays, presentations, or in-class
debates, and an array of contextualised examples and case studies. Additional
resources, including videos, weblinks, online activities, and PowerPoint slide
presentations on the Routledge Translation studies portal provide valuable
extra pedagogical support.
This wide-ranging and accessible textbook has been carefully designed
to be key reading for a wide range of courses, including distance-learning
courses, from translation and interpreting ethics to translation theory and
practice.
Joseph Lambert is a Lecturer in Translation Studies at Cardiff University.

His research focuses on translation ethics and the translation profession,
and he teaches both undergraduate and postgraduate sessions on transla-
tion ethics. Recent publications include a chapter on Professional Translator
Ethics in the Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics.
Routledge Introductions to Translation and Interpreting
Series Editor:
Sergey Tyulenev is the Director of the MA in Translation and Russian
Studies at the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, Durham
University, UK.
Advisory Board
Luise von Flotow, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ricardo Munoz Martin, University of Bologna, Italy
Kobus Marais, University of the Free State, South Africa
Nike K. Pokorn, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
James St André, Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
Michaela Wolf, University of Graz, Austria
Routledge Introductions to Translation and Interpreting is a series of

textbooks, designed to meet the need for teaching materials for translator/
interpreter training. Accessible and aimed at beginning students but also
useful for instructors designing and teaching courses, the series covers a
broad range of topics, many of which are already core courses while others
cover new directions of translator/interpreter teaching.
The series reflects the standards of the translator/ interpreter training
and professional practice set out by national and international competence
frameworks and codes of translation/language service provision and are
aimed at a global readership.
All topics combine both practical and theoretical aspects so as to ensure
a bridging of the gap between the academic and professional world and all
titles include a range of pedagogical support: activities, case studies etc.
Most recent titles in the series:
Translation Project Management

Callum Walker
Translation Tools and Technologies

Andrew Rothwell, Joss Moorkens, Maria Fernández Parra, Joanna Drugan
and Frank Austermuehl
For more information on any of these and other titles, or to order, please go
to https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Introductions-to-Translation-and-
Interpreting/book-series/RITI
Additional resources for Translation and Interpreting Studies are available on

the Routledge Translation Studies Portal: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/
translationstudies
Translation Ethics
Joseph Lambert
Designed cover image: Getty Images | wildpixel
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 Joseph Lambert
The right of Joseph Lambert to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lambert, Joseph (Lecturer in translation studies), author.
Title: Translation ethics / Joseph Lambert.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. |
Series: Routledge introductions to translation and interpreting |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022041923 | ISBN 9780367708528 (paperback) |
ISBN 9780367708535 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003148265 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Translating and interpreting–Moral and ethical aspects.
Classification: LCC P306.97.M67 L36 2023 |
DDC 174/.941802–dc23/eng/20221221
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022041923
ISBN: 978-0-367-70853-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-70852-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-14826-5 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265
Typeset in Sabon
by Newgen Publishing UK
Access the Support Material: http://routledgetranslationstudiesportal.com/
Contents
List of Figures vi
List of Boxes vii
Acknowledgements viii
About the Author x
Series Editor’s Foreword xi
Introduction 1
1 Philosophical Foundations 11
2 Translation Ethics 29
3 Truth 43
4 Responsibility 58
5 Justice 75
6 Commitment 93
7 Standards 116
8 Ethical Professionals 136
9 Other Viewpoints 161
Bibliography 175
Index 187
Figures
.1
0 Translation and interpreting ethics “levels” 3
4.1 Functionalist model of communication 60
4.2 Areas of responsibility in Pym’s ethics of cooperation 66
6.1 The continuum of agency 99
8.1 Gender Bias in Google Translate 157
9.1 Potential reflections on responsibility in translation and
interpreting 171
Boxes
.1
1 Starting out: A problem to ponder 11
1.2 Deontology in practice: A thought experiment 20
1.3 Consequentialism 23
1.4 Alive, but at what cost? A test of ethical stances 25
2.1
The link to virtue ethics 32
2.2
Kimigayo 36
2.3
The Chinese tradition 40
3.1
Berman’s twelve deforming tendencies 48
3.2
Translating idioms: An example 52
4.1
How to achieve loyalty? 63
4.2
Cooperation in action 67
4.3
A case study on loyalty and cooperation 71
5.1
Ethics and subjectivity 77
5.2
Foreignisation in practice 82
5.3
A critique of cultural mediators 89
6.1
“I’m just the translator” 97
6.2
Activism, accountability, and conflicts of interest 106
6.3
Telos and accountability in action 109
6.4
Unbridled relativism: The fake sign language interpreter 112
7.1
The ATA Code of Ethics and professional practice 119
7.2
A case study: Confidentiality 130
7.3
A case study: Neutrality 132
8.1
Environmental sustainability 141
8.2
The Railway Man –Ethical stress in T&I 145
8.3
How much should you charge? 149
8.4
Technology, money, and ethics 158
9.1
How far do questions of ethics extend? Gender-inclusive
language and ethics 164
9.2 Enlightened egoism 167
.3 A case study: Amanda Gorman’s Dutch translator
9 169
Acknowledgements
There are so many people who have contributed both directly and indirectly
to the drafting of this textbook over the course of the last few years, and it
feels a somewhat futile task to fully thank them all here. Nevertheless, I’ll
give it a try.
Above all, thank you to the series editor Dr Sergey Tyulenev (Durham
University) for having the trust and confidence in me to write one of the first
books in this fantastic new series. Thank you for always being such a gen-
erous colleague, a patient editor, and a constant supportive presence, from
drafting the initial proposal through to final submission.
Thanks, too, to colleagues at Cardiff for regularly sharing ideas and
suggestions, pointing out potentially interesting avenues of exploration,
resources, and cases studies, and –importantly –allowing me to develop
ideas in the classroom, having free reign over sessions on ethics. Of course,
I must also thank our students –the primary target audience for this book –
for their willingness to engage with all of these ideas and to share their
personal perspectives and examples.
Huge thanks go to the reviewers of the textbook, who provided a wealth
of invaluable suggestions that have improved the shape, structure, and con-
tent of the book considerably. I only hope that the final content is able to
reflect your vision for the project.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Callum Walker (University of Leeds)
for assistance with pretty much everything along the way. It has been a huge
help to work on this book “in parallel” to your own wonderful contribu-
tion to the series, and my work has benefitted no end from your input. Our
regular chats over the years about all things translation (and much more
besides) have provided countless insights, new perspectives, and laughs
while your invaluable comments on chapter drafts, help with content struc-
ture, and willingness to try out these ideas with your own cohorts are all
very much appreciated.
Thanks too to Evie Elliott for her reader’s perspective on chapter drafts,
general editorial wizardry, and unrivalled attention to detail. Your thoughts,
ideas, and suggestions were all hugely helpful.
Acknowledgements ix
A special mention goes to Louisa Semlyen, Talitha Duncan-Todd, and Eleni
Steck at Routledge, whose support, guidance, patience, and understanding
were extremely welcome throughout the process.
Finally, thank you to my family and friends for the much-needed support
and distraction, and to little Tobias as a constant smiling presence.
Any omissions, inaccuracies, or other errors are my own.
About the Author
Dr Joseph Lambert is a Lecturer in Translation Studies at Cardiff University,

having joined in September 2020. He teaches and convenes a range of
modules on both the MA Translation Studies and the BA Translation. His
current teaching includes a considerable focus on translation ethics as well
as sessions on computer- assisted translation technology, pathways into
the translation profession, general and specialised translation (French to
English), and translation theory more generally, as well as supervising trans-
lation projects and dissertations at both UG and PG levels. He has previ-
ously taught at Durham University (2019–2020), University of Birmingham
(2018–2019), and University of Hull (2014–2018).
His primary area of research interest is the ethics of translation, and, like
his teaching, this work sits at the interface between translation theory and
practice. He has authored and co-authored a number of articles and book
chapters relating to translation ethics, including several articles on codes
of ethics, a chapter on “Professional Translator Ethics” in The Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Ethics (2021, Kaisa Koskinen and Nike
Pokorn, eds.), and work exploring the complex relationship between trans-
lation rates of pay, status, and regulation.
Much of his research is designed with the aim of eliciting tangible impacts
upon working practices and bridging the gap between academia and the
translation industry, a link that is concretised by a background in profes-
sional translation. He set up his own freelance translation business in 2012
and has accumulated a wealth of real-life experience in the translation
industry, working from French and Italian into English. Though he works
primarily in the contexts of sports and social media translation, this work
has spanned a wide range of text and practice types, from app localisation to
academic translation, and has ranged in scale from standalone projects with
individual clients to long-standing partnerships with global institutions.
Series Editor’s Foreword
Translator and interpreter training programmes have become an integral

feature of the present-day professional educational landscape all over the
world. There are at least two good reasons for that. On the one hand, it has
been realised that to work as a translator or interpreter, one needs more
than to speak a couple of languages; a special training in translation and
interpreting is a must. On the other hand, translator/interpreter training
programmes are seen as a practical way to start a career in the language-
service provision industry or to earn a degree as a Translation/Interpreting
Studies scholar. These programmes may be part of the university curriculum
or stand-alone courses in various formats of continuing studies or qualifica-
tion upgrading.
Yet there is still a dearth of teaching materials geared at novices in trans-
lation or interpreting. In every class, students are either given sheaves of
handouts which, by the end of the course, build up into a pile of paper or
referred to a small library of publications for a chapter here and a chapter
there. As a result, the student struggles to imagine the subject area as a
coherent whole and there is no helpful textbook for references while in the
course or after.
The lack of coursebooks makes life little easier for translator/interpreter
trainers. Even if they find a suitable book or monograph, a great deal of
adaptation must be done. The instructor would have to adjust the book to
the length of the course and individual teaching sessions, to add exercises
and assignments, questions and topics for presentations to facilitate students’
engagement with the materials and to help them go beyond the ‘read-only’
mode of working with the recommended book(s).
The purport of the series Routledge Introductions to Translation and
Interpreting is to put into the hands of the translator/interpreter trainee
and trainer ready-made textbooks. Each textbook is written by an expert
or a team of experts in the subject area under discussion; moreover each
author has vast experience of teaching the subject of their textbook. The
series reflects what has already become staple courses and modules in the
translator/interpreter training –but it also introduces new areas of teaching
and research. The series is meant as a kind of library of textbooks –all
newgenprepdf
xii Series Editor’s Foreword

books present various aspects of a translation and interpreting training pro-
gramme viewed as a whole. They can be taken as a basis for developing new
programmes and courses or reinforcing the existing ones.
Translation ethics, the theme of the present textbook, is still a relatively
new subject in translator and interpreter training. Every profession has its
ethical standards. Translation and interpreting are no exception. Nowadays
translators and interpreters pay more and more attention to the moral
choices they face and to the ethical aspects of their relationship with clients
and colleagues. Today the professional translator and interpreter is required
to perform not only as a skilled expert but also as an ethical person.
While there are numerous publications on various aspects of translator/
interpreter ethics, few of them are adapted as a (self-)taught course. This is
exactly what this textbook does. It offers an in-depth theoretical discussion
of the most fundamental aspects of translation/interpreting ethics and at
the same time it invites the reader to consider practical applications of the
learned theories.
The textbook has global appeal. It is written with the international read-
ership in mind. It considers the ethics of both translation and interpreting.
It is suitable for the budding translator/interpreter and the seasoned profes-
sional alike.
Translation/interpreting ethics is Dr Joseph Lambert’s academic spe-
cialism. He has published on the topic, and he has been teaching it for
several years in translator/interpreting training programmes. All this makes
him an ideal guide into the multifaceted and vital world of ethics.
Sergey Tyulenev
Introduction
What is the ‘right’ way to translate a text? How should a ‘professional’

interpreter act? What has been the ethical impact of technological
developments in the language industry? Who can or should translate in
a particular context? All of these questions (and many more!) fall under
the far-reaching domain of translation and interpreting ethics, a topic that
has now long occupied scholars and practitioners and represents an ever-
broadening area of focus within the field.
While sporadic works on ethics within Translation and Interpreting
Studies (TIS) can be found prior to the 1990s, it was at the end of the twen-
tieth century when a number of influential scholars really began to tackle the
subject in earnest. Since then, its increased relevance in the last two decades
has been exemplified by the efforts of scholars such as Mona Baker and
Christiane Nord to incorporate ethics into updated editions of their previ-
ously published works and the proliferation of an ever-expanding catalogue
of publications on ethics, which is constantly pushing in new directions
as we seek to keep on top of such a dynamic, fast-changing, and crucial
topic. In the last five years, scholars have sought to tackle issues including
social responsibility (Drugan and Tipton 2017), representativeness (Kotze
and Strowe 2021), sustainable Machine Translation (e.g. Moorkens, Kenny,
and do Carmo 2020), and ethical stress (Hubscher-Davidson 2021). On the
professional side, meanwhile, while codes of ethics have long been a fea-
ture of discourse on ethics, they are not without their shortcomings, and
emerging conversations in relation to technological developments, industry
disruptors, and issues of pay (among others) have highlighted a number of
gaps. Despite a history steeped in neutrality and invisibility, as explored at
length in this textbook, translators and interpreters are inevitably, and per-
haps increasingly, both politically and ethically engaged.
And yet, beyond this explicit engagement with ethics, there is also a
more implicit undercurrent within research dating back centuries. Indeed,
there is an underlying assumption that ethics is relevant to all translation,
with the very act necessitating “an account (explicit or implicit) of how the
encounter with the ‘other’ human being should be conducted” (Goodwin
2010:26). Unsurprisingly, this level of generality leaves a vast area to be
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-1
2 Introduction
covered, which can be approached from a number of different perspectives.
This scope means that there is little to no consensus on what ethics requires
of us, and this partly stems from differing understandings of key terms and
ideas. As Inghilleri and Maier put it:
[d]‌espite growing commitment amongst groups of translation scholars

and practitioners to address such questions [pertaining to ethics] […] we
have not by any means reached a clear understanding of or agreement
about what an ‘ethical’ approach actually means in the context of trans-
lation theory or practice, or the construction of the field itself.
(Inghilleri and Maier 2011, in Baker 2011a: 100)
And though Koskinen convincingly argues that “conclusive historical

charting of the ethics of translation is, if not impossible, an enormous task”
(Koskinen 2000: 16), this textbook intends to bring together a wide range
of ideas in an accessible format and provide a basis for further explorations
in the area.
Chapter Content and Design

As alluded to above, the “ethical” conundrum of how exactly we should
act when we translate or interpret, where we should/can place our loyalties,
or how we should engage with the world is by no means a straightforward
matter. Until now, it has been a particularly complex landscape to navi-
gate for those entering the field. This textbook represents a first attempt to
bring together key ethical questions and guidance in a manner accessible to
students, educators, and professionals alike, establishing a grounding from
which to delve further into the vast array of contributions in the field.1 Given
the vast range of perspectives on ethics, the task of bringing contributions
together in a logical, meaningful way is a tricky one. Thankfully, however,
there are a number of overarching frameworks developed in recent years to
facilitate the process. Chesterman (2016: 168), a leading voice on ethical
issues in translation, makes a productive distinction between micro-and
macro-levels to ethics, which offers a useful starting point for trying to
group these far-reaching conceptions. For him, macro-ethical matters
concern broad social questions such as the role and rights of translators
in society, conditions of work, financial rewards and the client’s profit
motive, the general aims of translation as intercultural action, power
relations between translators and clients, the relation between transla-
tion and state politics: in short, the relation between the translator and
the world.
Micro-ethical matters, meanwhile

Introduction 3
concern the translator’s action during the translation process itself,
questions dealing with specific textual matters, translation strategies
and the like: in short, the relation between the translator and the words
on the page.
While Chesterman rightly notes that the lines are blurred between these two
categories, which mutually impact each other, the divide remains a useful
one to begin to categorise the mass of contributions into more manageable
groups. We will return to this micro/macro distinction at multiple points.
Another slightly more nuanced division is made in the field of interpreting
by Phelan et al (2020: 62), who use the illustration in Figure 0.1 to con-
ceptualise concerns with ethics as three circles expanding from a centre.
Commenting on the diagram, the authors explain that while “the intrinsic
ST-TT (source text-target text bond is the nucleus of translational ethics at a
textual level, it is embedded in other levels or spheres of professional ethics”
(Phelan et al. 2020: 61). These levels are labelled as the interpersonal and the
social (or the “community sphere”) and correspond to Chesterman’s con-
ception of macro-ethical considerations. With these models firmly in mind,
I follow a path from micro-to macro-ethical matters (to use Chesterman’s
terminology) or from the centre of the diagram to the outer edges (Figure 0.1),
gradually expanding the scale of our enquiry. However, I also recognise the
need to provide some underlying context before diving into the challenges
of translation and interpreting specifically.
In Chapter 1, I begin by exploring slippery definitions of ethics and
covering fundamental philosophical foundations that (often implicitly)
underlie the translation theories covered in this textbook. This brief general
Textual domain
Interpersonal domain
Social – Community Sphere
Figure 0.1 Translation and interpreting ethics “levels” –adapted from Phelan et al.
2020: 62.
4 Introduction
overview enables readers to meaningfully engage with ideas in TIS, defining
key concepts and outlining three of the most prominent schools of thought
within moral theory –deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics –
which all feature in theories of translation ethics.
Next, I turn to the context of translation ethics specifically, exploring
some fundamental ethical ideas in Chapter 2. This chapter outlines four key
areas of focus on translation ethics and explores the vital question of fidelity.
This leads to a foregrounding of the textual domain, which is explored at
length in Chapter 3 in relation to questions of truth. Discussions in this
chapter simultaneously bring deontology squarely into focus and question
whether there is a universally ‘right’ way to translate, considering the ideas
of influential translation scholar Antoine Berman. His passionately defended
cause draws our attention to a key range of textual features to consider
when translating, though some important limitations force us to extend our
enquiry elsewhere. This is where Chapters 4, 5, and 6 come in, moving to the
interpersonal domain, where we no longer simply focus on our relationship
with texts, but rather start to consider the wide range of agents involved
in the translation industry. While all three chapters can be loosely grouped
under a wider theme of agency, exploring varying degrees of active engage-
ment among translators and interpreters, each with their own advantages
and disadvantages, there is a gradual outward expansion across the chapters
as the interpersonal subtly transforms into the social.
Chapter 4 initiates an ongoing problematisation of the complex issue
of responsibility –first from a functionalist perspective, exploring Nord’s
powerful concept of loyalty, and then in relation to Pym’s fascinating and
evolving concepts of cooperation, risk, and trust. These ideas place the
human beings involved at the heart of our thinking and challenge us to
consider where our responsibility lies, as well as alluding to the context-
based, personal, ideologically charged dimensions of ethics. This final range
of themes is accentuated in Chapter 5, which is based around the question of
justice. As well as consolidating the non-neutral, subjective nature of ethics,
this chapter categorically posits the translator and interpreter as active
agents in shaping knowledge transfer. It achieves this via an exploration of
Venuti’s ubiquitous work on visibility and an ethics of difference, as well
as Inghilleri’s powerful critique of neutrality in the context of interpreting,
and marks a decisive shift to the wider social context in which practitioners
work. Chapter 6 is, in some ways, an extension of this theme, exploring
the limits of agency under an overall label of commitment. Discussions in
this chapter blur the lines between the personal and the professional and
expand the translator and interpreter’s roles from cultural mediators to
advocates and even activists who champion certain causes. I explore these
ideas through close engagement with Baker’s thought in particular, which
eventually leads us to consider the importance of being accountable for our
choices and actions and the perils of moral relativism.
Introduction 5
Chapters 7 and 8, meanwhile, represent something of a shift in focus,
turning our attention squarely to the professional context. Chapter 7 explores
standards that professional translators and interpreters are expected to
abide by via an in-depth examination of the content, construction, and
shortcomings of codes of ethics in the area. It explains key principles as
well as exposing gaps, blindspots, and contradictions, encouraging readers
to engage critically with these documents. Chapter 8, meanwhile, considers
other key concerns facing today’s ethical professionals. This wide-ranging
chapter covers topics as diverse as rates of pay and environmental sus-
tainability, and proposes both outward and inward reflections, where the
question of responsibility once again rears its head. Outwardly, we must con-
sider social responsibility, while inwardly we must also reflect on the need
to prioritise our own mental and physical (and arguably financial) health.
The fast-changing nature of the language industry also dictates that we
consider emerging ethical challenges that have accompanied technological
developments. These sweeping changes have, in some cases, revolutionised
the way we need to think about translation –notably in terms of practice
types, quality, fidelity, and privacy.
Finally, Chapter 9 brings proceedings to a close by considering other
viewpoints –combining sets of ideas that were not explored elsewhere
(whether due to space constraints or as a means of maximising the overall
cohesion of the textbook) and emerging ideas that demonstrate new, innova-
tive, and challenging ways that we can continue to reflect on how we con-
ceptualise ethics and how we should treat Others. The central ‘case studies’
in treating otherness touch upon themes of selfhood, representation, and
representativeness, before I return one final time to the ever-present issue
of responsibility. This time, armed with knowledge gleaned from the wide
range of theories, thought, and frameworks explored over the course of the
textbook, readers are encouraged to reflect on potential paths forward, and
suggestions are provided for potential essay, discussion, and research topics
in many of the domains covered.
At this point, a quick note on the inclusion of both translation and
interpreting is in order. Though the term ‘translation’ is often used as a
hypernym to cover both practices, I have endeavoured to explore the dis-
tinct challenges raised by both oral and written modes of translation. It is
worth noting that while there are many challenges that are shared across
and beyond these modes, the range of practices that fall under the umbrella
of translation is so diverse that it is impossible to cover every context. For
instance, this textbook offers no in-depth, specific coverage of subtitling or
localisation despite the current prominence of these practices, and this is
reflective of the wider focus of research in TIS. Readers are encouraged to
reflect on how the ideas covered will apply to the specific contexts in which
they work, which also reflects the wider design of this textbook and the rele-
vance both to the academic and professional contexts.
6 Introduction
About this Book
Audience and features

As an introductory textbook, it is not possible (nor desirable) to cover every
theory, framework, or idea in detail. Instead, this book is designed to pro-
vide a balanced, wide-ranging grounding in translation ethics while also
inviting readers to reflect and engage with ideas beyond those that are expli-
citly presented here. I place considerable focus on encouraging readers to
explore additional sources and to consider the applicability of core ideas
in their specific professional domain, language area, or cultural setting, for
instance. Indeed, a core objective throughout the book lies in encouraging
the reader to be reflective and to critically consider what they read. Each
chapter asks key questions and opens up space for critical engagement with
ideas covered, commenting upon strengths and potential weaknesses or gaps
where appropriate. Above all, this textbook is designed to be an accessible
entry point to a complex and multifaceted topic that has long been prom-
inent in TIS and continues to gain attention in both academic and profes-
sional contexts.
While primarily written with a postgraduate student of interpreting or
translation in mind, this book is designed to be used by a broad audience of
students, trainers, scholars, professionals, and interested readers in parallel
domains. An accessible tone is adopted throughout and insights are designed
to be practically relevant and contextualised in relation to the practices
they describe. Given the nature of typical translation cohorts, which may
be at undergraduate or postgraduate level and often include non-native
speakers of English, content is designed to be user-friendly, breaking down
often tricky ideas in an easily understandable manner. This book can act
as a basis for independent study in ethics, a complement, companion, or a
counterpoint to studies in translation and interpreting, a source of inspir-
ation for ideas or examples, and an underlying framework for a key area of
professional concern. Given the textbook leaves a number of unanswered
and underexplored topics in relation to ethics, the talking points provided
throughout could also provide the blueprint for dissertations and even PhD
study. Finally, professionals too will benefit from this textbook, exposing
them to many ideas that have rarely entered the professional domain, and
which may inform practice or challenge current understandings.
Each chapter opens with a rundown of three key questions tackled, and
this is intended to act as a point of orientation for readers, priming them for
the discussions to come and concretising central themes. In each chapter key
concepts are bolded, and there are a series of questions interspersed between
discussions to encourage readers to pause and reflect on the ideas covered. At
times these questions are rather simple and straightforward. At others, they
can be more complex or even deliberately provocative. This range is designed
to reflect the scope of discussions that can be sparked when covering what
Introduction 7
are often dense, challenging topics. At the end of each chapter, there are also
three ‘Discussion, Presentation, and Assignment Topics’, which (as the name
suggests) variously invite readers to consider lines of enquiry that may open
up new discussions or could be used for assessments –from group and indi-
vidual presentations to opinion pieces, blog entries, and academic essays and
dissertations. Finally, this book is also complemented by additional learning
materials on the Routledge Translation Studies Portal (‘TS Portal’ at http://
routledgetranslationstudiesportal.com), including additional assignment
tasks, discussion points, and case studies. Future updates will also include
slide templates for each chapter. To find the relevant resources for this text-
book, readers should click on Resources and View by Book, before navi-
gating to the link for this book.
A case study-based approach

More widely, the textbook reflects a now long-standing call for further
coverage of ethics in translator training, arising on the back of the recog-
nition of its undeniable importance to both translators and contemporary
TIS scholars.2 Zhou (2022: 1) contends that ethics is now an “explicit and
integrative component of translator education” and that the goal of teaching
ethics has moved from “preaching abstract, universalistic translator codes of
ethics to training translation students’ ethical sensitivity and reflexive moral
judgement (i.e. ethical decision-making).” Central to this aim of encour-
aging reflexive, sensitive judgement in this textbook is the use of numerous
case studies throughout. This follows Drugan and Megone’s recommenda-
tion for an integrated approach to ethics, which does not reduce ethics to a
single session within a larger “theory” module (prevalent on many courses
in translation), thus stymying links to actual practice (2011: 207), but rather
seeks to embed ethics within the wider context of translator training, by
slotting key themes in with existing concerns, both professional and theor-
etical in nature.
As such, the case studies I use do not just apply to practical, “real life”
scenarios, but also to the theoretical explorations in each chapter, where
scholars’ ideas are selected as representing a key idea or development of
thought that advances our thinking or introduces a new perspective.
Elsewhere, case studies expose the travails of the translator and interpreter
in terms of individual decision-making and in the wider context of industry
workflows, drawing attention to the complex networks and power relations
at work. While the profession is not explicitly our central focus until
Chapter 7, it is a crucial implicit theme throughout, and the use of practical
case studies reinforces this focus.
In line with the goal of fostering curiosity outlined above, readers are also
encouraged to seek out their own case studies in languages or personal areas
of interest to apply the ideas covered in this book in a concrete, independent
manner and open up additional channels of dialogue either in the classroom,
8 Introduction
between friends and family or colleagues, or personal study. Case studies
may appear in local news publications, on social media (translator and
interpreter groups often involve discussions of ethical issues), via Internet
searches for keywords such as “translation confidentiality”, or via trans-
lation profession-specific websites such as ProZ.com and TranslatorsCafe.
com, which have dedicated forums with specific sub-sections for ethics-
related cases. For the instructor, these cases work well as both whole-group
exercises, with the instructor presenting a case and then inviting responses,
or small-group exercises, with students discussing a case as a team before
feeding back to a larger discussion, which will usually highlight illuminating
points of commonality and contrast around the classroom. While I have
sought to avoid prescriptiveness as much as possible, there are also several
suggested responses to discussions to provide a starting point for further
debates and perspectives to be shared.
For both students and trainers looking for realistic case studies, Drugan
and Megone’s (2011) article is another invaluable resource. Not only does
their paper include five fascinating scenarios based on key challenges that
translators are likely to face in their work (194–204), but it also includes
eight suggested headings under which ethical issues in translation could be
classified (205–206). The five full scenarios cover rates of pay, ownership
of resources (see Chapter 8 for coverage of both of these areas), refusing
work (covered briefly in Chapter 6), the limits of confidentiality (Chapters 6
and 7), and specific translational choices (see Chapter 3 for a perspective
on this). Their additional suggested areas, meanwhile, are client relations,
etiquette, collegiality, the standing of the profession, visibility, competition,
accountability, and power structures.
These areas are well worth mentioning here as they pre-empt a whole
host of pertinent points of discussion that will be raised in this textbook
and, as Drugan and Megone put it, are “indicative of the variety of areas
in which ethical issues may be raised within a curriculum” (2011: 206).
Analysis is necessarily formed on a case-by-case basis, with the context-
dependent nature of ethics problematising one-size-fits-all solutions, as we
will see. And, when using these cases, it is worth noting that discussions can
be applied to many different theorists’ ideas, allowing us to compare and
contrast these approaches and to critically engage with their strengths and
weaknesses.
In the classroom
All of these features –the theoretical and practical case studies, in-text
questions, essay titles, and discussion topics –can be carried through to
training settings. Indeed, the content of this book has been developed on the
back of creating successful sessions, modules, and assessments on translation
ethics in a range of UK-based universities, at both undergraduate and post-
graduate levels. Therefore, for teachers of translation and/or interpreting,
Introduction 9
the materials can be easily adapted to the classroom, whether setting up
new modules or bolstering existing content. Specifically, this textbook has
been structured with a one-semester course in mind (typical of specialist
MA modules in translation and interpreting), with each chapter roughly
corresponding to a teaching week.3 Each chapter provides content that
neatly corresponds to the common lecture plus seminar approach, using
lectures to explore theoretical ideas and seminars either to discuss key texts
in detail or to explore a range of pre-prepared case studies that problem-
atise the themes discussed in the lecture. The aforementioned features pro-
vide abundant platforms for dynamic teaching sessions and further reading
suggestions and bibliography entries facilitate more in-depth engagement or
allow for a flipped approach, with students reading a text before a session (in
particular, individual papers provide a manageable and digestible amount of
reading material).
Of course, within this framework there is considerable scope for flexi-
bility. In my own teaching, I have often dedicated entire series of lectures
to scholarly thought that only fills a sub-section in the current textbook,
such as Venuti’s thought on ethics, narrative theory, or technology and
ethics. This allows trainers to tailor the content to their specific needs and
resources. Understandably, many courses do not have space for an entire
optional module on ethics, and so the range of content can also be embedded
within existing modules. While Zhou (2022: 10) proposes an illuminating
approach to teaching ethics that works best as a standalone course, and
contends that simply setting aside “twenty minutes each class [to] talk about
ethics is not enough”, the realities of course design limit such possibilities
and developing underlying expertise on the part of trainers is key –applying
relevant insights from translation ethics to the teaching of other content
when pertinent. The beauty of ethics is that it touches upon a vast range of
key themes: through the lens of ethics, students can become acquainted with
linguistic debates around fidelity and equivalence, explore differing degrees
of agency, consider the impact of technological developments, and critique
current and emerging issues with prevalent industry workflows.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the writing of this textbook has been undertaken with a spirit of
openness in mind –an openness to other readings, other viewpoints, other
languages, and other cultures. Readers must make up their own mind on
issues and delve further into the topics that interest them. While the content
offers the basic building blocks for understanding key debates in relation
to ethics, there is also a strong focus on providing material that will pro-
voke ideas, responses, and –hopefully –critical reflection on your own and
others’ stances. As will be explored in later chapters, our own views and
beliefs necessarily seep into our actions and I must readily acknowledge
that my own limited, partial, and situated viewpoint has inevitably impacted
10 Introduction
the construction and delivery of each chapter. My own position as a spe-
cialist in written translation and my linguistic and cultural limitations risk
causing me to default towards the familiar, though I have endeavoured to be
attentive to a range of other practices, languages, and cultures, in keeping
with the general ethos of the series. This same spirit of openness is some-
thing that should be present in the classroom: ethical discussions require a
willingness to listen, learn, and engage with challenging ideas in a humble
manner. While ethics permits no easy answers, it can also be comforting that
there are often no categorically right or wrong answers.
Notes
1 There are two other publications with similar aims that should be mentioned
here. Firstly, The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics (Koskinen and
Pokorn, 2021, eds.) represents a wonderful, comprehensive collection of thought
in the area, though one that is less accessible for those new to the debate. However,
the depth on offer in that publication marks it out as an ideal next step for readers
interested in exploring particular topics in more detail, hence the multitude of
references to the collection throughout this textbook. Secondly, Phelan et al.’s
(2020) Ethics in Public Service Interpreting is a rich, informative, and accessible
source, one which adopts an approach to ethics that is in some ways similar to
that of this textbook. However, as the name suggests, it is focused more narrowly
on the field of Public Service Interpreting.
2 In the European context, for instance, ethical skills are included in the influen-
tial list of competences that European Master’s in Translation (EMT)-accredited
institutions are expected to teach. In China, meanwhile, there is a similar expect-
ation that ethical concerns will become increasingly central in the near future.
Wang and Li comment on the current situation in China and argue that, in spite
of the consensus that “translator professionalism and ethical training go hand
in hand”, “[v]‌ery few, if any, training programmes incorporate explicit teaching
on ethics in Chinese translation curricula” (2019: 165), asserting a need for
understandings of ethics to move beyond perceived qualities of loyalty or fidelity
to the source text.
3 An 11-week format I have used is as follows: an introductory session; a session
for each of the nine chapters; plus, a final week where students present and discuss
their own case studies or deliver group presentations. Armed with a range of the-
ories and ideas, this final session allows students to reflect upon how those ideas
help (or not) with a concrete practical situation. These sessions lead to exciting,
dynamic, and challenging discussions. Furthermore, given that students of trans-
lation and interpreting are often from a hugely diverse range of geographical, lin-
guistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds, cohorts are often neatly set up for
an exchange of a vast range of viewpoints.
1 Philosophical Foundations
Key questions
• What is ethics and what are the fundamental ethical questions?
• How has ethics been studied?
• What are the key ethical schools of thought that we can apply in
the context of translation and interpreting?
This opening chapter offers a brief general overview of some key ethical
building blocks, particularly those provided by philosophy. It introduces
a range of underlying conceptual tools, defines key terms, and raises fun-
damental ethical questions and approaches to studying ethics to allow
readers to meaningfully engage with ethics in general and later in both TIS
and the professional contexts of translation and interpreting. At a more
granular level, the chapter outlines three of the most prominent schools of
thought within moral theory –deontology, consequentialism, and virtue
ethics –anticipating discussions in the coming chapters, where these ideas
are rearticulated in the contexts of translation and interpreting specifically.
Finally, the chapter asks why we should study ethics, discussing the benefits
and pitfalls of exploring this area on a wider scale.
Box 1.1 Starting out: A problem to ponder

What is the difference between the following terms?
• Ethic(s)
• Moral(s) and morality
• Etiquette
If possible, discuss in small groups or note down some ideas relating to

the three terms. Then, check how they are defined in a dictionary. Also
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-2
check the etymology of the words, as this research into the original
meaning of the word or its components always helps us to understand
why they were chosen to mean the things they mean.
? What do these words have in common and in what way(s) are they
different from one another?
What is Ethics?
A useful first step when starting to study or discuss a new area is to define
the key terms and concepts and this is one of the central aims of this chapter.
It makes sense to start by defining our most fundamental concept –ethics –
but this is no mean feat. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the amount of
material written on the subject. Browsing a university’s library catalogue
on ethics, for instance, the number of titles available is likely to leave any
newcomer to the area dismayed. Similarly, searching for the word “ethics”
online is even more disorienting. For this reason, perhaps the best starting
point is to look up its definition in an established, trustworthy dictionary.
The Oxford Dictionary of English, defines ethics as follows:
1 [usually treated as plural] moral principles that govern a person’s

behaviour or the conducting of an activity: medical ethics also enter
into the question | a code of ethics.
the moral correctness of specified conduct: many scientists question the
ethics of cruel experiments.
2 [usually treated as singular] the branch of knowledge that deals with
moral principles: neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion.
This definition brings up a key distinction between two different usages: one
relating to behaviour, and a second relating to the scholarly discipline
studying that type of behaviour. The second important point to note is that
in both instances, ethics is defined further in relation to the word “moral”.
What exactly does this word mean? What are “morals”? Based on the mini
research project you were invited to conduct in Box 1.1, you will have prob-
ably found that the word “moral” comes from the Latin word “mos/mores”
meaning “custom(s)”, “habit(s)”. Some of you may recall the exclamation
used by Cicero “O tempora! O mores,” which means something like “What
a time! What customs!”. Cicero used the phrase to express his disgust with
the low mores of the Roman society of his time, for instance in his famous
speech against his political adversary Lucis Sergius Catilina. In English
(again, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English), the word “moral”
can be used to mean “right” or “good” or to refer to the study of what is
good and what is bad:
Philosophical Foundations 13
1 concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour: the moral
dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgement.
concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered
right or acceptable in a particular society: they have a moral obligation
to pay the money back.
[attributive] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good
and bad character and conduct: moral philosophers.
2 holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct: he prides
himself on being a highly moral and ethical person | he is a caring,
moral man.
Somewhat confusingly, we have now gone full circle. Indeed, “ethical” and
“moral” can mean, in essence and according to dictionary definitions alone,
the same thing and just come from two different languages (Greek and
Latin): defining “ethics” and “ethical” through “moral” is as good as defining
“moral” through “ethical”. For Rudvin, however, despite this tendency to
use the terms interchangeably in both academic literature and everyday dis-
course, there is a generally accepted distinction. For her, ethics can be seen as
“belonging to a public, collective domain, about which there is at least some
degree of consensus in any given social group or community of practice”
(in Phelan et al. 2020: 35). Morality, meanwhile, refers to an individual’s
own principles of right and wrong, pertaining to “a more private, personal,
inner-oriented and more subjective behavioural and belief domain” (ibid.).
It is worth noting that this distinction risks establishing a separation that is
not always borne out in TIS, where we discuss both personal and profes-
sional ethics (not professional ethics and morals, for instance) and signifi-
cant attention has been paid to problematising that divide (see Chapter 6
in particular). Nevertheless, it is as helpful a distinction as we can find and
is widely accepted. Far from being a futile exercise, this process of defining
and deliberating over definitions has drawn our attention to a vast range
of key concerns (as illustrated by the bolding in the definitions). Whatever
differences exist, both terms relate to “customs”, “habits”, or “principles”,
which can be described as “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”. This is
what we are exploring in this book: what is good or bad in the context of
translation and interpreting, in simple terms at least.
At this point, it is helpful to take into consideration the place that the
study of ethics occupies among other disciplines that explore social aspects
of human existence. Ethics is one of the branches of Western philosophy
which, since Aristotle (384–322 B CE ), has been divided as follows:
1. ontology (studying what the world as it is, from the Greek words ‘ont-’
being + ‘logos’ study);
2. epistemology (studying methods we use when we study the world as it
is, from the Greek words ‘episteme’ knowledge + ‘logos’ study);
3. politics (studying society as it is, from the Greek word ‘polis’ city);
4. ethics (studying society as it should be rather than as it is, from the
Greek ‘ethos’ meaning custom, disposition);
5. aesthetics (studying what we would call today arts, that is, things of beauty
and the nature of beauty, from the Greek ‘aestheta’, things perceived).
For us here, the most important juxtaposition is perhaps that of ethics with
politics. Following this division, politics focuses on human relations in a
group from the point of view of their actual state, both their good points
and their imperfections, problems, issues. Ethics, in contrast, is about how
we would like to see our society and our relations within it. One might say,
politics is about what is or was while ethics is about what should be or what
should have been. Politics is about the actual state of human relations while
ethics is about a desirable state of human relations. However, as will become
abundantly clear in the chapters that follow, these lines become blurred and
at numerous points we will examine works that cross the borders between
the supposedly ethical and political.
Before we go on to explore a range of fundamental ethical questions, a
caveat is in order. In the present discussion of ethics, we will draw primarily
on Western teachings of ethics. This does not mean to say, however, that these
teachings are the most authoritative or the most sophisticated. Our choice
is prompted by my own upbringing and education, the space constraints
in this textbook, and the fact that these underpinnings are reflective of the
starting point of much of the exploration of ethics in TIS. I invite readers to
explore their national traditions in studying and practicing ethics, and it is
undeniable that TIS research on ethics would benefit from further engage-
ment with other ethical systems. As Rudvin puts it in the context of public
service interpreting specifically, this “could profoundly change the landscape
and scope of investigation in our discipline and profession” (in Phelan et al.
2020: 34). These changes stem from the fact that other national systems of
ethics often prioritise different values, perhaps the prioritisation of compas-
sion and charity in the Islamic tradition, or the value assigned to group har-
mony in the ancient Chinese philosophical tradition, and such work could
form the basis for a fascinating research project or classroom presentation.
Indeed, the underlying knowledge developed by studying other national
traditions of ethics and other cultural and linguistic perspectives, could lay
a foundation for invaluable research into the applicability of those ideas to
translation/interpreting and translators and interpreters.
? What does ethics mean to you?

? What is your take on the separation of ethics and politics?
The Fundamental Ethical Questions

Our tentative separation between branches of philosophy suggests that by
ethics we mean not just any custom, habit, or character, but a desirable one.
Now, we turn to the challenging question of what kind of behaviour is desir-
able, which once again invites us to move beyond the somewhat circular
definitions uncovered above. To say that moral behaviour is desirable is not
too enlightening because then we still must ask what is meant by “moral” (or
‘ethical’). Instead, we must delve into identifying the criteria of distinguishing
between right and wrong/good and evil. This is a daunting question, and one
that finds its origins well before the philosophical thought briefly mentioned
above. Many of the earliest formulations of this guidance were linked to
religion, with traces dating back to ancient Egypt and Babylonia. Elsewhere,
the oldest Indian ethics are found in the Vedas (c. 1500–800 BC E ) while key
Chinese philosophers Laozi and Confucius developed their influential eth-
ical thought a few centuries later (c. 500–600 BC E ) (Koskinen and Pokorn
2021: 2). Christianity, Judaism, and Islam developed their thought later, and
it is here that we take our starting point before turning away from religious
perspectives.
Take, for instance, the following verses from the Old Testament of the
Bible, the foundational book of Judaism and Christianity, and a book that is
taken as a life guide for many people, including for the ethical/moral aspects
of life. Here, we see that the question of distinguishing between right and
wrong was deemed so daunting that the question is not even considered
worth asking. In the Book of Genesis (chapter 2, verse 17), we read that the
first humans created by God, when they were place in the Garden of Eden,
or Paradise, could partake of any of the many trees planted there, “but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (King James Version). In
other words, this “collective” human being, Adam plus Eve, was prohibited
from considering what is good and what is evil. They were created naked
but, until the day they did eat from the forbidden tree of good and evil, they
did not have shame. Once they had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil, they realised that they were naked and became ashamed of that
and made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. While before they had
walked in the presence of God, now they lost it and eventually, as we know,
they lost their place in the Paradise of God. All as the result of learning what
was good and what was evil. Thankfully for us, however, there is consider-
ably less risk involved in studying ethics.
In these verses we see that distinguishing between good and evil was not
supposed to be a question humans should try and answer for themselves
and, consequently, apply to their behaviour. Yet throughout history humans
have considered a wide range of sources of ethical behaviour beyond divine
commands and have developed numerous sophisticated frameworks to
allow us to ponder the right and wrong or good and evil in their own behav-
iour and in the behaviour of others around them. The issues subsumed in
ethics include
• how to live a good life and what a good life is/a good person is;
• how to speak about moral issues and how to define concepts of ethics;
• what are moral decisions and how we choose between good and bad/
right and wrong;
• our rights and responsibilities/duties in society.
Here another caveat is in order. It is important to make a clear point that

the goal of a course in translation/interpreting ethics is not to give definitive
answers to how to translate and how not to translate or how translators or
interpreters should act under various circumstances. Rather the goal is to
make the budding translator/interpreter aware of the complexity and some-
times of the controversial nature of ethical questions and to encourage them
to reason about these matters in a knowing and informed fashion.
? What does being “good” mean to you?

? What are some key rights that you have in society and, in turn, what are
your responsibilities? Where does this information come from?
Approaches to Studying Ethics

Ethics is a societal matter. When talking about ethics, we are forced to con-
sider how we are dealing with the Other, how we can respect the choices of
the Other, how we can (or if we can) balance not only our own concerns and
interests but also concerns and interests of the society in which we live –or,
in the case of translators/interpreters, the societies, cultures, languages that
we are a part of or representing. For some, as we have seen above, ethics
implies going even “higher” and considering gods’ or God’s interests. As our
initial definitions demonstrated, ethics is about fundamental values, such as
honesty, kindness, respect, and so forth. All of these matters bring us inevit-
ably to desirable relationships with the other in a shared social space. Below,
I turn to a range of philosophical explorations of ethics in an attempt to
shed further light on ways in which we can seek to answer these pressing
questions of “right”, “wrong”, “good”, and “evil”. These discussions move
from overarching contemporary frameworks to specific schools of thought
and introduce a range of key terminology or metalanguage –the language of
right and wrong, and how to speak about moral issues –which will be useful
to internalise ahead of the translation and interpreting-specific discussions
of later chapters.
Metaethics, Normative and Applied Ethics

Ethical philosophy (also known as moral philosophy, perhaps unsurpris-
ingly!) is one of the most fruitful avenues of enhancing understandings of
translation ethics. This sub-domain of philosophy offers a nuanced and well-
developed basis to inform discussions and contextualise our explorations
moving forwards. Employing this more systematic basis is also useful to try
to tame what is an incredibly broad, and sometimes unwieldy area. Indeed,
ethics touches upon or informs debates ranging from human or even
animal rights to professional conduct, from self-care –prioritising your
own physical and mental wellbeing –to concern for future generations.
From the previous sections it should be clear by now that the crux of the
matter when ethics is discussed is the difference between right and wrong,
or what is considered “right” and what is considered “wrong” and coming
up with ideas or, perhaps, recommendations of what ethical translation
or interpreting should be like (as opposed to what they are like). Yet des-
pite the clarity of the fundamental questions, answers and approaches to
answers represent a big pool of ideas, which often contradict each other,
often inherited from various religious beliefs, philosophies, cultures, and
worldviews.
According to many contemporary understandings of ethics, philosophers
nowadays tend to divide ethical theories into three areas: metaethics, nor-
mative ethics, and applied ethics. These three areas in some ways mark a
move from the general to the specific. Metaethics (“meta-” is a Greek prefix
meaning here beyond or behind) invites us to ask questions about the nature
of moral judgement and the ideas behind moral judgement. Metaethically, we
are searching for the origins and meaning of (a given set of) ethical principles.
For instance, in a religion such as Judaism or Christianity, as is obvious
from the fragment from the Bible discussed above, the ultimate source of all
ethics in that case is one’s belief in God and in this God’s guidance in terms
of what that person should do and what moral decisions to make. In some
other cultures, other deities are responsible for instructing their believers,
but the general conclusion would be the same: behind all moral judgments
and codes of ethics in religious cultures it is likely that the final say lies with
deities, and it is they who are believed to have communicated to humans the
ethical principles that the latter should apply in their lives. It is different in
atheistic cultures where humans are responsible for their decisions and the
codes applicable to their behaviour are believed to be formulated over his-
tory as a result of complex interactions between people. Another key poten-
tial source for metaethics could be a virtuous person to emulate, something
we explore further below in relation to virtue ethics.
Normative ethics, meanwhile, looks into the content of moral judgements.
Normative ethics studies the criteria for deciding what is viewed as the oppos-
ition “right vs. wrong”. When talking about the Bible above, for instance,
we concluded that the right for a follower of Judaism or Christianity is to
do what God requires of them. Using religion as the source of ethics, we may
come up with normative guidelines such as “thou shalt not murder”, though
many non-religious legal bases in ethics of course reach similar normative
conclusions! Applied ethics is even more focussed. While normative ethics
looks at codes of ethics and rules of behaviour in general, applied ethics
attempts to put our moral knowledge into practice by analysing specific,
controversial issues in private and public life such as war, animal rights, and
capital punishment.
So, which category does translation or translator ethics fall into? While
sources of ethics in translation and interpreting can be both academic or pro-
fessional in nature and offer invaluable guidance in wide-ranging contexts,
they always relate specifically to what translators do. As Koskinen and
Pokorn neatly put it, “[w]‌ithin Translation Studies, ethics is the subfield that
aims to understand what is good and bad, right and wrong in translatorial
praxis” (Koskinen and Pokorn 2021: 3), concretising this link to the way in
which theories, lessons, or skills are enacted, applied, or embodied in actual
practice. This practical leaning alludes to the applied nature of translation
ethics, which is typical of wider trends in ethics, that is, rather than reflecting
on the nature of good and bad in itself (theoretical metaethical questions),
there is a pragmatic focus in mind in many domains.
Thinking carefully, however, it becomes clear that when we discuss trans-
lation and the translator from the point of view of their ethics, we need
to analyse them from all the three angles –meta-, normative, and applied
ethics –and, particularly on the scholarly side, there are strong metaethical
strands. What is more, the complexity of translation and interpreting
problematises any neat definitions. Consider, for instance, the translation
of sacred texts. Here, translators must inevitably engage with “correctly”
representing the authoritative message of God –a considerable complication
given that, for instance, the Qur’an is “routinely claimed to be inimitable
and untranslatable” (Israel 2021: 442). The translator may be a follower
of a “competing” religion with its own normative ethics and, at the very
least, they are an enculturated social being raised within a particular ethical
system which consciously or subconsciously is bound to manifest itself to
a greater or smaller degree. Even if the translator tries to resist his or her
“home” ethics, they are still engaging with it, if only subconsciously, and,
hence, the analysis of their behaviour would have to take that into consider-
ation. This is just a glimpse of discussions to come.
Beyond the metaethics of the translator’s acts, there is also considerable
scope to apply normative ethics in this context. Whether explicit or implicit,
there are often clear rules that the translator observes in their behaviour.
And here we can find principles and convictions that the translator applies
both in their private life and in their job (this divide between personal and
professional ethics is explored in more detail in Chapter 6 in particular).
For instance, a translator may consider themselves to be anti-abortion and
refuse to take on translation work that argues for the legality of abortion.
Yet, while there is a normative strand here –the belief that abortion is
wrong, which requires that they have thought of many important norma-
tive ethical issues, such as the rights of the involved human beings and,
perhaps, their ultimate existential responsibilities (a belief in the life after
death and answering to a god in a judgment), there is an overlap here
with applied ethics in that debates about abortion are one of the focused
controversial issues. Ultimately, these three labels are excellent guides in
attuning our minds to the different levels of ethics (just as the illustrations
in the introduction did), but it is also clear that all three are connected in
complex ways. Sometimes they agree but sometimes they may clash in
one and the same person or that person’s private and professional behav-
iour, and the addition of translation and interpreting complicates these
relationships even further. While we could continue to ponder the origins of
good and evil, the high-level (and often abstract) nature of these discussions
means that the most productive way to proceed at this point lies in norma-
tive ethics, which allow us to form an overarching basis that can later relate
ideas to the specific context of translation and interpreting more easily.
In the next section, we consider three of the most important normative
theories.
? Can you think of examples of contradictions on the level of metaethics,

on the level of normative ethics, or on the level of applied ethics that the
translator or interpreter has to negotiate?
? Have you experienced or have you witnessed somebody else experien-
cing conflicts between their private convictions and the requirements
they had to meet professionally?
? Are there any unchanging moral rules that apply in all cultures and at
all times?
Deontological Ethics
Deontology is a normative ethical theory that has come to (implicitly) shape
much of the thought on ethics in TIS and remains one of the most com-
monly used notions of ethics in general. It is sometimes also known as non-
consequentialism as it is concerned with the actions themselves and not with
the consequences. Etymologically, it comes from the Greek deon, meaning
“obligation, or duty” plus -logy, meaning “the study of”. It teaches that
some acts are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences, and
people should act accordingly. Ultimately, it is the theory that people are
using when they refer to “the principle of the thing.”
Deontologists believe that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong
and that we can therefore pinpoint certain guidelines to be followed at all
costs. Immanuel Kant, the most famous defender of a deontological ethics,
believed that moral rules can be drawn from reason alone. Furthermore,
because he deemed reason to be universal, these rules must also be universal
and consistent. This is the categorical imperative, a rule that categorically
applies to all individuals. We are to ask ourselves “what if everybody did
X?”. Yet we also need the will to put these imperatives into practice, which
will lead us to carry out certain actions, or to do our “duty”, for its own
sake, that is, because that action is right in itself. From early childhood, we
are taught rulings such as do not lie, do not steal, or respect your elders, yet
these rulings are not universally practised; the will is not always there even
if we agree upon the basis of the rule itself.
While Kant places the universals of moral law with the rational man,
others place this responsibility elsewhere. One potential alternative is the
so-called divine command, as explored above, which places this moral
“rightness” within the decrees of a God. This implies that we should act in
a certain way because that is what our God commands, the “rightness” of
the act sitting within the command, not any good that it causes (this idea of
ends over means will be considered below and in Chapter 4).
The appeal of a deontological method is immediately apparent. It offers a
neat, universal message that applies to the entire possible range of contexts.
However, there are a few potential drawbacks that have received attention
within moral theory. While the origin and the content of rulings can vary
considerably – what we have to do and why –the very nature of these
rulings, or the question of how we go about following them once we have
established them, can prove to be equally problematic. Indeed, there is a
major paradox that exists within deontology. While few would argue that
it is “right” to intentionally kill innocent people –a claim that a deonto-
logical ethics could well put forward –even a seemingly clear-cut case such
as this is not as simple as one would perhaps assume. As Robert Nozick
points out in his 1974 paper “The Rationality of Side Constraints”, we
must question why an action should be forbidden if its very performance
would help prevent the act that it forbids. The classic example here is being
able to go back in time to meet a figure who would go on to kill multiple
people. Would it be right to kill them in order to prevent other deaths?
As Shafer-Landau asks: “[i]‌f the value [of whatever it is that we hold as a
deontological requirement] is so important as to generate a deontological
requirement, then why isn’t the value so important as to license a viola-
tion of that requirement if such violation would better protect the relevant
value?” (Shafer-Landau 2013: 482) The examples in Box 1.2 and Box 1.3
offer further insight into this paradox and bring together these ideas of the
content, origin, and practice of rules. These three elements are important to
consider in the discussions below –what our rulings prescribe, why they are
prescribed, and how we are to follow them.
? What deontological principles do you follow on a daily basis? What is

the source of these principles?
? How universal are the principles that you follow?
? Can you justify breaking these principles? In what contexts?
Box 1.2 Deontology in practice: A thought experiment

Consider the following adaptation of a famous example used in ethical
training (itself adapted from Awad et al. 2018). Imagine that you are
a programmer behind the manufacture of autonomous vehicles and
are anticipating a range of tricky scenarios once your vehicles are on

the road:
One of your self-driving vehicles, carrying three elderly passengers,
is travelling at speed and is about to crash. The vehicle can either
continue along its course, ending the lives of the passengers, or can
veer across the road where it will hit and kill a young woman who
is jaywalking. There is no course of action that can result in all lives
being saved. What would your choice of action be? Where would
you look for guidance with your moral reasoning? Would it be a case
of following your own intuition? Would you ask a moral guide for
advice? Or would you look to theories of ethics or documentation to
concretise or support your thinking? (We will cover all of these even-
tualities in the context of translation in subsequent chapters.)
One logical course of action could be to consult widely used deonto-
logical guidelines. One such famous attempt at developing guidelines
to inform our decision-making when programming AI comes from
science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who in 1942 dreamed up three
laws of robotics that have since been employed in numerous novels,
films, and academic articles:
• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,

allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings
except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protec-
tion does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
(Asimov 1950: 40)
Clearly, we cannot reach a satisfactory answer to our dilemma based

on these basic normative ethical principles alone, with the situation
inevitably causing the first rule to be broken. So, at that stage, where
do we look for guidance? Do we accept that injury by inaction is better
than actively causing that injury? Does causing one death to save three
permit us to deviate from our guidelines? We build upon these themes
in Box 1.3. For now, it is simply a thought experiment designed to
introduce some potential issues that we may run into with deonto-
logical rulings, and is something to bear in mind as we turn to the
context of translation.
Consequentialism
As the name suggests, when it comes to consequentialism, our emphasis is
on the consequences of human actions and not on the actions themselves,
as was the case with deontology. It is, at its core, a family of theories that
assesses the ethical rightness of an action or rule solely based on the amount
of good that it causes, or the amount of bad that it helps us avoid. The
theory can be divided into two branches: act consequentialism and rule
consequentialism. Act consequentialism posits that morally right actions
are those that are expected to achieve the best results (or sufficiently good
results) of all the potential actions available to a person at a specific time.
Rule consequentialism, meanwhile, sees morally right actions as following
optimal social rules, which themselves ensure that the best possible results
are reached when they are properly followed. While the nature of setting
rules in this way is reminiscent of the deontological impositions discussed
above, rule consequentialists do not make their demands because they are
intrinsically good but rather because they maximise good. They take a stand
on what is intrinsically valuable and it is the consequences of actions rather
than the actions themselves that represent the ultimate guiding force for
conduct. In setting rules to maximise certain end results, rule consequen-
tialism represents something of an intermediary point on the sliding scale
from deontology to act consequentialist, or even an attempt to reconcile
deontology and consequentialism. In general, act consequentialism is much
more popular than rule consequentialism as the imposition of steadfast
rulings always runs the risk of inciting an irrational rule worship. Here,
agents can be forced to act in a suboptimal manner simply to follow those
rules –a criticism that is of course similarly levelled against deontological
thought and has been outlined in this chapter.
The most common and well- known forms of consequentialism (and
indeed of normative ethics all together) are the various versions of utilitar-
ianism, which favour actions that produce the greatest amount of good. One
famous way of putting this is “the greatest good for the greatest number of
people.” In the context of Western philosophy, these ideas are credited to
Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill, whose ideas radically overturned the
notion that our understanding of things like right and wrong stems from
divine intervention, instead arguing that they are in fact down to humans.
As humans, we base our decisions on the sensations of pleasure and pain
and calculate the amount of each that our actions will cause, thus assessing
their “utility”, the source of the name utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based
around the notion of impartiality and agent-neutrality –everyone’s happiness
counts the same –important concepts that will be raised at numerous points
in the context of translation. Furthermore, in order to avoid the assignment
of intrinsic value that destabilises theories such as deontology, consequen-
tialism does not label specific acts as ethical or unethical, and indeed actions
can be viewed as right or wrong depending on the context. For instance,
while dishonesty would be condemned by many deontological theories, if
telling a small white lie would reduce the suffering of the hearers, it could be
justified according to utilitarian principles. However, if that same lie caused
many others to suffer, it would become immoral.
While a hugely pervasive school of thought, one problem with utilitar-
ianism and consequentialism is that it can lead to the conclusion that some
quite dreadful acts are good. Indeed, though in many cases an action that
leads to suffering will be viewed as immoral, this is not necessarily always
the case and utilitarianism attempts to reorient our traditional notions of
justice. Indeed, if my action causes a few people to suffer but results in a
great number of people being happy –consider, for instance, the killing of a
universally despised figure –then, based on the idea that the consequences
of the action are our deciding factor in morality, this act would be viewed as
moral. This can be particularly unpalatable. Related to this, it is also incred-
ibly difficult to predict and evaluate the consequences of actions. Indeed,
how do we know how much suffering or happiness is caused, and to how
many people, can happiness and suffering even be compared?
Box 1.3 Consequentialism

In 2015, New York Times Magazine asked readers “if you could go
back and kill Hitler as a baby would you do it?” Their response found
that 42 per cent of readers said yes, 30 per cent said no, and 28 per
cent were not sure.
? Where do you stand on this question?
Of course, the hypothetical nature of the question clouds our decision-

making. Do we ignore important considerations such as the Butterfly
Effect, which suggest that a change like this in an initial state can cause
radical changes in a later state? Of course, there’s no guarantee that
Hitler’s non-existence would have prevented the atrocities of World
War II (this act of killing could theoretically even lead to a worse situ-
ation). However, the question encapsulates the important distinction
between deontology and consequentialism as well as alluding to an
important limitation of consequentialist ideas.
Deontological principles stating that you should not kill would
dictate your response, while a consequentialist outlook would con-
sider the potential for a greater good being achieved. If killing one
person would result in saving the lives of millions, then we should do
it. However, calculating the outcome of even simple acts is very diffi-
cult and the reality of this act –i.e. killing a baby! –and its very real
human, psychological impact is not something we can remove from
our calculations.
Virtue Ethics
Ethics deals not only with the morality of actions, but also about the goodness
of human beings (as social actors) and what it means to live a good life (in
society), and virtue ethics is the branch of ethics that encapsulates this side
of matters most clearly. Instead of looking at actions or behaviour, here we
look at virtue or moral character. This school of ethical thought concerns
itself with a long view of ethical issues, questioning not simply “what
should I do?” but more generally “what kind of person should I be?”, and
committing the individual to a lifelong process of learning and improvement
(for an incisive introduction to virtue ethics, see Hursthouse and Pettigrove
2018). In this way, it is more about how individuals live their lives and less
concerned with assessing particular actions, and develops the idea of good
by looking at the way virtuous people express their inner goodness in the
things that they do. Generally, virtue ethicists place emphasis on virtues of
character rather than moral rules of conduct and actions are good because
they exemplify virtuous character, not because they conform to an already-
established moral rule. Their moral rulings advise us to follow the ways
in which certain virtuous exemplars would act. Thus, an action is right if
and only if it is an action that a virtuous person would do in the same
circumstances. Virtues are located between the extremes of vices and have
to be learned through experience and habituation.
In virtue ethics we move from the Kantian notion of an objective good
and a correct way to lead your life to a subjective good, defining good
and happiness with respect to the unique individual. The theory has
experienced a recent resurgence inspired by reconsiderations of Aristotle’s
ethical thought but it is not as well defined as deontology, for example.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1985, 1999) represents a canonical source
of virtues and includes both intellectual virtues (theoretical wisdom, prac-
tical knowledge, intuitive understanding, practical wisdom, craft know-
ledge) and moral virtues (courage, temperance, generosity, magnanimity,
self-
confidence/self-
respect, proper ambition, good temper, truthfulness,
wittiness, friendship (concern for others), modesty, righteous indignation).
In general, virtue ethics often appears to be a more valid choice of ethical
theory because of the failings of other schools of thought that emphasise
one important element (e.g. happiness for utilitarians, fairness for Kantians,
fidelity to one’s agreements for contractarians). This provides a more flex-
ible basis for development as importance is assigned to multiple elements,
that is, virtue ethicists are not forced to simply follow one overarching eth-
ical ruling but are instead guided by a range of virtues that are bound by
the context. On the other hand, however, this rejection of ethical monism
(the claim that there is only one right way to decide moral correctness, as
opposed to pluralism, which allows for multiple possibilities) also fails to
give sufficiently concrete guidance on how we should act –how do these
various elements relate to one-another? Is there a fixed hierarchy or are
we simply pulled in several directions rather than one? Furthermore, Julia
Annas (2004) suggests that the way in which most theories of virtue ethics
replace an ethical manual that tells us how to act with a virtuous person
for us to copy is an illusory substitution. For her, just as there may be no
intrinsic good/right, maybe there are no virtuous people. What, for instance,
would mark out a virtuous translator or interpreter?
Based on the explorations above, there are a range of sources for judging
ethical behaviour. For instance, if we unite ethics and religion, the only
source of moral rules is God. That is, something is good if God says it is and
a good life is achieved by doing what God wants. Our ethics could come
from human conscience and intuition; we could reason out what is ethical.
It could also be derived from a rational moral cost-benefit analysis of actions
and their effects: how much good or bad (or happiness, or suffering, or
cultural innovation, or cross-cultural cooperation perhaps) will my actions
cause? Or finally, it could stem from the example of good human beings who
act in a virtuous way. While it is clear from the discussions on this point that
there are no easy, one-size-fits-all solutions, these conceptions of ethics play
an important role in allowing us to reflect on various ways of pondering eth-
ical dilemmas. The example in Box 1.4 below provides a challenging ethical
dilemma to do just that.
Box 1.4 Alive, but at what cost? A test of ethical stances

Alive (1974, 2005) tells the harrowing story of a Uruguayan rugby
team and a number of friends and family members who were involved
in a plane crash in the Andes in late 1972. Out of a total of 45
passengers on the flight, many were killed in the crash, and only six-
teen survived the ordeal of living for ten weeks in excruciating sub-
zero conditions.
Once their meagre rations ran out, the survivors’ situation became
even more bleak and, eventually, they decided to eat the bodies of
their dead friends, relatives, and teammates in order to survive. When
rescued, the few survivors hid the remains and, upon their return to
Uruguay, attempted to keep what they had done a secret. Eventually
the truth was discovered and, while some still greeted them as heroes
who had simply done what was necessary to stay alive, others were
repulsed by their actions. Some even believed that the stronger
survivors had killed weaker ones and covered it up.
? What is your take on this situation? Were the survivors right

to eat the bodies of the dead?
? How can we apply the three schools of thought covered above
to this case?
Various rationales were given by the survivors for their decision to eat
the dead:
Empathising: They argued it was what the dead would have wanted –
if it was the other way around, we would want them to survive.
Religion: All survivors were devout Catholics and some viewed the
dead bodies as a gift from God, and even the body of Christ. They
believed that the souls had already left the body and that, following
their religious teachings, they were justified in eating the bodies.
Survival: Both pure and nuanced –that is, a pure drive to make it
home alive and the nuanced need to survive in order to preserve the
memory of the dead.
Deontological rulings lie at the heart of what makes this so problem-
atic. While cannibalism is legally and morally prohibited in many soci-
eties around the globe, is the extreme nature of the situation enough
to override any such rulings? Of course, the dilemma also points to
cultural relativism: while some cultures are known to practice can-
nibalism, in many societies it is perhaps the ultimate taboo. Context
undoubtedly counts. In this case, the decision was not taken lightly by
any of the survivors, though some were more reluctant than others,
waiting almost until the point of their own death to agree to the choice,
alluding to the subjective nature of ethics. Is there a certain point at
which our values decisively change?
Using consequentialism, meanwhile, they could perhaps argue that
the happiness of their surviving, their families being reunited, and
the ability to preserve the memory of the dead would override any
unhappiness caused, yet how clear-cut is this calculation? And what
of the lasting mental toll on the survivors themselves, for instance?
Or potential legal ramifications? Many were too ashamed to say what
they had done upon their return. In terms of virtue ethics, meanwhile,
the survivors considered their parents as virtuous characters and
considered what they would think of the decision, but often found
their reflections overshadowed by the bleak context they found them-
selves in.
Why Study Ethics?

Ultimately, despite providing no definitive answers, ethics can help in iden-
tifying the source of potential “right” decisions. Most moral issues (killing,
capital punishment) evoke strong feelings, and we tend to think about them
based on how our “heart” leads us. Ethical philosophy takes another route: it
suggests rules and principles that are supposed to guide us to consider these
issues. In this sense, ethics offers us a moral map that is there to guide us
in difficult and controversial issues. Ethics can also help us to pinpoint the
source of disagreement. Using the concepts developed within philosophical
ethics, it is easier to put one’s finger on what a discussion is about exactly so
that constructive efforts may be made to resolve the issue in question.
However, sometimes ethics seems to fail to help when either not all
suggested concepts are acceptable to the arguing parties, the bases of eth-
ical disagreements lie “more deeply” (cultural or religious discrepancies), or
when, with at least one of the parties involved, there is no real intention to act
ethically. In these cases, ethics is felt to fall short of giving the “right” answer
to a moral problem and many problems seem to have more than one answer
(in different configurations this could be “win-win”, “the best” vs. “the least
worst”). Especially in the past, it was believed that ethical problems could
be solved in one of two ways: either by interpreting correctly a divine design
or will or by thinking rigorously about ethical problems. Modern thinkers
try to identify what is at stake in a particular (type of) situation and what
frameworks may be applicable to handling the situation. The main criterion
for selecting this or that course of action tends to be relying on rational
choices. It is important to remember that the goal of ethics is not to provide
a single right answer. Rather, it is to raise our awareness of an issue or, at
most, to offer a set of principles that we need to apply to particular cases
(perhaps translation theories), and to feel confident in exercising one’s own
moral responsibility and making difficult choices in concrete situations.
Conclusion
Despite a somewhat circular pursuit of the definitive meaning of the key
terms at work, this chapter has nevertheless narrowed our enquiry and
explored a range of key ways in which ideas of good, bad, right, and wrong
have been conceptualised in Western history. This coverage provides a foun-
dation for the next chapter and beyond, when we move into the realm of
translation and interpreting proper and begin our exploration of the ways
in which ethics has been conceptualised in relation to these practices specif-
ically. Virtue ethics lies behind the ethical musings of Andrew Chesterman,
whose wide-ranging ideas are covered in Chapter 2 and provide a spring-
board to further explorations, deontological ethics in translation is covered
in more detail in Chapter 3, while consequentialism lies implicitly behind
the ideas in Chapter 4.
Discussion, Presentation, and Assignment Topics

1. What do you think are the most and least useful insights into ethics in
this chapter, and why?
2. Presentation: select a potentially tricky ethics-related topic (for instance,
capital punishment, organ donation, or euthanasia) and present and
support your stance. Remember to deal with these topics sensitively and
to respect other opinions.
3. Discussion: What is the most important ethical principle that you
follow in your daily life, and are there any times that you have gone
against it?
Further Reading
Simon Blackburn’s Being Good remains a hugely accessible and engaging introduc-
tion to the world of ethics, with the author covering basic questions of ethics
with the support of an array of real-world examples. Patrick Stefan Kermit and
Mette Rudvin’s chapters in Ethics in Public Service Interpreting (in Phelan et al.
2020, Introduction and Chapter 1, respectively) are a wonderful contribution to
the field of interpreting and translation ethics. The authors situate these practices
within moral philosophy and address many of the same concerns that are dealt
with across this textbook, as well as providing a more detailed history of ethics
that is intertwined with practical insights from the worlds of translation and
(mostly) interpreting.
2 Translation Ethics
Key questions
• What different approaches are taken to ethics in TIS?
• Where can we find the root of ethical enquiry in relation to
translation?
• What is the concept of fidelity and why is it potentially problematic?
Introduction
Having explored the underlying philosophical basis of ethics in the previous
chapter, Chapter 2 turns to examining the emergence of ethics in TIS spe-
cifically. This chapter does not simply review the literature tackling ethics
explicitly, but rather considers the ethical dimension inherent in several core
ideas underpinning TIS, looking at how, where, and why ethics was imported
into the discipline and how it came to occupy a more central position.
In this chapter, we begin by anchoring ourselves via a set of influential
ideas from the contemporary context, employing Andrew Chesterman’s
2001 ‘Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath’ in particular to illustrate four key
areas of focus in TIS ethical enquiry. These serve to introduce subsequent
discussions in this chapter (and indeed throughout the rest of the textbook),
revolving around the question of fidelity. Friedrich Schleiermacher’s seminal
‘On the different methods of translating’ (1813) serves as our central theor-
etical case study and exemplifies a more implicit basis in ethics. These ideas
outline the inherent difficulty of translation and in turn uncover a number
of key lines of enquiry in an ethical sense, which serve as a basis for ideas
from key TIS scholars Antoine Berman, Anthony Pym, and Lawrence Venuti
(to be discussed in chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively). Before reading on, con-
sider the following questions:
? What does fidelity mean to you, both in general and in relation to

translation and interpreting?
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-3
? If you have explored literature in TIS in the past, can you think of any
particular instances of the question of ethics coming up?
A Powerful Theoretical Basis –Andrew Chesterman

In recent decades, the term “ethics” has come to represent something of a
buzzword in the professional world and in various domains of academia.
Keen to develop and display an increased awareness of their own roles
and responsibilities, translation and interpreting scholars and professionals
embraced the subject as it came into vogue in the 1990s and subsequently
resurfaced with ever more prominence in the post-9/11 era of global pol-
itics. However, despite this interest in the topic, the somewhat elusive nature
of the term, as explored in Chapter 1, has meant that these scholars and
professionals have approached the question of ethics in translation from
different angles and through different lenses. Thankfully for us, the ideas
below assess what is at stake in a more overarching, comprehensive, and
ground-clearing manner and these represent a perfect place to expand our
understandings of ethics in translation specifically.
Let us take as our point of departure one of Chesterman’s key
contributions to ethics (which represents an ongoing preoccupation in his
work): his 2001 paper ‘Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath’ (“Hieronymic”
as opposed to a doctor’s Hippocratic oath). Here, Chesterman attempted
to draw up a professional code of ethics for translators that would surpass
many of the codes in force in the translation profession (see Chapter 7 for
detailed coverage and a critique of these documents). His aim was to build
upon more solid foundations and focus solely on a deontological profes-
sional ethics while separating personal ethics from the discussion, a division
that comes to the fore in chapters 4–5, and 6 in particular. Here, Chesterman
divides ethics into four key areas (truth, loyalty, understanding, and trust).
This represents a slight shift from a prior affiliation to descriptive transla-
tion studies in his work (Chesterman 1995), though he has continued to
use this basis in norms in more recent work, recalling that etymological
link between ethics and customary, “normal” behaviour (Chesterman
2016: 170). He then critiques each of these areas individually and eventu-
ally draws up his ultimate oath. We will revisit the immediate context of
this Oath in Chapter 7 when we look in detail at codes of ethics, but for
now let us focus on the four areas identified by Chesterman, which encap-
sulate key considerations in translation ethics and indeed throughout this
textbook.
Chesterman’s four key ethical domains:
1. Ethics of representation: this deals with fidelity, accuracy, truth, and

how to choose and transmit a good, or the best, interpretation of a
source text. This prioritises the value of “being true to the source” and
represents the crux of a translation ethics for many translators and
Translation Ethics 31
interpreters. As such, this area will be given substantial attention in the
remainder of this chapter as well as representing a fundamental basis of
both development and criticism in chapters 4 and 5. However, particu-
larly in recent decades, its centrality has been questioned as other factors
take precedence. In the context of community interpreting, for instance,
the status of fidelity as “the dominant virtue for translators has long
been questioned” (Chesterman 2021: 17), with interpreters feeling that
they are not simply translating, but rather acting as helpers, mediators,
or advocates within a complex interactive process, a position that
problematises fidelity and also foregrounds the relationship between
personal and professional ethics (explored further in Chapter 5).
2. Ethics of service: this falls in line with functionalist models of transla-
tion, which are explored in Chapter 4. Here, discussions revolve around
providing a service where the “translator is deemed to act ethically if the
translation complies with the instructions set by the client and fulfils the
aim of the translation as set by the client and accepted or negotiated by
the translator” (Chesterman 2001: 140). These last few words are pre-
sumably added to ensure that the translator is not blindly bending to the
whims of their client but rather enforces their own ideas of what is right
and wrong in setting the aims. In line with Nord’s ethics (see Chapter 4),
Chesterman assigns loyalty as the key value in his ethics of service.
3. Ethics of communication: this is about “reaching understanding”
(Chesterman 2021: 15). It is not about “representing the Other” –which
falls under the ethics of representation –but rather “communicating
with others” (Chesterman 2001: 140-1). This idea of communicating
with others is a key underlying principle in Anthony Pym’s ethics (see
Chapter 4), where long-term cooperation and cross-cultural communi-
cation is the goal within both translation and society at large. Ultimately,
in light of this model of ethics, the “ethical translator is a mediator
working to achieve cross-cultural understanding” (ibid. 141) of each
other; an idea that we will explore further in Chapter 5.
4. Norm-based ethics: this centres around predictability and hence trust-
worthiness. Essentially, a norm-based ethics says that if we behave in a
predictable manner and state where we have moved away from norms
(using prefaces and so forth, when possible) then we can be trusted.
However, inherent in this adherence to norms is the assertion that
to follow existing standards is to be ethical, a notion that has been
questioned with considerable force (and success) in the work of Venuti
(discussed in Chapter 5), who uncovers the supposedly deforming ten-
dencies of commonplace fluent strategies in literary translation.
The number of cross- references in four explanations above clearly

demonstrates the inherent links between Chesterman’s work and the range
of invaluable ideas from scholars across TIS. And yet, simply acknowledging
this array of concerns does not mean we can call ourselves ethical translators
or interpreters. There is considerable crossover and conflict between these
four areas as each has different ethical values. Indeed, the model of truth
(representation) is likely to conflict with each of the other values due to
the tension that exists between the various demands placed upon the trans-
lator. For instance, what if the client requires us to deviate from the source
text to represent a particular ideological slant that would forward their
cause? In this case, which of these values do we prioritise? Chesterman’s
work undoubtedly provides a range of very useful tools for thinking through
various aspects of translator agency, but the lack of hierarchisation can mean
that readers may find the tools and categories difficult to operationalise in
practice. After pondering potentially ethical notions such as clarity and
readability, Chesterman himself accepts that these models fail to adequately
cover ethics and cannot be broken down into a suitable hierarchy (a stum-
bling block that accompanies many models of ethics) and instead posits that
we might instead look to virtues rather than values when discussing ethics
in translation (See Box 2.1).
Despite these potential limitations, however, Chesterman clearly identifies
the complexity involved in an ethics of translation and asks some intriguing
questions while hinting at the potential of a range of ideas from ethical
theory. His first model of ethics –the ethics of representation –is now used
as the starting point for our in-depth exploration of a range of theoretical
explorations of ethics in TIS.
Box 2.1 The link to virtue ethics

In his 2001 article, Chesterman sees virtue ethics as a way of bypassing
potential issues of clashes and hierarchisation that accompany the use
of ethical values. As we saw in Chapter 1, however, how to assign
virtue in the context of translation was a key unanswered question.
Chesterman contends that a virtuous translator “can be relied upon to
seek ethically justifiable solutions” (and wants to strive for this excel-
lence in their practice) and he includes a value or virtue alongside each
clause of his Hieronymic Oath:
• Commitment
• Loyalty to the profession
• Understanding
• Truth
• Clarity
• Trustworthiness
• Truthfulness
• Justice
• Striving for excellence
? What are your thoughts on these virtues? Are they elements

that you would have considered as fundamentally important to
translators and interpreters? Or are they more general “virtues”
applicable to daily life?
? Is it clear what all of these elements would require from you as a
translator/interpreter?
The Roots of Ethics in Western Translation Studies: Fidelity

While only recently have we seen regular and explicit engagement with
ethics in TIS, the (more implicit) roots of ethical enquiry in the domain
date back much further. Indeed, it can be argued that ethics is a “peren-
nial question of translation, be it in written or spoken form” (Koskinen
and Pokorn 2021: 1). We now return to a fundamental ethical question
posed by the likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who ask “how should
one live?”, but instead think about this question in relation to translation
specifically: “how should one translate?”
In the Western world, the core of much discussion of translation –not just
in terms of ethics, but more widely –has revolved around the question of
fidelity, which continues to be viewed as an essential component of how we
conduct ourselves. For many, this question has been reduced to an opposition,
or sometimes a continuum, between literal (word-for-word) translation and
free (sense-for-sense) translation. A famous example comes from around 19
BCE, when Roman lyric poet Horace referred to a “fidus interpres” [faithful
interpreter] in his Ars Poetica, which has both been taken as meaning that
a faithful translator should take care not to translate word-for-word (“nec
verbum verbo”) and as a criticism of slavishly translating word-for-word
(see, for instance, Kelly 1979). Roman orator Cicero, meanwhile, (106–43
B C ) outlined his ideas on translation in De optimo genere oratorum, where
he presented his own translation of Greek speeches by Demosthenes. He
criticised literal (i.e., word-for-word) translation and claimed that he “did
not translate them as an interpreter, but as an orator, keeping the same ideas
and forms, or as one might say, the ‘figures’ of thought, but in language
which conforms to our usage. And in so doing, [he] did not hold it necessary
to render word-for-word, but [he] preserved the general style and force of
the language” (Cicero 46 B CE /1960 CE : 364).
These ideas had a profound influence on the “Father of Translators”,
St Jerome, well-known for his translation of the Bible (Vulgata), which
was translated from the original Hebrew, rather than from the Classical
Greek of the Septuagint. In a letter to Pammachius, a Roman senator
and friend of St Jerome (the text is nowadays widely known simply as
“Letter to Pammachius”), he defended his decisions in the translation pro-
cess: “Now I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the
Greek –except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the
syntax contains a mystery –I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense”
(St Jerome 395 AC /1997: 25), again reasserting this dualistic distinction.
The key idea behind fidelity is that the translation is faithful to, or stands
in for, the source text in some way. As we have seen, for Chesterman fidelity is
underpinned by the value of truth: “a translation must be true to its original,
as a translator must be true to the original author” (Chesterman 2021: 15).
And, in the accounts shared above, there is a sense that the method of sense-
for-sense translation has allowed the translators to achieve such truth. In
extreme cases, this search for truth can even be a life-or-death matter, and
there are several famous examples of translators paying the ultimate price
following accusations of failing to represent this truth in the “correct” way,
particularly in the case of Bible translation where the text itself is the Word
of God and deviations are viewed as a sin. William Tyndale, for instance,
was executed in 1536 for heresy after translating the New Testament into
English. The enduring power of this tenet can be seen within skopos theory,
introduced into TIS in the 1970s by Hans J. Vermeer (see Chapter 4), in which
fidelity remains a core concept. Katharina Reiss and Vermeer (1984: 113)
offer a fidelity rule stating that there must be coherence between the infor-
mation in the source text, the translator’s interpretation of that information,
and the information encoded in the TT, though there is no detail on what
this coherence relationship should be, signalling its elusive nature.
In many other cases, too, this notion of what exactly we are to retain
is rather abstract. In a European context, Georges Mounin advocated for
translators to replicate a certain “global meaning” (Mounin 1957: 150)
while, more recently, Umberto Eco has argued the translator should be
faithful to the source text’s “guiding spirit” (Eco 2001: 117). In more recent
TIS enquiry, meanwhile, Jean-Marc Gouanvic’s work on ethics is testament
to a lingering concern with these questions in an academic context. Indeed,
when considering the act of translation, Gouanvic provides two telling
examples that exemplify his conceptions of ethical and unethical transla-
tion. Discussing the French translation of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of
Wrath he argues that, in seeking to fulfil a political orientation towards
the interests of Nazi Germany, the translation shows numerous omissions,
additions, and modifications, including phrases such as “I lost my land”
being translated as “J’ai perdu mon pays” [‘I lost my country’] and the
names of Marx and Lenin and illusions to the workers’ movement all being
deleted. According to Gouanvic, in doing so the significance of Steinbeck’s
text is completely diverted, which should be labelled as unethical. His “eth-
ical” example, meanwhile, explores Boris Vian’s French translations of
Canadian science fiction author A.E. van Vogt’s work. He briefly notes that
while Vian reproduces van Vogt’s text in a different register, “the signifi-
cance of the source text is preserved” and “the translator assumes the role
of a reviser, correcting the source text while in thorough agreement with the
original author’s proposal” in a translation that “could not be more ethical”
(Gouanvic 2001: 210). Here, Gouanvic clearly demonstrates his belief that
there is something inherently right or wrong in translation, a good or bad
way of approaching the task –primarily that we should maintain the “signifi-
cance” of the source text. This is what a deontological ethics is all about (see
Chapter 3). Though Gouanvic does not explicitly state any specific rules or
guidelines to follow, his insistence upon the maxim of accuracy/fidelity (“the
significance of the source text”, the “original author’s proposal”) implies a
belief in an inherently correct way of translating –however abstract and
subjective.
Clearly, while for many scholars discussions of fidelity in TIS have given
way to wider concerns of the context and the people involved in the pro-
cess (which we will cover in subsequent chapters), these issues persist. This
is particularly true in the profession and, beyond scholarly or classical
viewpoints, fidelity also sits at the heart of the way that we teach, mark, and
assess translations. Indeed, fidelity is perhaps the most fundamental concept
in judging the quality of a translation in the professional world, while in the
classroom it is used at all levels. Court interpreting, for instance, is still based
upon an insistence on fidelity and accuracy, demanding interpreters render
elements including a speaker’s hesitations; while at the early stages of lan-
guage learning, translation is often used to test comprehension and as such
translation students can struggle to break away from the idea that adding or
taking things away from a text may not necessarily mean that a translator
has been ‘unfaithful’. At graduate and post-graduate level, meanwhile, the
question of how far one can or should deviate from a text is a chief concern,
with students grappling with issues of equivalence, fidelity, and accuracy.
Finally, in the profession, many codes of ethics contain guidelines stipulating
that translations must be “accurate” and “faithful”, though thankfully the
penalty for perceived deviations is not death.
Of course, it is incredibly difficult to get to the bottom of this question of
truth –in daily life and in translation! –and a deeper enquiry sits at the heart
of our enquiries in Chapter 3. Unfortunately, translation is not a simple case
of swapping terms for perfect equivalents that will work in exactly the same
way in another culture/time/place, or for another readership, for instance.
This means that the aim of achieving total parity from source to target is
simply not possible. As such, what we are looking for is not necessarily per-
fect sameness, but rather equivalence, a term which has too been fiercely
contested (see Pym 2014, chapters 2 and 3) but raises a range of questions
to consider. Chesterman sums it up best when he asks, “what exactly should
a translator be faithful to, and when? Meaning? Form? Style? Spirit? The
author’s intention? The intended effect? Something else? Lip movements (as
in dubbing)? Under what conditions should one aspect be given priority
over others?” (Chesterman 2021: 16). This points to a wide range of crucial
factors to consider when reflecting on how we go about being faithful (or
accurate, or perhaps even ethical […]), and represents a fitting precursor to
many of the discussions to come.
Box 2.2 Kimigayo

With questions of fidelity firmly in mind, compare the two translations
of the Japanese national anthem below. The first is a poetic English
translation by Basil Hall Chamberlain while the second is a more
literal English translation used by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. I have also included a very literal back translation from the
Japanese.
? Which translation is more faithful? How do we decide?

Source text
君が代は
千代に八千代に
細石の
巌と為りて
苔の生すまで
Literal back translation
May the Imperial Reign be
1000 generations, 8000 generations
Until small pebbles
Become a boulder and
Grows moss
Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–1935)
Thousands of years of happy reign be thine;
Rule on, my lord, until what are pebbles now
By ages united to mighty rocks shall grow
Whose venerable sides the moss doth line.
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2000 (cited in Hood 2001)
May your reign
Continue for a thousand, eight thousand generations
Until the pebbles
Grow into boulders
Lush with moss
Even those of us with no knowledge of Japanese can see that the

second translation corresponds much more closely to the source text
in terms of length. And, using the back translation, it is seemingly
much closer to the source text content, too. But, is this what we are
looking for when we talk about fidelity in translation, a simple lin-
guistic equivalence? What about more pragmatic values? For instance,
a national anthem is designed to be sung. The rhyme and rhythm of
the first translation certainly renders it more singable and it falls in line
with our expectations for a national anthem in English. What about

more subtle linguistic issues, though, such as the fact that the second
line is also an archaic set phrase used to mean ‘forever and ever’?
Does either translation capture this level of meaning? These consid-
erations highlight a split between source and target orientation as we
battle between fidelity to the form, meaning(s), or function(s) of the ST
against the TT, its function(s), and its audience.
So, what is the ‘right’ way to translate? As always in translation, ‘it
depends’ is a powerful answer (and one we will examine more closely
in later chapters), but many scholars have contended that we have a
moral responsibility to privilege certain elements of a text (Chapter 3)
despite the appeal of pluralist viewpoints.
Friedrich Schleiermacher: Problematising Translation and Fidelity

Building upon this basis in fidelity, a pivotal contribution to not only
translation ethics but indeed to the development of modern translation
theory as a whole was Friedrich Schleiermacher’s 1813 lecture ‘On the
Different Methods of Translating’ (‘Über die verschiedenen Methoden des
Übersetzens’). While Schleiermacher is perhaps better known as a theo-
logian and has written on a vast array of topics, his work on translation
had a profound influence on the domain and this lecture provides the most
sustained coverage of the topic.
Though Schleiermacher’s work is more implicitly related to ethics when
it comes to translation, ethics was nevertheless a core interest of his. For
instance, he planned to translate Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in the late
1780s at the age of just twenty. His wider thought on ethics often revolved
around binary oppositions, and this is a key feature of his (and others’!)
thought on translation that has elicited much subsequent reflection in the
area –consider the divides between free and literal translation, or word-
for-
word and sense- for-
sense translation mentioned above, for instance.
Importantly, the key to many of Schleiermacher’s views on translation are
embedded within his wider reflections on ethics, dialectics, and –above all,
perhaps –hermeneutics. Hermeneutics hinges on understanding as a means
of overcoming uncertainty, and moving across languages increases the risk of
misunderstanding, as “every language becomes the repository of a particular
system of concepts and ways of combining” (2002b:82, 1981: 109, cited
in Hermans 2018: 22). Within this search for hermeneutic understanding,
we also come across another important principle. For Schleiermacher, her-
meneutic effort –an effort to interpret and understand –is not required in
all contexts, for instance he cites “common discourse in business matters
and in habitual conversation in everyday life” (1998: 7) as areas that do
not require such effort. Importantly, he considers that translating texts such
as journalism or travel literature fall into this domain as “in these genres
the subject-matter is the sole concern, everyone is familiar with the things
being referred to, the phrases used are no more than counters determined
by law or convention and so speakers are readily understood (‘schlechthin
verständlich’: 2002: 70)” (Hermans 2019: 26). For him, translating these
texts is a “mechanical exercise” (2012: 45; 2002: 70) and this fragmentation
of ethical enquiry both initiates a discussion of universality (explored further
in subsequent chapters), and opens up a channel for subsequent accusations
of elitism, which have prompted further discussion in later years.
Along similar lines, Schleiermacher also draws a stark dividing line
between the oral interpreter (‘Dolmetscher’), which he dismisses as unworthy
of discussion, and the ‘translator proper’ (2012: 44; ‘der eigentliche
Uebersezer’: 2002: 68), which is concerned with written discourse. For him,
written discourse prevents the translator from clarifying misunderstandings,
whereas speakers can supposedly make use of this resource unproblemat-
ically in the context of interpreting. Unfortunately, as we will see in later
chapters, this does not reflect the reality of interpreting and interpreter ethics
has long focused on issues of fidelity, truth, responsibility, and so forth, as
well as battling with other prominent issues that may even be intensified
when contrasted with the challenges faced by translators. These potential
limitations are important to note as they raise vital ethical questions to be
considered later in this textbook.
Returning to the key work at hand, Schleiermacher himself considered
the paper to be “a rather trivial piece” (2002: xxxiii), and it is perhaps
its subsequent position as the core influence behind pivotal ethical texts
in translation by Berman and Venuti (whose ideas are covered in detail in
chapters 3 and 5, respectively) that has seen it take on such canonical status
in TIS. For Hermans (2019: 25), the lecture is about applying wider her-
meneutic principles to translation, which is seemingly simply the “extension
of hermeneutic principles from the intralingual to the interlingual” –from
working within the same language, to moving between languages. However,
there is more to it than meets the eye. Hermans continues by noting that
translation is also
very special, due the irrationality of language being at its most acute
here, and to the fact that, in order to articulate their understanding of
the foreign text, translators have at their disposal only their own tongue
as they address readers unfamiliar with the foreign tongue.
(Hermans 2019: 25)
In the context of “translation proper” –where substance and expression

are inseparable –problems emerge both because of the lack of one-to-one
equivalence between languages and because moving from one language to
another heightens what is already a difficult task in a monolingual con-
text. i.e. the aim of taking into account both the “discourse to the language
as such and to the individual author” (Hermans 2019: 27). Schleiermacher
explains as follows in a key passage:
Now if understanding works of this sort is already difficult even in the

same language and involves immersing oneself in both the spirit of the
language and the writer’s characteristic nature, how much yet nobler an
art must it be when we are speaking of the products of a foreign and dis-
tant tongue! To be sure, whoever has mastered this art of understanding
by studying the language with diligence, acquiring precise knowledge of
the entire historical life of a people and picturing keenly before him the
individual works and their authors –he, to be sure, and he alone is justi-
fied in desiring to bring to his countrymen and contemporaries just this
same understanding of these masterworks of art and science.
(2012: 47)
This passage highlights in no uncertain terms the difficulty of translation.

Translators must master the source language with “the greatest diligence”,
of course, but must also carry out detailed historical study into the works
and the people behind them in order to carry out this hermeneutic work
of understanding, which they subsequently present to their audience in the
target language. Schleiermacher goes on to describe this task of attempting
to allow the target audience to understand the author’s way of thinking
as expressed through the source language with its own distinct feel as “an
utterly foolish undertaking” (2012: 47), reasserting this difficulty that hinges
on the fact that to “give voice to all this and provide the reader with a vic-
arious experience similar to his own, the translator has only his own lan-
guage” (Hermans 2019: 27).
On top of this inherent difficulty of the task that faces us, there is for
Schleiermacher a correct way of going about this engagement with our texts.
At this point, we come to the central dictum of the lecture and an oft-repeated
citation. For Schleiermacher, “[e]‌ither the translator leaves the author in
peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader toward him. Or he leaves
the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author toward him”
(Schleiermacher 2012: 49), leaving the translator with two separate paths
they can follow. Hermans contends that the dichotomy is not real as the
second option is “mentioned only to be dismissed” (Hermans 2019: 27)
and argues that both poles are impossibilities. Indeed, Schleiermacher again
indicates that the irrationality of language –the fact that words do not
simply map together as one-to-one equivalents –means that our translations
can only be an approximation, a reconstruction, and for us a compromise
(we face “the obvious task of balancing out” elements of the languages we
are working with in an attempt to make the content similar (1862: 181)).
Yet the hermeneutic task, our aspiration to fully understand the foreign and
know the “totality of thought in one language” (ibid.), brings us closer to
this aim. Translation is all about handling difference and Otherness and,
while this acknowledgement that we can only approximate problematises
the notion of absolute fidelity, in Chapter 3 we will consider a set of ideas
that attempt to flesh out this search for key elements of the foreign, as well
as concretising the ethical basis of this search further.
Box 2.3 The Chinese tradition

In the Chinese tradition, we also find that fidelity has been a powerful
foundational concept in thought on translation. Yan Fu’s translation
theory, revolving around the interdependent concepts of “faithfulness,
expressiveness, and elegance”, sets faithfulness as its most important
element, prioritising fidelity to the original text and accessibility to
the reader. These concepts are viewed as one of the most important
developments in Chinese translation theory, long representing the
standards for good translation and “the fundamental tenets of
twentieth-century Chinese translation theory” (Chan 2004: 4).
Meanwhile, translation ethics in China has similarly well-established
roots. China itself has been described as a society centred on ethics
(Liang Shuming [1949] 2011: 78, in Guangqin 2021: 25) and we find
translation steeped in the deeply embedded tradition of Confucianism –
a combination of normative and virtue-based ethics. Confucian ethics
covers key principles including “xin [faithfulness], zhong [loyalty] or
shuzhong [reciprocity and faithfulness], cheng [sincerity] and ren [ben-
evolence]” (Guangqin 2021: 25) and several of these principles are
core to understandings of translation ethics.
However, despite a long and closely intertwined relationship between
ethics and society in general, and a long history of translation, with
translation having been practiced in China for about 3,000 years, a
sustained exploration of ethics and translation in the country only
emerged alongside the rapid development of TIS at the start of the
twenty-first century. Yet within these contributions we find important
implicit sketches of historical approaches to ethics in translation.
Guangqin (2021) outlines four key issues that persist throughout the
history of translation ethics in China in spite of the lack of explicit dis-
course on these areas. These four areas are faithfulness, responsibility,
the convergence of ethics and politics, and the ethics of difference, and
these four issues closely intertwine with the development of ethics in
Western TIS, as we will see in the forthcoming chapters. The final issue
in particular was itself heavily influenced by Western ideas as they
were imported to China.
As a counterpoint to Schleiermacher’s ideas above, here I discuss
the issue of faithfulness in particular. This principle has not only been
central to Western translation theory, but is also “the very first respon-
sibility on the part of the [Chinese] translator” (Lin Yutang [1933]
2009: 493). And, just like in Western translation theories, this faithful-
ness has taken on different guises throughout the history of Chinese
translation. At various points, translators have been seen to abide by
the concepts of xin [faithfulness], zhong [fidelity], or zhongshi [equiva-
lence] (Tan 1999: 27, Zhang 2004: 108), and the former –which refers
to a more narrow understanding of accuracy and was used from 220–
280 CE until the 1920s–1930s (Guangqin 2021: 28) –has gradually
come to be replaced by the latter two, which are “broader and richer
ethically” (Wang Dongfeng 2004: 5) –though all three concepts con-
tinue to receive attention. Indeed, despite developments in termino-
logical usage, questions of faithfulness continue to arouse discussion,
and the distinctions are not clear-cut. For Lan Hongjun, zhongshi
is synonymous with xin and requires the translator to transfer the
meaning of the source text “truly and completely to the reader of the
target text”, while leading TS theorist Xie Tianzhen maintains that “as
Chinese culture and literature go global, Chinese stories should be told
in a language and manner popular in the receiving context, that is, it
is acceptable for some translations to be rewritten or altered for better
reception and communication” (Guangqin 2021: 29).
A multiplicity of viewpoints continue to be debated, and there is a
clear parallel to the paths discussed in Schleiermacher’s seminal paper
as well as subsequent Western discussions of the topic, alluding to a
certain universality to considerations of ethics in translation. Without
doubt, the Chinese perspective strengthens the view that the question
of fidelity or faithfulness is not one that permits any easy answers in
any context.
Conclusion
Ultimately, despite potential refutations of the possibility of either pole
in Schleiermacher’s famous dictum, its dualistic nature has been central
to discourse on translation and translation ethics. Indeed, many modern
understandings of translation take on a similarly dichotomised form, reminis-
cent of ethics’ ultimate dichotomy between good and bad. In Schleiermacher’s
case, moving the reader to the author would be ‘good’ translation, and mul-
tiple variations on this theme can be seen elsewhere. According to Pym,
this trend dates back to at least Cicero and has resurfaced on an alarm-
ingly frequent basis “in more recent pairs such as ‘formal’ versus ‘dynamic’
(Nida), ‘semantic’ versus ‘communicative’ (Newmark), ‘anti-illusory’ versus
‘illusory’ (Levy), ‘adequate’ versus ‘appropriate’ [acceptable] (Toury), ‘overt’
versus ‘covert’ (House), ‘documental’ [documentary] versus ‘instrumental’
(Nord), and ‘resistant’ versus ‘transparent’ (Venuti)” (Pym 1997: 2–3). In
ethical terms, each of Pym’s examples provide us with two opposing paths,
one falling in line with what each respective scholar sees as the “correct”
way to translate, and the other representing a supposedly erroneous (yet
sometimes prevailing) methodology. Ultimately, our starting point for eth-
ical discussions on a simplistic level is a distinction between source and
target-oriented approaches to the text. We will continue with this theme
of textual ethics in the next chapter, sitting firmly within Chesterman’s def-
inition of ethics at a micro-level as well as falling in line with his ethics of
representation discussed above.

1. To what extent do the conceptions of ethics developed by Chesterman
match wider understandings of ethics considered in Chapter 1?
2. Presentation topic: To what extent can you separate the labels’ faith-
fulness, fidelity, and equivalence? What do they mean to you in rela-
tion to your translation practice? Or, do they have additional specific
meaning(s) in other languages you work with?
3. Is fidelity easier to achieve in some language combinations, practices,
and/or text types than others? Why?
Further Reading
As an entry point to all things ethics in translation, Chesterman’s 2001 ‘Proposal
for a Hieronymic Oath’ is hard to beat. Though his eventual development of a
translator’s Oath is more in keeping with discussions in Chapter 7, the initial
theoretical explorations and his separation of ethics into four key areas offers a
sound framework to explore a wide range of issues. A more up-to-date explor-
ation of his ideas can be found in The Routledge Handbook of Translation and
Ethics, in which Chesterman wrote an engaging, ground- clearing article on
‘Virtue ethics in translation’ (Chesterman 2021).
For a fascinating overview of Schleiermacher’s thought in relation to translation,
Theo Hermans’ (2019) entry in the Handbook of Translation and Philosophy
is an excellent starting point. To engage with the ideas from the author himself,
‘On the Different Methods of Translating’ can be found in translation by Susan
Bernofsky in The Translation Studies Reader.
3 Truth
Key Questions
• How has deontological ethics primarily been applied in TIS?
• Is there a clearly-definable (and universal) ‘right’ way to translate,
and what is at stake when we translate?
• Should ethics be universal and, if so, what non- negotiable
‘absolutes’ exist in translation?
Introduction
Since its emergence as an important area for consideration, much of the
work on ethics within TIS has aligned with ethical theories based upon the
existence of moral absolutes, with many scholars forwarding their own
takes on what it is to be ethical when translating. As Kaisa Koskinen puts
it, “[t]‌hroughout its history, discourse on translation has included strong
moralising overtones: many, if not most, contributions either explicitly or
implicitly dwell on the issue of how translations ought to be produced”
(Koskinen 2000: 13). This mention of both “moral absolutes” and
“moralising overtones” is tied to the deontological method, which is based
around universal moral principles that govern what one ought to do. We
will begin this chapter by exploring the theory of deontology in the context
of translation, and particularly ethical values relating to traditional notions
of textual fidelity. As explored in Chapter 2, the idea of a textual ethics and
the question of truth (as outlined by Chesterman’s ethics of representation)
concern the degree to which a target text relates to its source. The discussion
here expands this basis in deontology, analysing this idea of a ‘right’ way to
translate, and considers the work of Antoine Berman in detail.
A French scholar and translator, Berman was among the first to con-
struct a translation ethics and offers one of the most persuasive and detailed
accounts of specifically text-based ethics. His ideas put forward the most
visible case for fidelity to certain features within the text –from a list of
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-4
44 Truth
“deforming tendencies” to avoid when translating texts to a specific call for
“literalising” translation –and enable us to question the existence of non-
negotiable “absolutes” in translation, as well as the universalisability of ethics
in translation. As will be discussed, these ideas have their shortcomings, but
nonetheless represent a foundational contribution to thought on translation
ethics and a valuable starting point for a range of subsequent ideas.
Deontology and Translation

Given the difficulties that can arise when tackling a seemingly straight-
forward guideline such as whether or not it is right to kill somebody, it
is understandable that the question of right or wrong within translation
presents a serious conundrum (see Chapter 1). Yet overarching deonto-
logical rulings continue to provoke scholarly discussion as well as govern
the most visible ethical facet of the profession. Indeed, an obvious applica-
tion of deontology in the translation world is the development of codes of
ethics for translators and interpreters. These documents represent one of
the most immediate forms of deontological intervention, given their explicit
aim of outlining the limits of correct behaviour as well as providing many
translators with their only encounter with literature on ethics. Codes of
ethics are covered in Chapter 7 and, for now, we instead focus on specific
deontological conceptions of textual fidelity and the question of ‘how’ to
go about translating, covering certain methods that are deemed to be right
or wrong.
In the absence of divine commands to dictate our methodologies, within
translation’s deontological musings we are left to call upon scholars,
translators, and translation associations putting forward their takes on what
is universally wrong or right. As seen in Chapter 2, we find the roots of
such deontological imperatives in the many dualistic oppositions that have
dominated thought on translation. Pym draws attention to the way ethics has
traditionally been perceived as an either/or situation. We either favour “the
source language-culture-text-speaker” or the “target language-culture-text-
speaker” (Pym 2012: 5), which calls attention back to Schleiermacher’s ideas
outlined in Chapter 2 and is reflected further within the ideas considered in
this chapter.
When translating, we have a range of options at our disposal. Consider
the following simple example. When translating a culture-bound term in
a text, for instance, “Yorkshire pudding” (a common savoury English side
dish), there are multiple choices available (note that this list is not exhaustive
but demonstrates a range of possible responses):
• Paraphrase –replacing the term with a description, for instance: ‘a trad-

itional English side dish’;
• Omission –simply leaving the reference out;
Truth 45
• Borrowing –retaining the foreign element, for example, Yorkshire
pudding in a Spanish text;
• Explanation –for example, retaining the term Yorkshire pudding along
with an explanation of what it is and its cultural significance;
• Use an equivalent (or approximate equivalent) in the target text, for
example, choose a similarly common side dish in your target language
culture.
? What is the ‘right’ way to translate here?
This dilemma of how to proceed points to the appeal and potential of

deontological rulings. They serve to prioritise certain “good” or “right” acts.
A deontological theory of translation ethics could prescribe, for instance,
that when translating such culture-bound terms, translators should always
paraphrase them –provided that it is supported by a source of moral
“rightness” –assisting the translator’s decision-making process, and enab-
ling them to concretise and justify their course of action. This is precisely
what Berman seeks to do, setting out a framework of “correct” ways to
approach translation.
Berman’s Deontology
As Pym states in his introduction to the 2001 Special Issue of The Translator
dedicated to ethical issues: “[a]‌strong tradition in ethical questions is to
consider the translator responsible for representing a source text or author.
If something is in the source but not in the translation, the translator is
at fault and is thus somehow unethical” (Pym 2001: 130). Essentially,
translators must be “faithful”. As seen in Chapter 2, Chesterman labels
this the “ethics of representation”, dealing with how we should represent
the source text that we are translating, or the author, with issues of fidelity,
accuracy, truth, and how to select and transmit a good, or the best, inter-
pretation of a source text. This is at the core of our concern for fidelity and
is a pervasive concept.
Exploring this notion of fidelity in a more concrete, ethical manner is
the work of French scholar and translator Antoine Berman. As well as pro-
viding one of the first explicit accounts of ethical translation and one of the
most thorough and influential cases for a specific idea of what is “right” in
translation (specifically at a textual level, though it is derived from the wider
context), Berman’s work has subsequently influenced an array of leading TIS
scholars. Berman’s evolving work on ethics, which was unfortunately cut
short by his death in 1991, enables us to explore the limits of the popular
deontological method and represents a seminal contribution to the discip-
line. Though it is rare for theories of translation to prescribe methodologies
for such small-scale decisions rather than offering “bigger picture” general
dualistic oppositions, this is precisely what Berman does.
46 Truth
Romantic Roots and Deontological Underpinnings

Berman’s most influential work, L’épreuve de l’étranger: Culture et
traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique, was originally published in 1984
and translated into English in 1992 by Stefan Heyvaert as The Experience of
the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany. The core ideas
from this text have been influential the Anglophone realm, and several other
articles and full-length monographs have followed in translation. However,
Berman’s status is nowhere near as well-established elsewhere as it is in
his native France. As Alexis Nouss informs us, “francophone Translation
Studies developed through reading Berman” and, the French branch of the
discipline took shape “intellectually and institutionally, in parallel with the
circulation of Antoine Berman’s works” (Nouss 2001: 9, my translation).
The Experience of the Foreign, perhaps Berman’s most famous work,
was influential not only because of its content but also its methodology,
representing a clear precursor to key texts such as Venuti’s The Translator’s
Invisibility, which similarly attempted to present a genealogy of transla-
tion in a specific socio-cultural context. However, while Venuti’s work was
anchored in an Anglo-American context, Berman’s work provides us with
a guide to the conceptions of translation developed and practiced in the
German Romantic tradition. He considers the ideas of Schleiermacher, in
particular, as well as notable authors such as Friedrich Hölderlin, Goethe,
and A.W. Schlegel.
In The Experience of the Foreign, Berman painstakingly guides us
through the works of several German Romantic authors, placing a heavy
focus on the concept of Bildung. This concept variously signifies education,
experience, or even culture, and represents the continuous process of going
beyond oneself to encounter the “Other” and eventually re-find your self.
Within German literary culture –and referring to translation in particular –
Bildung entailed employing a specific translation methodology that enabled
the target culture to experience the foreign and subsequently expand their
own cultural borders. This sits in stark contrast to the Roman conception of
Bildung, which Berman presents as a means of developing an empire, proudly
appropriating foreign texts as your own to build upon an already-strong
culture. This opposition is used by Berman to reflect upon the overwhelm-
ingly binary focus of translation scholarship, with translators seen as either
favouring the source or target side. Returning to Schleiermacher’s “On the
different methods of translating”, which (as seen in Chapter 2) influenced a
number of key texts on ethics within TIS, “[e]‌ither the translator leaves the
author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader toward him. Or
he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author
toward him” (Schleiermacher 1813: 42). In Berman’s view, the German
Bildung represents the former method, preserving the foreign author’s pos-
ition and supposedly setting in motion an expansion and growth based upon
learning from other cultures. The Roman Bildung, meanwhile, aligns with
Truth 47
the latter position, domesticating or perhaps appropriating the author’s
ideas, subsequently aligning with the regularly accepted mode of translation
in contemporary professional practice. Throughout The Experience of the
Foreign, the Roman methodology is labelled as appropriative and likened
to the reductionist aim of culture whereby we seek to assimilate everything
into our own –supposedly pure –culture, while the German method is
lauded for its respect of the foreign and the way in which it enables us to
develop the potentialities of language (Berman 1984: 190), thereby moving
towards the discovery of the kinship between languages, something that, for
Berman, represents one of translation’s ultimate goals. In terms of the either/
or divisions outlined above, one could argue that Berman’s concerns lie pri-
marily on the source side, but the distinction is more subtle than that, with
ethics at the very heart of this separation.
Trials of the Foreign

While The Experience of the Foreign paints a more large-scale picture, the
condensed ideas outlined in his 2000 paper “Translation and the Trials of the
Foreign” focus rather at the small-scale, textual level. Primarily, it represents
Berman’s desire to uncover the “deforming tendencies” inherent in the act
of translation. The focus falls upon Berman’s critique of translation’s ten-
dency to “negate” the foreign through what he calls “naturalization”. He
instead advocates “alienation” (a distinction that has come to be very closely
associated with Venuti’s own domestication vs foreignisation divide –see
Chapter 5). Berman argues that translation is the “trial of the foreign”
(Berman 2000: 284) in the sense that it establishes a relationship “between
the Self-Same (Propre) and the Foreign by aiming to open up the foreign
work to us in its utter foreignness” (ibid.). And it is also a trial for the
Foreign, because the foreign work is “uprooted from its own language-
ground” (ibid.).
For Berman, the translating act can reveal the foreign work’s “most ori-
ginal kernel”, and he limits his discussion to the literary realm, considering
that non-literary translation (“technical, scientific, advertising, etc.”) only
performs a semantic transfer while literary translations “are concerned
with works” (2000: 285). Based on his experiences as a translator of Latin
American literature into French, he decries the way in which literary transla-
tion falls into this trap of semantic transfer, with translation becoming –rather
than a trial of the Foreign –its “negation, its acclimation, its ‘naturaliza-
tion’ ”. In other words, in translation, we have come to lose this foreignness.
The author considers that “[t]‌he properly ethical aim of the translating act
[is] [...] receiving the Foreign as Foreign” (Berman 2000: 285), lamenting
the target text’s “system of textual deformation” that prevents this foreign-
ness from being made manifest. This is a key point to take forward, as it is
this imposition that drives Berman’s deontological rulings. Indeed, we could
say that this is the metaethical source behind our morality –the right thing
48 Truth
to do in translation is representing this foreignness, owing to the nature of
translation.
From there he examines a “system of textual deformation” (2000: 286)
that prevents this ethical aim from being realised, having been internalised
over the course of two millennia within cultures and languages that he deems
to be ethnocentric –that is, evaluating other cultures based on standards or
preconceptions derived from your own culture. This analysis leads to the
development of twelve “deforming tendencies” (see Box 3.1) at work in the
literary domain, which the translator must not only be aware of, but must
work to be released from. The twelve listed are not exhaustive, but are said
to bear on all Western translation. Although Berman does not go so far
as explicitly presenting these tendencies as things translators must avoid at
all costs, there is a parallel with the Bible’s Ten Commandments, replacing
the Divine command with Berman’s command not to do these things when
translating. As he notes: “[a]‌ll the tendencies noted in the analytic lead to the
same result: the production of a text that is more ‘clear,’ more ‘elegant,’ more
‘fluent,’ more ‘pure’ than the original. They are the destruction of the letter
in favor of meaning” (2000: 297). Despite an overall focus on the negative,
Berman does offer a brief insight into what “good” translation involves, too.
For him, good translation restores the signifying process of works (not just
considering their meaning) while also transforming the translating language.
However, a clearer image of what ethical translation involves is found in
relation to his in-depth analysis of translation and the letter.
Box 3.1 Berman’s twelve deforming tendencies

(1) Rationalization: This involves the modification of sentence
structure and order as well as punctuation, which Berman calls
the “most meaningful and changeable element in a prose text”
(Berman 2000: 288). For him, these changes alter the work’s
status, deforming it while seemingly leaving form and meaning
intact.
(2) Clarification: This works on a similar level to (1) and, though
Berman accepts that it is inherent in translation to a certain
degree, the way in which translators make certain things explicit
can reveal something that is not meant to be apparent in the text.
(3) Expansion: Every translation tends to be longer than the ori-
ginal. This is the consequence, in part, of the two previous ten-
dencies. Berman calls it “an unfolding of what, in the original,
is “folded”” (ibid. 290) and considers that these additions add
nothing.
(4) Ennoblement: For Berman, this involves producing elegant
renderings that are “readable” and, in so doing, rids the original
Truth 49
of its “clumsiness and complexity”. This is part of a tendency for

translators to try to ‘improve’ the text they are working on, and
Berman states that the opposite –attempting to “popularize” a
translation –is equally harmful.
(5) Qualitative impoverishment: Concisely described as the act of
“[r]‌eplacing terms, expressions and figures in the original with
terms, expressions and figures that lack their sonorous richness
or, correspondingly, their signifying or “iconic” richness” (ibid.
291). When we lose the certain sonorous substance of words
throughout a text we lose a great deal of the text’s mode of
expression or, as Berman puts it, “what makes a work speak to
us” (ibid.).
(6) Quantitative impoverishment: Lexical loss. That is losses of
chains of words and meanings (“signifiers and signifying chains”)
that combine in the ST to give it a certain richness. Berman’s neat
example comments on Argentinian novelist Roberto Arlt’s use
of the words semblante, rostro, cara. All three mean “face” in
Spanish but a translation failing to reflect this variation would
considered ethnocentric.
(7) The destruction of rhythms: Berman insists that “[t]‌he novel
is not less rhythmic than poetry” and considers that it is “for-
tunately difficult for translation to destroy this rhythmic
movement”, though still notes that arbitrary changes to punctu-
ation can cause issues.
(8) The destruction of underlying networks of signification: Here,
Berman draws attention to a hidden layer of correspondences
and links hidden beneath the surface of the text. Again refer-
ring to Arlt, he explains how augmentative suffixes are used
throughout the text and insists that this level must be something
that the translator pays attention to.
(9) The destruction of linguistic patternings: Part of the systematic
nature of the text is at the level of sentence type and construc-
tion and, according to Berman, “Rationalization, clarification,
expansion, etc. destroy” these features (ibid. 293), resulting in a
text that is standardised and a patchwork of the types of writing
used by the translator. Ultimately, this results in a text that is
paradoxically more homogenous, but also more inconsistent and
incoherent.
(10) The destruction of vernacular networks or their exoticization: Here,
Berman discusses the serious loss caused by the effacement of
vernaculars, or local elements of languages. Examples given
include the loss of diminutives when translating from Spanish,
Portuguese, German, or Russian, or replacing verbs by nominal
50 Truth
constructions. Berman contends that the typical solution of

exoticising (e.g. placing the terms in italics) isolates the terms in
a way that is not representative of the source text or artificially
includes these foreign elements. Finally, he calls against seeking
TL equivalent language varieties or slangs: “An exoticization that
turns the foreign from abroad into the foreign at home winds up
merely ridiculing the original” (ibid. 294).
(11) The destruction of expressions and idioms: This tendency
relates to the importance of images and meanings derived from
SL expressions, figures, and proverbs. While translators would
generally find equivalents for these phrases, Berman argues that
finding equivalents is not a substitute for translating and “even if
the meaning is identical, replacing an idiom by its ‘equivalent’ is
an ethnocentrism” (ibid. 295).
(12) The effacement of the superimposition of languages: Finally,
Berman comments on the interaction between dialects and
common languages. He argues that translation tends to erase this
mix of different forms –for example Latin American versions of
Spanish in his work. For him, “[t]‌his is the central problem posed
by translating novels –a problem that demands maximum reflec-
tion from the translator” (ibid. 296).
? Which of these tendencies do you feel is the most important
when translating a text? Does your answer vary depending on
text type? For instance, do they apply if you are translating an
instruction manual?
? Do you believe that all twelve of these tendencies are a negative
feature? Can they be avoided when translating?
? To what extent do these deforming tendencies apply within
the languages you work in and contexts that you are
familiar with?
? How would incorporating these examples impact upon your
translation methodology of culture-specific terms, for example,
the ‘Yorkshire pudding’ example outlined above?
The “Letter”: Producing an Ethical Translation

To recap, in specifically ethical terms Berman states that: “ethical translation
is opposed to ethnocentric translation” (Berman 1999: 27, my translation).
For the author, the ethical aim of translating is the very opposite of this
appropriative and reductive ethnocentric translation outlined above while
“the essence of translation is to be an opening, a dialogue, a cross-breeding,
a decentering”. Translation is “a putting in touch with, or it is nothing”
(Berman 1992: 4, translation John Milton 2010: 206). Ethics for Berman
Truth 51
revolves entirely around representing the Other as Other, as stated above,
and articulated concisely, creating a space for the foreign –communicating
a communication, manifesting a manifestation. However, when considered
in isolation, the notion of receiving the Other as Other remains some-
what abstract. As seen above, Berman goes beyond this abstract call. In La
traduction et la lettre, he expands our understanding further still, offering
concrete guidance designed to inform the translator working on their text.
Berman’s ethical enquiry presents us with the universal imperative to retain
and respect this “letter”. As such, it is important for us to pin down what
exactly this notion signifies and demands of us.
The methodology of translating the “letter” is something that Berman
calls “literalising” translation, which he distinguishes from a traditional
understanding of “literal” translation. For Berman, to fully embrace this
concept, we must first reformulate the idea of a literal translation, which
is widely viewed as a slavish word-for-word rendering. In La traduction
et la lettre, he states that for professional translators “translating literally
is to translate ‘word-for-word’ ” (ibid. 13, my translation). This is a belief
that he attributes to a confusion between the letter and the word –two
seemingly interchangeable concepts at first glance that he insists are a long
way apart –with this conception of literal translation failing to reach the
letter. Using the example of the translation of proverbs, he demonstrates
how these two terms relate to different visions of translating. As alluded
to in his twelve deforming tendencies, he argues that the use of proverbs is
“highly symbolic” as it exposes us to the entire problem of “equivalence”
in translation. This issue imposes an idealistic sense of invariance across
all languages and refuses to expose the target language to the foreignness
of the original. Here, he outlines a translation strategy that is not simply
a case of producing calques or “problematic” reproductions (which, he
argues, respect the “word”, as is the case with a traditionally “literal” trans-
lation), but rather pays close attention to the play of signifiers at work in
the texts. This involves replacing the alliterative structures at work and gen-
erally involves respecting the rhythms, sounds, length (or concision), and
lexico-grammatical makeup of the original, that is, when he asks that we
respect the “letter”, this is what he calls for. The chosen example in this
case is taken from Berman’s own translation into French of Roa Bastos’s
Yo, El Supremo, translated as Moi, Le Suprême, and the discussion revolves
around the translation of the following Spanish proverb:
ES: A cada día le basta su pena, a cada año su daño.

[Literal translation: To each day is its punishment enough, to each year
its hurt]
FR: A chaque jour suffit sa peine, à chaque année sa déveine
[Literal translation: To each day is its punishment enough, to each year its
misfortune]
(Berman 1999: 14)1
52 Truth
Instead of searching for an “equivalent” in French or producing a “servile”
word- for-
word translation (a traditionally “literal” translation), Berman
chooses to replicate the double rhyme in the original (día/pena, año/daño)
with another rhyme in the French (peine/déveine). While this does not neces-
sarily align with a traditional conception of translation equivalence (déveine
[bad luck, misfortune] certainly would not normally be used to render daño
[damage, harm]), he feels that it results in a translation that is at once “literal
and free” (ibid.). Furthermore, though the rhyme scheme does not match,
Berman claims to reassemble the alliterative structure of the original in a
new form. Speaking of the difficultly involved in embedding this new view
of translation, Berman notes that many of the professional translators who
attended the seminar in which he outlined this example were quick to reject
such a view of the translating act. He notes: “for them, translating was com-
pulsively about finding equivalents” (Berman 1999: 14, my translation).
For Berman, meanwhile, “translating is not about finding equivalents”, and
“equivalents of a phrase or a proverb do not replace them” (ibid. 65). Even
though “equivalent” proverbs exist in most languages, using these stock
phrases does not suffice for a translation methodology.
Box 3.2 Translating idioms: An example

Imagine you are translating a text from English and you come across
the following idiom: ‘It’s raining cats and dogs’. How would you go
about translating it?
In all likelihood, you would perhaps come up with something
along the following lines, which all retain the meaning of heavy rain,
employing a target-reader friendly idiom:
• French: Il pleut à seaux [It’s raining buckets]

• Russian: Дождь льёт как из ведра [Rain is pouring as if from a
bucket]
• Mandarin: 下倾盆大雨 [Basin-bending big rain is falling]
• Norwegian: Det regner trollkjerringer [It’s raining troll women]
In each of these examples, the translation takes the form of a recognised

equivalent in the target language. Yet while this kind of translation
would be commonly used in many contexts, this is precisely what
Berman is arguing against, as it fails to represent the Other (the foreign
language and culture) as Other. In transforming the ‘cats and dogs’
into the Norwegian ‘troll women’, we are losing something that he
sees as vital to the language –after all, proverbs and idioms tend to be
deeply rooted in cultural tradition.
Berman discusses another proverb, commonly translated into
English as “the early bird catches the worm” or “early to bed, early to
Truth 53
rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise”. Again, most translators
would employ a semantic equivalent in their target language. In
Spanish, for instance, the translator may opt for “A quien madruga,
dios le ayuda”, (literally ‘God helps those who wake up early’), which
is widely considered to be a suitable equivalent for the phrase. The
Russian version, meanwhile, could well be ‘Кто раньше встал, того и
тапки’ (roughly ‘He who gets up earliest gets the slippers’).2
For Berman, however, following the “letter” and his version of literal
translation, finding equivalents is not a suitable method. In translating
the original German proverb “Morgenstund hat Gold im Mund”
(literally ‘Morning hour has gold in the mouth’), Berman rejects the
readily-accepted French “equivalent” (‘le monde appartient à ceux
qui se lèvent tôt’ [literal translation: the world belongs to those who
get up early]). Instead he opts for “l’heure du matin a de l’or dans la
bouche” [the morning hour has gold in the mouth], claiming that it is
precisely the key elements of “gold”, “morning”, and “mouth” in the
German that should be retained or reconstructed in order to enrich the
receiving language and to expand awareness of linguistic and cultural
difference.
In this way, rather than searching for equivalents in the text, which would
thus see us refusing to carry over the foreignness of the original into the
translating language, this “littéralisante” [literalising] translation engenders
a subtle shift that, according to Alain, could subsequently lead to a profound
change, with translations that are “more English than the English text, more
Greek than the Greek, more Latin than the Latin” (Alain (1934: 56–57) in
Berman (1999: 25)).
However, the suggestion that this methodology will see the text become,
for example, “more English than the English text” is perhaps misleading.
Indeed, the idea of embellishing on meaning supposedly represents a fun-
damental weakness in translation practice, leading to such ethnocentric
renderings and liberal recreations that we confuse for translations. For
Berman, when translating the letter, there is a “fundamental agreement” that
links a translation to its original and “forbids any exceeding of the texture
of the original” (Berman 1999: 40, my translation). This is an explicit call
for translation not to exceed the original, with all creativity invested in rec-
reating the foreignness of the original, not producing an over-translation of
it. This is supported by Berman’s belief that great writing comes from innov-
ation, misuse, and new usages. Traditionally viewed negatively within trans-
lational rhetoric (which demands superior, beautiful language), for Berman
this provides a text with its “richesse” [richness] (ibid. 51). As he puts it: “lit-
erality [i.e. translating the letter] is not just about opposing French syntax
or neologising: it is also about retaining, in the translated text, the obscurity
54 Truth
inherent in the original” (Berman 1999: 109, my translation). The further
we mimic the tools employed by the other language, the closer we get to the
Foreignness that translation is seeking to capture.
Ultimately, Berman leaves us with the notion that this uniqueness
inherent in a source language is absolutely vital to ethics and to transla-
tion (Berman 1999: 131). Ethically, Berman contends that translation of la
lettre is our one viable option, respecting the rhythms, sounds, length (or
concision), and lexico-grammatical makeup of the original. This deonto-
logical call to preserve certain textual features does not entail a slavish
attachment to every word and phrase of a text, but rather seeks to carry over
the unique features of a language in order to enrich the receiving language
and culture. Linguistically, this perhaps calls our mind to the “letter versus
the spirit” debate in law and religion. However, for Berman, the “letter” is
the spirit, in the sense that it is not a slavish fidelity to the shape of every
word, but a fidelity to its meaningfulness, its performativity. Though Berman
demonstrates that this approach can be employed in the specific context of
literature and proverbs, doubts remain over its feasibility on a wider level,
as we will see below.
Universalisability
Gouanvic’s ‘Ethos, Ethics and Translation: Toward a Community of
Destinies’ asserts that “[t]‌he interest of an ethical theory of translation as we
understand it lies in the integration of all translation practices” (2001: 204,
emphasis in original), thus suggesting that theories should seek to apply
to all contexts. In Berman’s work too, there is a hint at a certain univer-
sality, referring to translation in a general sense despite addressing specific
subsections of the activity (i.e. literary translation). Yet whether or not this
universality is reflected in practice is a key consideration. Indeed, is there a
way to reconcile his ideas with non-literary translation and construct the
all-encompassing ethics that Gouanvic suggests? The immediate response
from the majority of professional translators would be “no”. In contem-
porary professional practice at least –and this extends to literary translators
working in the domain that Berman explores –it would seem that trans-
lation of the letter is not a feasible option. Imagine the mystifying looks
an interpreter would receive when telling a room of Arabic speakers that
“morning hour has gold in the mouth”, for instance. Subjecting the target
culture to the feel of the foreign language would soon put the translator in
question out of work, with client demands invariably necessitating well-
written texts that give the illusion of having been originally written in the
target language.
More generally, the focus on literary translations found in Berman’s work
has been criticised by a number of scholars, who have repeatedly remarked
upon the elitism present in his ideas. This elitism is clearly reflected in
Berman’s comments on professional, technical translation, a focus on the
Truth 55
translation of poetry and literature, and a rather dismissive attitude to the
methodologies followed by professional translators (e.g. his dismissal of
the validity of the prevailing translation methodology based on the use of
equivalents). However, as Tymoczko suggests, literary translation in par-
ticular can serve as an important model for developing overarching transla-
tion theories. As she explains, “[i]‌n developing and testing theory, models are
often necessary in order to make sense of a large and complex array of data”
and “literary texts and their translations can and do provide foundational
models for theorizing various aspects of translation of all types” (Tymoczko
2014: 11–12). As such, although the claims to universalisability may be
overly ambitious, these ideas can nevertheless provide invaluable insights
to translation theory in general. Indeed, the desire to raise an awareness
of cultural tendencies through an encounter with the Other is certainly an
interesting and perhaps laudable project.
Finally, in his 2001 paper ‘Berman, Unfaithful to Himself?’, Charron
also questions whether or not Berman’s ideas are reflected in his transla-
tion work. By analysing numerous passages in the first part of Berman’s
French translation of the aforementioned Yo el Supremo, Charron clearly
demonstrates that “ ‘Berman the translator’ did not seem to be able to put
into practice principles of which ‘Berman the translation scholar’ was very
aware” (Charron 2001: 97). Beyond concerns of compatibility within genres,
this paper calls into question Berman’s ethical theories and translation meth-
odologies as a whole. Despite providing a fascinating take on his beliefs of
what a translation should be and should do, Berman’s ideas at this point fail
to fully find a way to integrate the theory with practice.
Conclusion
Where does this leave us in relation to deontological accounts of ethics in
translation? Notions of accuracy and fidelity undoubtedly have their place
in discussions, and deontology’s absolute rulings are almost ubiquitous in
framing these debates. Although we find doubts over the effectiveness of
universal moral rulings in a general ethical sense, translation scholarship has
continually called upon this area in its own moral investigations. Generally,
however, an unbending approach to moral matters is largely inadequate to
deal with the complexities of the translation process. In terms of ethics,
it would appear that the general ethical theory criticisms levelled against
deontology –primarily that the universal nature of the theory is unable to
account for the potentially infinite range of contexts and circumstances that
exist in real-world settings –do indeed extend to the context of translation.
Gouanvic, for instance, casts doubt upon the idea of a “one-size-fits-all”
ethics as follows:
there are multiple ways of translating the same text, and thus a multipli-
city of potentials for various possible texts. If there were just one ethical
56 Truth
way of translating a text, whatever the text, then there should be only
one good translation of it.
(Gouanvic 2001: 203)
And, as Juan Ramírez Giraldo puts it, “almost all questions about transla-
tion nowadays can be given the same simple answer: ‘it depends’ ” (Ramírez
Giraldo 2014: 249).
However, this does not diminish the value of these contributions –we
merely need to recognise these limitations. Importantly, the texts considered
to this point indicate the kind of questions we need to be asking. The elem-
ents that Berman flags up represent something of a checklist of factors to
consider when translating –an indicator of the type of minute detail that
can affect understanding in translation. His calls for a general respect of
Otherness are morally persuasive and his considerable literary knowledge
and in-depth critiques uncover tiny nuances in literary work that can also be
applied to more general, technical texts. In marketing texts, for instance –a
very common specialism among freelance translators, with texts for trans-
lation including press releases and advertising copy –elements such as allit-
eration, rhythm, and syntax can be extremely important. Unfortunately,
however, there is no justification for endowing any of these features with
particular universal importance when the wide-ranging activity of transla-
tion demands unique solutions for unique contexts.
It is certainly not easy to devise universal rulings in translation.
Categorical imperatives such as “you should never translate by finding
equivalents for idioms” are difficult to uphold in all contexts. But what
of the alternative? When learning to translate, we need a way to orient
ourselves, to ground our decision-making, and to be cognisant of both
the range of potential methods available to us and the potential impact
of our decisions. Simply saying “it depends” does not teach a translator
how to act. This is a great strength of Berman’s deontology and deonto-
logical rulings in general. They can provide an insight into dominant
modes of translation, and the cases put forward for a specific course of
action can demonstrate what is at stake when translating. Whether finding
equivalents for proverbs or deleting references that the target reader will
not be familiar with, we are not simply making inconsequential lexical
choices, but rather shaping the representation of a text/author/language.
Translation is not just an arbitrary selection of words or characters, but
can impact upon power relations between people, languages, and entire
cultures. This is something that Berman was certainly aware of, and his
ideas have gone on to shape the thought of a number of other scholars in
TIS. Ethics is not just about engagement at a textual level. The next step is
to explore the “bigger picture”, and to place the translating act into con-
text, a task taken up in Chapter 4.
Truth 57

1. As a group, read through a text in a shared language and discuss what
you feel would be the most important elements to retain if you were to
translate that text. Why those specific elements?
2. Find a text that has been translated in your language pair (many online
news sites can be a good source for multilingual versions of the same
text). Look through the text and its translation, noting any differences.
What do you believe is behind these changes? Can you relate these to
Berman’s deforming tendencies?
3. Try to draw up your own definitive rule(s) for translation. What is some-
thing that can apply across a range of contexts? Is it something that only
applies to your language pair(s)? It may be interesting to compare and
contrast this with guidelines found in codes of ethics (Chapter 7).
Notes
1 The first half of this phrase is an aphorism that appears in the Sermon on the
Mount in the gospel of Matthew and is traditionally found in English translation
as “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”. In a less archaic translation, the
New American Standard Bible reads, “Each day has enough trouble of its own”
while the ‘Today’s English Version’ offers “There is no need to add to the troubles
each day brings”.
2 It is seen as a bit of a faux pas in Russia to walk around the house in socks or
barefoot. You would typically have spare pairs of slippers for guests for them to
put on when they arrive (or you bring your own). The reason is that, traditionally,
a lot of floors were covered in big fur rugs, which are difficult to clean.
Further Reading
A reasonably accessible starting point for Antoine Berman’s thought is Lawrence
Venuti’s English translation of ‘Translation and the Trials of the Foreign’ (Berman
2000), which offers further detail on the twelve deforming tendencies. Full
accounts of his ethical ideals can be found in Berman (1984) and (1999), the
latter of which is only available in French. Berman’s work developed further in
Berman (1995/2009), with a push towards a more hermeneutic understanding of
translation, and Chantelle Wright’s (Berman 2018) translation brings another of
Berman’s works into English.
For critiques of Berman’s ideas, see Pym (2012), which is covered from a different
angle in Chapter 4, or Charron (2001). Finally, for another powerful account of
a deontological, textual ethics, see Meschonnic (2007/2011). This text, which
prioritises the fundamental importance of rhythm in translation, was written by
another French thinker who initially influenced Berman, though their thought
eventually diverged.
4 Responsibility
Key Questions
• How has a consequentialist outlook on ethics most clearly been
applied in TIS?
• How have the concepts of loyalty and cooperation been framed in
TIS ethics?
• How does context enter our thinking in relation to translation
ethics?
In Chapter 4, we move a step beyond analysing ethical concerns at the

textual level and start to consider ‘bigger picture’ responsibilities. Chapter 3
foregrounded the case for translators’ responsibility to lie within the detail
of the texts they translate. Chesterman (2016: 167) reminds us that “Berman
(1984) […] argued that bad translation negates the strangeness of the for-
eign and hence makes all texts equally familiar and communicable”, and he
therefore chose to eschew this tendency and privilege the strangeness of the
foreign in his “literalising” translation. For Berman, this desire to represent
the Otherness of the source text represents what Chesterman calls a “pri-
mary loyalty”, and I adopt this word here very deliberately. Indeed, loyalty
is another crucial concept within translation ethics that has been formulated
in a number of key ways and is tied inextricably to the functionalist ideas
covered below.
Discussion in this chapter will focus around two central questions, in add-
ition to those posed above: “What are we responsible to or for when trans-
lating?” and “How can we balance our range of responsibilities in an ethical
manner?” However, as with all of our ethical deliberations, we are unlikely
to reach any easy answers. As Kopp puts it, “responsibility” has become
something of a buzzword since the 1990s and, despite its wide-ranging
meaning, the term is employed throughout many key TIS books “as if its
meaning was obvious […] without differentiation, as a synonym of either
liability or obligation and duty or accountability” (Kopp 2012: 146). She
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-5
Responsibility 59
offers a nuanced historical exploration of the term and its shifting meanings
and draws our attention to an important mix between retrospective and
prospective aspects of responsibility –both looking at intentions of your
actions and potential consequences thereof, something that is raised below
in relation to Pym and recalls consequentialist thought on ethics.
Specifically, we first look at Nord’s concept of function plus loyalty
(Nord 2001), which discusses the importance of considering the various
stakeholders involved in the translation process. After exploring the func-
tionalist roots of this theory, I assess its ethical implications, moving beyond
fidelity and function alone to a very specific notion of translatorial respon-
sibility. Subsequently, we consider Pym’s influential ideas on ethics (notably
from Pym 2012), which embed a translator’s responsibility within their pro-
fession. In relation to the four types of ethics outlined by Chesterman (see
Chapter 2), this chapter focuses primarily on an ethics of service, adding con-
siderations of client needs and expectations and the aims of our translations,
while Pym’s notions of ethics can be categorised within Chesterman’s third
model focusing on communication. As a reminder, this model of ethics deals
not with respect for the Other in terms of a textual respect (which is covered
in Chapter 3), but rather with the question of communicating with other
people (Chesterman 2001: 141).
? What ‘other people’ do we have to consider in the context of transla-

tion and/or interpreting?
? Is loyalty a concept that you deal with in your daily life? What does
it require of you? And what could it require of you in the context of
interpreting and translation?
From Function and Fidelity to Loyalty

Functionalism is a school of thought in TIS that emerged in the 1970s and
1980s and saw a move away from previously dominant consideration of
individual textual elements (the centre of enquiry in what is known as the
‘Linguistic Turn’) to prioritise a text’s use in more pragmatic terms. This
enlarged focus begins to consider the wider context at work and, neatly
mirroring our move in relation to ethics, marked a shift from micro-level
considerations to a more macro-level approach.
Returning to the ethical theories explored in Chapter 1, we find parallels
to both deontological and consequentialist outlooks in functionalist theories
of translation. Reiss’s text type theory, first of all, is more deontologically
focused. It posits three main text types –informative, expressive, and
operative –each with distinct characteristics (1977/1989: 108–109) and
prescribes different loyalties (or fidelity) depending on the type of text we
are translating (Figure 4.1). In an informative text, for instance, our primary
loyalty is to the ‘reality of the situation’, in an expressive text, it is to
the sender, in an operative, to the receiver, and these texts can inform our
60 Responsibility
‘Reality’
Sender Receiver
I tell you something about the reality.
Figure 4.1 Functionalist model of communication.
translation methodology, for example, a translation of an informative text

should transmit the full referential or conceptual content of the ST without
redundancy (Reiss 1976: 20). The specific content of these maxims is not
our core focus here (see Munday 2022, Chapter 5 and pp. 100–105 for a
full introduction to Reiss and functionalist ideas) but rather it is important
to note that these guidelines suggest an answer to the question of ‘how’ we
should translate that is dependent upon the type of text and –later on in
functionalist terms –the purpose. Later in the chapter we will see a shift
away from this focus.
Skopos theory, meanwhile, sees us move from ST-centred to TT-centred
approaches, from text types to strategies. Nevertheless, we are still focusing
on a mainly linguistic notion of text and of translation within this notion
of texts as being ‘functionally adequate’. As opposed to Reiss’ text type
model, in Skopos theory our translation methodology is governed by a pre-
determined skopos (purpose or function) and intrinsic value is bestowed
upon this notion of function. The text’s final state takes precedence over
competing considerations –the TT is determined by its skopos (Reiss and
Vermeer 1984: 119) and the ends tend to justify the means no matter what
course of action is taken.1 This loosely represents a shift from deontology
to consequentialism: we set a certain aim or skopos to be achieved (i.e.
a consequence), and follow a methodology that will allow us to achieve
that aim.
However, this approach has been deemed by some as “unethical sui gen-
eris as it accords a disputable power to the translator” (Kopp 2012: 145),
allowing misuse (Kadric and Kaindl 1997) via the potential for unscrupu-
lous translators to skew a text to promote their own personal ideological
goals, for instance. Though Kopp challenges this “Machiavellian postulate”
and the theory’s potential link to ideological writing and radicalism with
considerable success, this remains a powerful argument and is the point at
which ethics has entered the equation explicitly. Indeed, it is important to
note that the core functionalist theories were not explicitly conceptualised
Responsibility 61
in ethical terms. Vermeer argued that “ethics must not be mixed up with
the general theoretical considerations about other subjects” (Vermeer
1996: 107), conceiving of ethics as culture-specific and thus unsuited to a
general theory. However, there is the pervasive argument that all discussions
of how we engage with texts can be viewed from an ethical perspective, and
the question of responsibility that is central to notions of skopos ensures
that these ideas are implicitly tackling questions of ethics.
These potential criticisms and the growing importance of ethics led Nord
to develop the concept of “Function plus Loyalty”. Nord critiques and
expands upon existing ideas from this school of thought to form a truly
hybrid ethical theory, rethinking basic ideas of functionalism. While she
retains the principle of functionality, she argues that this does not allow
translators complete licence to make any changes they wish, asking whether
or at what point we may be straying too far from the ST. However, this move
involves reorienting our roots. While traditional fidelity is intertextual, Nord
argues that translation is actually interpersonal. It is not just the translator
and their text; there are other people involved –our “partners” in the process
of translation, towards whom we are also responsible. As an interpersonal
relationship, loyalty was meant to replace the traditional intertextual rela-
tionship of “faithfulness” or ‘fidelity’, concepts that usually refer to linguistic
or stylistic similarity between the source and the target texts, regardless of
the communicative intentions involved. Nord’s loyalty seeks to embrace that
difference by positing translation as a subjective, personal activity. She is at
pains to suggest that this is something different, something new:
Loyalty is not the old faithfulness or fidelity in new clothes. Faithfulness

and fidelity referred to a relationship holding the source and the target
texts as linguistic entities [...]. Loyalty, on the other hand, is a category
referring to a social relationship between people. It can be defined as
the responsibility translators have toward their partners in translational
interaction.
(Nord 2001: 195)
In the final chapter of Translating as a Purposeful Activity, Nord explains

how her concept of loyalty, was developed “to account for the cultural speci-
ficity of translation concepts” (Nord 2001: 185) and commit “the translator
bilaterally to both the source and the target side” (ibid.: 195). In a bid to
move beyond traditional concepts of fidelity, the idea offers an ethical con-
cept governing the translators’ responsibility to their partners. Translation is
viewed as a cooperative activity and, as noted, the theory sets out with the
dual purpose of not only adding an ethical element that was traditionally
lacking in functional theories but also addressing several criticisms com-
monly levelled against the theory. As Nord puts it, the concept of loyalty
“was designed to set an ethical limitation on the otherwise unlimited range
of possible skopoi or purposes of the translation for any particular source
62 Responsibility
text” (ibid. 185), an intriguing addition that undoubtedly provides nuance
to the theory.
In ethical terms, the intrinsic values of loyalty are set to a tripartite dis-
tinction: loyalty to source text author, the target audience, and the commis-
sioner of the work.
Being loyal means respecting the partners’ interests. The commissioner’s

interest is to obtain a translation that serves the intended purpose
(skopos), the source text author’s interest is not to be interpreted in
contradiction to his/her own intentions, and the recipients’ interest is to
receive a translation that fits their expectations.
(Hebenstreit 2021: 63–64)
This limits the range of available purposes by introducing these other

parties and the notion of cooperation, which aligns Nord’s thought with
contractarian conceptions of ethics.2 Along with the idea of the social
contract, contractarianism is all about cooperation (a key tenet that is
also present in Pym’s ethical thought, discussed in the following section).
This revolves around the belief that forgoing some of our liberties (i.e. the
freedom to follow any translation methodology we desire in Nord’s case)
and following the mutually beneficial system of cooperation leaves us
much better off than if left in the natural state of everyone competing for
supremacy. For contractarians, agreeing not to do something is designed
with the understanding that others will agree to the same thing, that is, if we
ourselves are drawn to immorality but do not want others to act in the same
way, then surely it is within our interests to act morally so that they have no
reason to doubt us and will act morally themselves. This is the justification
for our being moral. However, doubts remain over whether or not we can
overcome rational egoism, where we have good reason to do something only
if it serves our self-interest. For example, if we discover that the benefits of
acting in a way that is forbidden outweigh the chances or penalties of getting
caught, then we run the risk of individuals acting immorally.
Unfortunately, cooperation does not necessarily align with (conceptions
of what most people would agree represents) ethical action. For example, if
all three parties in Nord’s loyalty require a text to be skewed in a particular
way, this course of action would presumably be viewed as ethical. This is
based solely upon the notion of cooperation and disregards any violation of
perhaps well-founded notions of fidelity, for instance. This is where Nord’s
hybridity and the addition of a deontic maxim aims to bring us closer to a
satisfactory solution. With the needs of the various parties often conflicting,
Nord suggests that
[i]‌f the client asks for a translation that entails being disloyal to either
the author or the target readership or both, the translator should argue
Responsibility 63
this point with the client or perhaps even refuse to produce the transla-
tion on ethical grounds.
(2001: 200)
Yet, while this may be feasible in certain situations, the likelihood that a
client will be open to these kinds of demands in a professional situation is
low. Furthermore, no potential resolutions are offered for occasions where
the demands of all parties involved are in conflict.
Box 4.1 How to achieve loyalty?

Nord asks that we are loyal to the source text author, other agents/
actors (including clients or editors), and target text users. But can
we be loyal to all parties in all situations? What happens when their
interests clash? Nord says we should negotiate, tell people what is
going on, or even refuse to take on a project. How realistic/practical
are these guidelines?
Consider the two following excerpts and the questions that follow:
The range of the translation purposes allowed for in relation

to one particular source text is limited by translators’ responsi-
bility to their partners in the cooperative activity of translation
(loyalty principle). If the client asks for a translation that entails
being disloyal to either the author or the target readership or both,
the translator should argue this point with the client or perhaps
even refuse to produce the translation on ethical grounds (cf. the
example in Nord 1997a:126f.)
(Nord 2001: 200)
[L]‌oyalty can be achieved by making the translation strategies

explicit in a preface, by adopting clear choices at points of source
text ambiguity, and by using the most advanced theological and
philological scholarship to ensure loyalty to the source- text
author’s intentions.
(Nord 2001: 185)
? What is a ‘clear choice’ when it comes to ambiguity?

? How do we intuit what the author wanted/meant?
? How do we access our target users?
? Do you have full, detached control over your translation strategy?
Could you always reflect this in a preface?
? How useful is the most advanced theological and philological
scholarship beyond the context of Bible translation?
64 Responsibility
Moving forward, Nord suggests that we do not simply do “what the others
expect you to do (because this would lead into an insoluble dilemma if the
interactants expect divergent forms of behaviour)” (ibid. 196) and says that
we, as translators, must “consider the subjective theories of [our] partners
and explain their translation purposes and methods if [we] behave in a way
that may be contradictory to these theories” (ibid.). This notion of appre-
ciating the viewpoints of others and of initiating a dialogue to explain and
defend translational decisions is illuminating and will resurface in subse-
quent chapters, albeit within a different ethical framework. Indeed, though
the idea holds a great amount of appeal, Nord does not go into significant
depth regarding the inner workings of such a system. Instead, her analysis
returns to an ethics of explicitness, which accords ultimate responsibility to
the translator and enables any course of action based on transparency and
accountability (see Box 4.1). Here, the translator is very much allowed to
do as they wish as in the consequentialist skopos theory idea of “function”,
just as long as they are open about doing it. In this way, Nord’s theory
demonstrates an acknowledgement of the translator’s partially subjective
role in text creation and attempts to negotiate this issue via the explicit
reporting of any alterations.
Prefacing a translated text (also suggested by Chesterman) seemingly
represents a beneficial course of action when feasible but the assumption of
an ability on the part of the translator to intuitively know where this sub-
jectivity arrives and in what form seemingly underestimates the complexity
of such a task. The idea of “adopting clear choices at points of source-text
ambiguity” (ibid. 185) equally relies on intuition and equates a clear choice
with the right choice (ethically), which is not necessarily the case nor a
simple matter. Furthermore, “ensur[ing] loyalty to the source-text author’s
intentions” both contradicts her tripartite loyalty outlined above and makes
light of what is itself surely another subjective category (if the preface is to
discuss all points at which a subjective decision has been made, arguably the
text should be covered in its entirety) and one that again returns us to prob-
lematic discussions of fidelity.
Ultimately, though problems remain when we are to decide what course
of action is to be taken when the interests of individual parties conflict,
Nord’s framework has multiple strengths. It demonstrates a keen awareness
of the importance of considering the needs and interests of a range of agents
involved in the translation process, incorporates conceptions of subjectivity,
and counters some of the criticisms previously levelled against skopos theory
by attempting to bind the translator’s decisions to these various agents.
Nord’s hybridity is also an interesting feature. Deontology again emerges
at various points, traditional notions of function are consequentialist, and
contractarianism is contained within the notion of cooperation and an
insistence upon loyalty to various parties. Yet through all of these theories,
various issues of compatibility see responsibility return to the translator a
problematic call for transparency.
Responsibility 65
Translator Ethics: Anthony Pym on Cooperation, Risk, and Trust

A particularly telling contribution to ethics in TIS, which builds upon the
consequentialist basis at the heart of this chapter, comes from eminent
scholar Anthony Pym. Pym’s core ethics is outlined in his 1997 work,
Pour une éthique du traducteur, which was subsequently translated from
French into English in 2012 as On Translator Ethics. This seemingly com-
monplace choice of title is important in the context of this chapter as a
whole. While previous discussions could be more neatly termed under
a translation ethics –which Chesterman concisely notes as “principles
governing what makes an ethically good translation, as a text” –Pym’s
conscious choice of translator ethics considers the human beings at the
heart of the process as explicitly “bringing to the fore issues such as the
translator’s responsibility and agency” (Chesterman 2021: 15). Pym’s
ideas in this text revolve largely around the notions of cooperation and
interculturality, and he reflects upon and critiques the ideas of Berman
and Schleiermacher as he seeks to move away from translation theory’s
obsession with binarisms. In subsequent work, Pym has explored the
notions of risk and trust as further, essential components of ethics, as we
will see later in this chapter.
On a general level, Pym views the ethics of translation as twofold –it
contains “collective, professional aspects as well as the translator’s indi-
vidual morality” (Pym 2012: 15) –and argues that “[i]‌f any decision includes
moral aspects, it follows that any act of translation, and any theoretical trea-
tise on it, can be read from the point of view of ethics” (ibid. 16). With these
statements, Pym equates the act of translation with an ethics of translation.
Yet, rather than seeking to address the question of ethics within the act
of translation, as Corinne Wecksteen puts it, “Pym proposes to replace the
fundamental question, ‘How should one translate?’ (the answer to which is
usually based on the binary opposition between source-and target-oriented
theories) by the question, ‘Should one translate?’ ” (Wecksteen 2000: 125),
considering that “if we know why we translate, then we can deduce how we
should translate and perhaps even what we should translate in each situ-
ation” (Pym 2012: 12). This move can be equated to shifting from a deonto-
logical ethics to a consequentialist one, with the question of “how” relating
to what we ought to do and the question of “why” insisting that our end
goals drive our course of action.
From there, Pym views translation as a cooperative act and creates a
social ethics that seeks to promote the process of translators’ professional-
isation. This acts as a guiding principle to contribute to intercultural cooper-
ation, a central concept in Pym’s ideas that he describes as “abstract but
situational, since the nature of cooperation depends on numerous factors
specific to each case” (2012, 9), a signal of the importance of contextual
factors within ethics. Pym goes on to produce a number of overarching
principles: the translator’s first loyalty is to their profession, and then they
66 Responsibility
Responsibility to the profession
Responsibility for the decision Responsibility for the probable

to translate effects of the translation
Responsibility
Responsibility to the Responsibility to
towards other
matter (the text) the client
translators
Figure 4.2 Areas of responsibility in Pym’s ethics of cooperation.
are responsible for the decision to translate, to the probable effects of their
translations, and subsequently to the matter (the text), the client, and other
translators (illustrated in Figure 4.2). These domains overlap to a degree
with Chesterman’s ethics of representation and ethics of service and Nord’s
loyalty, but they paint a more clearcut picture in terms of the hierarchy that
is drawn and the range and extent of responsibilities.
Importantly, in more recent years Pym has also been at pains to point out
what cooperation is not. He states that it is not about faithfulness or equiva-
lence, as all texts must be interpreted –inevitably, change is going to happen,
as explored in Chapter 2. It is not about fulfilling a purpose, like skopos
theory, as purposes must be construed and mercenaries who simply set out
to get the job done regardless of the context or demands placed upon them
cannot be seen as being ethical. And finally, it is not a simple deontological
code: he forcefully states that we need more than limits and, just because a
certain model has become traditional (e.g. accuracy or fidelity), that is not
enough of a reason to retain it (Pym 2021b: 10).
For Pym, “the benefits of cooperation are the final measure to evaluate
the necessity of translation”, and “[t]‌here is also a more profound ethical
aim behind his ethics of cooperation: cooperation, or even social solidarity,
is seen as the general goal of social relations” (Koskinen 2000: 73). The
goal of any translation project should be long-term cooperation between
cultures. This reinforces the consequentialist outlook, setting cooperation
that leads to intercultural relations as the ultimate goal to be achieved. In an
article published in 1995, Pym even went as far as to formulate the ultimate
goal of translation in general within a wider social ethics as “the attainment
of happiness” (Pym 1995: 602). This means that, for Koskinen at least, his
work represents “an extended effort to think through the ways in which
translators as a collective could fulfil this goal of ‘happiness’ ” (Koskinen
2000: 110), and offers not only consequentialist strands but, more specific-
ally, utilitarian ones.
Responsibility 67
Box 4.2 Cooperation in action

In outlining what cooperation means in the context of translation and
interpreting and how it differentiates itself from other ideas of ethics,
Pym provides the following example of a meeting between Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki in 2018, during which State
Department interpreter Marina Gross took notes (Pym 2021: 18–19).
After the meeting, a US congressional committee asked Gross to reveal
what was in her notes, and Pym asks us whether or not she should
have agreed.
Referring to codes of ethics, the answer would be no, as confidenti-
ality is one of the key principles in these documents. Indeed, Pym reports
that “[t]‌he International Association of Conference Interpreters (Field
2018) swiftly issued a statement saying that the interpreter should
not testify, and the American Translators Association was reported
as taking the same position (Segal 2018)”. In terms of cooperation,
meanwhile, we have to consider whether revealing the notes from the
private meeting would result in a benefit to cross-cultural communi-
cation. For Pym, “a good argument can be made for the practice of
private meetings as trust-building exercises between heads of state”
(Pym 2021: 18), which leads him to agree with the principle of confi-
dentiality, but not because it is enshrined within codes of ethics. This
logic of decision-making introduces a subtle yet important difference.
? What do you make of these ideas? Is the shift to cooperation clear

in this case?
? Can you think of any cases in which cooperation would not be the
ideal (or your chosen) solution?
Aside from notions of cooperation, one of Pym’s principal postulates is

that translators are primarily intercultural agents located in the intersections
of cultures and not within one single culture. His opening chapter of Pour une
éthique du traducteur is dedicated to a critical re-reading of Schleiermacher’s
‘On the different methods of translating’. He concludes that Schleiermacher’s
binary opposition presumes that translators take only one side in their
interventions, excluding the middle ground within which Pym believes that
the future of translation could lie. In this middle ground, translators are
“dominated by the ethics of cooperation”, “primarily responsible not to the
source text writer, the client or their readers but to their fellow translators”
(Koskinen 2000: 80). Though Pym accepts that translators may have to
choose between two sides at certain points, the fundamental core of his
ethics is “strictly intercultural” (2012: 167). As Chesterman puts it:
68 Responsibility
For Pym, a translator’s primary loyalty is neither to the source culture
nor the target culture, but to others inhabiting this space, i.e. to other
intercultural mediators, to the translating profession as a whole: in
short, the primary loyalty is to something intercultural […] Pym stresses
the translator’s responsibility for the translation, as soon as he/she has
agreed to translate it, and the utilitarian importance of translations in
contributing to stable and mutually beneficial intercultural relations.
(Chesterman 2016: 168)
Some commentators at the time remarked that translators were being

portrayed as somehow detached from national interests, as benevolent but
impartial helpers. It creates an “aura of innocence and moral disinterest-
edness” (Koskinen 2000: 74) in a tactical move aimed to raise the profile
of translation –an innovative rethinking of the traditional binary dichoto-
mies dominating the field, yet a claim that left some fundamental concerns.
Indeed, though there is undoubted promise in implicating translators within
their profession, this idea of translators as neutral characters in between
cultures has been criticised.
Tack, for instance, states that “Pym’s cooperation model […] takes little
notice of the more covert aspects that prevent human communication from
ever becoming a mechanically transparent exchange of immediately access-
ible goods: hidden agendas, unconscious biases, diffuse connections to
power relations.” Importantly,
[i]‌nformation does not flow freely, not even in intercultures; it is inev-

itably anchored, situated, appropriated and inscribed in complex ideo-
logical contexts. The mutual benefit, as the guiding principle for the
question whether or not to translate, is not always clearly in sight.
(Tack 2001: 301)
Once again, this raises the problem of competing issues between various
stakeholders, which proved to be a significant shortcoming in the ethical
thought of Nord. Furthermore, in ‘Ideology and the position of the trans-
lator’, Tymoczko outlines the translator’s inevitably non-neutral position
and emphatically concludes that the translator’s position is “not a space
in between” (Tymoczko 2003: 201). Translators are always rooted, and
their clients are always rooted. Interculturality is certainly a feature of the
translator’s existence, but a translator lives somewhere, is from somewhere,
and those things are not homogeneous wholes in themselves. The translator
is not value-free or universal, a theme that is explored in greater depth in
subsequent chapters.
From an ethical perspective, it is important to recognise identity as com-
plex and organic: it is not possible to be free of ideology and still be human.
This objection is vital, as it not only potentially problematises some of Pym’s
ethical underpinnings but also articulates a much wider point in terms of
Responsibility 69
professional translator ethics. Though it features in both professional docu-
mentation and scholarly thought, it is widely accepted that total neutrality
or impartiality on the part of the professional translator is an illusion. For
Koskinen, further questions such as “How does one position oneself in the
intercultural space”, “How does one evaluate the benefits of cooperation?”,
and, again, “How does one choose between conflicting interests in cases
where an obvious middle ground ensuring long-term cooperation simply
does not exist?” represent “[d]‌ifficulties of application indicat[ing] a funda-
mental weakness in Pym’s ethics of interculturality” (Koskinen 2000: 73).
However, the fact that Pym’s text was re-published in 2012 and his
continued use of the ideas in more recent articles (see, for instance, Pym
2021a and 2021b) demonstrates their ongoing relevance to the discipline. In
his introduction to the 2012 version, Pym accepts that while technological
developments and the translation community’s attitudes towards scholar-
ship in the profession engendered certain changes in focus –and this is an
element that continues to transform our understanding of ethics, as we will
see in Chapter 8 –the crucial ethical thrust behind the work required no
alteration before its republication in translation. Even more importantly,
perhaps, Pym himself has subsequently sought to clarify his stance and
claims that many of these critiques misunderstood his intentions. He states
that cooperation does not assume equal parties, neutrality (the translator as
“honest broker”), hard work, or high-effort translations (cheap translations
can be socially beneficial), or access to truth (rational egoists can be trusted
to lie […] a little). Rather,
all parties act in their own interests but do so in such a way that they all
acquire more value than what they started with. Non-cooperation is a
zero-sum game where if I win, you lose. In cooperation, I win something
and you win something, and that possibility gives us a very good reason
to communicate.
(Pym 2021b: 10)
Importantly, he states that
[t]‌
he approach does not assume any symmetry or equality of the
communication participants; it does not require any pre-established
community of purpose: as long as both sides benefit, no matter how
unequally, then the interaction is considered cooperative and thus eth-
ically good.
(Pym 2021a: 151)
Whatever the case, the preceding discussions are enough to draw ample
attention to the importance of questions of neutrality in relation to ethics
and emphatically overturning this possibility represents a key point of focus
in Chapter 5.
70 Responsibility
More recently, Pym has also commented on risk as an important con-
cern within what he terms as translation as a cost/benefit analysis, requiring
that we weigh up the potential positive and negative outcomes of a pro-
ject. For Chesterman, Pym’s ethical translator “invests a translation effort
that is proportionate to the value of the resulting translation”, where the
value is calculated based on the amount of mutual benefit and cooper-
ation “leading to an increase in social wellbeing” (Chesterman 2016: 168).
These risks and costs can be financial, but also refer to other less-tangible
assets such as credibility and covering for uncertainty. This is in part done
to clarify potential weaknesses that were flagged in terms of his focus on
interculturality.
Overturning the accusation of implied neutrality, Pym states that the
translator is not just another communication participant but also one
who could be a traitor and, therefore, part of the cost involved is spent
on ‘buying’ trustworthiness. Though the basic transaction cost does rather
controversially suggest that cheap translations can be a laudable (and eth-
ical) option for many communicative purposes, “since the savings thus made
allow more scope for cooperation between the main communication part-
ners, and thereby more future work for the translator” (Pym 2021a: 152),
in some contexts translation requires considerable attention and investment.
Pym continues:
[a]‌s a rule of thumb, the greater the risks involved in the communication
act, the higher the permissible transaction costs and the more resources
should be invested in establishing the trustworthiness of the translator.
Translator ethics thus becomes a question of trust.
(ibid. bold added)
Indeed, trust now underpins our ethical decision-making and Pym states
that the “greatest risk the translator faces might be loss of trust (by clients
or receivers), so translation decisions can be seen as ways of gaining or
maintaining that trust, rather than just representing a foreign text” (Pym
2017: 364).
And this consideration of risk and trust works on both a wider scale –for
instance in terms of the rates that we can charge –and on a small-scale level
in terms of concrete translational decisions. Pym allies translation solutions
such as omission, which are “not usually condoned by approaches based
on equivalence” (ibid.), with low-risk situations where the potential impact
on trust is low. And much of this focus on trust hinges around the informa-
tion asymmetry that is inherent in much of translation (Pym, Grin, Sfreddo,
Chan, 2012; Chan, 2008). It is assumed that the translator’s clients do not
know the languages that the translator knows and that translators know
more about quality in translation than their client. As a result of their client’s
lack of oversight, they can therefore “bend the truth” in terms of the value
of their work if they so desire, thus meaning that clients do not know whom
Responsibility 71
to trust. As noted above, translators may be acting in the interests of the
other side.
This consideration of the risk and trust inherent in translation reinforces
the need for Pym’s cooperative framework, bringing us full circle. With the
aim of this cooperative framework being (not necessarily equal) benefits
for all parties involved, including the translator, “the translator is primarily
trusted to seek those benefits” (Pym 2017: 364) rather than clients hoping
that they are simply a good person who will look out for their interests
and not a mercenary. Ultimately, through these clarifications via risk and
trust, cooperation remains a central component of Pym’s thought, and he
states that this attainment of mutual benefits as our aim of cross-cultural
exchanges, with all parties benefiting, remains a “sublime ethical aim, no
matter how naïve one might consider it to be in practice” (2017: 365) that
is “a more powerful, socialized aim than the static alternatives available in
equivalence theory and the like” (2017: 33).
Pym’s ideas can be summed up as followed:
1. Translators […] are responsible for the capacity of their work to con-
tribute to long-term stable, cross-cultural cooperation (2012: 167).
2. In order for mutual benefits to be achieved, they must be greater than
the transaction costs put into organizing and carrying out the exchange
(2017: 363).
3. “[T]‌he greatest risk the translator faces might be loss of trust (by clients
or receivers), so translation decisions can be seen as ways of gaining
or maintaining that trust, rather than just representing a foreign text”
(2017: 364), a notion that Pym sees as anathematic to institutions and
understandings of translation based on linguistic equivalence.
Box 4.3 A case study on loyalty and cooperation

Consider the following example drawn from Chesterman (2018) –the
full example is also included in Chesterman (2009):
A literary translator, Stefan Moster, translates a Finnish novel by
Arto Paasilinna into German. In this story, set in Finland’s pagan past,
a semi-divine hero is born who will save Finland from the threat of the
new Christian religion. The hero is born on 20 April. But the German
version says he is born on 19 April. Why is this the case?
The answer is that 20 April was Hitler’s birthday. Many German
readers will know this, so there is a risk that the novel will be taken
as neo-Nazi propaganda, and this is a risk the translator refuses to
take. On his own responsibility, he changes the date. He informs the
German publisher, but not the author. Asking the author’s permission
would have run the risk of being refused, and this was a risk he was
72 Responsibility
not willing to take. Later (Moster 2003), he makes the reasons for his
decision public. Recognising the date and the significance with regard
to Hitler, he feared that readers would “interpret the ending of the
novel as referring to a Nazi saviour who will improve the gene-pool of
the nation” (ibid.). Moster argues as follows:
Quite possibly, the book had what it took to become a cult novel
in right-wing circles, and I did not want to let that happen to it –
or, most of all, to me –for which reason I replaced 20 April with
another date. And I did not actually ask the author, as I am wont
to do in similar cases, for I wanted to avoid him disallowing the
(to me) essential modification [sic].
In doing so I valued my stake as originator of the text more
highly than that of the author. Is that allowed? Yes, when you
think you have to do it. Is it a problem? Not really, when you
know what you’re doing.
(Moster 2003: 60)
? In what ways can we say the translator was/was not ‘loyal’ and
to whom?
? In this case, what would you do? Or what should we do as a trans-
lator? And why? Again, is it the principle of ‘loyalty’ that guides us?
How would the notion of trust impact upon our decision-making?
? Can the translator realistically flag issues to the client every time
something problematic comes up? This is an extreme example, but
where do we draw the line?
For Chesterman, though he questions the solution (“Why not just

‘in the spring’?”), he respects the decision and considers the ethical
justification to be utilitarian: he weighs up the importance of textual
fidelity and the need to consult the author against possible undesirable
consequences and decides that those consequences weigh more heavily.
In terms of loyalty, the translator was loyal to the publisher (an
agent?), and arguably the author in terms of avoiding this potential
reading. The translator’s subsequent article also showcases the poten-
tial of paratextual (or extratextual) visibility, as mentioned by Nord,
though how feasible is this in all circumstances?
In terms of cooperation, we could also argue that this does fall in
line with Pym’s notion of all parties benefiting: the author is saved
from being presented as a Nazi sympathiser (presumably something he
would be happy about), the translator benefits financially and in terms
of his career (as a culturally sensitive translator), and the publisher
avoids a potential scandal. But is it this clearcut?
Responsibility 73
Perhaps the date’s significance would not have caused any nega-
tive readings. Perhaps the translator no longer holds the trust of a
range of potential clients because they worry that he will make similar
changes without consulting them in the future. Importantly, this
example demonstrates how the translator is an active, interventionary
being with their own needs, desires, and beliefs entering the equation.
Moster did not act in a neutral way. Clearly, there is more at stake
than textual fidelity, as demonstrated in this chapter and yet how and
where do we draw the line with what is considered to be professional?
We will explore this personal dimension to ethics further in subsequent
chapters and will get to the professional dimension in Chapters 7 and 8.
Conclusion
Beyond exploring various potential partners to whom we are responsible
when translating, the ideas covered in this chapter begin to allude to both
the context-based and the personal, ideological dimensions of ethics. Ethics
is inescapably subjective and situated, and no detached balancing act can
respond to all situations. However, like Berman’s ethics, loyalty and cooper-
ation provide us with a further set of vital considerations to bear in mind
when we translate or interpret. We must always remember that we are
involved in an interpersonal interaction –though that may be easier to grasp
when interpreting, with (potentially) the client, target user, and ST author all
present in real time, the Moster example above shows that these divergent
needs and desires are very real in cases of translation, too.
Repeating Chesterman’s distinction between macro-and micro-ethical
considerations is helpful to reorient ourselves at this point. While micro-
ethical matters pertain to the “relation between the translator and the words
on the page”, macro-ethical issues encompass broad social questions “such
as the role and rights of translators in society, conditions of work, finan-
cial rewards and the client’s profit motive, the general aims of translation
as intercultural action, power relations between translators and clients, the
relation between translation and state politics” (Chesterman 2016: 168). In
this chapter we have moved away from the micro-ethical level and added
new levels of responsibility to consider. While responsibility to the text and
ST author is a challenging, pertinent area of consideration, here we have
seen that other answers include responsibility to our client, our audience, to
other translators, and our profession. That is not to say that these previous
answers lose all importance. Indeed, while moving away from the micro-
ethical side of things is an important step to make, the two levels of course
feed one another and the way we engage with the Otherness within a text
is crucial. This mutual interaction between the two levels is central to the
coverage of Venuti’s ideas in Chapter 5, expanding our enquiry further still
74 Responsibility
and taking into account a commitment to representing other languages and
cultures within a highly personal, non-neutral framework. This personal,
moral dimension is further accentuated in Inghilleri’s ideas, which consider
interpreters’ responsibilities to society at large, while also seeking to over-
turn the image of the neutral, conduit translator and interpreter. This focus
on our own inevitable, personal, human input brings the agent involved in
this process even more clearly to the forefront.

1. Discuss the notions of ‘fidelity’ and ‘loyalty’ in relation to functionalist
approaches to translation.
2. To what extent does the principle of cooperation enable us to sidestep
“either/or” models of translation ethics?
3. Group discussion: Using the Moster case study in Box 4.3, work in
small groups and share your take on the example.
Notes
1 This is reflected in Cristiane Nord’s succinct functionality principle: “[t]‌he trans-
lation purpose determines the choice of translation method and strategy” (Nord
2001: 200).
2 “The range of the translation purposes allowed for in relation to one particular
source text is limited by translators’ responsibility to their partners in the coopera-
tive activity of translation” (ibid. 200).
Further Reading
Kopp (2012) offers an illuminating exploration of the link between skopos theory
and ethics. She covers the development of the notion of responsibility, including
a fascinating dive into its etymological roots and emergence as a key ethical
concept, grounds the idea within skopos theory, and considers potential future
directions. For a comprehensive yet accessible account of ethics in a functionalist
context, meanwhile, Nord’s (2018) Translating as a Purposeful Activity is an
excellent resource. In terms of Pym’s ethics, his 2021 paper (Pym 2021b) offers a
concise and typically engaging overview of his wide-ranging ideas, while his entry
in The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics on ‘Translator Ethics’
(Pym 2021a) is another accessible point of entry. Finally, for coverage of Chinese
ethics and responsibility, see Guangqin (2021: 30–31).
5 Justice
Key Questions
• How has TIS tackled problematic perceptions of translators and
interpreters as neutral conduits?
• What is visibility and agency in translation and interpreting?
• When we look beyond neutrality, how does this impact our role as
translators and interpreters?
In Chapter 4 we began examining the translator’s role in more detail,

introducing differing directions of responsibility; in this chapter we take
this enquiry one step further. Chapter 5 consolidates the non-neutral, sub-
jective nature of translation and ethics and considers the role of the trans-
lator and interpreter as a key agent in shaping knowledge transfer, laying
the foundation for the exploration of activist roles in Chapter 6. It begins
with an exploration of Lawrence Venuti’s pre-2000 contribution to ethical
thought, which places critical scrutiny on the ethical underpinnings outlined
in Chapter 3, seeks to raise the translator’s global profile via discussions
of visibility, and tackles questions of what could be termed as linguistic
injustice –with power imbalances feeding global hegemonies in terms of
language and culture. Though often misunderstood as a general call to
‘foreignise’ texts –and thus representing a deontological call, which returns
to the more narrow, textual level explored in Chapter 3 –we will see how
Venuti’s work is in fact rather consequentialist in nature, seeking to promote
cultural innovation and challenge dominant norms above all else.
These appeals to responsibility on a wider level and a link to notions of
justice are echoed by a number of prominent scholars. Here, we also con-
sider Inghilleri’s (2012) illuminating ideas, which place the translator within
a network of power relations and offer a powerful critique of universal the-
ories of ethics, paving the way for more relativistic views. Within these calls
for wider moral consideration, the role of the translator changes further
still. In Chapter 4, we saw how Pym’s work initiated a reconceptualisation
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-6
76 Justice
of the translator as an active mediator, and this role is examined further
here, particularly in the context of interpreting, where we see the emergence
of the role of a cultural mediator. Ultimately, the translator remains firmly
at the centre of enquiry –and is pushed even further into the spotlight by
both Venuti and Inghilleri, in different ways –as we consider this wider
commitment to society at large.
? How visible would you say that translators or interpreters are?

? In what way do translators and interpreters play an important role
in global events?
? In your daily life, do you feel that you are able maintain neutrality?
Are there any specific situations in which you might struggle to main-
tain that neutrality?
Overturning Neutrality and Looking to Emancipatory Translation

In Chapter 4, concerns were raised over the potential for translators and
interpreters to be seen as merely neutral conduits, and we saw how Pym
has been critiqued (mistakenly, in his view) for a supposed neutrality at the
centre of his early ideas of interculturality. As Chesterman puts it, “[d]‌oubts
have been raised about the validity of the conduit metaphor for translation
and interpreting, according to which the mediator is no more than a neu-
tral channel for the exchange of information” (Chesterman 2021: 17). For
him, there is more at stake than “ensuring that packets of information reach
their destination” (ibid.). Interculturality and exchanging information are
certainly features of the translator’s existence, but the translator is not value-
free. Abdallah eloquently encapsulates a generalised view of non-neutrality
by stating that “in the end it is the moral agent herself who decides which
course of action to take in resolving an ethical dilemma, based on her own
moral values” (2011: 148). This quotation points to the inherently sub-
jective and non-neutral nature of both translation and ethics. At the heart
of enquiry in both areas, we are dealing with human beings who have their
own personal interest, beliefs, and needs to consider, and this problematises
images of translation as simply a linguistic transfer activity. Though Pym
and Chesterman have both sought to separate professional and personal
ethics, others have argued that there is no way to fully extricate ourselves
from the contexts we work in, and all decisions must include personal con-
siderations (this tension will come up again in more detail in Chapters 6 and
7). From an ethical perspective, we must question the personal and examine
what it is that these active agents are interested in and concerned about.
As we will see below, Inghilleri contends that interpreters in particular
should be afforded more room for maneuver in their decision- making,
being allowed to take their own belief systems into account, even when
these may clash with professional codes’ guidelines (these codes are covered
at length in Chapter 7, but it is worth noting here that these documents
regularly state that translators and interpreters should be neutral in their
Justice 77
professional activities and not take sides). As such, overturning neutrality
and fidelity (which we problematised in Chapter 2) is an important step
in moving towards empowering activist translators and interpreters, who
“may be more motivated by ideals such as social equality and justice than
by the neutrality or fidelity principles” (Chesterman 2021: 21). In terms
of the translator’s overall role, we see something of a sliding scale from
neutral conduit to an emancipated and active participant in communicative
situations –“from humble slave to independent expert or equal partner”
(Chesterman 2016: 187) –who “assumes the right to break norms” (ibid.)
in a manner that is justified by an appeal to higher-level personal values,
norms, and ideals.
Box 5.1 Ethics and subjectivity

Bearing in mind the consequentialist principles covered in Chapter 4
(and Chapter 1, of course!), which ask us to prioritise the consequences
of our actions, and the personal dimension of ethics that is central to
this chapter, consider the following example (adapted from Robinson
2012: 101):
There are two people drowning in a river. One is your translator

friend and the other is a world-famous brain surgeon, who is a
stranger to you. You are standing on the shore with the one avail-
able lifejacket.
? In this situation, what would you do?
Deontological calls to save lives or minimise death are useless here,

as there is no way to save both people. Utilitarian principles, mean-
while, being superficially impartial, would recommend that we save
the surgeon, as this would result in the greatest amount of happiness –
after all, he would undoubtedly save hundreds of lives, unlike your
translator friend. However, this is not overly satisfying, and in reality
we would all probably want to save our friend. As Robinson puts it
“[f]‌riendship makes us subjective and partial, and we don’t think much
about ‘ends’ when we see our friends in trouble” (ibid.). This example
points to the inevitably subjective and partial nature of ethics, and this
is something that we will continue to address in greater detail in this
chapter and chapters to come.
Venuti, Visibility, and Cultural Innovation

In some ways, Venuti’s ideas on ethics take us back to the discussions of
fidelity and respect for the Other covered in Chapters 2 and 3, and certainly
he was hugely influenced by the ideas of Berman. Indeed, Venuti states that
78 Justice
“I follow Berman [...]. Good translation is demystifying: it manifests in its
own language the foreignness of the foreign text” (Venuti: 1998, 11), but his
own ideas also mark a clear break from more ‘pure’ considerations of textual
ethics, focusing on questions of visibility and invisibility of translators and
translation as a whole, as well as broader aims of cultural innovation and
breaking norms. These ideas sit comfortably within expanded notions of
ethics that are not simply considering the words on the page, translators
as neutral channels of communication, or professionals seeking to balance
loyalties, but rather wider social concerns and personal notions of justice.
While we viewed Berman in a more static, textual context, his choice of
primary loyalty is undeniably ideological and this has led to far-reaching
impacts within translation ethics. Chesterman gets to the crux of this matter,
noting how scholars such as Venuti and Eric Cheyfitz (1991) place our lin-
guistic choices within a broader cultural context, analysing “these choices in
terms of theories of imperialism, colonization, nationalism, economic issues,
power struggles between cultures, and the global domination of European
or Anglo-American cultural value” (2016: 167).” For Venuti, translation is
always a political act.
Venuti’s key terms, developed in his pre-2000 writings on ethics, have
been readily adopted by translation scholars worldwide and are among
the most influential contributions in the discipline to date, Laaksonen and
Koskinen rightly note that he has the rare status of having been “a house-
hold name in Translation Studies since the 1990s” (2021: 131). His two
most influential texts –The Scandals of Translation and The Translator’s
Invisibility –are widely cited across and beyond the discipline, emerging as
vital sources for both TIS students and translation professionals looking to
gain a grasp of the discipline. It is The Scandals of Translation –published
in 1998 –with its subtitle of ‘Towards an ethics of difference’ that is perhaps
of greatest interest to us here, although the 1995 Translator’s Invisibility
can be seen as sharing many of the same themes, albeit presented from a
different perspective. Both works outline Venuti’s core theory of transla-
tion, formulated around the basis of hermeneutics. He initially builds upon
largely philosophical ideas from Schleiermacher and Berman to distinguish
between “foreignising” and “domesticating” types of translation and for-
wards his ideas of deviation from dominant linguistic forms.1 Venuti begins
by placing translation within a wider sociocultural framework, considering
the impact of social institutions (publishers, editors, people who market
books, reviewers) as well as political ones, and explores the way in which
Britain and America export/import texts, revealing a trade imbalance that,
he argues, indicates English-speaking countries are not as open to foreign
cultures.
Venuti describes the Anglo-American translation market as characterized
by a domestication of foreign texts. Publishers and readers consider accept-
able only translations that ‘read like original texts’ and ‘conceal their for-
eignness’ behind a veneer of naturalness, that is, we like translations that are
Justice 79
smooth and natural. He laments this dominant domesticating strategy that
prevails throughout Western literary translation and renders texts as fluent,
readable target language pieces. He argues that this approach has ideological
foundations (appropriation of foreign culture for American consumption)
and has been detrimental to the recognition of translation in society and to
the status of translators, making them invisible. As he provocatively puts it,
“[t]‌he purpose of transparency/invisibility is to inscribe foreign texts with
English-language values and provide readers with the narcissistic experience
of recognizing their own culture in a cultural other” (Venuti 1995: 15). Insofar
as the effect of transparency effaces the work of translation, it contributes to
the cultural marginality and the economic exploitation that translators have
long struggled with. Ultimately, translation is seen as a low-status activity;
translators are invisible, poorly paid, and disadvantaged by copyright laws,
and publishers exploit this situation (see Lambert and Walker 2022 for a
conceptual exploration of status and rates of pay). With Anglo-American
cultural values imposed on vast foreign audiences, the United Kingdom and
the United States have become “aggressively monolingual”, “unreceptive to
the foreign”, and “accustomed to fluent translations” (Venuti 1995: 15).
Thus, “the translator’s invisibility is symptomatic of a complacency that can
be described –without too much exaggeration –as imperialistic abroad and
xenophobic at home” (ibid. 16-17).
Instead, Venuti calls for us to foreground the foreignness of the translated
text. While domestication smooths over the uniqueness of the foreign, he
seeks to prioritise this element in order to release the “remainder”, defined
as “[t]‌he collective force of linguistic forms that outstrips any individual’s
control and complicates intended meanings” (Venuti 1998: 108), and which
allows the disturbing and stimulating effects of translation to be shown
in the domestic setting. Put simply, foreignisation happens whenever we
eschew conventional modes and forms of translation, and the key factor
is the translator’s ambivalence toward domestic norms and the institu-
tional practices in which they are implemented. All of this is carried out in
accordance with Berman’s idea that a bad/unethical translation negates the
foreignness of the text and sets out to counter institutions’ predilection for
a translation ethics of sameness. While Venuti stands as another advocate of
the idea that translators should include prefaces and notes with their work
where possible, his ethics of difference departs from Nord’s loyalty, as it can
require the translator to be disloyal to domestic cultural norms –something
that the commissioner of a translation is generally very unlikely to agree
to. Indeed, Venuti’s ethics requires the translator to call attention to what
these norms enable and limit and admit and exclude in the encounter with
foreign texts, although he insists that a translation can deviate from norms
without being so estranging as to be self- defeating. Foreignising makes
readers aware that what they are reading is not an original, but a mediated
and manipulated text and makes the translator more visible. It puts “an
ethnodeviant pressure on [TL cultural] values to register the linguistic and
80 Justice
cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad” (Venuti
2008: 20). The aim is “to force translators and their readers to reflect on the
ethnocentric violence of translation and hence to write and read translated
texts in ways that recognize the linguistic and cultural differences of foreign
texts” (Venuti 2008: 34).
Venuti’s ethics represents a reflection upon and reaction against trends
in translation scholarship at the time and was made in order to forward his
ideas of deviation from dominant linguistic forms. However, while his easily
dichotomised distinctions seemingly represent a deontological imperative
to always deviate from domestic norms, we sense a softening in his stand
in Scandals of Translation that resituates his ethical underpinnings. As his
terminology moves from “foreignising” to “minoritising”, Koskinen sees
Venuti as moving beyond basic ideas of fidelity and foreignisation. This
move places him alongside other approaches aimed at giving greater prom-
inence to marginalised groups in society, such as feminist and post-colonial
translation in aiming “never to acquire the majority, never to erect a new
standard or to establish a new canon, but rather to promote cultural innov-
ation as well as the understanding of cultural difference” (Venuti 1998: 11).
As Koskinen explains:
Unlike most (post)modern translation theories, Venuti seems to have

overcome the obstacle of fidelity. Even though he has not renounced the
origin of the translation, his ethics of difference, as the name implies, is
not based on any reformulation of the notion of fidelity. For him, the
important issues and ethical aims are located elsewhere than in fidelity
or loyalty towards the source text or clients and target readers. The
most important considerations are, instead, to be found in the wider
framework of cultural exchange.
(Koskinen 2000: 58)
While critics such as Folkart contends that “the foreign” for Venuti seems
to be simply the opposite of the mainstream, this offers a rather reductive
understanding of the concept of foreignisation.2 Venuti applies Berman
within his own political views. Berman retains the deontological sense of
translating the foreignness, while Venuti contextualises the methodology
and aligns it with a cause –translate the foreignness to decentre established
practices and to foster innovation and politico- cultural communication.
Indeed, Venuti’s method is not a simple binary opposition between good
and bad, as has often been considered to be the case. Rather, adopting a
domesticating method can be a good thing, and translations almost uni-
versally contain elements of both methods. This being the case, along with
his postmodern streak, Venuti’s thought actually resides in the rule conse-
quentialist category of ethics. Subversion or deviation from cultural norms
that promotes innovation is set as his ultimate value, even when this –
seemingly paradoxically –entails the use of a domesticating method. For
Justice 81
him, if we achieve the end result of subverting or destabilising established
norms (subsequently increasing cultural communication) then we have
acted ethically. To be ethical, our aim is “to force translators and their
readers to reflect on the ethnocentric violence of translation and hence to
write and read translated texts in ways that recognize the linguistic and
cultural differences of foreign texts” (Venuti 2008: 34). Indeed, through his
wide-ranging discussions, drawing attention to imbalances in global flows
of literary translation and invisibility, Venuti “has urged his Anglo-American
and international readers to cultivate attitudes hospitable towards foreign
literary influences, with the overall calling to contribute to more demo-
cratic cultural relations (1995: 20; 1998: 25; see also Koskinen 2000: 109)”
(Laaksonen and Koskinen 2021: 132), and it is through foreignising
methods –involving bold, heterogeneous translation choices with clashes of
register and archaisms drawing attention to the translator’s active role –that
we can achieve these aims.
However, this assertion poses a troubling question that he leaves
unanswered. In deviating from the established norms, are we really
representing the culture of the source text (presumably this “traditionally”
ethical representation of the source culture, which once again wraps us
up in issues of fidelity, is a necessary component in promoting innovation
and cultural communication?). Or, are we merely opposing our own cul-
ture in order to give a suggestion of the foreign or in mere fulfilment of a
personal, ideological need? As Pym suggests in his review of The Translator’s
Invisibility: “[a]‌s long as the translations are kept distant from the masses’
cheap understanding, the professors will be employed to read and talk about
those translations”, thus stressing the importance of Venuti’s own continued
visibility in academia (Pym, 1996: 175). This once again highlights the
importance and inevitability of our personal, subjective input in matters
of ethics, and also points to the genre-dependent nature of certain consid-
erations or manners of decision-making in ethics. Indeed, Venuti’s intellec-
tualism and exclusion of non-literary translation dictates that the technical
translator cannot realistically follow his ideas in their present form. This
is due to the economic concerns and client demands foregrounded in the
professional setting. This is not necessarily a fault on the part of Venuti; his
focus on literary translation is entirely deliberate and he makes no claims
to apply his ideas beyond this field. However, he is perhaps in the fortunate
position of being able to translate with a degree of cultural experimentation
rather than bending to commercial constraints and publisher demands as
would likely be the case with most professional translators, literary or other-
wise. While he does suggest a new limited copyright enabling translators
and publishers to gain rights more easily and to encourage increased publi-
cation of translations as earlier ones become dated (and, subsequently, more
freedom for publishers to take on translation projects, more translation and
more creative, less domesticated translation), the professional situation is
unlikely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future.
82 Justice
Venuti’s focus on the literary field is criticised by Gouanvic who contends
that such compartmentalisation of the translation process is unsuitable
when developing an ethics of translation. Gouanvic attempts to expand
traditional borders of discussions on ethics within translation to include
both low-and high-brow material, critiquing Berman’s and Venuti’s ethics
for their elitism and their desire to destroy dominant theories and practices
of translation. This foregrounds the important link that exists between an
ethics of translation, the sociology of translation, and contemporary phil-
osophy, before leading him to conclude that “[t]‌he interest of an ethical
theory of translation as we understand it lies in the integration of all trans-
lation practices” (Gouanvic: 2001, 204, emphasis in original). This is an
interesting, if daunting, notion, and in today’s increasingly fractured trans-
lation landscape, where rapid industrialisation has moved attention to areas
such as translation technology, the possibility of addressing all areas at once
seems utopian.
Ultimately, the contribution that Venuti’s key works in the late 1990s have
made to the field –and indeed to the understanding of translation beyond the
confines of our own discipline –cannot be overstated. Furthermore, despite
being criticised for his primary focus on high-brow literature and intellec-
tualism, this narrowed focus in some ways allows for a more comprehen-
sive discussion of the specific requirements of a particular situation and less
of the generalisation found in other ideas. It is clear that Venuti does not
always provide all the answers, but his ideas remain unerringly relevant as
translation continues to produce and reveal “imbalances, asymmetries and
inequalities” (Laaksonen and Koskinen: 2021, 144). He demonstrates with
numerous examples that this process of domestication is taking place in the
literary domain and, just as culture changes, historical conceptions of right
and wrong and ethics change over time, and the way in which translations
are produced now is not a fixed method –it can be changed. Venuti’s work
is designed with this potential for change in mind.
Box 5.2 Foreignisation in practice

As Laaksonen and Koskinen note, “Venuti offers his readers little in
terms of hands-on translation solutions that would fall into categories
such as fluent or domesticating, let alone visible or foreignizing trans-
lation” (2021: 137). The reason for this is that the effects of certain
small-scale choices are not generalisable and therefore “a particular
choice may contribute to a domesticating effect in one context while
promoting foreignization in another” (ibid.). Indeed, as Venuti puts it,
the terms do not “describe specific verbal choices or discursive strat-
egies […] but rather the ethical effects of translated texts that depend
for their force and recognition on the receiving culture” (Venuti: 2018,
Justice 83
xiii), emphasising the primordial nature of context. That said, there are
still a number of perhaps typical strategies outlined in The Scandals
of Translation that offer some insight into the kind of methods he
sees as leading to cultural innovation and a destabilisation of dom-
inant norms.
In terms of wider, macro-level choices, Venuti contends that the
very choice of text to translate is invaluable, favouring non-canonical,
marginal, experimental, or innovative texts, possibly with subver-
sive themes, rather than more mainstream texts and authors. In his
own practice, for instance, Venuti has translated works by Iginio Ugo
Targhetti, a minor writer who produced challenging, experimental
novels in the nineteenth century, a choice of subject and author that is
minoritising in its very nature.
In terms of translation methods, meanwhile, he recommends
mirroring elements of source language structures and syntax, mixing
up different registers and different varieties of language (such as com-
bining slang and archaisms, resulting in a heterogeneous style), and
keeping the original cultural references (borrowing or calquing foreign
terms as opposed to replacing them with general terms or domestic
references).
It is important to remember, that while foreignising often involves
retaining culture- specific elements from the source text and using
calque renderings, it is not the same as literal translation nor is it just
about fidelity. Rather, it is about drawing attention to translation,
making the translator visible and disrupting dominant norms.
Ultimately, all of these methods are used with the aim of making sure
that the translation is not fluent. The example below is provided by
Venuti to exemplify these methods:
Italian ST: Egli non è altro che un barattiere, un cavaliere

d’industria, una cattivo soggetto
Literal translation: He is nothing more than a swindler, an adven-
turer, a bad person
English TT: He is nothing but an embezzler, a con artist, a
scapegrace
(Venuti: 1998, 17)
Of particular note in the example is the mismatch in register between

‘con artist’ and ‘scapegrace’, juxtaposing more modern American slang
and archaic British usages. For Venuti, this technique “immerses the
reader in a world that is noticeably distant in time, but nonetheless
affecting in contemporary terms” (ibid.), and he builds up these effects
by using this and other techniques throughout his translation. As the
84 Justice
back translation suggests, the Italian ‘una cattivo soggetto’ is a far less
marked usage [a bad person], and is certainly not an archaic British
usage. From a reader’s perspective, consider the following:
? How would you respond to coming across a sentence such as this

in a text?
? What would the odd, juxtaposed usages signal to you, if anything?
? Do you feel that this example is successful in making the trans-
lator visible?
Inghilleri: From Textual Justice to Wider Justice

Within Venuti’s ideas, there is a clear ideological belief in where we should
stand. This aim of making the translator visible and promoting cultural
innovation is, at its core, a personal take on what is ethical and what is
right and just, not just in terms of the words on the page, but in terms of
our position in the world more generally. Moira Inghilleri is another scholar
who offers a detailed personal take on matters of justice, problematising
notions of neutrality in the context of interpreting, raising “important eth-
ical issues concerning the clash or overlap between professional and personal
ethics” and provocatively defending the importance of an interpreter’s
personal ethical issues (Chesterman 2016: 193). This leap from translation
to interpreting explicitly is worth noting here. While, as mentioned in the
introduction, interpreting is subsumed within many of the discussions of
translation, this is a clear break, and it is important to consider the points of
overlap and difference between these practices, and the symmetry in some
of the developments across the domains. As Boéri and Delgado Luchner put
it, “the physical proximity of the interpreter with third parties imposes a
tangible limit on invisibility and impartiality (Angelelli 2004; Tipton 2008;
Wadensjö 1998)” (2021: 249). Indeed, Venuti’s invisible translator often
works alone and will never meet clients, authors, or intended audiences,
while an interpreter is inescapably ‘right there’, which has a clear impact on
the nature of their interventions (responses are uttered in real-time, often
with little opportunity for clarification, let alone extended reflection), the
nature of their relationships with the people around them (it is much more
difficult to be an impassive, neutral conduit when working in highly charged
situations such as warzones, or court proceedings, for instance), and the toll
of the work on the interpreter personally (see Chapter 8 for considerations
of the psychological impact of interpreting work in particular, where eth-
ical stress is seen and felt more acutely than in many cases of translation).
They continue by stating that impartiality is no longer viewed as an accurate
description of “the translator’s actual positionality” but acknowledge that
these research ideas have not had a huge impact on the professional context
Justice 85
and education settings, “which still largely subscribe to impartiality and
neutrality as inherently good”. This final remark is particularly important
as we get into Inghilleri’s work.
Pollabauer and Topolovec (2021: 211), meanwhile, describe how Public
Service Interpreting often involves high-stakes encounters that may possibly
entail life-changing decisions for public service users’ futures –think, for
instance of interpreters working in medical or legal contexts: does transla-
tion carry a comparable level of jeopardy? They state that the interactants
are driven by different motives, with interpreters being granted access to
confidential and private information, though I would argue that translators
too are privy to such information (and we will discuss this area in more
detail in relation to professional codes and standards in Chapter 7). In
terms of asymmetries, it is worth noting that interpreting similarly suffers
with problems of information asymmetry (see Pym in Chapter 4), a relative
lack of regulation, and often poor understandings of what the role entails,
meaning that considerations such as trust and risk do apply in this context.
Finally, for Inghilleri, interpreting represents translation in action, offering:
a first-hand unmediated glimpse into what all translation is, in what-

ever form: an instrument to reveal and represent the ‘living dialogue’
that contributes to the formation of worldviews, opinions, values, and
beliefs that are formed and transformed by human interaction and the
intervention of different environments.
(2012: 130)
Dismantling Neutrality and Impartiality in Interpreting

In the aptly- titled Interpreting Justice (2012), Inghilleri opens with an
account of the philosophy of language and critiques both objectivism and
relativism. The former is the belief that values, knowledge, truth, and mor-
ality are absolute and objective, and that they can be found in reality, while
the latter argues that they are relative to particular people, places, times, or
cultures, that is, that they depend on the individuals involved and cannot be
grounded. She considers the pragmatic importance of language functioning
and the inter-subjective nature of meaning –that is, meaning happens in con-
text between people who have their own beliefs, thoughts, and opinions –
which sets the foundation for a critique of neutrality within codes of ethics
(critiquing codes of ethics is a common theme in scholarly discourse on
ethics in TIS, an important point to bear in mind when we reach Chapter 7),
while also critiquing the potential of lapsing into a moral free-for-all (see
Chapter 6). She states that though codes offer some protection, they make
the mistake of assuming that the “principle demand on interpreters is a lin-
guistic or sociolinguistic one” (2012: 16), viewing “the interpreter’s job as
one of resolving questions of semantic uncertainty” and frequently appealing
“sometimes simultaneously, to relativist arguments about language and
86 Justice
culture and to objectivist accounts of meaning” (2012: 13). The interpreter
is both a cultural mediator “whose role it is to identify and explain diffe-
rence in order to overcome it”, while also being expected to recover some
meaning that is “out there”. This implies that the interpreter works on a
linguistic level to ensure that nothing changes –“[t]‌he consequence of either
of these perspectives is to perceive the interpreter’s role as one of seeking to
establish the sameness of a world beyond language” (ibid.). For example, the
ITI (Institute of Translation and Interpreting, a prominent UK-based trans-
lation association) requires that members
shall interpret impartially between the various parties in the languages

for which they are registered with the Institute and, with due regard
to the circumstances prevailing at the time, take all reasonable steps
to ensure complete and effective communication between the parties,
including intervention to prevent misunderstandings and incorrect cul-
tural references.
(2016: 9, bold added)
This implies that complete semantic accuracy is expected of interpreters,

who are also expected to step in to resolve points of confusion. As we will
see below, this is not an easily resolved tension and, while interpreters will
sometimes justify their methods based on these ethical principles, at other
times they are compelled to deviate from them.
Rather, Inghilleri argues that the decisions interpreters make extend far
beyond their linguistic abilities, confronting “the boundaries of their know-
ledge, their beliefs, their prior experiences, and their ethical practice both
professionally and personally” (2012: 17), particularly in situations of
conflict –asylum hearings or war zones, for instance. For her, this is where
loyalty and impartiality “confront questions of justice and individual con-
science” (ibid.), and she goes on to provide example cases from interviews
with interpreters and written accounts from military interpreters. These
examples illustrate instances in which interpreters use their cultural and
experiential knowledge to clarify points or redirect arguments in asylum
cases to assist or uphold speakers’ “communicative objectives”, perhaps to
gain asylum, or to undermine a case for asylum in (2012: 16). In her chapter
on warzone interpreting, meanwhile, she shows how impartiality and neu-
trality are less central in taking up their roles –many interpreters choose to
work for one side or another for ideological or financial reasons, but this is
still occasionally seen as a virtue. She concludes the discussion of objectivity
and subjectivity as follows in a key passage:
Acknowledging semantic uncertainty as an aspect of all communica-

tion and all interpreted interactions does not imply that confrontations
of beliefs and attitudes in communicative encounters must lead to
Justice 87
misunderstanding or reinforce divisions. All confrontation is productive
communication in that it defines over and over again, from one commu-
nicative context to another, how we understand perceive and experience
the world. There is, however, no way to stand outside of our beliefs to
check their validity, or to check whether our beliefs coincide with the
beliefs of others.
(Inghilleri: 2012, 24)
This sees us arc away from suppositions of truth and veracity, with this
inevitable, personal, active mediation on the part of the interpreter/trans-
lator calling for us to reconsider images of neutrality and impartiality.
Inghilleri goes on to comment how this widespread image of interpreters
as neutral participants limits their ability to make “independent and spe-
cialist contributions toward the achievement of communicative objectives”
(2012: 31) and, crucially, breaking with neutrality is an important tool in
achieving justice. In their professional roles, interpreters act depending par-
tially on the range of groups and communities that they belong to, each often
having contradictory roles. This move is made through Habermas’s dis-
course ethics –an intersubjective approach to ethics, which is tailored to the
social and communicative practice of interpreting. It recognises the inherent
inter-subjectivity of ethics, “links the ethical beyond the question of duty,
and demonstrates how communicative reason and reciprocal recognition
can work together to achieve expanded worldviews or consensus amongst
many different individuals and groups” (2012: 38). But this is undermined
by the assumption that all conversation partners “share a common commu-
nicative framework” (ibid. 39) and just like interpreter ethics, “views impar-
tiality and rationality as the means to guarantee equality” (ibid.). Ethics
is indeed inherently intersubjective –an interaction taking place between
people –but not all conversation partners share a common communicative
framework. Rather, the framework in which this dialogue takes place is full
of unequal power relations and incompatible interests, “where equal par-
ticipatory rights are not a given[,]‌and distorted communication remains
the norm.” Importantly, “even in institutions explicitly committed to giving
a voice to the less powerful, the norm of interpreter impartiality can serve a
prohibitive function in the fulfilment of this agenda” (2012: 40), and “when
domination-free communication is not only not guaranteed but is positively
constrained by legal and political institutions or between nations at war,
the idea that impartiality guarantees the equal rights of interlocutors has a
hollow ring” (ibid. 50).
Cultural Mediators
The alternative proposed by Inghilleri, placing language in context “shifts
the focus of attention to language as a tool which along with other tools
88 Justice
helps interlocutors to achieve their communicative objectives in a given
context” (ibid. 13). Instead of just absent mindedly carrying across infor-
mation, interpreters are to become mediators who actively select and make
choices in relation to the various (self)interests involved, a move that often
goes “under the radar” (ibid. 30) because of the prevailing codes and pro-
fessional norms. Inghilleri forcefully states the case for this shift to a model
of mediation by asserting that “[i]‌nterpreters must be permitted to exercise
their agency to voice their concerns, to make what they deem to be the right
ethical choice in the moment, even if their professional duty suggests other-
wise” (ibid. 48). Inghilleri then turns to communitarian approaches, which
“detach ethical subjectivity from notions of impartiality and universal
concepts of justice”, instead attaching it to notions of culture, commu-
nity, and solidarity (ibid. 42). Within this school of thought, “as moral dis-
course is always situated within individual, social, and historical contexts,
the issue of the right thing to do is always about the right thing for us to
do, according to whatever substantive conceptions of the good presently
inform a community” (ibid. 42–43). This cannot address global issues, nor
can it reconcile a plurality of views within the same community, but she
argues that this and discourse ethics both “recognize the significance of
communication and political community to broaden our thinking with a
view to increase understanding and reduce misunderstanding between our-
selves and different others” (ibid. 45). Factors to consider in interpreting
include (ibid. 14) the following:
• What is at stake for individual participants in an interpreted event?

• What are the professional, ethical, political, social, or personal risks
involved in the interaction?
• Is there a potential for conflicting views over what may be reasonably
meant or understood by an utterance in the particular situation?
• And, what ethical, political, or social factors may lie behind a claim that
one participant’s understanding of an utterance is reasonable or that
another’s should be challenged?
Finally, to return to the aforementioned similarities and differences

between translation and interpreting, when discussing progress in
Interpreting Studies in relation to Translation Studies specifically (and
literary translation ethics in particular, e.g. Venuti), Inghilleri posits that
both translation and interpreting ethics can invest their practitioners with
more agency to increase the general status of languages in cultures in
an array of contexts. However, she notes that developments cannot con-
sider the meaning of utterances in isolation from the producers of those
utterances (2012: 128–129). Authors, or rather speakers, are right there
in interpreting.
Justice 89
Box 5.3 A critique of cultural mediators

Angelelli (2004: 129–133) similarly argues that an ‘invisible’ inter-
preter model is inadequate to capture what happens in the role but, an
example also cited by Hale (2008: 111) and Skaaden (2019: 706–709),
demonstrates potential difficulties within the cultural mediator model
too. The following example, an interpreted exchange in a US med-
ical setting, illustrates the ‘visible’ interpreter and their effect on the
communication between interlocutors –here, the doctor and patient.
The interpreter, Joaquín, enacts his full potential of agency by deciding
what to render and what to omit. The dialogue is included in full
below. For the sake of clarity and concision, I have simply included lit-
eral English translations rather than the Spanish (in square brackets).
The doctor’s input is in bold italics, the interpreter in plain text, and
the patient’s input in bold. Bear in mind considerations of maximising
communication, advocacy, and information asymmetry when reading
the dialogue and consider to what extent the interpreter’s active inter-
vention is helpful.
(1) Doctor: In a scale from one to ten, how would she rate her
pain?
(2) Interpreter: [Let’s see Mrs. Rita, on a scale from one to ten,
what number would you assign to your pain? For example, if one is
a pain that would allow you to go dancing, and you almost don’t feel
anything and ten is so painful that you are dying, where would that
pain be?]
(3) Patient: [What did you say?]
(4) Interpreter: [What […] what number would you give to
your pain?]
(5) Patient: [Well, it hurts a lot.]
(6) Interpreter: [How much is a lot, Ma’am? Does a lot mean you are
dying from the pain?]
(7) Patient: [Well […] no […] not dying, but –]
(8) Interpreter: [Which things can you do when you are in pain?]
(9) Patient: [Well, I don’t know […] When it is very bad I sit down.]
(10) Interpreter: [But, can you cook when you are in pain?]
(11) Patient: [Sometimes it is very bad, and I can’t.]
(12) Interpreter: [And at those times, does it feel like you are going
to die, or is it not that bad?]
(13) Patient: [No, not like I’m going to die, it just hits me hard.]
(14) Interpreter: [Do we give it an eight or a nine?]
(15) Patient: [Well, I don’t know, well yes …]
(16) Interpreter: When it is most painful it would be close to an
eight, Doctor.
(17) Doctor: Okay.
90 Justice
? What do you make of the interpreter’s role in this case?

? The interpreter clearly did more than simply carry across a message
in a neutral, invisible manner, but was their input of use?
Skaaden (2019: 708) comments on the way in which the inter-

preter “singlehandedly interviews the patient in Spanish”, depriving
the doctor of “insight into the patient’s pain experience” as they are
left oblivious to the patient’s lack of understanding of the numeric
scale. Ultimately, she never answers the doctor’s question. In this
way, interpreters displaying their agency may hinder the interlocutors
from clarifying misunderstandings and expanding their common
knowledge, which are two central aspects of human communication.
Rather, as Angelelli (2004: 138) observes, the consequence is often the
opposite of the parties achieving their communicative goals. It is also
worth noting that the practitioner observed in this case lacked inter-
preter training, which could perhaps instil a greater understanding of
the mediatory role.
On a wider level, Skaaden comments that the fluid, dynamic role
that many suggest interpreters should play would allow them to act as
‘negotiators’ and even ‘co-diagnosticians’ (Skaaden 2019: 709). This
role sees interpreters adapt their actions as an interaction develops in
order to pursue their intended outcome, with a consequentialist out-
look replacing prescriptive, norm-based guidance rooted in fidelity.
However, Skaaden asserts that questions remain as to the consequences
of this role fluidity and that it does not necessarily fully alleviate issues
of prescription. Indeed, “[w]‌hether the mandate is to be an advocate
or to be a faithful renderer of the utterances, it is equally prescriptive”
(Hale: 2008, 101) and ill-defined or confusing roles or an absence of a
clear, prescribed role are all damaging.
Conclusion
Ultimately, these calls for greater respect for difference and justice are excep-
tionally compelling and have been echoed by other scholars. Tymoczcko,
for instance, calls for “a more just world where difference is welcome”
(Tymoczko: 2007, 232). Returning to our overarching ethical divide –as
we have done at several points –we are firmly in the macro-ethical realm
at this point. While Venuti’s foreignising strategies can be on a small-scale
textual level, their purpose is to enact change on a wider social (and pol-
itical) scale, demonstrating the interaction between the different levels
of ethics illustrated in the Introduction. There is a parallel between ideas
from Schleiermacher here too –both he and Venuti are striving for change,
but their ideological aims are very different. While Venuti is promoting
Justice 91
recognition of the foreign –his transgressive methods seek to do “justice to
the ethos of the foreign culture” (Chesterman 2016: 170) –Schleiermacher’s
project was to ultimately promote the target language. All of this ties to
questions of status, power, and the translator’s role in society.
Koskinen (2000: 99) helpfully breaks visibility down into three different
types: textual visibility, paratextual visibility, and extratextual visibility.
Textual visibility allows the translator to mark their presence within a
text, for instance by using foreignising techniques. Paratextual visibility
is seen in translator’s introductions, prefaces, and footnotes, for example.
Extratextual visibility, meanwhile, looks beyond the translation task to the
translator’s social role and wider status –marketing, public appearances,
interviews, and so forth, can all be considered part of this domain. Venuti’s
work seeks to tackle each of these areas, and it is vital that we engage on all
three levels. Again, Chesterman captures it nicely: “[i]‌nvisible translators,
who seek to efface themselves textually, also tend to get effaced socially”
(2016: 167). Beyond the text, issues including copyright, conditions of work
and pay, acknowledgements and understandings of the translator’s role and
input, and the promotion of translation and TIS all feed into ongoing wider
attempts to change the status quo. We will return to many of these questions
in a professional context in Chapter 8.
For Inghilleri, meanwhile, there is a similarly social undercurrent to her
thought. “Translators are pivotal players in global events, operating at the
grinding edge of their associated conflicts and controversial politics” and,
particularly in situations of conflict, the question of translation goes beyond
linguistic or cultural judgement to take on ethical and political dimensions,
which require an ethics of translation that “takes as its starting point the
actual social conditions in which translators operate” (Inghilleri 2008: 212).
Inghilleri’s provocative thought points out the impossibility of standing
“outside of our beliefs to check their validity, or to check whether our beliefs
coincide with the beliefs of others” (Inghilleri (2012: 24), with translators
and interpreters becoming active, key players in communication, “facili-
tating open negotiations over meaning” (2012: 51). This shatters thought
grounded in neutrality and impartiality and calls for personal and social
responsibility to be included within our ethical calculations, particularly
where questions of justice and fairness are concerned. Inghilleri product-
ively brings the personal dimension of ethics into focus and this is where
our attention lies in Chapter 6. Building upon this active, non-neutral basis
to translation, we pick up some threads in relation to personal and profes-
sional ethics and push the idea of agency even further from the neutral con-
duit model critiqued here.

1. Presentation task: To what extent do the same ethical challenges apply
to both translation and interpreting? What are the key differences
between the two practices?
92 Justice
2. As Boéri and Delgado Luchner put it, “the physical proximity of the
interpreter with third parties imposes a tangible limit on invisibility
and impartiality” (2021: 249). Does this mean that impartiality is less
possible in the context of interpreting/more possible in the context of
translation?
3. Venuti argues that translation is fundamentally domesticating, but the
translator can choose an ‘ethics of difference’. Should translators adopt
this ‘ethics of difference’ and make themselves visible in the text? And is
this visibility empowering or problematic for the translator?
Notes
1 Though we only cover these two key texts by Venuti here, his work on ethics
has extended into the twenty-first century. Indeed, his 2012 collection of papers,
Translation Changes Everything, tracks the development of his thought on ethics,
in some ways departing from the works considered in this chapter, though Venuti
retains his ethical commitments explored here. We consider some of these later
ideas in Chapter 9.
2 In what is a particularly scathing account of Venuti’s take on translation compared
to Berman’s, Folkart goes even further in suggesting that “[w]‌ here Berman’s
reasoning is complex, audacious, and profound, Venuti’s account of it is simplistic
and impoverishing. Of the crucial terms “original,” “pure nouveauté,” « pur
surgissement” and “manifester dans sa langue cette pure nouveauté en préservant
son visage de nouveauté” he has understood nothing” (Folkart 2006: 295).
Further Reading
Inghilleri’s wonderful (2012) Interpreting Justice is worth reading in full for its wide-
ranging and illuminating thought on neutrality, conflict, politics, and language.
While it deals with the context of interpreting specifically, the way in which it
reshapes theoretical and professional perspectives on language make it an invalu-
able source for anyone involved in the language industry. Similarly, Venuti’s
The Translator’s Visibility (and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent The Scandals
of Translation) are must-reads for anyone interested in the world of transla-
tion. However, for a more accessible entry point to Venuti’s ideas, Laaksonen
and Koskinen’s chapter in The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics
(Chapter 10: Venuti and the ethics of difference) is a wonderful source. Finally,
for applications of politics and difference in the Chinese context, see Guangqin
(2021: 31–33).
6 Commitment
Key questions
• As translators and interpreters, how embedded are we with the
content we translate?
• How can (or should) we engage with the world in a meaningful
manner?
• How has translation ethics been theorised in relation to activism?
And how can we combat the relativism that ensues from a more
activist approach?
Consolidating our transition from actions to people, this chapter considers

viewpoints that could fall under the ethical school of thought known as
moral particularism –emphasising context, responsibility, and account-
ability. While some limit personal accountability, others place a more
central emphasis on the importance of this side of ethics. Indeed, in con-
trast to detached views of professional ethics, scholars such as Inghilleri
and Baker –whose ideas we explore further below –make the case for
the translator’s active engagement in society, enacting a ‘higher’ social and
ethical aim of contributing to the improvement of society (this theme also
returns in Chapter 8 in the professional context). In addition, Gouanvic
insists that the translator “retains a responsibility to the future of target
societies” (Gouanvic 2001: 209). From focusing purely on texts, to thinking
about the various agents in the translation encounter, we are now building
upon the ideas in Chapter 5 to consider how we can or should handle the
potential current and future societal impacts of our work.
With the translator’s role increasingly viewed as that of an active medi-
ator, and even the potential for activist roles, in ethical terms we must be
able to assume responsibility for our work. While traditional accounts of
neutrality shield translators from this level of scrutiny, a closer look exposes
a trade-off between power and responsibility. This chapter continues by
exploring the continuum of agency and the limitations of pure relativism in
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-7
94 Commitment
TIS. Finally, we consider Andrew Chesterman’s (2017) emerging notion of
a translational telos (as opposed to skopos) as a conception embedding this
personal agency and accountability.
? What do the terms ‘advocate’, ‘activist’, and ‘accountability’ mean to

you? Are there any points of overlap or key differences?
Personal versus Professional Ethics and Commitment

To begin with, let us return to a topic that has been at the heart of many of the
discussions so far: responsibility. Now, however, we must add a commitment
to the content we are working with to our range of considerations. While
Phelan (2001: 56) reports that codes of ethics (see Chapter 7) enshrine the
belief that “[i]‌nterpreters/transliterators […] are not at all responsible for
what is said, only for conveying it accurately”, this image has sparked debate
in TIS, where responsibility “for the broader socio-cultural effects of trans-
lation is precisely where schools of thought in TS seem to diverge” (Phelan
et al. 2020: 64). Consider the following somewhat opposing viewpoints as a
starting point to illustrate this personal-professional split:
• Pym (2012: 67): “there is no need for translators to claim (or to be

attributed with) any commitment to the content of what they are
translating.”1
• Kruger and Crots (2014: 149): “there is a responsibility to resist situ-
ations of injustice or unfairness founded on responsibility towards
society at large.”
Pym’s early work on ethics puts forward a case for detachment from any
commitment to the content of the work we take on. He states that non-
translational ideologies, such as a refusal to translate certain content, must
lie beyond “the space in which a professional ethics can be developed” (Pym
1992: 151). In other words, while accepting that “professional subjectivity
never suppresses individual subjectivity in the intimate space of doubt” and
that personal beliefs do not go away, these personal desires are viewed as
incompatible with or at least exterior to professional needs (Pym 2012: 80).
This is a powerful argument –particularly in the context of professional
formulations of ethics, perhaps unsurprisingly, as we will see more clearly
in Chapter 7. However, as we have seen in exploring Inghilleri’s work in
Chapter 5, the personal dimension to ethics can be very hard to avoid and
simply deciding not to translate is not always feasible.
A fascinating counterargument comes from Kruger and Crots, whose
2014 paper ‘Professional and personal ethics in translation: a survey of
South African translators’ translation strategies and motivations’, not only
offers a concise history of the development of thought on ethics in TIS, but
Commitment 95
also provides empirical data exploring key ethical questions. In their study,
the authors distributed 9 texts containing elements that could be seen as
ethically problematic (racist or sexist language, for instance) to 31 South
African translators. The translators were then asked what their translation
methodology would be if they were presented with the texts as professional
translators. The authors found that respondents selected strategies based on
personal and professional reasoning at almost the same rate (professional
ethics 51% of the time, personal 49%). This led them to conclude that
[i]‌t therefore seems as if personal ethics does play a substantial role

in the decisions made when translating a text, and professional status
does not suppress the tendency to articulate ethical motivations from
a personal, rather than a professional, subject position and frame of
reference.
(Kruger and Crots 2014: 165)
This conclusion leads them to accord a greater level of importance to

personal ethics than is the case in others’ thought and to give increased
prominence to the translators’ wider sociocultural responsibility, situ-
ating “the professional activity of translation as an intrinsic part of a larger
social practice with a clear ethical mandate (of social justice)” (Phelan et al.
2020: 64). Placing this in the context of what has come before, professional
translator ethics should not only consider professional responsibility to the
client, the text, and the profession, but also a personal ethics “founded on
loyalty towards the translator’s own system of beliefs” (Kruger and Crots
2014, 149). Phelan et al. (2020: 64) label this as a “[l]‌oyalty to a higher
level”.
There is a complex interplay between these systems in the translator’s
decision-making processes and, while there remains a distinction between
personal and professional ethics, Kruger and Crots afford it a more central
role in ethics overall, acknowledging that “[t]‌ranslators are humans, and
like all humans, they have a system of beliefs that inform how they choose
to live their lives” (2014, 149). By contrast, Pym’s move to the question of
“why translate?” which is answered with the call to promote cooperation,
limits a translator’s responsibilities and sidesteps the issue of personal
engagement. For him, the ethical translator may sometimes decide that
it is better not to translate at all. Unfortunately, this is not fully represen-
tative of the way that professional translators work, in part due to the
asymmetrical power relations that Pym notes elsewhere (see Chapter 4, 5,
and 8). Cooperation is not the professional translator’s only consideration,
and the decision to translate is often taken based upon their own sense of
what is or is not acceptable, or necessary (or, indeed, how much they are
getting paid!), not simply whether their input will benefit the profession as
a whole. For instance, using the example of morally questionable content
96 Commitment
in a text, in a 2020 survey of 1,264 freelance translators, UK-based pro-
fessional translation agency Inbox Translation asked translators whether
they had ever refused, or would refuse, to work on texts relating to a wide
range of traditionally taboo subjects. Only 17 per cent of respondents
said that they would not refuse work in any subject area, reaffirming the
inescapably personal nature of decisions on what is and is not acceptable
(personal correspondence with managing director of Inbox Translation,
April 2020). Considering the human agent involved and their personal
beliefs and moral viewpoints represents another step forward in the devel-
opment of the field.
Finally, returning to Inghilleri, this exclusion of personal ethics –the
assumption that translators and interpreters’ roles can be detached from
personal responses –denies them the ability to give expression “to what
Zygmunt Bauman has described as the inescapable burden of individual
conscience and our moral proximity to others” (Inghilleri 2012: 40).
Bauman eloquently captures this personal demand in a quote that is well-
worth repeating here (Bauman 1993: 53, original italics):
Pointing my finger away from myself –‘this is what people do, this is
how things are’ –does not save me from sleepless nights and days full
of self-deprecation. ‘I have done my duty’ may perhaps get the judges
off my back but won’t disband the jury of what I, for not being able to
point my finger at anybody, call ‘conscience’. ‘The duty of us all’ which
I know, does not seem to be the same thing as my responsibility which
I feel.
If we view the translator’s role as that of an active mediator, in ethical terms

they must be able to assume responsibility for their work. While domains
such as literary and religious translation often engage with questions of taste
and morality in more depth, Baker (2013, n.p.) argues that the “prototype”
of professional translators or interpreters presented to students is an apolit-
ical servant to their fee-paying client, a viewpoint supported by the influen-
tial status of skopos theory, accused of creating “mercenary experts” (Pym
1996: 338) (see Chapter 4 for more on skopos and its link to ethics). The
case studies in Box 6.1 will help to place these competing concerns in con-
text. After reading the cases, consider the following questions:
? What is your take on the “I’m just a translator” defence as a justification

for taking on ethically problematic projects? Is there any content that
you would refuse to translate?
? Do you believe that it is possible to separate our personal and profes-
sional selves in some contexts?
? Should we always commit to specific causes when we translate/inter-
pret? (We’ll return to this question below)
Commitment 97
Box 6.1 “I’m just the translator”

In the late 1940s and 1950s, many Nazi leaders on trial for war crimes
claimed that they were simply following orders and thus doing their
duty, which they viewed as a moral law of the highest order. Ultimately,
however, the tribunals passing sentences concluded that everyone
is morally and legally responsible for their own actions, and being
commanded to act in an illegal or immoral way does not override
personal responsibility for that action (Phelan et al. 2020: 17).
In recent years, a number of nonagenarians of lesser status have
stood trial for Nazi war crimes, and the nature of their roles forces
us to question whether we can ever simply argue that we are just
“doing our job”. The case of John Demjanjuk is particularly fitting
here (see Pidd 2011). In 2011, then aged 91, Demjanjuk, was found
guilty of accessory to murder on the basis of having been a guard
at a concentration camp. Dutch Nazi war crimes expert, Professor
Christiaan F Rüter, described Demjanjuk as “the littlest of the little
fishes” (Guardian 2011) when he became the lowest ranking person
ever tried in Germany for Nazi war crimes, lowering the standard of
proof needed for a conviction for playing a part in the Holocaust.
Though Demjanjuk died in March 2012 before a final judgement
could be made on his appeal, therefore technically remaining innocent,
the initial conviction set a legal precedent in Germany and sparked a
number of further prosecutions.
In the context of translation specifically, cases this shocking are
harder to come by, but the appalling murder of Hitoshi Igarashi, the
Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, again
blurs the lines. Rushdie’s novel caused considerable controversy
within Muslim communities, and the author was forced into hiding
in February 1989, when Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini issued a death sentence or fatwa against him, charging that
The Satanic Verses blasphemed the Islamic faith. Following the issuing
of a further fatwa in 1991, Igarashi was stabbed repeatedly by an
unknown assailant, nine days after the Italian translator of the contro-
versial book was attacked and wounded in Milan in an event that was
suspected to be linked to the murder (these cases resurfaced once again
in August 2022 when Rushdie himself was stabbed repeatedly ahead
of a lecture in Chautauqua).
Interestingly, and somewhat in contradiction with the arguments
stated at the start of this chapter, Pym (2012: 56–57) considers this
particular case and writes that each translator is deeply responsible for
what they do with the material they work on: “[i]‌n terms of strictly
intercultural ethics there is no reason to believe that the translators
98 Commitment
of Satanic Verses are somehow less responsible than the author who
wrote the book or the editor who chose to publish it. […] In this,
translators are not simple messengers. […] They have choices, and thus
responsibility.”
Though rather extreme examples, these cases force us to question
the extent to which we are complicit in the events that we are privy
to or content that we translate. Though it may seem far less likely
that we are likely to court controversy when translating in more banal
contexts, a sensitivity to the wider contexts in which we are working
and how that fits in with our own beliefs and convictions (and indeed
what our beliefs and convictions are to begin with) is vitally important.
Even a seemingly innocent translation of a short press release could
raise questions. For instance, who are the company we are translating
for? Do they hire/ treat/
pay their employees in an ethical manner?
What is their impact on the environment (see Chapter 8 for more on
sustainability)?
From Mediators to Advocates

If we follow the argument that there is an inescapable personal dimension
to our ethical decision-making, a new scale emerges. While the section above
separates personal and professional, these are not simple, one-dimensional
constructs. We will explore various takes on what makes a “professional”
in the next two chapters, and here we turn to examining the sliding scale
of “personal” involvement. Indeed, there are degrees of agency, as the
discussions in the previous chapter hopefully began to make clear. Below we
examine the sliding scale from mediation to activism, via advocates.
Figure 6.1 provides an adapted continuum of agency that allows us to
glimpse where these enquiries fit in relation to what has come before more
clearly. Pollabauer and Topolovec consider something of a continuum in the
field of PSI, mainly exploring the two poles in the figure, while I adapt this
model to represent more of a sliding scale and to add a little more detail,
suggesting varying degrees of agency and involvement from the translator
or interpreter.
At the far left-hand side of the continuum, we find the least active role that
is “distinctly distant and non-activist”, calling upon notions of invisibility
and neutrality that we critiqued in Chapter 5. In the middle, we find our
cultural mediators or communication facilitators, who are more involved
in the meaning transfer process. Pollabauer and Topolovec’s comments on
the context of healthcare interpreting provide a fitting example for this
mid-point on the scale. As they explain: “[s]‌ome healthcare providers and
patients alike ‘expect interpreters to adopt a more engaged role, including,
for instance, the articulation of personal opinions, providing practical
Commitment 99
Invisible Communication facilitators Helpers

Conduit Cultural brokers Advocates
Neutral Cultural mediators Institutional allies
“decidedly
(intentionally or
“Distinctly distanced Less interpreter More interpreter
unintentionally)
and non-activist role” involvement involvement
activist and
interventionist role”
Some healthcare providers

Widely viewed as unrealistic and and patients “active support of a cause”
yet still influential in legal and (Collins 2019b) or “active support
military contexts of someone”
The continuum of agency, adapted from Pollabauer and Topolovec

Figure 6.1
2021: 215–219.
support and emotional comfort, and keeping interactants’ secrets (e.g. Hsieh
2006, 726-727; Zendedel et al. 2016, 983)’ ” (2021: 216). At the right-hand
edge, meanwhile, we get into activist territory, with interpreters described as
helpers, advocates, or institutional allies. Here, their role is decidedly inter-
ventionist and actively supports a cause or an individual. While Inghilleri
champions mediation (a concept that is not straightforward or unproblem-
atic, as illustrated in Box 5.3), the thought of Mona Baker, discussed in the
next section, takes us into the realm of activism proper.
In a professional context, meanwhile, advocacy has also begun to come
more to the forefront in recent times and was the subject of a February 2021
guide from the NCIHC (National Council on Interpreting in Health Care)
in relation to healthcare. Though, as we will see, there is a stark difference in
the way advocacy is conceptualised and employed between theoretical and
professional contexts. The association astutely comment on an important
distinction to make between general message conversion and advocacy. As
they note,
[m]‌ost commonly, interventions such as asking for clarification, cultural

brokering, or managing the flow of communication have, at times, been
mistakenly called advocacy. These interventions, as we will explain later,
are not acts of advocacy because they support the healthcare interpreter’s
primary function of facilitating accurate and complete communication
and understanding within the encounter.
Rather, they define advocacy as
‘the act or process of supporting a cause or a proposal’ (Definition of

ADVOCACY, 2019). It is ‘the act of speaking on behalf of or in support
of another person, place, or thing’ (Your Dictionary, 2020). Advocacy,
100 Commitment
therefore, is the act of coming to the aid of another by supporting their
cause or issue to arrive at a desired resolution.
(NCIHC 2021: 12)
They add that advocates are defined by two conditions:
Speaking for, acting on behalf of, or representing an individual, group,

issue, or cause. A person who advocates supports the interests of the
person, group, or issue (ibid. 12).
Seeking to persuade or influence those with the authority to come to a
resolution in line with the (best) interests of the person(s), issue, or cause
they represent. Such persuasion goes beyond simply informing those in
authority that a problem exists (ibid. 13).
They conclude by attempting to overturn the image of the advocate as an

adversarial stance “in which a third party enters a conflict or disagreement
to support, promote, or defend the interests of one party against the interests
of another” to instead consider it as a collaborative approach –still speaking
on behalf, but doing so by engaging in “collaborative problem solving”
(ibid.). Importantly, the NCIHC also argue that
[h]‌ealthcare interpreters should only consider the need for advocacy

after they have tried all other interventions to alert the parties to the
potential for serious imminent harm to the patient, whether physical or
emotional, and the attempts have failed to address the concern.
(2021: 32)
Far from being a default position when interpreting, advocacy is an extremely

rare occurrence and, in some ways, a last resort. It is also tempered by sev-
eral questions to ask yourself, which raise some rather troubling points. For
instance, they ask you to ensure that your assessment is “unbiased by your
own feelings and opinions” and that “no one else will recognise and correct
the potential for serious harm before harm occurs” (ibid. 36) and “[h]‌ave
you exhausted all the interventions you have at your disposal to transpar-
ently alert the parties to the potential for imminent harm without having
to advocate” (ibid. 38). While obviously an important step in surpassing
traditional notions of neutrality, the neutral, accurate translator is still hier-
archically superior in this framework, and intervention is kept to a bare
minimum.
Overall, these are challenging, slippery terms, with different bodies and
thinkers using different definitions. And, though the continuum above
groups activism and advocacy together –and there is crossover between
the two terms as activism can be viewed as a form of advocacy –the means
are often different. Advocacy involves working to make needs heard while
activism involves taking direct action to achieve a political or social goal.
Commitment 101
Indeed, the NCIHC seek to view advocacy as a non-adversarial relationship,
while activist stances tend to lean towards a more militant context.
Narrative Theory: From Advocates to Activists

Though Venuti is not included under the umbrella of activist translation, his
work can arguably be seen as feeding into this important and challenging
area of translation practice. Boéri and Delgado Luchner (2021: 246) agree
with Venuti in claiming that every act of translation can be seen as being
ideologically motivated, at both a macro and micro level. At the macro level,
choosing what gets translated is an ideologically motivated decision, while
on the micro level the linguistic choices we make (such as those contributing
to domesticating or foreignising effects) are at stake. Boéri and Delgado
Luchner define activist translation and interpreting as practices that set out
to “connect across the globe and to bring about social and political change”
(Boéri 2019: 1) and to disrupt dominant discourses and institutions. Activist
movements have “agendas that explicitly challenge the dominant narratives
of the time” (Baker 2006: 462) –that is, “practices that are intentionally and
explicitly geared towards social change and a disruption of existing power
structures” –and within the context of this definition there is clear overlap
between Venuti’s ideas and activist, feminist, humanitarian, and develop-
mental translation.
However, it is only in the twenty-first century that this has been used as an
explicit label to describe these endeavours in TIS. Baker’s work on ethics is a
hugely influential and thought-provoking contribution to this field. While we
will explore some of her general thoughts, which lead us to accountability
later in this section, it is first useful to look into the theoretical backdrop
she uses to foreground the activist role of the translator: narrative theory.
This framework is based upon a sociological understanding of narrative as
an active, reality-constructing tool. It has been adopted by several transla-
tion and interpreting theorists as a powerful tool for exploring practitioners’
choices, as well as for examining the ethical implications of those choices.
When thinking about what a narrative is, a traditional answer might be: ‘It’s
a story, with a beginning, a middle and an end. It’s something people tell. It’s
a way of communicating or expressing experiences.’ This literary description
depicts narrative as primarily representational; we have experiences –or
we invent imaginative experiences –and use language to relate these back
to an audience. Yet this concept raises many questions: How do we decide
what to include in our narrative, for example? Why do different people tell
different narrative versions of the same events? ‘Narrative’ in this context
means much more than a straight-forward representation of reality. It is a
problematisation of storytelling.
As Somers and Gibson (1994: 59) state, “[i]‌ t is through narrativity
that we come to know, understand and make sense of the social world,
and it is through narratives and narrativity that we constitute our social
102 Commitment
identities.” Baker uses this concept of narrative to explain both the ideolo-
gies underlying translation choices and our understanding of what transla-
tion is. Translators, she argues, occupy a privileged position as mediators of
these stories because of the nature of their work. One of her fundamental
assumptions is that translators can never be entirely neutral. For her, the
idea of translators as neutral mediators is not only unrealistic, but it should
not be held as an ideal either, precisely because we are always inevitably
embedded in complex political, institutional, social contexts. Translators
do not inhabit a borderland in between different cultures, a hybrid ‘third
space’, they are embedded in situations which are often unavoidably
political.
Narratives in this view are public and personal ‘stories’ that we sub-
scribe to and that guide our behaviour. They are the stories we tell our-
selves, not just those we explicitly tell other people, about the world(s) we
live in. Narrativity does not only help us to understand reality, it makes up
that reality, which shifts and changes over time. Every person subscribes
to a selection of narratives about various aspects of reality, and our belief
in these narratives guides our actions and therefore helps to construct
reality. Its value lies in the fact that is it considered to solve a number of
issues perceived in TIS including: moving beyond a traditional preoccu-
pation with equivalence, binarisms, and linguistic analysis; overturning
the assumption of neutrality (like Inghilleri does); embedding translators
in the wider context of their work; and turning our attention squarely
towards ethics.
Somers and Gibson divide narratives into four broad, overlapping cat-
egories, which interact with one another, and there is a porous, evolving, and
mutually enriching level of interaction between them:
• Personal/ontological narratives – As Baker (2009: 226) puts it,

“[p]‌ersonal narratives are narratives of the self, typically stories which
locate the narrating subject at the centre of events.”
• Public narratives –According to Somers and Gibson, public narratives
(also known as ‘shared narratives’) are the stories which circulate
amongst groups larger than the individual, such as in the family, work-
place, church, government, or nation. Examples could include narratives
about Islamic fundamentalism or gay rights (Baker 2006: 33). Baker
(2009: 226) describes public narratives as “the bread and butter of the
translation and interpreting business.”
• Conceptual narratives –These are specialist/expert accounts of some
phenomenon in the world. Baker (2006: 39) defines them as “the stories
and explanations that scholars in any field elaborate for themselves and
others about their object of enquiry.” Despite their scale and often a sup-
posedly detached, scientific status, they are no more authoritative than
other types. Baker gives the example of discourse around slavery, which
was used as a “scientific” approach in the nineteenth century to define a
hierarchy between black and white people.
Commitment 103
• Meta (or master) narratives –These are shared stories with extensive
temporal and spatial reach, and are often conceptual narratives that
have acquired an almost inescapable breadth. “Metanarratives are the
‘master-narratives’ in which we are embedded as contemporary actors
… the epic dramas of our times” (Somers and Gibson 1994: 63).
Baker points out that translators and interpreters are often involved in
translating personal narratives (the autobiography of a Holocaust survivor,
for example). But, we can never fully step out of our own narrative position,
we are always governed by our own beliefs and positions. There is no magic-
ally neutral vantage point and, at the level of public narratives in particular,
translators and interpreters assist their proliferation across linguistic and
cultural borders. Indeed, due to the international nature of metanarratives,
Baker (2006: 46) argues that it is impossible for public narratives to rise
to the status of metanarratives without the involvement of translators and
interpreters. Importantly, however, translators and interpreters can also
challenge and subvert those narratives –the idea of renarration –and this is
where the idea of activism comes into play.
Translators can use their personal narratives to resist dominant public
narratives and promote alternative versions, and activist translation is pre-
cisely the act of subverting these dominant narratives and/or promoting the
narrative(s) that they subscribe to. In her work, Baker explores numerous
cases of translators taking ‘direct action’ to subvert narratives. Ultimately,
“[w]‌hether the motivation is commercial or ideological, translators and
interpreters play a decisive role in both articulating and contesting the full
range of public narratives circulating within and around any society at any
moment in time” (Baker 2006: 38). Importantly:
[R]‌
omanticizing our role and elaborating disciplinary narratives in
which we feature as morally superior, peace- giving professionals is
neither convincing nor productive. Instead, we need to recognize and
acknowledge our own embeddedness in a variety of narratives. Whether
professional translators or scholars, we do not build bridges nor bridge
gaps. We participate in very decisive ways in promoting and circulating
narratives and discourses of various types. Some promote peace, others
fuel conflicts, subjugate entire populations, kill millions.
(Baker 2005: 12)
Below we consider the impact that agency has on our role. It is of crucial
importance at this stage to consider how this fits in with your translation
and/or interpreting practice:
? Are there any particular voices or beliefs that are marginalised/amplified

in your work?
? Do you support a more active, advocate role for translators/interpreters?
? Or do you feel that this falls beyond the role that we are taking on?
104 Commitment
From Activists to Accountability

All of this narrative positioning ties the translator to an undercurrent of
moral responsibility. Translators and interpreters face a basic ethical choice
with every assignment:
to reproduce existing ideologies as encoded in the narrative elaborated

in the text or utterance, or to dissociate themselves from those ideolo-
gies, if necessary by refusing to translate the text or interpret in a par-
ticular context at all.
(Baker 2006: 105)
Translators must make choices, selecting aspects or parts of a text to trans-

pose or emphasize. These choices create necessarily partial representations
of their source texts. This “partiality is not merely a defect, a lack, or an
absence in a translation –it is also an aspect that makes the act of translation
partisan: engaged and committed, either implicitly or explicitly” (Tymoczko
2000: 24). Clearly, translators are not neutral or invisible, but rather must
be committed to the causes they speak up for and accountable for their
choices. According to these viewpoints, translators and interpreters need to
be aware of the impact they have on society and take responsibility for that
impact. Translators and interpreters must be able to justify a decision (mor-
ally) to themselves as well as those who might question it (see Baker 2011,
Baker and Maier 2011).
In a separate contribution to ethics that consolidates this turn to account-
ability, Baker devotes an entire chapter to the subject in the 2011 second
edition of her translation handbook In Other Words. This addition is
included to reflect the discipline’s (and her own) evolving interests since the
book’s initial publication in 1992. In this chapter, Baker claims to move
beyond codes of ethics in order to prepare translators to think critically
about ethical choices of which they are often unaware. She takes the time
to outline the most commonly encountered forms of ethics, something that
is entirely praiseworthy and a significant step to establishing a more solid
foundation for future progress.
Despite not explicitly setting out a theory for herself, Baker’s intro-
duction hints at her own position in the framework, advising as she does
against the uncritical use of “abstract codes”. For her, these codes are often
used as an institutional device to constrain behaviour and are unable to
“predict the full range of concrete ethical issues that may arise in the course
of professional practice” (Baker 2011: 274). Instead, she pushes translators
to develop critical skills that can help them to make ethical decisions for
themselves and to follow their own moral leanings despite contradictory
forces. These comments signal a definitive shift from such prescriptive
ideas. Indeed, Baker moves away from any ethical framework setting out a
priori laws or codes, initially affording her contribution with a much closer
Commitment 105
fit in virtue ethics. Despite this close link to virtue ethics, however, there is
another area of ethical theory that neatly aligns with certain elements of
Baker’s thought. The notion of moral particularism, a lesser-known theory
favouring an appreciation of the context of each situation, is also present.
As with virtue ethics, this theory rejects the idea that there are any universal
moral principles while also asserting that moral judgement can be found
only as one decides particular cases, either real or imagined. It is founded
on the claim that there are no uniformly morally relevant features of the
world and, as such, no decisions can be taken before an event. Rather, a sen-
sitive appreciation of the entire context is always required, and particulars
are normatively prior to universals. This places particularism at the far
end of ethical theory to monisms –such as act utilitarianism and ethical
egoism, where one overriding value governs the entire theory, in this case
happiness or self-interest respectively –in that it allows for no all-powerful
rules. British philosopher Jonathan Dancy is one of the most prominent
defenders of particularism, and he demonstrates how there are a number
of moral reasons but no moral principles because of this dependency on
context. For him, “[t]‌he question is always, ‘what is the nature of the case
before us?’, not ‘in what way is my decision here determined by previous
decisions, or general principles?” (Dancy 2013: 773). While this move
away from the continuous development of ethical knowledge forwarded by
Baker distinguishes her ideas from Dancy’s, a shared focus on contextual
importance is emphasised in her assertion that ethical issues have no ready-
made solutions.2
This particularist strand of thought is one that is shared by Inghilleri
who, in ‘The ethical task of the translator in the geo-political arena’, clearly
sets out an ethics based around a similar appreciation of context. Exploring
military linguists’ accounts of their own work in the midst of the “war on
terror”, she suggests an ethics that is not guided by professional codes of
ethics based on the notion of impartiality, but that is instead informed by
the nature of the ethical encounter itself. Within this conception, social
conditions disturb and disrupt our view of the ethical, leading to a misrep-
resentation of the other, and therefore necessitate a close consideration of
the factors at play. We are offered “a translation ethics that resists the wish
to transcend the violation of the other through codes based in transcendent
ideals”, which could include accuracy or fidelity, as the right thing to do
cannot be calculated or predetermined “and is instead guided by the nature
of the ethical encounter itself” (Inghilleri 2008: 222).
So, for both authors, we are responsible for the choices we make and must
be able to back them up when required to do so. No one, translators included,
can stand outside or between narratives. Translators and interpreters should
“develop critical skills that can enable [them] to make ethical decisions for
themselves […] rather than fall back uncritically on abstract codes drawn
up by their employers or the associations that represent them” (Baker
2011: 274) and we must critically consider the range of options available
106 Commitment
to us, “because however difficult the decisions we have to make we are still
accountable for them, to ourselves as well as others” (Baker 2011: 283).
? Which role (mediator, advocate, activist) do you find most realistic and/
or appealing, and why?
? Do you feel that the labels apply equally well to both translation and
interpreting (or other contexts)?
? How can we be accountable for the choices we make as a translator or
interpreter?
Box 6.2 Activism, accountability, and conflicts of interest

While not quite tackling the same contexts addressed by Mona
Baker, the example below provides a concise illustration of narrative
positioning and commitment in a professional context, foreshadowing
discussions to come in the following chapters. Read the case study and
then consider the questions below it before looking at the responses.
The Case
A New York-based translator describes an ethical dilemma (in Cohen
2010): “I was hired to do the voice-over for a French version of
the annual video report of a high-profile religious organization. The
video opposes gay marriage, a view untenable to me. During the
recording session, I noticed various language errors. Nobody there
but I spoke French, and I considered letting these errors go: my guilt-
free sabotage.”
? What should the translator do in this situation? What would

you do?
? How does the idea of activism come in here?
? After reading Chapter 7, consider what they should do according to
the professional code of ethics.
The Translator’s Course of Action

“Ultimately I made the corrections. As a married gay man, I felt ethic-
ally compromised even taking this job.”
? Did the translator follow their personal ethics, advocate for a par-
ticular narrative?
? What do you think of his decision?
Commitment 107
Cohen’s Response
In his article, Cohen argues that the translator was right to complete
the work to their usual standards, contending that “if you accept a job,
you must do it professionally” before questioning whether the trans-
lator should have accepted the job in the first place. He goes on to call
working on the video a form of advocacy for and promotion of the
“policies you revile”, and an act of betrayal to the communities he is
part of. He finishes with an update, explaining that the translator was
subsequently asked to be the voice and face of additional videos for
the organisation and refused.
? Do you agree with Cohen’s response?

? Do Cohen’s views change your opinion at all?
As we have seen, the decision of whether or not to translate/

interpret in the first place is a common theme. In the context of
interpreting specifically, Prunč (1997, 2008, and 2012) argues
first that interpreters may decline assignments on moral and eth-
ical grounds, in cases such as interpreting that would contribute
directly to suffering or endangering life and “goes further by jus-
tifying withdrawal or termination of service when clients seek to
deny the interpreter’s autonomy to make ethical judgments” (Setton
and Prunč 2015: 145 in Pöchhacker). When it comes to interpreting
objectionable content, however, opinions are mixed –some legal
systems would protect interpreters who refuse to speak on behalf of
Holocaust deniers, for instance, as these remarks would be deemed
to incite racial hatred, while “Prunč even justifies subversion of the
message in extreme cases” (ibid. 147). It is also worth keeping this
case in mind when reading chapters 7 and 8.
The Translator’s Telos

We draw discussions to a close in this chapter by returning to the crucial and
complex personal-professional divide and examining a final viewpoint that
considers centralising personal concerns in a perhaps more flexible manner.
While we have discussed Chesterman’s thought on ethics at various points
in this book, his multifaceted work contains a number of strands that we
can call upon at different points. One idea that has emerged within his eth-
ical thought is that of a translatorial telos, which further explores the idea
of accountability to ourselves, simultaneously returning us to questions of
consequentialism while also introducing ideas of individual responsibility,
which are explored in more detail in Chapter 8.
108 Commitment
This idea highlights the crucial importance of incorporating the human
side inherent in the translating act into an ethical framework and first
emerged in a question Chesterman posed to Baker in a published 2008
interview. Taking inspiration from use of the term skopos, which introduces
a consequentialist ethics focusing on ends rather than means (as outlined
in Chapter 4), Chesterman makes the innovative move of transferring this
aim from the text to the translator. His idea of a telos hints towards the
translator’s own personal desires. Below is part of the interview with Baker
in which we find this initial hint towards the development of the translator’s
telos, which was later elaborated in 2009 in the paper ‘An ethical decision’,
as well as a brief explanation of what such a notion would entail.
Chesterman: […] What interests me in this context is the way the skopos
is tied to a text: it is the function of a text, not the goal of a person.
It occurs to me that translation theory might need a new concept to
describe the ultimate motivation of the translator (or interpreter, of
course). Translators work to stay alive, yes. But they also have a number
of other motivations: a love of languages no doubt, an interest in other
cultures, perhaps a desire to improve communication, and so on. […]
There is a traditional Stoic distinction between skopos and telos that has
been much commented on by classical scholars and theologians. Skopos
is usually taken to refer to more immediate intentions, the visible target
literally aimed at by an archer for instance (originally, skopos means a
watcher, an observer), whereas telos refers to a more distant or ultimate
state, such as the more abstract goal of life as a whole, ideally perhaps
a final harmonious state. The telos is a result rather than an intention.
Suppose, alongside skopos, we adopt the term ‘telos’ to describe the
personal goal of a translator, firstly in the context of a given task. Some
tasks are done just for the money, but others might have different teloi.
(Baker 2008: 31)
Potential benefits of this concept of a telos are immediately clear. Rather

than being tied to textual fidelity or being governed by neutrality, there are
a number of personal factors involved in our decision-making. For instance,
I may want to translate to forward my own career, to get paid and to sat-
isfy the commissioners of the work in order to ensure that I continue to get
paid. This is, presumably, all part of my telos. Or, I could choose to follow a
personal cause. For her part, Baker states that a “telos is a more productive
concept than skopos because it connects with the wider context of a whole
society, and potentially of humanity at large” (Baker 2008: 32).
In a later article, Chesterman exemplifies the notion of telos by using
the Moster example covered in Box 4.4. After reflecting on Moster’s
(traditionally “not ethically justified”) decision, Chesterman argues that
there is an inevitable need to consider the person behind the translation.
For him, Moster’s decision has serious implications for the way we view
Commitment 109
the translator’s role in general. Whereas traditionally “we have become
accustomed to seeing the translator as a mediator, a bridge-builder between
cultures” (Chesterman 2009: n.p.), Chesterman argues that this simplistic
view inevitably ensures that we see translation “through rose-coloured
spectacles, as if translators never acted as bridge-destroyers, as if transla-
tion could never be used for destructive ends.” He argues that examples
of historic instances in which translators and translations have misled,
distorted facts, and caused misunderstanding, whether intentionally or
not, are easy to come by and concludes with a variation on the theme
of interpretation, with the firm but fair judgement that “[a]‌translator is
never totally neutral. All translation is also an intervention.” Furthermore,
the translator’s decision to take a stand “against the potential risk of
encouraging neo-Nazi fanaticism”, and his defence of this decision are, for
Chesterman, “evidence of what we might call his translator’s telos (Greek
‘end, goal’)”, “conceptualizing the ultimate goal of a translator, the source
of personal motivation, values and priorities.” He adds that this telos can
influence not only a translator’s means of handling a specific text and the
ethical issues that it entails, but also their decision to translate a certain
text in the first place.
Box 6.3 Telos and accountability in action

Maitland (2016) outlines an example from her own translation prac-
tice that reflects these notions of telos and accountability. She recounts
how in 2011 she was invited to translate Dentro de la tierra, Paco
Bezerra’s multi-award-winning play for performance in London. As
she puts it, “[s]‌et in a family-run tomato farm in rural Andalusia, the
play is a macabre tale of a father’s ambition and his violent verbal and
physical abuse of the North African workers he employs” (Maitland
2016: 27). The translation dilemma in this instance stems from the
problematic language used by the father and his son who repeatedly
refer to these workers as moros [Moors] or negros [blacks].
Maitland concluded that the use of such loaded terms (as opposed to
more neutral terms such as trabajadores [workers]) and the responses
from various interlocutors in the play signalled a “clash of multicul-
tural values” (ibid.). At this point, she explained that her “challenge
was to find a translation that would communicate the family’s racism
while resisting the potential for harm when performed for English-
speaking audiences” (ibid.). While the author himself suggested
“Moors” and “niggers” as a translation, Maitland rejected these terms
as problematic in the context of a play staged in England. The chal-
lenging nature of the terminology stems from the ambiguity inherent
in the Spanish term negros. For the translator, a number of competing
interests become clear. As Maitland explained:
110 Commitment
As a “reader” of the text my task was to assess the context of its

usage both from the perspective of the author and the characters in
the play. But given my commission, to translate for a UK perform-
ance, my readerly concern had to take into account the Spanish
text and its English-speaking audience.
(ibid. 2016: 28)
She suggests that the author’s suggestions of “niggers” ran the risk of
moving beyond signalling this racist insult built into the Spanish play,
and instead placing the audience in a “place of real discomfort” (ibid.).
Instead, Maitland considers the various choices available. “Could
‘blacks’ convey the Father’s racism without alienating spectators?
What about the references to moros? ‘Moors’, ‘North Africans’ or
‘Maghrebis’?” (ibid.).
Subsequently, after proposing the various options to a stage director
(who “initially balked at the family’s use of language” (ibid.)), Maitland
opted for “Arabs”, playing on a familiar, pejorative usage with a choice
that she felt would reflect the shocking language used and “ensuring
it did not take the audience beyond my belief in the dramatic clash of
multicultural values the play was offering, towards a place of offence,
confusion, or hostility” (ibid.). This process of questioning what the
terms are used for in the source text, the connotations of various pos-
sible renderings, their potential impact upon the final audience, and
the best means of negotiating the various interests at stake in the final
analysis reflects a personal engagement with the text and a series of
individual, idiosyncratic responses that will vary between translators.
Just like Moster in the example from Chesterman, Maitland outlines
the complex considerations that occur within seemingly small choices
and highlights the amount of cultural sensitivity and concrete input
required on the part of the translator. Here, for instance, Maitland had
to engage in research into the history and context of the terminology
and communicate with various agents involved in the translation
before making a personal decision that drew upon all of this informa-
tion without bowing to the interests of one particular party, a choice
she later advocated for in her article.
In both of these examples, what is most interesting perhaps is this

foregrounding of the translator’s personal and studied intentions and object-
ives. By linking skopos theory and the notion of a telos, Chesterman attests
to the consequentialist link between the two theories. In describing the telos
as “the personal goal of the translator”, his ideas move towards a non-
judgmental, flexible conception of ethics. For instance, his acceptance that
translators do indeed translate to stay alive and that translating just for the
Commitment 111
money is an acceptable telos both call our attention to the egoistic notion of
doing what is “right for you” as opposed to following a supposedly universal
“right”. This extended range of responsibility specific to the translation pro-
fession is explored in more detail in Chapter 8 and potential applications of
egoism are briefly considered in Chapter 9.
Moral Relativism
While a primary focus on the specific context of an ethical encounter and
individual agency is an invaluable step to consider in refining our consid-
erations of the ethical, the total rejection of guiding principles is far from
an unproblematic solution. Indeed, the void created by the addition of con-
textual factors provides us with the ability to let ourselves off the hook, so
to speak: even though we know the context, we still do not necessarily know
how to act. Indeed, an overriding reliance on context can turn the answer to
every question into an emphatic ‘it depends’. For all of the freedom, agency,
and power that ideas of advocacy, accountability, and telos can impart, how,
where, or when do we draw the line when it comes to the leeway afforded
to translators and interpreters in their actions? This is a complex and, as
always, very personal question, which is encapsulated within the ideas of
moral relativism.
Moral relativism asserts that judgements are only true or false relative
to a certain standpoint. It primarily stems from the questionable status of
moral objectivism –the argument that there is an objective, universally valid
moral truth. As the name suggests, it relativises the truth of moral claims,
casting doubt upon the existence of a single true morality and enabling us
to account for divergent viewpoints, supposedly increasing tolerance as we
are ready to accept others’ ideas, views, and beliefs. Hopefully the link to
translation is clear here. We have scholars such as Inghilleri and Baker who
question the universalisable nature (or even the possibility) of ideas such
as neutrality and impartiality and we instead have to decide based on indi-
vidual cases, with a hope that individuals will be self-critical.
Despite claims to tolerance and an acceptance of diversity, however,
criticisms of moral relativism abound. Firstly, many claim that there are
indeed some common core values that are shared across all cultures –
perhaps trustworthiness or the wrongness of killing (is this universal?) –and
that there is a factual basis to some values, with differences merely arising
from a lack of understanding or access to these facts. The key objection,
however, is that this approach risks an ‘anything goes’ view of ethics if taken
to its limits. If we maintain that right and wrong is relative to an individual
standpoint, then how can we say that any standpoint is wrong? For instance,
if in the present day an individual contends that slave ownership is right,
how can we refute that if we are guided by the principle of relative rightness?
Baker’s stance outlined above addresses ethics on a case-by-case basis and
asks us to be critical and to reflect on our choices, but never asserts a ‘right’
112 Commitment
way of doing things. Similarly, Chesterman’s notion of telos allows for non-
traditional ethical courses of action and to cover personal needs and desires,
but at what point do omissions, changes, and interventions in a text, or work
taken for purely financial reasons regardless of the questionable nature of
the content or the source of the financing, for instance, become a problem?
Is it enough to say that, as long as we are willing to accept responsibility for
our actions, then we can act however we see fit? What makes a good, laud-
able, or ethical cause? Discouraging neo-Nazi fanaticism (as in the case of
Moster’s translation) may be a principle that many of us can agree upon, but
who is the arbiter of the ‘worthiness’ of these causes? Does a certain number
or nature of omissions/changes make a rendering as a whole ethically prob-
lematic? Does changing one term, like the negro example in Box 6.3, throw
into question the translator’s ‘ethical’ role?
Box 6.4 Unbridled relativism: The fake sign language

interpreter
An example that neatly illustrates the limits of pure relativism in
the context of TIS is the famous “fake sign language interpreter.” In
2013, Thamsanqa Jantjie stood alongside world leaders at Nelson
Mandela’s memorial service in South Africa and produced a series
of meaningless, “childish hand gestures”) in the place of legitimate
signs when interpreting for speakers, including US president Barack
Obama. Surely no amount of posturing and rule-bending can realis-
tically claim that his actions were ethical? Unsurprisingly, Jantjie was
heavily criticised for his work and yet, following the line of argument
that translators must stand by their choices, we struggle to disarm the
practice. Speaking to Talk Radio 702 in South Africa following the
event, Jantjie claimed that he felt that he had been a “champion of
sign language” (On Demand News 2013), confirmed that he held a
formal qualification in interpreting and explained that a schizophrenic
episode caused his inability to sign properly. He clearly stood by his
practice and showed no remorse for any potential problems.
? What can we do when faced with this kind of situation where some-
body contradicts what may seem like a clear view, arguably increas-
ingly common in our post-truth world?
? While a vital cog in our ethical machine, personal accountability
alone is not enough to resolve disputes in all contexts, does this
change your view of the theory at all?
However, there are several interesting perspectives that could be

added here. From a professional point of view –and particularly in
light of mental health concerns (see Chapter 8) –should Jantjie have
Commitment 113
been provided a greater level of support? Not only was his employer
presumably aware of his diagnosis and potential complications but,
when conducting his role, best practice suggests that interpreters
should be able to take a break roughly every twenty to thirty minutes
and that, for meetings longer than two hours, two interpreters should
be present to enable them to take turns.
Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, the deputy minister for women, chil-
dren, and people with disabilities argued that best practice was not
followed and that, though mistakes were made, Jantjie was unfairly
criticised. She contended that having to translate from English to his
first language Xhosa to sign language caused him to get tired and
lose concentration. Could these be considered as mitigating factors?
Following the event, the company providing the translation services
reportedly “vanished into thin air” and had been paying under half of
the standard fee for an interpreter, alluding to issues of regulation and
pay, which we will explore in Chapter 8 (Smith 2013).
? Where would you personally draw the line in terms of how an inter-
preter or translator can act? What are the guiding principles that would
help you?
? Do you feel that strict rules or greater freedom are more practical/
ethical in the context of translation and interpreting?
Conclusion
This chapter has seen us explore the full range of agency at work when we
translate or interpret. From a commitment to the content that we trans-
late, to the place of personal beliefs in our work and accountability for the
choices that we make. We have moved from a more detached professional
take on projects to the activist notion that we should select projects that are
oriented toward (our notions of) social justice. For Baker, accountability is
a central concern for all modern professionals, requiring “every professional
and every citizen to demonstrate that he or she is cognizant of the impact
of their behaviour on others, aware of its legal implications, and prepared
to take responsibility for its consequences” (Baker 2014 n.p.). This would
subsequently require that translators and interpreters think more critically
about their stances, overturn perhaps over-simplistic models of neutrality
and impartiality, and open space for activist, subversive methods.
However, doubts remain about how feasible it is for working translators
and interpreters to adopt the kind of militant, politically driven activist
positions described here. Pym disagrees with Baker’s contention that one
should translate only those texts to which one is committed ideologically
114 Commitment
(Pym 2012: 59–60; Baker 2008). Indeed, in the economically driven context
of professional translation, with a number of asymmetrical power relations
at work means that, as Pym memorably puts it (2012: 87–88), “[a]‌sking a
translator to save the world is sometimes like asking an infant to read.”
Does this mean that we can stand back and deny responsibility, using
the defence of “I’m just the translator”? The examples covered in Box 6.1
would seem to suggest otherwise. Phelan et al (2020: 65) offer a pertinent
note in this regard, acknowledging that it is vital that we recognise the
complexity of the process of translation and interpreting and the negative
effect translations or interpretations can have on the community, while also
contending that combining activist and professional concerns “may lead to
confusion”, as the two are qualitatively different categories. They contend
that “[t]‌aking a stand in favour of a just cause does not make someone a
good translator or interpreter, although it may make them a good person.”
Yet what exactly is just is undoubtedly a personal, subjective, and dynamic
issue. We cannot easily conflate or separate personal and professional
concerns, and these two areas merit further exploration.
In Chapter 7, we look at perhaps the most purely ‘professional’ invoca-
tion of ethics in the translation profession –codes of ethics –considering a
range of professional standards that have become well established across
numerous geographical areas, contexts, and practices. This exploration of
codes responds directly to questions above, as these documents represent
a very clear attempt to set out principles for good practice (or, arguably,
the just) in translation and interpreting. As we will see, these codes sit a
long way from moral relativism and allowing practitioners to follow their
personal needs and desires.
Discussion, Presentation and Assignment Topics

1. To what extent do you feel that the translator/interpreter is responsible
for the content that they translate?
2. Translators should always follow their personal convictions when
translating, even if that means making changes to the text /speaker’s
utterances. Discuss.
3. Group presentation: Find a case of a translator/interpreter who has
made the news for making changes to a text or utterance (or, use one
from this book or the Routledge Translation Studies Portal) and prepare
both arguments for and against their course of action.
Notes
1 In Pym’s account, we are also not fully responsible for the consequences of our
translations, though once we have made the decision to translate, he does soften
this stance (see Box 6.1).
Commitment 115
2 Dancy is not referenced in Baker’s chapter on ethics, a further example of the lack
of engagement between translation studies and ethical theory.
Further Reading
For a more comprehensive exploration of activist translation, see Boéri and Delgado
Luchner (2021). Kruger and Crots (2014) offers a fascinating reflection on the
divide between personal and professional ethics. For an accessible breakdown of
narrative theory and a range of insights into its applications in translation studies,
see Baker (2005), while Translating Conflict (Baker 2006) offers a rich, challen-
ging exploration of the domain. Finally, Chesterman (2009) is a useful site for
exploring notions of telos and also reflects on the Moster case study in relation
to a range of theories of ethics (this paper is also included in Chesterman 2017).
7 Standards
Key Questions
• What are codes of ethics and how are they used in the context of
• What are the key ethical principles that translators and interpreters
are required to follow?
• What are the potential shortcomings of these guidelines, and how
realistic or helpful are the principles used?
In Chapters 3–6, we explored a range of key ethical issues for translators

and interpreters to consider in their work. Though often quite practical
in nature, these insights largely came from a theoretical backdrop. This
chapter marks a shift in focus, considering how ethics has been grounded
in the professional context. We will begin with an exploration of codes of
ethics for translators and interpreters in this chapter, before exploring other
perspectives on “ethical professionals” in Chapter 8.
I begin by setting out what exactly these codes of ethics are and what
they aim to do. I then cover the key principles contained within these codes,
considering concrete examples from representative codes from some of the
most well-established translation and interpreting associations worldwide.
Given their key role in codifying ethical behaviour it is necessary to not
simply acknowledge the codes’ existence in their current form, but also to
engage with a wide range of ongoing critiques of these documents. As noted
by Baker in Chapter 6, we are responsible for the choices that we make
ethically and cannot simply fall back uncritically on these codes, and both
scholars and professionals readily acknowledge that codes offer contra-
dictory and sometimes confusing guidelines. I consider criticisms of codes
from both translation and interpreting backgrounds, with considerable
shared ground between the two. Indeed, despite the considerable differences
between the two practices, it is noteworthy that translation and interpreting
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-8
Standards 117
both share many of the same values (and even the same code in many
instances!). Finally, I briefly address some thoughts on how to move beyond
these limitations.
? Based on the discussions in previous chapters, what principles would

you expect to see in translation and interpreting codes of ethics?
? In your work or study, is there a code of ethics that you have to
follow? How prominent/wide-ranging is it?
What are Codes of Ethics?

A codes of ethics is a set of rules or principles put in place by an institu-
tion (or sometimes an individual) to govern behaviour or decision-making
processes, and in some ways to help employees or practitioners to distin-
guish from good or bad or right and wrong in their particular domain. As
Hale puts it (2007: 103), codes offer guidance on how practitioners should
“conduct themselves ethically for the benefit of the clients they serve, the
profession they represent and themselves as practitioners.” This definition is
important in the way that it echoes the questions of responsibility that we
have considered in previous chapters, and it is interesting to compare and
contrast theoretical and practical conceptions of ethics.
It is also important to note that while there are strong practical strands
within the ideas explored in previous chapters, working translators
largely do not engage with these academic sources –either due to a lack
of access (academic texts can be expensive and often require institutional
or journal-based subscriptions) or a lack of time, interest, or awareness
of their existence (understandably, professionals’ primary focus is
placed on the doing rather than the theorising). As such, codes of ethics
undoubtedly represent most working translators’ primary point of con-
tact (if not their only point of contact) with thought on ethics in the field
and are a key tool in defining ethical translation and informing ethical
decision-making.
The codes act as a shared set of guiding principles and are a key element
in the professionalisation of a practice, providing certain standards to
uphold. Indeed, using Wilensky’s model of professionalisation (1964), Pym
et al. (2012: 80) describe the development of formal codes of ethics as one
of five steps towards professionalisation found in many “newer and mar-
ginal professions”. In this view, the codes set “rules to eliminate the unquali-
fied and unscrupulous, rules to reduce internal competition and rules to
protect clients and emphasise the service ideal.” In terms of ethical theory,
meanwhile, codes return us to a focus on deontology. Leong Ko notes that
they are almost universally deontological in nature, setting out “principles
of ethics and a series of rules which then flowed from these principles” (Ko
2015: 349).
118 Standards
Zooming out to the wider professional world for a moment, codes
emerged as a key tool in the 1990s and soon started to be adopted in the
context of translation and interpreting. Though translation codes emerged
as early as 1963 with the Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT)
Translator’s Charter, it is really in the twenty-first century that they became
a must-have document for translation associations and, to a lesser extent,
Language Service Providers (LSPs). Most professional associations now have
a code that members are expected to follow. The Institute of Translation
and Interpreting (ITI) code, for instance, is intended to “ensure that the
highest standards are consistently maintained amongst its members” (ITI
2016: 3).
Codes are attractive to associations and agencies for a number of
reasons. Aside from the surface-level value of providing shared values and
principles of practice that professionals (should) adhere to, they also act as
a symbolic badge of honour by sharing a marketable, ethical image. Indeed,
it is appealing to clients to see that the translators and interpreters they hire
will supposedly behave in an appropriate, professional, predictable, and
“ethical” manner. Codes also confer elevated status to and trust in the pro-
fession and its institutions (Baixauli-Olmos 2021: 311). Baixauli-Olmos –
a key voice on codes of ethics in translation –describes them as “textual
embodiments of professional power struggles” (2017: 262), concretising a
link to efforts to improve our position as a profession. In many professions,
they will sit hand- in-
hand with professional training, though in the
unregulated world of translation and interpreting (see Chapter 8), where
qualifications, accreditations, and ethical training are by no means a pre-
requisite for entering the profession, this is unfortunately not an option
(indeed, training in ethics has only recently begun to take on a more central
position: see Drugan and Megone (2011), for a fascinating exploration of
the ways in which ethics has been and can be further brought into the trans-
lation classroom).
At this point it is also important to note that the terms “code of con-
duct”, “code of practice”, and “code of ethics” are used almost interchange-
ably in some academic literature, and even in professional documentation,
despite the differences that exist (see, for instance, Drugan and Megone,
2011b: 186). Phelan argues that the key difference is that codes of ethics
focus on ethical standards or principles, while codes of conduct or prac-
tice focus on behaviour. Some associations do adhere to these different
characteristics, publishing distinct documents addressing ethical standards
and behaviour, but others use generic titles or even titles that “are not
always thought through” (Phelan 2020: 90). This flexibility of termin-
ology reinforces a more general trend for using the terms interchangeably
and, here, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, I will use “code of ethics”
throughout except when referring to a document that has the title “code of
conduct”.
Standards 119
Box 7.1 The ATA Code of Ethics and professional practice

Below is the code of ethics in force for the American Translator’s
Association (ATA) reproduced in full (note that the ATA does have a
commentary available on their website alongside the code to expand
upon and clarify some of the concepts below but, owing to space
restrictions, I have limited myself to the core document here). This code
has been chosen as a concise and representative example of a code of
ethics. Read the code and reflect on any strengths or weaknesses that
you see:
? Are there any gaps, issues, or contradictions?

? Do any of the guidelines surprise you?
? Do you feel that the code will be useful in your work as a trans-
lator or interpreter?
We the members of the American Translators Association accept as

our ethical and professional duty:
1. to convey meaning between people and cultures faithfully, accur-

ately, and impartially;
2. to hold in confidence any privileged and/or confidential informa-
tion entrusted to us in the course of our work;
3. to represent our qualifications, capabilities, and responsibilities
honestly and to work always within them;
4. to enhance those capabilities at every opportunity through con-
tinuing education in language, subject field, and professional
practice;
5. to act collegially by sharing knowledge and experience;
6. to define in advance by mutual agreement, and to abide by,
the terms of all business transactions among ourselves and with
others;
7. to ask for and offer due recognition of our work, and compensa-
tion commensurate with our abilities; and
8. to endeavor in good faith to resolve among ourselves any dis-
pute that arises from our professional interactions, mindful that
failure to abide by these principles may harm ourselves, our fellow
members, the Association, or those we serve.
As approved by the ATA Board of Directors October 2010

120 Standards
Guidelines within Codes

There is no one definitive code across or within the translation or
interpreting professions. Codes vary in length and detail, from just a few
sentences on general ethical behaviour to detailed explanations of key terms
and principles. However, there are common features to be found. Codes
will generally introduce the organisation publishing the document and pro-
vide some context on what ethics requires and why it is important, before
offering a list of normative guidelines, which tend to follow very similar
patterns, as explored below.
Though academic engagement with codes is still relatively sparse in
the context of translation specifically –the standout contribution remains
McDonough Dolmaya’s (2011a) study of 17 translation codes of ethics –
there have been a number of surveys of codes in interpreting that can serve
as a basis for exploring the guidance offered in these documents. As noted
above, despite the differences between these practices, the core code
values are consistent across practice types, and this increased attention in
Interpreting Studies makes it a more fertile ground to orient our discussions
here. Schweda-Nicholson (1994), Bancroft (2005), Hale (2007), Mikkelson
(2000/1), and Phelan et al. (2020) have all provided useful surveys of ethical
codes in interpreting studies. This includes multiple types of interpreting
(conference interpreting, public service interpreting, court interpreting, etc.),
with interpreting studies scholars often commenting on ethics within their
specific branch of interest, for example, Donovan (2011) or Martin Ruano
(2015).
In her influential early study of codes of ethics for interpreters, Bancroft
(2005) found five (near-)universal ethical principles –competence, integrity,
confidentiality, neutrality, and fidelity –while Schweda-Nicholson (1994: 82)
listed seven key points covered in codes (integrity was removed, neutrality
became impartiality, fidelity became completeness and accuracy, and con-
tinuing professional development, role boundaries, and conflicts of interest
were added). Skaaden (2013) later highlighted neutrality and fidelity in par-
ticular as guidelines that specifically differentiate interpreting from other
activities. Indeed, all professions aim to guard against conflicts of interest
and seek to protect confidentiality, though these areas do of course apply to
translation and interpreting in specific ways. General or not, it can certainly
be argued that some of the principles are more straightforward than others –
questions of impartiality and accuracy, as we have seen in the preceding
chapters, are incredibly complex and contested areas of consideration. This
can cause guidance on different topics to vary wildly, from one sentence to
entire pages.
Phelan (2020: 93–98), meanwhile, studied twenty codes of ethics from
international, regional, and national associations available in English,
with Schweda-Nicholson’s seven principles in mind and, while her findings
echoed prior studies in the area to a degree, her data also quantifies the
Standards 121
amount of variation in coverage of each key topic. Confidentiality is the
only ever-present principle, arguably marking it out as one of the most
necessary and/or perhaps least controversial guidelines in the codes. The
other areas were ranked as follows: impartiality (17/20), competence (14/
20), completeness/accuracy (14/20), continuing professional development,
or CPD (13/20), conflicts of interest (11/20), and questions relating to
roles (7/20). Phelan also goes on to consider other prominent areas in the
codes beyond these “traditional” values and finds that advertising (8/20),
credentials (7/20) and remuneration (9/20) are among the most common
inclusions in this regard. Finally, she draws our attention to a range
of principles that have emerged to a lesser extent, often in response to
instances of bad practice. These include “issues such as payment of taxes,
illegal activities, bribery and corruption, and criminal records” (Phelan
et al. 2020: 122) and point to some willingness on the part of associations
to update their codes as the need arises. However, this is far from being
a concerted effort to modernise codes in line with professional struggles,
as explored further below. As a demonstration of the similarities between
translation and interpreting, McDonough Dolmaya (2011a: 30) stated
that the seventeen translation-specific codes she analysed agree on very
few ethical and professional practices and that
only two principles are stipulated by all seventeen codes: confidentiality

and competence. Other principles for impartiality, accuracy, conflict
resolution, professional development, advertising, translator rights and
working conditions are addressed by only some of the codes and their
guidelines are occasionally in conflict.
This variation in the topics included points to a lack of common

understanding of what exactly ethics requires in a professional sense and
undermines the overall hope of setting consistent standards of behaviour
for professionals across geographical borders and practice types. On this
note, McDonough Dolmaya concludes by asking “[s]‌o what, then, makes
a translator ethical?” If we assume that each translation network considers
their principles to be the cornerstones of ethical practice, then “this means
that whether a translator is acting ethically when practicing the profession
depends on what network he or she belongs to, as no general consensus
about ethical translation behaviour seems to exist” (2011a: 49).
Lambert (2023), meanwhile, attempts to shed light on the development of
translation codes of ethics since the publication of McDonough Dolmaya’s
study and uses an adapted version of the principles outlined by Schweda-
Nicholson. He found once again that competence and confidentiality were
ever-present, while accuracy (14/20), conflicts of interest (13/20), CPD (13/
20), and impartiality (13/20) all featured to a relatively significant extent.
Combining this array of studies leaves us with a list of eight common ethical
principles in translation and interpreting, as follows (in alphabetical order):
122 Standards
1. Accuracy (fidelity and completeness)
2. Competence (and skills required)
3. Confidentiality
4. Conflicts of interest
5. Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
6. Impartiality/neutrality
7. Integrity and professionalism
8. Role boundaries
It is worth noting that these principles have remained largely static across
time and space. Many prominent association codes have remained in force
unchanged for years and even decades, while this persistence extends to
different countries, languages, and practices. Below, we explore each of these
core areas of focus in detail, before considering critiques of these documents
in the next section. Beneath the heading for each principle, I have included
the relevant Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)
code of ethics definition (2012) to present a real-life example of guidance.
This code was selected as it covers every one of the areas outlined above and
is a prominent and representative code.
Accuracy (fidelity and completeness)

“Interpreters and translators use their best professional judgement in
remaining faithful at all times to the meaning of texts and messages.”
This broad guideline enshrines a commitment to translating meaning in
an accurate or faithful manner. As we have seen in previous chapters, this
is not only a core issue in terms of ethics but. in TIS more widely, with a
plethora of sources examining questions of fidelity and equivalence. As we
have seen, this is a complex area, and guidelines such as these that demand
fidelity to meaning and intent of the original message, are one of the more
problematic guidelines. The apparent simplicity of the request fails to
acknowledge the complexity contained within the statement. Indeed, the
question of how we go about transferring a message from one language
to another in the most faithful, accurate, and impartial way possible is far
from self-explanatory.
Competence (and skills required)

“Interpreters and translators only undertake work they are competent to
perform in the languages for which they are professionally qualified through
training and credentials.”
Competence means a commitment to reflecting expertise and qualifications
honestly, and/or working to “appropriate” (usually high, or the highest!)
standards. Associations will sometimes underscore this principle with
Standards 123
reference to training and qualifications and, when applicable, these are often
courses and accreditations offered by the association themselves, offering
something of a “seal of approval” in relation to the standard of work that
the translator or interpreter can offer.
Confidentiality
“Interpreters and translators maintain confidentiality and do not disclose
information acquired in the course of their work.”
This commitment is recognised as one of the central principles, not
just in translation and interpreting, but in the professional world more
widely, representing an oath to not divulge sensitive information. Despite
its key status, however, it is also a principle that can be broken when legal
constraints or “a higher moral imperative” (Setton and Prunč 2015: 146
in Pöchhacker) require it, for instance, an obligation to report criminal
activity, or a duty to save lives. Setton and Prunč (ibid.) contend that the
“emphasis placed on confidentiality in many codes reflects its vulnerability
to pressure –for example, from the media, but also potentially from the
interpreter’s employers.”
Conflicts of interest
“Interpreters and translators frankly disclose all conflicts of interest, e.g. in
assignments for relatives or friends and those affecting their employers.”
This guideline represents a commitment to disclose any occasions when
your judgement or actions at work could be affected by a factor unconnected
to your role. We have seen examples of this kind of case in previous chapters,
for instance Box 6.2, which reflects on a conflict between the translator’s
personal beliefs and those shared in a text. However, conflicts of interest
extend further than ideological disagreements, and can include personal
relationships, financial interests, or past, present, or future affiliations with
interested parties.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

“Interpreters and translators continue to develop their professional know-
ledge and skills.”
Principles related to CPD are generally quite simple and self-explanatory,
as well as perhaps being the least controversial of the guidelines. These
require a commitment from interpreters and translators to continue to work
on enhancing relevant skills, for instance language skills, domain-specific
expertise, business and marketing skills. Given the fast pace-of-change in
the professional world and the very real prospect of skill (and language)
attrition, this commitment to development is entirely logical. Training often
124 Standards
takes place through professional memberships, with associations offering
a range of CPD activities and formal certifications (as with the training
mentioned under ‘Competence’ above, this ironically brings to light some-
thing of a conflict of interest on the part of the associations, requiring
members to sign up and often pay for the courses that they themselves run
(Lambert and Walker 2022: 14).
Impartiality/neutrality
“Interpreters and translators observe impartiality in all professional contacts.
Interpreters remain unbiased throughout the communication exchanged
between the participants in any interpreted encounter. Translators do not
show bias towards either the author of the source text or the intended
readers of their translation.”
There is a close link between impartiality and accuracy, with impartiality
acting as “a means to the end of ensuring accurate renditions” (Baixauli-
Olmos 2020: 306). As the guideline above implies, a biased (partial) trans-
lator would lean towards either the source side or the target audience.
However, as we have seen in previous chapters, the issue of partiality is
complex and contested, with many scholars questioning the very possibility
of impartiality. Nevertheless, impartiality is nearly universally present, and
most codes will present it in a relatively straightforward manner, often –as
is the case in the above guideline –simply requiring a commitment from the
translator and interpreter to be impartial or neutral.
Integrity and professionalism

“Interpreters and translators respect and support their fellow professionals,
and they uphold the reputation and trustworthiness of the profession of
interpreting and translating.”
This is something of a nebulous construct that can cover a huge swathe
of different areas. It undoubtedly covers values (virtues perhaps?) such
as honesty, keeping your promises, cooperation with colleagues, and a
commitment to maintaining the dignity of the profession. It could also
relate to generally maintaining high standards in your work –for instance,
by making sure that you have enough time to complete any work to the
required standard –or even cover elements such as appearance and dress
codes, something that is much more common in the context of interpreting
than freelance translation! Yet integrity itself can also be understood as
having strong moral undertones, making our understanding somewhat cir-
cular. The AUSIT code actually places integrity under the heading of “pro-
fessional solidarity”, and this powerful idea of respecting and supporting
fellow professionals echoes Pym’s ethics in concretising our responsibility,
not to texts or authors and so forth, but rather to our fellow professionals
and our profession as a whole.
Standards 125
? How might we show solidarity with our fellow professionals?
? What would be likely to undermine the reputation of the profession?
Role boundaries
“Interpreters and translators maintain clear boundaries between their task
as facilitators of communication through message transfer and any tasks
that may be undertaken by other parties involved in the assignment.”
An important element within the move to personal ethics and advo-
cacy in Chapter 6 was the question of role boundaries for translators and
interpreters and these debates again emerge in the professional context. Role
boundaries require us to confine ourselves to the specific tasks of a trans-
lator or interpreter, and this is often articulated by asking that we refrain
from personal involvement in cases (echoing the personal- professional
divide covered elsewhere, and guidelines relating to conflicts of interest) or
providing counsel, advice, or personal opinions.
The benefits in many cases are clear, as this guideline allows an inter-
preter or translator a framework to remove themselves from potentially
problematic situations. If asked ‘what would you do/say?’, for instance, an
interpreter can cite the code of ethics’ role guidance to sidestep a need to
respond. Another example here could be in legal translation where good
practice dictates that legal translators do not attempt to disambiguate
(potentially purposefully) ambiguous language. It may have been written
that way for a reason by the lawyer, so the ambiguity needs to be retained.
Similarly, it is not their job to explain specialist terminology or to explain
specific meaning from case law or similar. In short: legal translators are not
lawyers.
These guidelines offer an image of the detached, focused professional,
something that has been problematised in previous chapters. Indeed,
problems emerge in relation to questions of advocacy, which blurs the lines
of our role. Where exactly does our involvement start and finish? As covered
in Chapter 6, associations such as the National Council on Interpreting in
Health Care (NCIHC) have introduced advocacy as part of the role in cer-
tain limited situations, and Phelan (2020: 111) considers it to be one of the
most controversial issues in interpreting codes, offering a detailed examin-
ation of its emergence as an important principle.
Hopefully, it is clear from this range of ethical principles that there is
significant crossover between the topics addressed in the profession and the
academic debates that we have explored in previous chapters. However,
it should also be clear that codes approach many of these principles from
a different perspective to that of TIS scholars, and that there is nowhere
near the same level of depth available in this professional context. The far-
reaching, categorical nature of many of the rulings result in rather imperfect
documents and in the next section I explore several criticisms commonly
faced by codes of ethics.
126 Standards
The Effectiveness of Codes

Despite codes being well established across different languages, countries,
and practices, nowhere can we find a deep sense of satisfaction in their com-
position. Surveying practising interpreters for their views on codes of ethics,
Hale (2007: 101–102) reported viewpoints ranging from blind adherence to
the codes (“I set it as the bible of my daily life practice”), to entirely nega-
tive viewpoints (“The code of ethics is a mess and quite ridiculous”) and
noted widespread indifference to codes, which are seen as overly general or
simplistic, despite support in principle for the documents. Translation asso-
ciations, meanwhile, are often reticent to take on the (rather daunting) task
of updating and modifying the codes, while scholars have regularly drawn
attention to an array of limitations. In this scholarly context, a number of
now- familiar voices re- emerge. Chesterman, for instance, reiterates that
“many national (and international) codes of ethics are in need of revision”
(2019: 672) and points towards a range of “loose ends” that still exist in the
area, including when a translator can or should intervene, their divided loy-
alties, and the expanding range of stakeholders involved in the translation
process. As such, in this section, we explore some potential shortcomings in
these documents -including problems with coverage, enforcement, internal
conflicts, specificity, and the nature and content of the guidelines –from
the perspective of both translation and interpreting (as with the codes and
guidelines themselves, there is a lot of shared ground in the critiques).
Internal conflicts
In her influential critique of translation codes, McDonough Dolmaya points
to conflicts between a range of guidelines as a key shortcoming. For instance,
the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT)
code simultaneously requires that “[s]‌ ource-
language speech should be
faithfully rendered into the target language by conserving all the elements
of the original message while accommodating the syntactic and semantic
patterns of the target language”, that “[t]he rendition should sound nat-
ural in the target language”, that “[a]ll hedges, false starts and repetitions
should be conveyed”, and that “[t]he register, style and tone of the source
language should be conserved.” This is a daunting if not impossible task
and, as alluded to above, it is the guidelines relating to accuracy that often
conflict the most. As we saw in Chapters 2 and 3, the nature of equivalence
and fidelity makes this a topic that is rather unsuitable to simple, universal
deontological guidelines. The AUSIT code, meanwhile (which generally offers
an excellent example of good practice in the area), asks that “[i]nterpreters
and translators do not alter, add to, or omit anything from the content and
intent of the source message.” The irreducible differences between languages
surely ensure that it is impossible to simply replicate the form of the original,
Standards 127
and anyone who has worked on a translation or interpreting project will
know that alterations, additions, and omissions are commonplace in many
domains of professional practice. How can we reconcile this guideline with
subtitling practice, for instance, where space and time constraints necessitate
the widespread use of omissions and ultra-concise paraphrasing?
Elsewhere, Donovan (2011: 112) draws further attention to how calls
for accuracy and impartiality are embedded in confused and contradictory
rulings. As she notes, “the Australian Association, AUSIT, states in its code
under Article 5(iii) that ‘interpreters shall convey the whole message’ ”,
while also entitling interpreters to take “reasonable steps to ensure effective
communication” where necessary and demanding “complete fidelity while
allowing interpreter intervention to guarantee understanding.” This ultim-
ately leaves us with a rather paradoxical relationship between guidelines,
with codes juxtaposing “the strictest rules on impartiality and object-
ivity together with demands for an interpreter-improved communication”
(Diriker 2004: 34).1
Enforcement
This incompatibility with actual professional practice in relation to accuracy
and impartiality (and more generally) also alerts us to the issue of enforce-
ment. Though, as noted above, associations explicitly require members to
adhere to codes, instances of enforcement of these guidelines are rare and,
in the case of accuracy, these documents would become entirely untenable
if they were (Returning to the example above, do we automatically label
all subtitlers as unethical because they are unable to conserve all elements
of meaning?). If nothing else, these problems remind us how the stringency
of ethics can lead to its rejection; as Blackburn explains, “[t]‌he centre of
ethics must be occupied by things we can reasonably demand of each other”
(2003: 43).
While many of these codes are drawn up by translation associations –
bodies that are designed to assist and organise groups of professionals, often
in specific geographical locations or fields –association membership is
not obligatory for practising professionals, clouding the effective imple-
mentation of the codes. Furthermore, though the codes are presented as
binding (often with a line to the effect of “members agree to …”; see Box
7.1 for an example), there are considerable doubts as to how realistic it is
that translators and interpreters can follow all of the prescribed guidelines
and even whether they should follow them. As Phelan puts it, codes are
all too often an “attempt at self-regulation in an unregulated environment”
(2020: 88). Finally, associations do not necessarily have the power to uphold
the principles stated.
Beyond undermining the credibility of the codes, from a more cynical
point of view it also points to a different purpose. As Lambert (2018)
128 Standards
argues, this image of accurate and impartial meaning transfer is not
designed to accurately represent the way that translators and interpreters
work, but rather offers a marketable image to clients, which indirectly help
LSPs and associations to sell translations and memberships by fostering
a “sense of trust and confidence around a skewed image of the transla-
tion process and a fictional construction of the translator as a neutral con-
duit” (Lambert 2018: 269). It is much more appealing to tell a client that
their text/message will be replicated in another language without additions,
omissions, or distortions, than to explain that translation is a fundamen-
tally personal and subjective activity. Of course, this image can benefit
translators, too. For Donovan, translators and interpreters themselves are
willing to emphasise professional neutrality and confidentiality as pillars of
their professional practice, as this stance “protects them from awkward and
even threatening criticism and deflects potential pressure from powerful
clients”, while also enabling them to retain authority over their output
(Donovan 2011: 112–113).
Coverage
While, as seen above, there is a core set of generally accepted principles, gaps
undoubtedly remain, and this is complicated further by the dynamic nature
of ethics and the fast pace of development in the profession. In this regard,
McDonough Dolmaya noted that “codes often do not address many of the
issues translators are encountering as part of their practice” (2011a: 45),
and this is a criticism that has somewhat divided scholars. Drugan and
Megone (2011: 187–188) rightly note that the heavily context-dependent
nature of translation and interpreting means that codes are unable to refer
to the infinite range of potential situations facing practitioners. Indeed,
“a code of ethics is not designed to provide an answer to every specific
problem” (Mikkelson 2016: 84, in Baixauli-Olmos 2021: 309). However,
there are a number of areas that are deemed to be of crucial importance
to practising translators and interpreters that are not covered in codes,
including rates of pay and technology (both are covered in more detail in
Chapter 8). These areas in particular have been flagged as pressing ethical
concerns by translators in industry and professional surveys. For instance,
in the ITI’s Spring 2020 Pulse Survey (ITI 2020), 42 percent of respondents
selected “rates/conditions asked to accept” when asked which ethical issues
they had faced in the previous three years. However, as Lambert (2023)
shows, half of codes include no mention of rates, and when they do it is
generally with loose reference to the principle of fairness (in various guises).
For instance, guideline seven in Box 7.1 above provides a good example of
this phenomenon. McDonough Dolmaya similarly notes that “slightly more
than half the codes include a clause about the rates professional translators
Standards 129
should accept for their work” while three “stipulate that members must not
agree to work for rates significantly below those set by the association”
(McDonough Dolmaya 2011a 31–32). In terms of technology, meanwhile,
no codes currently approach the area in an engaged manner (if at all!), and
further technological advances “will undoubtedly give rise to additional
gaps in these codes of ethics” (Bowker 2021: 269). Ultimately, though codes
cannot cover everything, there is a balance to achieve, and covering topics
that are of interest to practitioners is a powerful means of bridging the
theory-practice gap (Asiri 2016; Baixauli-Olmos 2021: 309; Ozolins 2014).
Problems of interpretation and application

A further issue is that, even when codes do include a guideline highlighting
a specific issue, it is not always straightforward to interpret the principle
and work out exactly how to act. As Drugan and Megone (2011: 187)
put it, “difficulties in understanding arise because … codes do not inter-
pret themselves, they require intelligent deployment.” Ko echoes this con-
clusion in noting that while the codes are “useful”, they “can only serve
as guidelines for translators and interpreters” as “[t]‌here are situations in
the real world which may be contrary to, unrelated to, or not included in
these general guidelines” (Ko 2015: 349). In attempting to pinpoint the
cause of such flaws, Abdallah suggests that translators are caught between
two different ethical systems: the “utilitarian business ethics” that requires
the translator to forge a trusting relationship with the client and to work
quickly in order to get paid and make a profit, and the “translators’ deonto-
logical ethics as outlined in the various codes of conduct provided by profes-
sional associations” (Abdallah 2014: 131). Abdallah summarily concludes
that “translators’ professional ethics cannot be guided by theoretical, uni-
versal statements that are presented haphazardly across the curriculum
and focused only on deontological issues. Instead, ethical issues need to be
situated, and their complex and collective nature must be revealed” (ibid.
132). Ultimately, with a number of codes relying upon vague guidelines that
are left without adequate explanation, practitioners are forced to draw their
own interpretations of what the code requires of them and act accordingly.
This leads to translators taking divergent courses of action despite following
the same codes. As Martin Ruano puts it, “seemingly sacrosanct notions
such as fidelity, when invoked as guidelines in difficult situations, do not
provide specific solutions” (Martin Ruano 2015: 142). Even in the case of a
universally acknowledged principle such as confidentiality, legal obligations
conspire to undermine any simple application. If, for instance, a translator
is given access to information that could negatively affect the lives of many
unaware, innocent parties, is it intrinsically good for them to continue to
withhold this information?
130 Standards
Box 7.2 A case study: Confidentiality

Imagine that you have been hired as an interpreter by a defendant in
a criminal case. The defendant has been accused of murder and, when
speaking in a private consultation with their lawyer, the defendant says
that they committed the crime.
? What is the recommended course of action for the interpreter in this

situation?
? Should you reveal this information to the lawyer?
? Should you tell the police? Why?
? Would your course of action differ if you were hired by the legal firm
itself or by a local authority?
Of course, the principle at stake here is confidentiality. Returning to

Box 7.1, the ATA code requires that we to “hold in confidence any
privileged and/or confidential information entrusted to us in the course
of our work”, would you abide by the code of ethics, or would a
personal/legal drive supersede it? Whose interests are you representing?
Confidentiality in this case can conflict with public interest.
There is of course a risk of harm if you do not share that informa-
tion, as somebody else may be convicted of the murder. As mentioned
above, there are very limited exceptions that can enable you to breach
confidentiality, for example, to protect a life by disclosing information
about homicidal or suicidal intent, but does that apply here? If your
partiality is compromised, should you withdraw from the assignment?
In this case, it is doubtful that your evidence would be valid in the eyes
of the law and there is no guarantee the person really did it. Somebody
may have paid them to confess, for instance.
Though perhaps a rather extreme example, hopefully this shows
that even seemingly straightforward guidelines (e.g. maintain confi-
dentiality) are not always easy to interpret in a real-life context.
Content
For many authors, a key area of discussion when assessing the codes’ con-
tent more closely is the focus on accuracy, fidelity, and neutrality. In ethical
terms, these calls for accuracy and neutrality at best fail to account for all
of translation, and at worst misrepresent the translation task and call for
something that is impossible for translators to achieve. As Chesterman puts
it (2021: 16), principles relating to fidelity “are highly relevant to much of
professional translation, but less relevant to situations where a translator
Standards 131
sets out to break norms, to intervene in the text, to edit or even censor the
text or radically change its meaning.”
Just like accuracy, neutrality “embodies a seemingly ‘monolithic, non-
negotiable’ concept” (Rycroft 2011: 220), which hints at the importance of
ensuring that these codes receive treatment that suitably encapsulates the
complexity and gravity of these topics. As Martin Ruano notes “[c]‌laims
for strict compliance with neutrality are often put forward as a guarantee
for the professionalisation of translation and interpreting in the legal
field.” However, the propagation of this conflictual notion risks blinding
translators to the consequences of their actions, and she argues that, if neu-
trality is internalised by an inexperienced translator, they could well end
up undermining the professional image that they strive to present. As she
explains: “[t]ranslators accurately reproducing the substandard wording of
many texts, which have to be translated daily in international organisations
or court interpreters mimicking the incoherent and disjointed discourse of
uneducated speakers could well appear as incompetent rather than neutral”
(Martin Ruano 2015: 149).
Returning to ideas from a key figure discussed in Chapter 5, Inghilleri
carried out a sustained and powerful critique of the documents in
Interpreting Justice. As you would imagine from her wider arguments
explored in Chapter 5, she fundamentally disagrees with the image of the
interpreter the codes put forward. She contends that the central position
of principles of neutrality and impartiality abdicate interpreters from the
personal and social responsibility in their role, which she conceives of as
being “active, key players in interpreted communication, facilitating open
negotiations over meaning and maximizing the possibility that the com-
municative objectives of all participants are met” (2012: 51). Elsewhere,
she challenges the separation between role-specific morality and legal mor-
ality, contending that role occupants should have space to “reflect upon or
challenge the rules and principles of their professional code and to enter
into open and transparent dialogue in situations where gaps are perceived
between the norms and interests of the profession and those attached to
specific individuals, communities, or the wider society” (2012: 56) and per-
mitting this space allows occupants to extend and redefine the morality of
the role itself, particularly in relation to questions of justice.
Ultimately, these codes all reiterate the image of the neutral, conduit trans-
lator or interpreter and simultaneously conceal the fact that interpreting and
translation involve a reworking of texts (or indirectly enable interpreters
to rework the texts). While some scholarly thought has called for codes
to move beyond this image (see, for instance, Lambert 2018, who calls
for overturning the regularly-used image of translation as an unproblem-
atic transfer of meaning), there has been very little progress made, particu-
larly in translation. In interpreting, however, there are some signs of a move
towards embedding advocacy more widely. Phelan, for instance, devotes
132 Standards
considerable attention to the development of the notion of advocacy in
interpreting codes, noting the conflict between guidelines requiring strict
impartiality and calls for interpreters to advocate on the part of a certain
party. However, she notes that advocacy remains a restricted and relatively
uncommon principle, with most codes still calling upon impartiality. While
some outliers do now allow for advocacy in restricted circumstances, others
still prohibit it entirely (Phelan et al. 2020: 122). She astutely notes that
there is no great call from interpreters for increased agency in codes as they
already know that they have this agency in this role regardless of the codes’
stipulations –again reinforcing the unenforceable, unrealistic nature of the
guidelines.
Box 7.3 A case study: Neutrality

In what is a revealing example of how an interpreter’s supposedly
neutral positioning can easily slip, Matthew Maltby analysed Asylum
Aid’s (AA) code of ethics and uncovered inconsistency and contradic-
tion in how neutrality is presented.
Within this code, interpreters are simultaneously expected to give
the impression of favouring neither interlocutor, while also making
decisions on the clients’ behalf when linguistic problems arise, for
example, deciding when the client requires interpreting if they have
some competence in English. AA advisors can also take an additional
interpreter along with them to official hearings to assess (or even
question) the performance of the official court interpreter.
In this instance, the interpreter’s role is certainly not neutral, for they
are clearly working for one side. This is something that Maltby alludes
to in stating that the interpreter is not only a quality-control element,
ensuring that a message is transferred in a suitable manner, but rather
interprets “for us”, that is, for AA. As Maltby puts it, interpreters are
permitted to have an “active, advocacy role as an additional advisor
in client consultations”, challenging or clarifying any information.
However, this role is kept to being off-the-record, maintaining the
illusion of neutrality –introducing “a double-faced conceptualization
of the interpreter” (Maltby 2010: 229). In this instance, institutions
present the interpreter to clients as a transparent conduit while simul-
taneously calling upon the interpreter’s partiality when it is convenient
for them, and the organisations also enlist interpreters who are ideo-
logically predisposed to helping their cause, explicitly endorsing active
intervention that can be of benefit to them.
? What is your take on these guidelines and on this practice?

Standards 133
Conclusion and Moving Forwards

Codes of ethics remain a cornerstone of consolidating professional activity
and are “a means of progressing towards the professionalisation of a
low-status activity” (Martin Ruano 2015: 142). Clearly, however, despite
Inghilleri and Maier’s belief that “there is no current consensus on the nature
and status of professional codes of ethics” (Baker 2011: 102), the limitations
explored above suggest that more work is required to provide codes that
are fully relevant to the day-to-day work of interpreting and translation.
Problems of inconsistency alone are enough to provide serious obstacles to
potential progress and, in the context of deontology, the variable assignment
of value and the stringency of the rulings represent significant shortcomings.
In terms of realistic enforcement, Phelan aptly notes that these documents
are “toothless” in many contexts –members can be suspended or expelled
but associations generally cannot impose wider sanctions (Phelan et al.
2020: 122).
Ultimately, as a result of these limitations, translators and interpreters
unfortunately do not or cannot always adhere to codes in their practice.
Though a possibility, this is not necessarily due to a lack of willingness from
the practitioner. Several authors have assessed codes and labelled them as
inadequate or contradictory, but suggestions for changes have not been
made in terms of the codes themselves. Instead, what ensues from many
of these discussions of codes is a turn to pedagogy within translation and
interpreting. Indeed, several authors suggest that students must be made
aware of the contradictions and shortcomings within codes of ethics before
outlining methods of putting this into practice. For Donovan, this turn to
pedagogy is rooted in the belief that “[i]‌f codes are to be internalized and
integrated into practice, they need to be anchored in training” (Donovan
2011: 123). Ko (2006: 48), meanwhile, suggests that translators need to be
taught to assess each situation in order to act ethically, a line of thinking
that is unsurprisingly echoed by Baker, who comments on the risk of codes
turning “translators into unthinking cogs in the wheel of an established
social system rather than reflective and ethically responsible citizens” (Baker
2011: 284). One way that is suggested in this regard is the implementation
of teaching practices that employ real-life examples, case studies, and role
plays (see Introduction) –a suggestion echoed by several authors, including
Drugan and Megone, whose 2011 paper is specifically geared towards out-
lining why and how we should teach ethics in translation studies courses.
Education is undoubtedly a key concern and training emerging translators
and interpreters to develop a critical awareness of their role and the current
state of the industry will benefit the long-term health of the professions.
However, in an area that has historically struggled for professional status
due to a largely unregulated nature (see Chapter 8), many translators and
interpreters simply do not receive formal training. So, despite authors
134 Standards
reporting success within the classroom setting, this will not filter through
to all professionals. One way of potentially avoiding this pitfall is to return
to the codes themselves. Tate and Turner (1997/2002) found that sign lan-
guage interpreters in the UK often override the literal prescriptions of their
code of practice, using their own judgment and ‘intervening’ in different
ways (e.g. to clarify or correct misunderstandings). They instead proposed
an “evolving ‘case law’ annex that would codify good new solutions […] to
dilemmas not adequately covered by the Code” (Setton and Prunč 2015: 147
in Pöchhacker). Lambert (2023), meanwhile, calls for a potential “post-
code” approach, which envisages making wholesale changes to the way in
which ethical guidance is offered to translators and interpreters, drawing
inspiration from “outliers” in a contemporary corpus of codes that suggest
the potential for accessible, client-facing, or scholarly based documents that
deviate from the “traditional” approach of listing a handful of static values
on an association webpage. At the very least, he calls for codes that do indeed
tackle the issues that translators and interpreters care about. Unfortunately,
however, the static nature of the codes suggests that implementing any
sweeping changes will be a tough, time-consuming process.
Returning to a key criticism of codes of ethics from Inghilleri, she
concludes that
if notions like impartiality and neutrality are to persist as guiding

principles for the role morality of interpreters … they need not imply
the neglect of personal and social responsibility toward others where
questions of justice and fairness are concerned.
(2012: 70)
While codes have not shifted towards this basis in personal or social
responsibility, conversations around ethics in the translation profession cer-
tainly have, and this is a key focus in Chapter 8, where we examine emerging
concerns that are not covered in codes of ethics, as well as extending our
inward, personal focus to consider a final range of ideas relating to the indi-
vidual “ethical” professional.

1. Group presentation. Imagine you are the head of a new translation and/
or interpreting association looking to develop a code of ethics. Drawing
upon the discussions above, outline your approach to drafting this
document.
2. To what extent do you think that it is realistic and/or desirable for
translators and interpreters to follow all of the guidelines contained
within a typical code of ethics?
3. Read Chesterman’s “Hieronymic Oath” (mentioned in Chapter 2) and
compare and contrast the topics and content covered with the codes
outlined here (or a code in a specific field/country that you work in).
Standards 135
Note
1 Diriker and Donovan specifically refer to interpreting, but the same problem
exists within translation.
Further Reading
In relation to translation specifically, McDonough Dolmaya (2011a) analyses,
line by line, seventeen codes of ethics published by profession-oriented trans-
lation networks in order to determine what values are most commonly held by
translators belonging to such networks. She also analyses forum entries on ethics
and professionalism in order to uncover what issues were being discussed by
translation professionals relating to their day-to-day practice. Lambert (2023)
offers an updated snapshot of the state of codes of ethics in translation as well as
asks how we can potentially improve codes of ethics, a topic that is also covered
by Lee and Yun (2020), who reflect on the potential of Chesterman’s telos in this
context, illustrating the potential for theoretical conceptions of ethics to inform
more practical discussions.
For interpreting, Hale (2007, Chapter 4) analyses sixteen codes of ethics for
interpreting from nine countries and draws up the range of principles covered,
while Phelan et al. (2020, Chapter 2) offers an in-depth guide to codes of ethics in
force in the context of public service interpreting. Her coverage includes a study of
twenty current codes to capture common (and less common) principles covered,
criticisms of codes in this specific context, and an illuminating section on advo-
cacy, which she labels as “probably the most controversial issue” in public service
interpreting (2020: 111). Particularly useful is the collection of case studies that
demonstrate each of the codes’ key principles in practice (ibid. 122–137). This is
a rich source for classroom discussions and even assessment topics.
8 Ethical Professionals
Key questions
• What is a professional translator or interpreter?
• What are the key issues facing professionals on both an individual
and a global level?
• How do considerations of elements such as rates of pay and
technological advances affect our understandings of ethics in the
profession?
Following on from Chapter 7’s critique of codes of ethics, this chapter

extends our direct enquiry into matters affecting professional translators and
interpreters. It explains and acknowledges the constraining factors at work
in the profession and examines a range of ethical questions and challenges
facing professionals, looking both outwards to the wider world and inwards
to consider very personal interests and impacts. Indeed, while Abdallah
(2011: 131) suggests that translators are caught between two different eth-
ical systems –“utilitarian business ethics” that requires the translator to
forge a trusting relationship with the client and to work quickly in order
to get paid and to make a profit, and the “translators’ deontological ethics”
as outlined in codes –we could add two further sides to this, each with its
own complex areas of concern: wider social responsibility is one, our own
personal needs is another. This includes discussions of industry workflows,
rates of pay, the link between ethics and technology, and personal concerns
over wellbeing, which is indicative of the incredibly broad nature of thought
on ethics. As we saw in the previous chapter, two of the greatest sources of
anxiety for professionals –technology and money –are not covered in codes
in detail, necessitating this further exploration.
Professions and Professionals

Though Chapter 4 introduced various stakeholders involved in translation
and interpreting project workflows within the context of consequentialist
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-9
Ethical Professionals 137
and contractarian theories of ethics, an extended focus on this area in
the professional context is necessitated by what has been described as the
“Great Divide” (Jemielity 2018: 543) between theory and practice in trans-
lation and interpreting, where academic sources are not always considered
to align with the practical demands of the profession. In the twenty-first
century, an earlier general marginalisation of the professional domain has
been “emphatically overturned” (Lambert 2021: 167), but ethics has been
rather slow to follow suit. Consider, for instance, Ben van Wyke’s entry on
‘Translation and Ethics’ in the Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies
(2013). Here, we find no mention of professional translators or interpreters,
which is indicative of ‘traditional’ areas of focus in TIS, where the “non-
literary” domain was for a long time viewed apart from, or even in oppos-
ition to literary translation (Rogers 2015). However, that is not to say that
the theoretical ideas in previous chapters are not relevant in a practical con-
text, far from it. Indeed, many of them can provide real help with ethical
decision-making in a practical context. Pym’s ideas, for example, are a prime
example of this, yet it is worth noting that he too considers many of his
ideas as anathematic to received wisdom in TIS, placing him perhaps more
on the ‘practice’ side of the divide. Elsewhere, not all are perfectly suited
to the professional context. For instance, many translators and interpreters
simply want to do a ‘good’ job and earn a decent living, something that sits
in contrast to activist aims, to an extent. Importantly, professionals –and
students –are often not exposed to, or cannot gain access to, many of these
ideas (hence the vital importance of codes, in spite of the shortcomings we
have explored, and the accessible nature of this book!). We begin by asking
what exactly a professional is, and what it is that they do.
There is a complex and somewhat contested relationship between trans-
lation, interpreting, and professional status. Defining the professional
translator is a challenging and yet important task, which risks detours into
issues of status, context, and definitions of professionalism itself. Does a
professional simply make a living through their work? Or is it a certain
number of years’ experience, qualifications, status, or membership to a par-
ticular institution or community that qualifies a translator as a professional?
Perhaps even their adhesion to a code of ethics? While Schaffner (2020: 64)
understands professional translation “as a paid occupation which requires a
formal qualification”, this definition precludes a large number of translators
who work as professionals without formal qualifications. Indeed, as Lambert
puts it (2021: 166):
For the most part, anyone can call themselves a professional translator.
That said, some translation agencies do require that their translators
have certain qualifications or levels of experience, and academic and
professional qualifications (for instances MAs and BAs or certifica-
tion provided by professional associations), professional memberships,
and demonstrable working experience do serve as guarantees to
potential clients more generally and thus indirectly correlate to perceived
professionalism.
These are “traditional signals of professional status” (Pym et al. 2016: 34),
but the professional translator works in a wide range of settings, has wide-
ranging statuses, works on a wide range of materials, in a wide range of
subject domains, and uses a wide range of tools in their practice. As such, a
working definition of a professional can simply be translators or interpreters
getting paid for translation, and this is enough to introduce a range of
concerns in this chapter, as we consider the professional’s place within their
wider network. Indeed, how exactly do these professionals work?
In a professional context, we may work with a single end client
directly –the person who requires translation or interpreting services –and
we may come into contact with the end users of our translations (or, more
likely, our interpreting work). However, this process is often facilitated by
an LSP and a project manager or management team within that LSP, and
there may be entire teams of editors, reviewers, and proofreaders checking
our work. Moorkens and Rocchi (2021: 324) add LSP owners, language
software developers, and other employees in LSPs to the list of people we
may work with/for and, at the largest level, we also have a wider responsi-
bility to society to consider (see below). As is hopefully abundantly clear by
now, as language industry professionals (and human beings) we are always
embedded within institutional, social, and political contexts that force us to
balance a diverse range of (sometimes competing) duties, responsibilities,
interests, and aims. Our considerations extend beyond texts and authors.
It is also worth remembering that not all of these parties have our interests
at heart. LSPs have their own interests and aims, for instance, and there are
not equal levels of power and information available to each party (con-
sider, for instance, Pym’s stance on the need for trust –see Chapter 4 –that
emerges from an asymmetry of information). Unfortunately, translators and
interpreters also have relatively little say in the development of processes
employed in translation projects and overall working conditions; see
Moorkens and Rocchi (2021) for a more in-depth exploration of ethical
issues in the translation industry, an account of the processes involved, and
the complex power dynamics at work.
By definition, the focus here on professionals cuts off the sizeable domain
of non-professional translation and interpreting. While this area is often
negatively associated with amateur or novice practitioners, this unfairly
reduces the scope of the field. Definitions are contested and areas such as
crowdsourced translations –where translations are the product of mul-
tiple translators, often sourced for free –do indeed tend to be completed by
inexperienced or untrained practitioners.1 However, there is also significant
overlap, or perhaps even a need to swap labels, between non-professional
and volunteer translation or interpreting, which has as its defining feature
an absence of payment and would be preferable as a term that places “the
person, not the action” (Pym 2011: 108) as the centre of enquiry. This wider
understanding of the non-professional domain has led to “increasingly less
judgemental” attitudes, and serious consideration of the activity’s status
and social/ political functions (Basalamah 2021: 228–229). Importantly,
Basalamah (2021: 230) is at pains to point out “the changing status and role
of professionals versus non-professionals, amateurs and volunteers in the
last few decades”, with volunteers being increasingly active and valued due
to their engagement with ever more prevalent humanitarian disasters and
digital initiatives, which have allowed non-professionals to gain “a foothold
in their respective fields in such a way that they have demonstrated their
indispensability” (ibid.).
Unfortunately, an in-depth exploration of these themes falls beyond the
scope of this introductory textbook. For an initial exploration of volun-
teer translation and interpreting, see Basalamah (2021), and for a more in-
depth focus on the challenges facing NGOs in crisis situations in relation
to new technologies and practices such as crowdsourcing, see the volume
Translation in Cascading Crises edited by Federici and O’Brien (2019).
However, while non- professional translation is not at the heart of our
explorations, this question of motivation (why are we translating?) and
the link to wider societal and political events leads us neatly to a focus on
social responsibility in the translation profession. In the following sections,
we consider our relationship with this range of industry stakeholders by
first looking outwards to consider our relationship with society and other
players in the industry and then turning inwards to consider the importance
of looking after ourselves.
? What do you consider to be the defining feature of “professional”

translation and/or interpreting?
? What unites professionalism and ethics? For instance, are the workflows
adopted in the industry and the degree of agency that professionals
have in developing or negotiating these workflows an ethical issue?
Looking Outwards: Social Responsibility

In the last decade or so, the question of social responsibility has emerged as
a key theme across translation and interpreting and has gained popularity
as a potentially productive way of reimagining our ethical underpinnings.
This area builds upon activism in a way (and indeed could be seen to encap-
sulate a range of ideas covered in Chapters 5 and 6) but does not neces-
sarily involve political causes. Rather, it is more closely related to having the
courage to challenge rather than being bystanders (we specifically alluded to
the concept of translators as passive bystanders in Chapter 6).
Paying attention to social responsibility means that our focus shifts out-
wards, beyond T&I providers themselves or TIS as a discipline and, as
opposed to the other accounts of responsibility we have considered, this area
emphasises responsibility as socially distributed and a dynamic feature of
translatorial activity, moving away from the text as the centre of our enquiry
and deontological impositions. For Drugan and Tipton –the key proponents
behind this school of thought –“ ‘[r]‌esponsibility’ is therefore understood
here as action- oriented and dynamic, encompassing value judgements
and decisions that may lead as much to resistance as to acceptance and
commitment to sustain a form of social consensus.” Importantly, “what
constitutes socially responsible action for one person may be considered
irresponsible by another, meaning that ‘responsibility’ can never be ideo-
logically neutral and its invocation always confers an obligation to deter-
mine whose responsibility, to whom and for what” (Drugan and Tipton
2017: 121–122).
The basic premise here is perhaps familiar, moving beyond textual
concerns and opening up a space for the non-neutral, subjective nature of
ethical decision-making on a general level, and their framework is designed
to create room for a wide range of viewpoints and methods. Research
suggests that a focus on social responsibility in professional contexts has
wide- reaching positive impacts including enhanced employee ethical
attitudes (Drugan and Tipton 2017: 120). However, that loose nature also
makes it a somewhat nebulous concept, and so Drugan and Tipton seek to
narrow enquiry further. While corporate social responsibility is one of the
more well-developed fields of social responsibility –and definitions such as
Carroll’s (‘make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate
citizen’) do apply to T&I professionals to an extent –there is little research
into what being a ‘good corporate citizen’ means for the freelance trans-
lator or public service interpreter, for instance. As such, Drugan and Tipton
argue that perhaps business is not the place for us to look for our ethical
underpinnings. Instead, ‘caring’ professions such as medicine, social work,
or teaching, which have a stronger tradition of considering social responsi-
bility, represent their model of choice for T&I.
These ‘caring’ professions’ focus on social responsibility during training
and place an important emphasis on mitigating internal and external risks.
Externally, there is the risk “to society if professionals are not conscious of
their broad duties and responsibilities in their work” and internally there are
“risks of consequences such as burnout, stress and vicarious traumatisation
for professionals themselves” (ibid.). We will consider these internal risks in
more detail later in this chapter. Ultimately, the hope is that a focus on social
responsibility will encourage professionals to consider the impact of their
work beyond the narrow professional sphere. In sum, social responsibility as
a framework, while somewhat nebulous, asks that we act in the best interests
of our environment and society as a whole, with a view to benefiting the
community that will inherit the world we leave behind.
However, as important as these wider concerns are, translation and
interpreting still happen in a competitive economic climate, and complex
questions remain as to how we can marry utopian aims of cooperating for
the best interests of the wider world with the need to pay the bills and to
survive and thrive in a challenging business environment. Problematising
this division, David Jemielity (2018: 535) discusses a potential ideo-
logical and behavioural “disconnect” between general translator culture
and businessperson culture, pointing towards a “poverty cult” among
translators, characterised by an “economically unambitious, arguably anti-
capitalist approach”. We now turn inwards to personal needs, first in rela-
tion to concerns over mental wellbeing and secondly in an economic context.
? How important is social responsibility in relation to your profes-

sional life?
? What is your priority when you are translating or interpreting?
Box 8.1 Environmental sustainability

A useful example of a way in which social responsibility can mani-
fest itself in the translation world is environmental sustainability.
Eco-translation is an emerging strand in TIS and, with translation and
interpreting revolving around sharing and storing data electronically,
many professionals are now considering their digital carbon foot-
print. In an article dedicated to this question in the ITI’s professionally
oriented magazine The ITI Bulletin, Stansfield offers several illumin-
ating figures:
• Data centres, where information is stored and processed, now

consume around 1% of the world’s electricity.
• Every email we send is responsible for emitting at least four
grams of CO2, and that figure increases to 50g every time we
send an attachment.
• All of the emails sent around the world in a year emit as much
CO2 as seven million extra cars on the road
(Stansfield 2022: 10)
In a world where the ICT industry is responsible for more CO2

emissions than global aviation, we are now seeing some “carbon-
negative” translation companies (companies who offset their carbon
emissions by supporting reforestation projects, for instance) and calls
for changes in the overall thrust behind translation and interpreting.
Cronin (2017: 6) –a leading voice in the area –comments on the
link between unsustainable energy dependency and the “ideology
of boundless growth” that we find in localisation in particular, and
he calls for a move away from translating everything for the sake of
wealth creation. He shuns Weaver’s envisaged machine translation

purpose of complete “mutual intelligibility” (see below) and argues
that diverse linguistic spaces are more resilient and viable (Moorkens
and Rocchi 2021: 330). All of this is in the name of solidarity with
global and future humans.
? What do you think about these issues?

? Is there an ethical responsibility for translators and interpreters
to consider their digital carbon footprint?
Looking Inwards: Ethical Stress

While the previous section looks outwards, we now turn back in on our-
selves. Over the course of the previous chapters we have seen that ethical
dilemmas occur in a range of contexts and can be incredibly challenging for
professionals to deal with. Whether we are working in a war zone, deliber-
ating over a specific word choice that can do justice to a particular text, or
struggling to negotiate a fair rate, ethical decision-making is hard work and
this can take have a very real mental toll on the translators and interpreters
(and students) working through these issues.
Ethical stress is an occupational stress “resulting from disparities in the eth-
ical values and expected behaviour of employees” (DeTienne, Agle, Phillips
and Ingerson 2012: 377–378) and is made up of disjuncture/dissonance (the
painful feelings of inauthenticity when values and feelings do not align with
actions) and ontological guilt (the specific guilt of not being able to act in
accordance with your own values) (Hubscher-Davidson 2021: 417). While
stress in general has traditionally been more closely linked with interpreting,
very little work “has been carried out on the psychological repercussions for
translators and interpreters of being enmeshed in ethical dilemmas, and no
study has yet investigated the impact of ethical stress specifically on trans-
lator or interpreter performance” (ibid 2021: 416). And while there is evi-
dence of a closer relationship with ethical stress and interpreting, in part due
to the physical proximity of the interpreter and the use of the first person in
interpreting, which “can intensify the embodiment of emotions and enhance
its traumatic impact” (Hubscher-Davidson 2021: 424), there is cause for all
language professionals to consider the relationship between their work and
their mental health.
In general, translators and interpreters face a number of clear occupa-
tional stressors, many of which we have alluded to in this and previous
chapters: time pressures, technology competition, the transitory nature
of the profession, questions over low status, rates of pay, and so forth.
Meanwhile, Hubscher-Davidson contends that translators and interpreters
similarly face specifically ethical stressors and are discouraged from exer-
cising their agency for three specific reasons:
• Lack of trust between involved parties (which leads to translators

“playing it safe” –explaining choices, for instance);
• Lack of support for the translator (e.g. resources to support
discussions and understandings of ethics);
• Lack of necessary information (important info being withheld).
(Hubscher-Davidson 2021: 418)
Questions of information asymmetry and a widespread lack of

understanding of translation and interpreting are implicit factors in the first
and third reasons, while the second is exemplified clearly in the transla-
tion profession. For instance, given that codes of ethics are unable to pro-
vide unproblematic, clear-cut answers when it comes to ethical dilemmas
(as explored in Chapter 7) and there is little ethical training available on a
large scale, translators are forced to contend with these tricky issues alone.
Some translators do seek to concretise their ethical decision-making via
other means such as other professionals’ blog entries, translation forum
posts, and social media discussions (resources that provide something
of a window into the profession (McDonough Dolmaya: 2011b) in terms of
ethical issues encountered), but there is no widespread, regulated release or
standard practice when it comes to tackling these ethical issues.
When these clashes occur between the professional’s own values and the
context in which they are working, the aforementioned dissonance occurs.
This is part of a cycle of ethical stress (Hubscher-Davidson: 2021: 424),
which subsequently moves to a self-control/self-regulation stage, where the
professional attempts to regulate their feelings, involving emotional labour.
Määttä (2015) gives the example of interpreters intervening in the context
of asylum interviews in Finland, for instance by correcting an error in a tran-
script. This intervention brings up a clash between professional expectations
(neutrality) and individual values (the desire to assist a fellow human being),
which may lead to “increased ethical stress, general work stress, and poten-
tial vicarious trauma” (Määttä 2015: 32). Indeed, this vicarious trauma (VC)
is the next point in the cycle of ethical stress. VC is associated with poor peer
support, doubts over professional competence, and changes in self-image
and is said to result in “reduced respect and concern for others.” Symptoms
include “social withdrawal, aggression, greater sensitivity to violence, cyni-
cism, numbness, sexual difficulties, eating disorders, helplessness, difficulty
in relationships, etc.” (Hubscher-Davidson 2021: 424), foregrounding the
powerful and pervasive nature of the potential impact upon professionals.
Bancroft, meanwhile, offers an interesting account of the tangible effects on
interpreters:
[I]‌nterpreters reported getting dizzy, nauseated or fearful after sessions
with survivors. They had nightmares or disturbed sleep. Their concen-
tration was disrupted during interpreting. They had difficulty getting
certain stories or images out of their head [...] they might shake or
tremble. Most distressing of all was the degree to which a number of
interpreters simply burned out.
(Bancroft 2017: 209)
Burnout occurs as a result of the repetition of these processes and may

lead professionals to leave the field and fail to forgive themselves or others.
Thankfully, however, it is not necessarily an irreversible endpoint. Even once
we have suffered through this cycle there is also the possibility of vicarious
transformation –“renewed hope, spiritual growth, and a greater appreci-
ation for life” (ibid. 425). However, this cycle is something that is very real
and “unchecked ethical stress may cause irreparable damage to their mental
health and well-being” (ibid.).
Potential advice to avoid these worrying effects could be to simply
remove ourselves from situations that may lead to these kinds of encounters,
but it is not easy to anticipate when and where ethical dilemmas will arise.
Furthermore, due to the economic demands placed on professionals, they
may find themselves “making a trade-off between work they want to do and
work they have to do” (Leiter and Maslach 2008: 501). We need support in
place to assist us in our ethical decision-making and to maintain reasonable
working conditions, and it is important to recognise that the translator is
not simply an invisible channel but rather a human being who is impacted
by the work and the words they deal with. This leads McAlester (2003: 226)
to powerfully contend that “ultimately, translators’ responsibility is not to
the author, or the reader, or the commissioner, or to the translating pro-
fession but to themselves” (bold for emphasis). Educators, employers, and
professional associations should help here, and we need to learn how to deal
with these issues. Some support mechanisms could include:
1. Social support networks of peers

2. Role plays
3. Counselling sessions
4. Ethics consultations
5. Open discussions with clients and managers etc.
Adapted from Hubscher-Davidson (2021: 426)
A powerful related strand of thought is the importance of self-care. Costa

et al. (2020: 36) contend that this is an ethical responsibility for interpreters,
and that they must keep themselves “fit and well- prepared to perform
interpreting assignments to the highest standards.” Self-care “requires the
deliberate practice of activities which keep a person healthy, engaged, and
well-functioning” (2020: 40) and reduce susceptibility to vicarious trauma.
In their pilot study, they found that interpreters who received support
sessions showed “an increase in their confidence, resilience, and effective-
ness” (2020: 50), pointing to the importance of this additional support and
the potential of training. Ultimately, the obligation to be emotionally and
physically fit enough for the work we take on adds another interesting layer
to the myriad responsibilities at work. They lament the lack of power that
professionals and non-professionals have in their professional encounters
and the lack of available outlets to provide relief from the toll their work
takes, accentuating the risk of burnout and impacting their performance.
They also discuss the jarring impact of expectations of neutrality and
bemoan a lack of training in ethical decision-making, stress management,
and self-care, as well as highlighting the prominence of self-care in codes for
frontline workers in other domains, further accentuating the gaps that exist
in interpreting contexts. Undoubtedly, this area warrants further explor-
ation in the future.
Between social responsibility and concerns relating to ethical stress and
self-care, there is something of a tension between internal concerns for self-
hood and identity and wider social and economic concerns. For Drugan and
Tipton (2017: 121),
approaches informed by social responsibility make it possible to move

beyond questions about what motivates translators and interpreters to
supply their labour (whether waged and/or unwaged) based on indi-
vidual notions of what is good for society or self interest, to questions
about how translation can support better living together as an eth-
ical goal.
This quote exemplifies a divide between individual ethical concerns and social
responsibility, but arguably translators and interpreters must be sensitive to
both sides of the equation. However noble the causes (e.g. living together
better), if outward-looking viewpoints are conceived of in opposition to
internal needs, there is a risk to the individual professional. Particularly in
the challenging context of a changing professional world, translators and
interpreters must look to protect not only their mental health, but also seek
to guard the sustainability (both financial and existential) of their profession
and career. These are areas we will explore in the next sections.
Box 8.2 The Railway Man –Ethical stress in T&I

The 1995 book The Railway Man, which was subsequently adapted
into a film in 2013, not only provides a fascinating account of extreme
hardship, recovery, reconciliation, and repentance, but also presents
a shocking case of the mental toll of interpreting practice. The book
tells the story of a former British Army officer, Eric Lomax, who was
tortured as a prisoner of war at a Japanese labour camp during World

War II. Military interpreter Takashi Nagase took part in Lomax’s tor-
ture and, while never tried for any crime, the interpreter felt a pro-
found burden of guilt.
Lomax describes the bipolar nature of the interpreter’s role –some-
times detached and other times more actively involved. Even when
delivering the news that Lomax has effectively been sentenced to
death, Nagase does so with “so little inflection in his voice” but also
betrays a “smug virtuous complicity” (1996: 135) and eventually gets
“deeper into his role […] as though he were enjoying it”. At one point,
when the interpreter ends up having a tangential conversation with
Lomax, a Japanese NCO (non-commissioned officer) becomes suspi-
cious and berates the interpreter, re-emphasising this bipolar role. As
Lomax puts it, “the interpreter was simply meant to be a channel of
communication, and when it got blocked or distorted, the NCO would
shout at him too” (ibid.).
After fifty years of being haunted by what he had been through,
Lomax discovers the identity of the interpreter and considers whether
to exact some form of revenge. In the intervening years, Nagase had
gone on to spend his life as an activist for post-war reconciliation and
against Japanese militarism, criticising the oath of loyalty –or as he
put it the “cult of obedience to authority” (1996: 272) that soldiers
adhered to in following the Emperor’s orders. Reading about Nagase’s
efforts to atone, Lomax first questions whether they are genuine but
also realises that these events and memories have taken a toll on the
interpreter: “he too had nightmares, flashbacks, terrible feelings of
loss” (1996: 240). Upon meeting, Nagase explains that “[f]‌ifty years is
a long time, but for me it is a time of suffering” (1996: 263) and even
explains how he tried to persuade the NCO he was interpreting for
that Lomax was not the leader of a group attempting to communicate
outside of the camp.
This case questions the difference in intensity between translation
and interpreting (and interpreting in war zones!), points to questions
of responsibility (again), agency, and non-neutrality, and points out
the utopian nature of activist aims –we are not always in a position
where championing a certain cause is feasible or at least uncompli-
cated. Nagase is not an advocate, or at least he is for the state, perhaps,
facilitating communication in line with a national agenda. However, he
(presumably) does so for fear of his life –despite Lomax’s comments
that he seemed to enjoy it at times, his repentance appears genuine.
Finally, the psychological impact of this role comes to the fore: this
is obviously an extreme example, but the case points to the vicarious
trauma experienced by interpreters and the inescapability of some
situations –we have to make choices and we have to live by those

choices.
? Can we justify Nagase’s actions during the war? (See also Box 6.1).
? (How) could Nagase mitigate against the mental toll of his work?
? How can we atone for our mistakes?
Growing Concerns: Rates of Pay and Ethical Payment Practices

While some scholars argue that money is not an ethical issue (and this is
sometimes used as a rationale for its absence in codes of ethics, as explored
in Chapter 7), historically there is a strong link between money and ethics,
from the Biblical allusion to money as the root of all evil to more recent
critiques of capitalist culture and the endless accumulation of money
described by Marx (1867) as “fetishism”. And this link between the two
areas seemingly extends to the context of translation. Rates of pay have
been the subject of inadequate attention in both academic and professional
literature in translation and interpreting for a number of reasons. While
money remains a taboo topic in many parts of the world, the wide-ranging
nature of the “profession” makes it difficult to carry out systematic studies
or to make easy comparisons, and the decidedly economically unambi-
tious mindset mentioned above complicates matters further. However, this
represents one of the most pressing areas of concern to working translators
and interpreters. In a 2020 survey, the UK-based Institute of Translation and
Interpreting asked members which ethical dilemmas they had faced in the
previous three years, and by far the largest proportion of answers, 42 per
cent (the next highest was 28% and then 16%), related to “Rates/conditions
asked to accept”. Meanwhile, another 2020 survey of 1,510 freelance
translators by Inbox Translation similarly found that “low rates of pay”
was the leading challenge facing freelancers, with 59 per cent of respondents
selecting this area, and many commenting on a general downward pressure
on rates as a specific area of concern. Generally, translators feel that they are
not paid enough, and there is evidence of low, and decreasing rates being
offered.
This stems from a number of key sources, including industry disruptors,
ongoing issues of low status, and a lack of regulation (this is not the place
to get into an in-depth exploration of money in translation). For a more
detailed picture of the current situation in relation to translation in the UK
context, see Lambert and Walker (2022). In addition, the way that the trans-
lation industry works exacerbates issues. Employing an outsourcing model
where either individual translations or LSPs will take care of translation
on behalf of a client as the “recipients of expert services are not themselves
adequately knowledgeable to solve the problem or to assess the service
required” (Freidson 1983: 41, cited in Sharma 1997: 764). Within this model
is information asymmetry, where one side of the market has more informa-
tion than the other, resulting in “a market price lower than the fair price”
(Chan 2017: 93). So, as our clients cannot assess our skills, or see or fully
appreciate the process or the quality of the product of translation (think, for
instance, of the ubiquity of imperfect tools such as Google Translate), trans-
lation itself is undervalued, translators are accorded less status and prestige
than other comparable professions and, ultimately, pay is lower than it per-
haps should be. Of course, this is a very quick rundown of what is an enor-
mously complex area, but it suffices here to point out some of the underlying
mechanisms of low pay.
In an ethical sense, we are forced to question whether we should insist
upon higher pay as translators and interpreters? However, how willing
would LSPs be to increase prices? Of course, the blame does not just
fall on the LSPs, who are following the profit motive as many would in
today’s world, but there is a range of practices that are morally question-
able. For instance, is it ethical to undercut other translator’s/interpreter’s/
LSP’s prices in order to gain work? Gouadec, for instance, has argued that
translators have an ethical “obligation” to refuse unremunerated work
and never knowingly to underbid for contracts (2007: 196). What about
hiring unqualified translators (an area further problematised by the lack
of regulation in the area!)? Is it ethical for LSPs to pay reduced rates for
tech-assisted translations (see below) to benefit themselves? What are the
ethical implications of clients paying late or not paying at all? And finally,
what are the ethical implications of LSPs or clients asking for translators to
complete free translation tests with the lure of potential future work? Some
translators even report that unscrupulous clients have used this method to
source entirely free translations, breaking texts up and presenting the indi-
vidual parts to translators as a “test”.
Ultimately this is a minefield. Information asymmetry, a lack of status,
perceived unimportance, poor understandings, and perhaps even low self-
confidence all inhibit translator’s price-setting ability. To fight low rates, we
need to perhaps hold our nerve and ask for rates that are appropriate (some
codes do ask translators to do this, though this is not easy, particularly when
you are just starting out in your career, hence, the need for more training and
further reflection), but much is embedded within wider concerns of status.
At this point, consider how much help the more theoretical ideas of ethics
explored in chapters 2 to 6 offer here.
? What is your stance on rates of pay? Would you simply accept the
rate offered by a client/LSP or would you negotiate and refuse rates
that you consider to be lower than what the services are worth?
? How would you handle a situation in which a client refuses to pay
for a translation that you have completed? How could you mitigate
against situations such as this?
Box 8.3 How much should you charge?

Imagine that you have just started your career as a translator or inter-
preter and a potential new client asks you what you are going to charge.
How would you respond? Drugan and Megone (2011: 195–197) offer
something of a response to this question, exploring common ways in
which translators come to calculate rates of pay and introducing the
ethical dimension of this area. They note that rates are highly motiv-
ating but “often shrouded in mystery” and acknowledge the specific
pulls felt by newly graduated students venturing into the profession.
Rates vary enormously based on language pair, practice type, domain,
and geographical location, and this makes blanket suggestions some-
what futile (searching online is a good place to start for concrete fig-
ures), but their range of models offers a useful map of considerations
(see also Walker 2022, Chapter 6 for a breakdown of these factors
from the perspective of project management):
The same rate –or agreed range of rates –for every job, which
1.
is the most common solution adopted in the profession;
Client-dependent. Translators may set rates depending on the
2.
nature of the client’s business;
Experience-dependent. Translators often charge more for work
3.
in a field where they have gained a specialization or prior
experience;
Source text- / Domain-dependent. Translators may vary their
4.
rates according to the complexity, length or format of the
source text;
Deadline-dependent. An urgent deadline or requirement to
5.
work nonstandard hours (evenings, at weekends) will often
incur a supplementary charge;
Colleague or sector-dependent. Translators in niche domains
6.
and specialised sectors such as subtitling typically know what
the standard rate for their type of work is and set their rates
accordingly, while avoiding potential legal issues with price
fixing;
As much as you think you can get away with.
7.
Drugan and Megone question these approaches using concepts
including justice, fairness, generosity, and kindness, which feed
in at various points. We could also add the ubiquitous profit
motive and a personal need to survive to these calculations.
? Which of the models above would you adopt and why?
? Which principle(s) above (if any) drives your decision-
making?
Translation Technology and Ethics

A related area of pressing concern for professionals in both translation and
interpreting, which not only impacts upon our relationship with money but
feeds into a number of widespread ethical concerns, is the continued role of
technological developments. Technology is already and increasingly central
to the way that translators and interpreters work (Doherty 2016, Zetzsche
2020), to the point that many argue that it has fundamentally changed
our working habits. Computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) tools continue
to develop at pace, while in the context of translation, Pym (2013: 493)
comments that “whereas much of the translator’s skillset and effort was
previously invested in identifying possible solutions to translation problems
[...], the vast majority of these skills and efforts are now invested in selecting
between available solutions”. LeBlanc, meanwhile, contends that transla-
tion memory (TM) tools “render the translator’s work more mechanical
and, when misused, may lead to deskilling and may have an effect on the
translator’s professional satisfaction” (LeBlanc 2017: 48).
In recent years, this central role has been considered to a greater extent
in relation to ethics, with the increased technologisation of both transla-
tion and interpreting forcing us to consider our positioning. Neural machine
translation (NMT), which uses machine learning techniques to ‘learn’ over
time –the more examples it has available, the better the quality –is reflective
of the parallel between wider coverage of AI and technology and translation
specifically. Importantly, this is very much a developing field, and the litera-
ture is still rather fragmented. As Bowker (2021: 262) puts it, “while there
is a considerable body of work on the ethics of translation, as well as one
on computer-aided translation (CAT) and MT, relatively little scholarly lit-
erature directly addresses the intersection of the two, though this is starting
to change.”
This lacuna is equally concerning in the profession where, as evidenced
by the focus of codes of ethics in the previous chapter, consideration of
ethics and technology remains marginal despite its wide-ranging impact.
Indeed, many of the concerns within the domain of translation technology
fall in line with wider ethical concerns. As Drugan notes, “[m]‌any of these
questions about ethical aspects of new [translation] technologies are difficult
to separate from broader sociocultural issues. Technological developments
have occurred alongside, and played a part in, major ongoing shifts in social
structures, migration patterns, trade, information and employment” (Drugan
2019: 250). In this section, we explore a number of these ethical concerns.
Types of translation technology

It is beyond the scope of this textbook to explore the precise nature of these
technologies in detail (see Mitchell-Schuitevoerder 2020 for an accessible
introduction to the wide range of computer-based tools that translators must
be familiar with today), but it is worth quickly mentioning a few distinctions.
CAT (computer-assisted translation) tools can be broken down into two
vital areas that suffice for exploring the key ethical issues below: Translation
Memory (TM) tools and Machine Translation (MT).
TMs provide a database of matching source and target segments of text,
generally entered by human translators. The TM software analyses the
source text and splits it into segments, compares and matches each segment
in the ST with the database of SL/TL pairs as the translator translates, and
stores new source and target segment pairs for subsequent use. The idea
is that this database of existing translations will improve consistency and
speed/productivity and facilitate terminology searches, while the CAT tool
can also handle complex formatting for the user.
MT systems, on the other hand, are specifically designed to automatic-
ally translate text (or speech) from one language into another. The most
famous example of an MT system is perhaps Google Translate, which
launched in 2006 and is now reported to have over 500 million daily users
translating over 100 languages. To muddy the waters slightly, it is worth
noting that CAT tools incorporating TM can also incorporate MT add-ons
to allow translators to leverage automatically generated translations in
their work but, primarily, a TM tool can be seen as providing machine-
assisted human translation rather than carrying out the translation fully
for you.
MT research started around World War II, but the relationship between
technology and translation really transformed in the 1990s with the intro-
duction of TM systems. Now, translators use a wide array of tech in their
work and, with advancements in MT and free online translation available,
tech is now used regularly by people outside the translation profession, too
(see Bowker and Buitrago Ciro 2019). Indeed, MT pioneer Warren Weaver
envisaged the new tool as necessary for “the constructive and peaceful future
of the planet” (Weaver 1947: 1), a nod to the ideas of social responsibility
mapped out above. Now, MT is at the centre of our discussions of tech-
nology and ethics and, in the context of interpreting, MT continues to gen-
erate debate and is likely to continue to impact upon working methods (see,
for instance, Haddow, Birch, and Heafield (2021) for a fascinating overview
of the usage of MT in healthcare settings).
? Have you used any CAT tools in your translation or interpreting

work? Can you anticipate any ethical questions that may come up,
perhaps in relation to rates, privacy, or commoditisation?
? What positive or negative impacts might the democratisation of
MT tools to non-translators around the world have on professional
Machine translation post editing and professional status

and sustainability
Inherent in translation automation is a perceived threat to human
translators, and these concerns have become more acute as MT output
has continued to improve. However, despite leaps in technology and MT
quality in an ever-growing range of languages and domains, human parity
seems a distant dream, and one that is perhaps not even desirable. In reality,
rather than simply replacing human translation, the relationship between
technology and translation has been more nuanced, with advancements
harnessed to allow evolutions in the roles carried out by professionals. One
of the clearest ways in which MT has impacted upon the translation world
in recent years is the advent of Machine Translation Post-Editing (MTPE).
This is the process during which a text that has been pre-translated using
MT is corrected by human linguists/editors rather than translated from
scratch, with the aim of saving time and money. It should be noted that
rates for post-editing tend to be significantly lower than for ‘full’ transla-
tion. For this reason, MTPE has become increasingly appealing to clients
and employers, and Garcia (2010: 19) even contends that students at his
own university produced better (English- Chinese and Chinese- English)
translations when they post-edited SMT output than when they translated
from scratch. This finding is then used to motivate the question of whether
translators should consider post-editing as a viable alternative to conven-
tional translation. Related to this, the increasing prevalence of post-editing
also leads to a dilemma in the classroom. Should we focus on improving
human translations or, if MTPE is going to lead to better results, should we
focus on teaching this instead?
In the profession, there is a wide range of attitudes towards MTPE.
Many hold a decidedly negative view of the practice: For instance, Nataly
Kelly (2014) describes post-editing as “linguistic janitorial work”, arguing
that the practice is condescending, does a disservice to colleagues, and is
bound to feed into professional satisfaction, while Moorkens and O’Brien
(2017: 109) call it “boring and demeaning.” Dyson (2003: 11) suggests
that, for translation tool users, “their technology will label them as bottom
feeders, not premium market contenders” and this assertion points to a dual
model of translation service provision, with a dividing line between pre-
mium and bulk translations. For Bowker (2021: 269),
[t]‌he general premise is that premium services, carried out principally by

skilled human translators, can command higher prices for their quality-
focused work. Meanwhile, the bulk services carried out with the help
of MT or CAT tools offer a comparatively low-cost, quick-and-dirty
solution that encourages technology-dependent translators to focus on
processing large volumes of text to earn a living.
This leads to concerns over the “lower end” of the marking forcing rates
down and shifting quality expectations. Other scholars recognise the idea
that translations only need to be “fit for purpose” and see post-editing as a
very attractive proposition for some translators.
From an ethical perspective, is it acceptable to go for “good enough”
quality? Consider, for instance, Chesterman’s Oath guideline stipulating that
“I will always translate to the best of my ability” (2001: 153). Bowker also
questions the issues of professional esteem that go hand in hand with labels
such as “linguistic janitorial work”, commenting on how translators reading
these “condescending” descriptions are sure to suffer from low job satisfac-
tion and question their professional identity, asking whether it should “be
shameful to produce a translation that meets the specifications provided?”
(Bowker 2021: 269).
As a practice itself, a number of authors also argue that using CAT
tools and the practice of MTPE “risks concealing, overshadowing or
downgrading the translator’s contribution” (Bowker 2021: 267), being
relegated to a word-replacement activity. As we know, this is something that
translation already struggles with, with limited wider understandings of
translation mentioned above. By shifting the translator’s role to that of
an editor who tweaks automated output, these wider misunderstandings
of translation risk becoming even more pervasive, something that Stupiello
refers to as a “hidden ethical cost” (2008) of technology usage, forcing
translators to balance increases in productivity and consistency against
issues such as the risk of further misunderstandings of what their role entails
among the general public.
? What are your thoughts on MTPE? Does the practice appeal to you?
? Should you always seek to achieve optimal quality when translating
or interpreting?
Money
As alluded to in the section above, remuneration is closely linked to techno-
logical advancements, with new systems, workflows, and practices leading
to a battle over the range of leverage these advancements offer. However,
though it is abundantly clear that there is a strong link between these
issues, the two areas stand out as notable absences from codes of ethics (see
Chapter 7) and discussions of ethics more widely. CAT tool usage is regu-
larly based on aims of boosting productivity and minimising costs. SDL (the
former owners of industry-leading CAT tool Trados), for instance, touted
MTPE as yielding a 140 per cent productivity increase in relation to pure
human translation, with a leap from 2,500 to 6,000 words per day. However,
as noted above, there are hidden costs associated with this supposed gain.
CAT tools require other investments that offset benefits like time and money
spent on buying and learning to use the tools. Clients will also regularly
capitalise on any increases in productivity by paying lower rates or even not
paying at all for translations, depending on the match percentage –that is,
if a translation already exists in a TM, the client will often offer no payment
(Marshman 2014: 381).
It is very common for clients to request discounts for machine-translated
segments or repetitions based on TM matches, often adopting a sliding scale
whereby no match would pay 100 per cent of the translator’s full rate and
a 100 per cent match would not be paid at all. This can lead to translators
being paid only a fraction of the “full” word count for a text, despite having
to, at the very least, check those matches to ensure that the translations are
correct. In this way, productivity and consistency benefits are reaped by LSPs
rather than translators, recalling the debates over “business-mindedness”
touched upon earlier in this chapter and foregrounding concerns over the
gulf between LSP profits and stagnating rates for translators and interpreters
(see Lambert and Walker 2022). This is a practice that understandably riles
many student and professional translators, but is one that is seemingly
becoming more widespread. Again, think about how this impacts upon our
relationships with codes of ethics or traditional understandings of ethics
that we have covered. TMs and MT can be discussed in terms of rates.
Above, we considered the idea of rates commensurate with our abilities,
or fair, dignified rates but, unfortunately, many current MT-modified pay
structures appear questionable at best.
Sharing and commoditisation of translation resources

Given that TMs are used to leverage existing translations as a time- /
money-saving measure, another ethical issue that has been raised relating
to technology is the question of whether TM databases should be shared.
As Topping (2000) reported, some translators attempt to maximise prod-
uctivity “by expanding their TM database collection as quickly as possible,
and so they advocated for TM database exchange” (Bowker 2021: 265).
LSPs, however, have argued that this sharing of resources would mean
that different clients end up with translations that employ similar or the
same style and terminology, breaching their intellectual property rights
and nullifying their investments. This debate conceptualises TMs and ter-
minology databases as assets (Zetzsche 2005), and many clients are abun-
dantly aware of their value, allowing them to both ensure consistency
and pay less for translations. In the profession, it is common for clients
to want translators to send them updated TMs and term bases upon com-
pletion of a project and to insist on using them in future projects (Bowker
2021: 266). But, translators cannot in turn use them with other clients. Still
today, translators do not have any significant control over TM resources
(Moorkens and Lewis 2020) and the fast pace of change means that copy-
right legislation is struggling to keep up with the changes in the profession.
Ultimately, the question of who exactly owns and controls these resources
is still contested, and the way in which content is used and re-used requires
further attention.
Privacy and confidentiality

The issues of resource sharing above also allude to concerns around con-
fidentiality: should we share translations that have been prepared for
a specific client? Indeed, this aspect is felt even more keenly in the con-
text of MT. According to Kamocki and O’Regan (2016: 4461), using free
online MT may entail privacy risks of which users may be unaware and
of which MT service providers may be tempted to take advantage. When
you use free online translators such as Google Translate, that data does
not simply disappear. Many providers use it for training data or to expand
their corpora, subsequently training their systems further, and there is huge
potential for issues. Say, for instance, that a translator inputs sensitive com-
pany information into the system. Common Sense Advisory’s Don DePalma
warns that “employees and your suppliers are unconsciously conspiring
to broadcast your confidential information, trade secrets, and intellectual
property (IP) to the world” (DePalma 2014). For this reason, some LSPs will
specifically state that you cannot use MT when translating and in Trados;
for instance, project managers will be able to see if you have used automatic
translation, though there are ways around this via add-ons –another ethical
grey area (for more on this, see Moorkens and Lewis 2020).
While Google states in its policies that it “does not claim any ownership
in the content that you submit or in the translations of that content returned
by the API”, later terms reveal that
[w]‌hen you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you

give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host,
store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting
from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your
content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
(cited in DePalma 2014)
The license to use the data also continues even after a user ceases to use the
service.
All of this potentially impacts upon our relationships with ethics and
codes of ethics. While confidentiality is universally present in codes, none
engage specifically with issues relating to technology usage and, though
Drugan and Babych (2010) claim that codes can help with some of these
issues, I would argue that this help is extremely limited. Indeed, as noted
in Chapter 7, many codes include no mention of technology at all, driving
translators to discuss these issues with peers online (Bowker 2021: 269).
Collaboration, quality, and fidelity

One further significant way in which technologies have changed the trans-
lation profession, which again forces us to rethink a principle that is regu-
larly codified, is by facilitating group work. This is both a positive move
and a challenge, dissolving boundaries between collaborators while also
engendering important changes to the way we conceptualise translation.
Collaborative working means that the notion of fidelity is arguably no
longer applicable at all –or must be rearticulated –as no one translator
is ‘in charge’ of the final product. Consider, for instance, crowdsourced
translations, where content is outsourced to many participants: Who is
responsible for the final text in this case? In addition, crowdsourcing often
involves the participation of non-professional translators; see Basalamah
(2021) for an exploration of this domain.
As with the concerns over MTPE mentioned above, TMs prioritise “con-
sistency and efficiency and instead force translators to reduce translation
to the most primitive sense of fidelity imaginable: fidelity to words at the
sentence or even the subsentence level (because of segmentation)” (Bowker
2021: 267); and this again raises a tension between quality, time pressures,
and ‘traditional’ ethical values in translation. Translators working with TM
tools stand to benefit from working as quickly as possible, accepting existing
solutions, and potentially even producing renderings that will work in mul-
tiple future instances. For LeBlanc (2017: 45),
[i]‌n the eyes of many translators, some of the new guidelines –most not-
ably, those pertaining to the establishment of productivity requirements
and the enforced recycling of previous translations –represent a radical
departure from what was done beforehand, and, more importantly, may
have an effect on translators’ professional autonomy and their overall
professional satisfaction.
Ultimately, current practices and workflows have not only changed transla-
tion almost unrecognisably in some cases, but these changes are also having
far-reaching impacts upon those who work in the field, and will continue
to do so. While changes in interpreting have arguably been less radical to
date, this area has also seen considerable technological adoption in recent
years, not least with the massive rise in remote interpreting, in part fed by
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cultural hegemony
One final area of consideration in relation to technology revolves around
a paradox inherent in MT usage. Moorkens (2022: 121) reminds us that
MT and technology are “not ethically neutral, but rather [reflect] the values
of those behind [their] development”; and MT’s stated aim of overcoming
barriers in communication risks marginalising certain languages, cultures,
and people. Translation is available on an ever-wider level and between an
ever-increasing number of languages, but it can also be seen to accentuate
current issues rather than promoting diversity. For instance, the status of
English as the dominant lingua franca of our time and wider usage of MT
are leading to more material being translated both into and out of English,
further entrenching the position. Quality is also higher for languages with
larger corpora, consolidating the place of English while increasing challenges
for less-common languages, despite efforts to promote/preserve them, that
is, English MT output is often excellent while minority language content is
weaker, strengthening that position of dominance.
In recent years, attention has also turned to the way in which neural
machine translation’s (NMT) makeup can strengthen biases. Most current
NMT systems do not take context into account but select the option that is
statistically the most likely variant, and this has been found to perpetuate a
male bias. Google Translate, for instance, was found to generally use mas-
culine pronouns for words like “strong” or “doctor” and feminine pronouns
for “beautiful” and “nurse” (Bowker 2021: 273). Though Google later
publicised efforts to reduce this bias, it remains unclear how far/success-
fully this has been implemented as similar examples have been reported in
other languages since the publication of Google’s response. For example,
as of May 2022 this bias persists in Finnish, which does not have gendered
third-person singular pronouns (he and she) but rather one gender-neutral
pronoun, Hän. As shown in Figure 8.1, the gender-neutral source text (the
same pronoun ‘hän’ is used in each sentence) demonstrates a clear bias in
the English target text.
Ultimately, there is a range of perspectives on the future of translation –
uncertainty and optimism among them –and a need for more concrete eth-
ical guidance in relation to technology underpins many concerns. MT is
reliant upon human translations to keep improving, but tensions exist. What
is certain is that technological change is continuing at pace and translation
is not the only field affected. Authors, journalists, musicians, and artists are
also susceptible to having “the fruits of their intellects and imaginations”
treated “as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind” (Lanier
2010: 57).
Figure 8.1 Gender Bias in Google Translate.

How we will deal with these issues is still unclear, but this is not going
away. There is a worrying push to laud the progress made by CAT and MT
tools, which risks harming perceptions of translation –it becomes something
that is quick and cheap while masking hidden costs. As Bowker again notes,
“[t]‌ranslators may try to explain to the customer that high-quality transla-
tion requires time and money. However, they will likely seek someone who is
happy to deliver unpolished computer-aided translations for a cheaper price
and in a shorter turnaround time” (2021: 270). Education is vital: students,
trainers, clients, authors –all of the stakeholders mentioned before –and so
is the image we share of translation. The future is not easy to predict but this
is fertile ground for future research with lots of pertinent questions to ask.
Box 8.4 Technology, money, and ethics

Imagine that you have been asked to translate a large user manual
(over 20,000 words) for an end client. When you run an analysis in
your usual CAT tool, you realise that there is a high percentage of
repetition (over 10,000 words). The LSP who has approached you
with the project does not use any CAT tools and they have not asked
you about discounts. In fact, they are entirely ignorant about CAT
tools and how they work.
? What should you do in this situation? Why?

? If the LSP’s pay structure included discounts for matches (for
instance, paying zero for 100% matches) what would you do?
Though many translators are initially surprised by this payment prac-

tice, there are also many who do accept it, as they often have very little
room to negotiate –in common language pairs in particular, a client
will simply go to another translator if you refuse their rates. And while
a general principle of business ethics is the right to make a profit, the
downward pressure on translation rates of pay raises important eth-
ical questions relating to translator’s agency and the long-term sustain-
ability of the profession.
Conclusion
While we have, above, somewhat separated internal and external concerns,
there is no need for such a stark dividing line. While wider social causes will
not always align with internal needs (and indeed there are tensions within
these domains, too –consider clashes between payment and mental health,
for instance), the need to prioritise individual wellbeing, environmental sus-
tainability, and financial flourishing, for instance, can be harmonised with
“socially responsible” viewpoints aiming to live better together. It is also
worth noting that these issues are not only of concern to professionals, but
to clients and end users too. What is required as a starting point is for “eth-
ical” professionals to be aware of, and become engaged in, these debates.
This is one of the most compelling calls within the broad framework of
social responsibility, specifically, the need to consider ideas beyond our rela-
tively narrow field of translation and interpreting, to consider our role in
promoting social and procedural justice, particularly “in relation to vulner-
able groups and relevant inter-professions” (Drugan and Tipton 2017: 123).
Of course, this sits implicitly at the heart of the ideas covered in Chapters 5
and 6, but is well worth reiterating in the professional sphere.
In terms of technology, meanwhile, translators and interpreters are
empowered by continued developments, but these are not without their risks
and challenges. While they have created a space for participatory cultures,
providing networks and platforms to everyone from amateurs to activists,
there is an array of ethical considerations to bear in mind, and evolving
questions in relation to sustainability –of both the environment and the
profession. However, the nature of translation, current global developments,
and MT’s underlying need for human translations suggest that the future of
human translation is in no way in doubt.
Money is also a common underlying theme to many of these concerns –
translators and interpreters find themselves marginalised because of poor
understandings of what their work entails, poor status and perceptions of
their work, and a lack of regulation that allows anyone to enter the market.
Technological developments risk further exacerbating the situation by acting
as “disruptors”, introducing practices such as Uberisation in the transla-
tion industry (Fırat 2021), providing quasi-legitimate platforms for amateur
translators to join the body of practicing translators, and allowing (unscru-
pulous) LSPs to push rates down further through divisive practices such as
discounts for matches. This anxiety around finance leads to (ethical) stress
among translators and interpreters, to the extent that the importance of
practicing financial self-care has entered the professional discourse in recent
years. Considering how we can promote the practices of translation and
interpreting, improve wider perceptions, and subsequently ensure fairer pay
commensurate with the work involved, all while respecting our own and our
society’s ethical needs and ideals, are key ethical questions that professionals
continue to battle with.
The complex interplay between all of the factors considered in this
chapter (and beyond) is worth noting. Indeed, they are not discrete
entities, but rather interact with one another. For instance, technological
developments feed into environmental concerns, which in turn can damage
an individual’s mental health in the form of climate anxiety. This complex
web of competing concerns and considerations makes ethics an incredibly
challenging area to engage with, and I attempt to bring together some fur-
ther diffuse threads in the final chapter.

1. In what way are technological advances in translation and interpreting
impacting upon our understandings of ethics in the domain, and what
do you consider to be the most pressing areas to address?
2. Should wider social responsibility or personal interests (mental health,
financial wellbeing) be the overriding considerations behind decisions
we make as a translator or interpreter?
3. Group project: in small groups, come up with an agreed definition of an
“ethical professional” in translation and/or interpreting.
Note
1 Anastasiou and Gupta define crowdsourcing as “the process by means of which
organisations can tap into the wisdom of their dedicated external community and
use the wisdom for their benefit, i.e. with low cost, for more languages, and within
the specified time frame” (2011: 2).
Further Reading
As is the case for many of the other chapters in this textbook, The Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Ethics (Koskinen and Pokorn 2021) is a rich source
for further reading in this domain. Lambert’s chapter explores professional trans-
lator ethics in general, Hubscher-Davidson explores ethical stress in more detail,
while Bowker provides an incisive image of the range of concerns in relation to
ethics and technology. Elsewhere, Moorkens (2022) offers a rich and accessible
exploration of ethics and technology, full of ‘real life’ case studies; Lambert and
Walker (2022) explore the complex relationship between translation, rates, and
professional status; and Drugan and Tipton’s 2017 special issue of The Translator
groups together a fascinating range of articles illustrating the many and varied
research trajectories that a basis in social responsibility can offer.
9 Other Viewpoints
Key questions
• What emerging topics are currently occupying scholars,
professionals, and students, and what does the future hold for
research in translation and interpreting ethics?
• Can we legitimately consider our own interests as a valid part of
our ethical decision-making?
• Who can, may, or should translate or interpret?
It is abundantly clear from our discussions in this textbook that ethics in

translation and interpreting is a multi-dimensional, complex, and evolving
area of discussion. While we have delved into many of the most prominent
areas of research, past and present, it is only right that we now consider
‘what next’, giving voice to emerging or otherwise less visible strands of
thought on the topic. The broad and arguably growing nature of discussions
on ethics precludes an in-depth review of every emerging theme in this
chapter so I therefore highlight two particular cases while alluding to sev-
eral other potential lines of enquiry. These cases are selected, not as the most
prominent in the area, but rather because of their contrasting approaches to
the self and Others –a recurring concern throughout this textbook, perhaps
unsurprisingly given the belief that “translation represents the quintessential
ethical situation of the encounter with the other” (Goodwin 2010: 19). They
illustrate the wealth of contrasting potential ethical paths available to us and
foreground the dynamic nature of discussions, where different themes rise to
prominence and fade away in different times, regions, languages, cultures,
and communities. I then return to the thorny question of responsibility,
bringing together the vast array of concerns that we have covered in this
textbook, encouraging readers to reflect on their positioning in light of this
range of ‘pulls’ and to consider how these often-competing interests interact
with one another. To finish, I point to a number of potential future research
strands, which once again illustrate the incredibly broad nature of questions
DOI: 10.4324/9781003148265-10
162 Other Viewpoints
of ethics in the domain, and will hopefully inspire further exploration of this
fascinating area.
Looking Further Afield

Beyond the key themes introduced in this textbook, there remains a plethora
of viewpoints, literature, and studies to be explored across the dynamic and
wide-ranging field of ethics for those interested in doing so. For instance,
ethical exploration shares certain ties with thought in post-colonial trans-
lation studies, several of which have built upon the German Romantic
ethics of difference to forward an “ethos of anticoloniality/decoloniality”
that seeks to reflect and represent the foreignness of an ST (see Robinson
2021). Gender studies, to name another field, challenges –among other
things –concepts of fidelity and raises questions of borders, (inter)subject-
ivity, and solidarity (on feminist translation ethics see, for instance, Ergun
2021). There are also numerous studies exploring the ethical and ideological
implications of censorship in translation (see, for instance, McLaughlin and
Muñoz-Basols 2021), which force us to re-assess our thinking on issues such
as truth, representation, and our socially embedded role. Further still, emer-
ging conversations have covered topics that include child language brokering
(Angelelli 2021), questions of accessibility (Hirvonen and Kinnunen 2021),
and research ethics (Mellinger and Baer 2021). As noted in the ‘Further
Reading’ section at the end of this chapter, The Routledge Handbook of
Translation and Ethics is a rich source for many of these themes, and indeed
for additional coverage and renewed perspectives on the topics covered in
previous chapters (as are the previous ‘Further Reading’ sections and the
Bibliography, of course!).
Other edited volumes on ethical issues (which have appeared in a range
of journals across TIS) also point to important potential areas of further
consideration. Within Pym’s (2001) special issue of The Translator entitled
‘The Return to Ethics’, for instance, Salah Basalamah investigates eth-
ical copyright in translation, David Katan and Francesco Straniero-Sergio
delve into the ethics of entertainment and talk show interpreting, and Alev
Bulut and Turgay Kurultay focus on community interpreting in the process
of disaster management. Drugan and Tipton’s (2017) special issue of The
Translator, meanwhile, which foregrounds the theme of social responsibility
(see Chapter 8), includes contributions that explore topics as diverse as col-
laboration, flows, and policies in crowd-sourced translation (McDonough
Dolmaya 2017), the importance of interpreters’ pragmatic competence in
police investigative interviews (Gallai 2017), and the role and impact of vol-
unteer interpreters working with survivors of domestic abuse (Tipton 2017).
Elsewhere, Greenall et al. (2019) draw together an array of fascinating
contributions on voice, ethics, and translation, including papers on the ethics
of publishing and translators’ copyright. In their special issue of Translation
and Interpreting Studies, Monzó-Nebot and Wallace (2020) explore the
Other Viewpoints 163
ethics of non-professional translation and interpreting, while Moorkens,
Kenny, and do Carmo (2020) reflect on paths towards ethical, sustain-
able Machine Translation in Translation Spaces. Even more recently, The
Translator dedicated another special issue to ethics in 2021 – ‘Translation
and the Ethics of Diversity’ (ed. Hutchings 2021) –with contributions ran-
ging from the ethics of translation in Cold War espionage (Tyulenev 2021)
to the ethical dimension of the translation of post-conflict literature (Rossi
2021). All of these areas would undoubtedly warrant further research in
the future, and it is noteworthy that so many of these special issues have
appeared in the last few years: a testament to the prominent current place of
ethics in TIS and the ever-broadening research in the area.
Arguably, there remains much work to be done to explore traditions and
currents of thought from other countries, cultures, and languages too, with
a developing body of work on ethics related to Chinese philosophy (for
instance Li and Chen 2018) and non-Western viewpoints more generally.
Indeed, though I provided some coverage of the Chinese tradition in this
textbook (see Chapter 2 in particular), there is also increasing interest in
socialist translation theories (see Baer and Schäffner 2021), for example,
where translators have served a different purpose to that in the West,
prioritising the interests of the working class and the socialist state –though
this did not happen through active intervention (as would be the case with
activist ethics, covered in Chapter 6), but rather through censorship and
self-censorship, another fascinating area for consideration, as alluded to
above. Other traditions, meanwhile, have received scant attention, though
interestingly (and somewhat surprisingly), Koskinen and Pokorn (2021: 5)
contend that the development of TIS thought on ethics to date “may offer
an argument for universalist ethics.” Indeed, there is a strikingly similar
basis to ethical principles across the globe, either suggesting a proliferation
of European ideas, a homogeneous understanding of translation across
an array of cultures, or a need to continue working to uncover these new
and contrasting theoretical bases and viewpoints, which have so far been
neglected or marginalised.
Conceptually, too, there are numerous strands of further exploration,
including within the philosophical bases that we explored in Chapter 1.
Though there are several philosophically driven perspectives on translation
ethics that have garnered significant attention (see, for instance, Pokorn
and Koskinen (2021) on the ethics of linguistic hospitality in the work
of Jacques Derrida and Paul Ricoeur), an explicit focus on many strands
of moral theory specifically (see Chapter 1) is curiously underrepresented.
Wolf (2015), for instance, provides a fascinating account of ethics based
within the idea of a “love command”, which eschews a supposed secular
bias in translation studies and adopts a religious perspective on ethics in an
attempt to move beyond deontological and relativist approaches. Elsewhere,
and as readers may have noted, there are a number of references to the
importance of the self across contemporary contributions to translation
and interpreting ethics, which allude to the potential of egoism –a moral
theory that variously places self-interest at the heart of morality. Below,
I explore this thread in some more detail before exploring another pressing
contemporary question. These two ‘case studies’ (on the self and represen-
tation and representativeness below) are designed to be somewhat com-
peting but nevertheless equally illustrative of the diverse and innovative
ways in which scholars and practitioners continue to reconceptualise and
reframe ethics.
Box 9.1 How far do questions of ethics extend?

Gender-inclusive language and ethics
In 2022, the UX Content Collective –who offer training in user experi-
ence content design –released an international guide to gender-inclusive
writing (UX Content Collective 2022). While gender inclusivity is by
no means a new topic, initiatives such as this mark its place at the fore-
front of current shifting practices in workplace equality and, arguably,
a more general increase in public consciousness of the topic. Indeed, it is
only in recent years that there has been a more widespread acceptance
of the practice of (and indeed the option of) adding pronouns to email
signatures, social media profiles, and so forth.
The guide includes advice on gender-neutral language (for instance,
the neutral pronoun “they” in English) and even notes on how
languages are changing at their very source. For example, the emer-
ging use of inclusive suffixes –for example, usuário(a); produtor(a) in
Portuguese, or the gender-neutral plural ‘ami·e·s’ in French to reflect
both masculine and feminine endings –or neologisms –such as the
English neutral pronoun ‘hir’ or the Italian ‘ragazz@’ or ‘ragazz*’ in
the place of the typical masculine usage of ‘ragazzi’.
This case presents a confrontation between ethical and ideological
thought and showcases the dynamic, constantly developing nature of
language within the frame of representations and respect for the Other.
It also offers an indication of the way in which the pace and nature of
change is geographically varied, not only due to linguistic constraints
but also the pace of change in terms of prevailing narratives (see
Chapter 6). Issues that were deemed unworthy of consideration by
many can soon become a moral priority while previously acceptable
beliefs may become outdated. Consider the following questions:
? What linguistic resources are available in your language(s) to

account for gender neutrality? Or, how gender-neutral/biased is
your language?
? Are there any particular ethical currents of thought that have
recently risen to prominence in your social/geographic/professional
context? For example, attention to the gender, sexuality, the use

of AI or autonomous technology, misinformation, environmental
sustainability, and so forth.
? (How) can we anticipate and adapt to the dynamic nature of
ethics?
The Self: Egoism and Self-Interest

While in Chapter 8 we noted several productive calls for a prioritisa-
tion of the self in the profession, particularly in relation to concerns over
mental health, where self-care (Costa et al. 2020) and a re-situation of our
underpinnings (McAlester 2003) are forwarded, this allusion to the poten-
tial of self-interest has also appeared in literary (and other) contexts. It is
useful to recall at this stage that any recourse to self-interest sits in direct
contradiction to the stipulations of many codes of ethics. For instance, the
ITI code states that members should not allow themselves to be “improperly
influenced by self-interest” (ITI 2016: 5), and this is representative of a gen-
erally negative traditional attitude to this area.
Rather than having an ultimate “good”, egoism is based around a contin-
gent “good-for-you”. A major problem, however, arises because this ability
to prioritise your own self-interest has been linked to an indulgent selfish-
ness. This, in turn, has led to egoism often being treated with condescension
bordering on contempt and derided as “a wicked view” or even “a prepos-
terous” ethical theory (Burgess-Jackson 2013: 530). In Venuti (2013), this
use of egoism occurs when discussing degrees of freedom in poetic transla-
tion, following Paterson’s notion of a “versioning” poet, who openly admits
to plagiarism from earlier “unimprovable” lines, and describes a transla-
tion methodology that involves “mangling”, “omission”, and “deliberate
mistranslation”, selecting or constructing interpretations that “answer to a
personal preference”.
As Paterson explained, “the only defensible fidelity is to the entirely sub-

jective quality of ‘spirit’ or ‘vision’, rather than to literal meaning” …
The version would thus seem to assume an ethics of sheer self-interest,
where poetic license has been redefined as the privileging of a poet’s
interpretation according to the strength of its originality.
(Venuti 2013: 177)
These ideas sit in stark contrast to conceptions of fidelity discussed earlier in

this book and could undoubtedly be cause for concern. However, there are
ways of softening this stance. Lambert (forthcoming) argues for the concept
of enlightened egoism (see Box 9.2 below) as a means of doing just this. In this
form, self-interest is made up of a complex network of competing elements
that require careful and sensitive appraisal, as opposed to being understood
as a one-dimensional pursuit of immediate, selfish goals. Though immediate,
realisable consequences are easy to spot, longer-term consequences are to be
accorded just as much value. For translators, this can be used to implicate
them within a wider context. The translator is (indirectly) tied to their pro-
fession, their fellow translators, their client, and so forth, and is to consider
general ethical norms and guidelines, and notions of justice and legality in
their ethical decision-making. But we also allow space for our own personal
need to survive: 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 sometimes clash with wider ideo-
logical beliefs. The shift lies not within telling the translator what to do, but
rather the translator being trusted to critically consider the choices avail-
able, to decide upon a course of action, and to be accountable for that deci-
sion. There is a call to dialogue and opening, and an active empowered role
that can help us to shape understandings of translation. We must also accept
that there are limits to a translator’s agency, but when it comes to rates or
payment practices, gendered language, representation and demographics,
recognition, roles, copyright and legal status projects, and technological
terms and conditions, we stand for or against certain practices together, and
solidarity as a professional group can act as a valuable tool in ensuring that
we survive and thrive in the long term.
Ultimately, this focus on the emergence of selfhood as a criterion for
concern within translation and translator ethics is not the only new strand
of thought in the area, but is indicative of the potential for new lines of
thought from previously overlooked or maligned theories, of the poten-
tial of injecting new impetus in debates at both micro-, textual levels, and
overarching societal levels, and of the overwhelmingly dynamic nature
of ethics, with new ideas developing and occupying positions of strength
and weakness at various points and in various cultures, languages, and
domains. Box 9.1 above further emphasises this dynamic nature of ethics
in the context of gender-inclusive language, a domain of thought that
could be seen as running counter to a focus on the self, a deliberately
challenging juxtaposition and a transition to the topics covered in the
next section.
? Do you feel that translators and interpreters can and/or should con-
sider their own personal needs in ethical decision-making, or do
other factors (e.g. social responsibility, fidelity to the ST, a client’s
wishes) take priority?
? How do we handle the relativism (or even, when taken to its
extreme, the subjectivism –“well, that’s just your opinion”) that can
stem from ideas prioritising self-interest? Do we still need deonto-
logical rulings?
Box 9.2 Enlightened egoism

The following example briefly illustrates the difference between trad-
itional conceptions of egoism as a one-dimensional pursuit of imme-
diate, selfish goals and enlightened egoism, which posits self-interest as
being made up of a complex network of competing elements:
Suppose that Alex receives a job offer on the other side of the
country and he asks his friend Bill for advice as to whether he
should accept it. Bill recognizes the offer as an excellent oppor-
tunity for Alex, the net effect of which will significantly enhance
Alex’s overall well-being. Bill also realizes, however, that Alex’s
relocation would result in the loss of many features of their
friendship that Bill enjoys.
(Burgess-Jackson 2013: 535–536)
While traditional understandings of egoism would argue that Bill

would (or indeed should, or can only) advise Alex to stay, in the con-
text of enlightened egoism, saying that Bill would simply ask his friend
to stay reveals “an extremely superficial understanding of the nature
of self-interest and of the nature of love” (Smith 2005: 270). Indeed,
Alex’s happiness and well-being form a part of Bill’s self-interest and, if
nothing else, if his friend realised that Bill had offered the advice based
purely on his own needs, that decision itself would risk jeopardising
the friendship.
? What is your take on this scenario?

? (How) can we apply these ideas to the context of translation?
Could this model be used to allow space for personal needs and
desires, without sacrificing more global needs or are the two mutu-
ally exclusive?
Handling Others: Representation and Representativeness

The question of who can, may, or should translate has remained rather implicit
in our discussions up to this point, but is one that has come into sharp focus
in recent TIS literature and public debates in translation. While we have
viewed translation and interpreting ethics as being irrevocably intertwined
with concerns of responsibility, the related questions of representation and
identity cannot be overlooked. Discussing the implicitly ethical nature of
translation, Washbourne (2019: 399) reminds us that “[f]‌ undamentally,
translation contends with the spectre of appropriation, the issue of who
can speak for another, how translation may speak, and whether translation
is a speaking for or a speaking with.” When we translate or interpret, we
may be standing in for or alongside somebody else, being their voice, or
at least sharing their ideas with a new audience, and this ontology of dual
authorship –or even the paradox of sameness-in-difference –is central here
(see Chapter 2). Given the plurality of experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and
desires –which has led us to explore issues such as the subjective nature of
ethics and the complexity of neutrality and impartiality –can we unprob-
lematically step in for anyone in any situation, or are there cases in which
the interpreter/translator’s knowledge, life experience, viewpoints, and so
forth are too markedly different from our client’s, speaker’s, author’s own
to render this problematic? Of course, (professional) models of impartiality
and neutrality would suggest that our individual identity has no bearing
on our ability to translate or interpret, and the question of representation
offers yet another opportunity to problematise these fundamental ethical
assumptions.
Kotze and Strowe (2021) astutely divide this issue of who can, may, or
should translate between the local and the structural. On the local level we
explore the questions of whether the individual translator is able to engage
with, inhabit, and represent others’ knowledge and whether they have
the right to do this. Essentially, this is a debate over whether and indeed
how we can acquire and transmit experiential knowledge: the question
of representation. On the structural level, meanwhile, we explore who is
given this opportunity in the first place. Indeed, purely asking whether a
translator/interpreter can work in a given situation risks overlooking the
important question of how “translation tasks are allocated, distributed,
and recognised” (Kotze and Strowe 2021: 352). This question of repre-
sentativeness relates to the structural inequalities in society (in this case,
the authors are specifically referring to publishing) and the underrepresen-
tation of minority/minoritised groups, which is a well-known feature of
the translation industry. As Kotze and Strowe eloquently put it, “we also
need to consider which social, economic, political, and institutional forces
and agents are involved in choosing who will translate” (Kotze and Strowe
2021: 352). For them, this is perhaps the most pressing dimension of all,
arguing that the very question of who can translate arises because of a lack
of industry representativeness and a lack of opportunities for access to the
industry for certain groups. Worryingly, Kotze and Strowe argue that “the
experiential knowledge of marginalised groups is often seen as a type of
knowledge that can be acquired by anyone” (ibid. 353), thus legitimising
this inequality. This fascinating new perspective expands the question of
who should translate beyond questions of responsibility (to texts, authors,
clients, etc.) to consider notions of industry-wide equitability and how we
can question and change existing structures and assumptions. The case that
prompted Kotze and Strowe’s piece and a whole host of other reflections
on these questions of representation and representativeness is outlined
in Box 9.3.
Beyond this more academic context, elements of these questions, too,
have been the subject of debate in professional circles in recent times (albeit
again in the domain of literary translation, which is often viewed as holding
distinct challenges to its non-literary counterpart –inevitably raising the
spectre of domain- specific ethical challenges). In the ITI’s professional
magazine, The ITI Bulletin, for instance, Tony McNicol has reflected on his
experience of translating the memoir of a Japanese Buddhist monk, make-
up artist, and LGBTQ activist, Kodo Nishimura. Aside from the linguistic
challenges that the text posed, as a white, male, UK-based translator who
does not identify as LGBTQ, McNicol queried his suitability as a trans-
lator for this project, which shared a raw and personal lived experience
(2022: 11). His conclusion was in fact that his “reason –perhaps a selfish
one –for translating the book was that Kodo is so different from me”,
offering another implicit link to the presence of self-interest in translatorly
decision-making and hinting at an industry model that does not place a
particularly heavy focus on the exclusivity (or importance perhaps?) of
experiential knowledge.
? Is there any work that you feel you would/should refuse for reasons
related to identity, representation, or experiential knowledge? Why?
? How representative are the contexts that you work in? Do you work
with people from a range of backgrounds? Does everybody have an
equal chance to voice their beliefs or to take on new opportunities?
What do you feel is the impact of this presence or lack of diversity?
Box 9.3 A case study: Amanda Gorman’s Dutch translator

Amanda Gorman, an American poet and activist and (importantly
here) a young, black, female spoken-word artist, became an inter-
national sensation after reading her poem ‘The Hill We Climb’ at US
president Joe Biden’s inauguration in January 2021. Shortly after the
inauguration, publishers scrambled to distribute the poem worldwide
with a host of translations soon commissioned. In March 2021, Dutch
publisher Meulenhoff announced that acclaimed poet and Booker
Prize-winning novelist Marieke Lucas Rijneveld would be the Dutch
translator of the poem, leading to a wave of criticism. Journalist and
activist Janice Deul led critics asking why Meulenhoff had not chosen
a translator who was, like Gorman, a spoken- word artist, young,
female, and unapologetically Black. Kotze and Strowe (2021: 352),
meanwhile, added that the publisher even conceded that Rijneveld was
not particularly good at English and had never published a translation,
leading them to conclude that the choice “would seem to be based not
on subject knowledge (experiential or otherwise), genre expertise, or
translation expertise, but on marketability” (a vivid reminder of the

conflicting interests at work in translation projects). For their part,
Meulenhoff appealed to similarities between Gorman and Rijneveld,
both being young writers who had come to fame early.
Following the backlash, Rijneveld said they decided to step down
because they were “able to grasp when it is/isn’t your place” (The
Guardian 2021). Rijneveld subsequently published their own poem –
Everything inhabitable –as a response to the reaction and, while noting
that they were “shocked by the uproar surrounding my involvement in
the spread of Amanda Gorman’s message” and “understand the people
who feel hurt by Meulenhoff’s choice to ask me” (Flood 2021), never-
theless conceded that they “had happily devoted myself to translating
Amanda’s work, seeing it as the greatest task to keep her strength, tone
and style. However, I realise that I am in a position to think and feel
that way, where many are not.”
Though responses varied wildly, most criticism did not revolve
around arguments stating that all literary translators must share the
exact same identity as the author (the question of representation),
but rather that the publisher had made this choice against a back-
drop of systemic racism (representativeness). However, the question
of required experiential knowledge rages on –and translators and
interpreters’ backgrounds will undoubtedly affect the choices that they
make –and the clash between profit, marketability, and ethics ties into
a number of other threads.
? Was the translator right to turn down the work in this case? Why?
? Can/should publishers consider the profit motive over questions
such as representation, access, and power?
So, Where Does Our Responsibility Lie?

Returning to discussions at the start of this textbook once again, we reflect
for a final time on Chesterman’s (2016: 168) neat divide between macro-
ethical and micro-ethical matters. Over the course of this textbook, we have
explored a broad spectrum of concerns and hopefully at this point you have
developed a strong sense of the range of ethical questions at stake when
you translate or interpret. Responsibility has been at the heart of so many
of the discussions throughout this textbook, that it is only fitting that this is
where we draw our discussions to a close. Figure 9.1 attempts to capture the
complexity of the area in graphic form by drawing together a wide range of
viewpoints that we have considered throughout this textbook.
The four black boxes below our confused figure in the centre represent
overarching drivers for ethical action. As noted in Chapter 8, Abdallah
POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Translating or interpreting “faithfully” Protecting the environment Supporting causes you believe in
Looking out for the long-term health Respecting other languages / Looking after your own
of the profession cultures / people / identities physical and mental health
Providing a service to your client Standing up against injustice Getting paid
Being accountable Being “professional” Being a “good” person Being neutral / impartial
Codes’ ethical Utilitarian Personal needs Wider social

demands business ethics and interests responsibility
OVERARCHING DRIVERS
Figure 9.1 Potential reflections on responsibility in translation and interpreting.
raises the tension between deontological codes and utilitarian business

ethics, while we added another two wide- ranging drivers –personal
needs and interests and wider social responsibility. Above the figure is
a multitude of potential considerations that can be derived from these
overarching drivers, ranging from more narrow, textual concerns for
fidelity (as explored in Chapters 2 and 3) all the way to the importance of
protecting the environment and/or your own physical and mental health
(see Chapter 8). This range of potential considerations is by no means
exhaustive, though it does encapsulate many of the discussions from pre-
vious chapters and serves as a useful illustration to demonstrate how com-
plex ethical decision-making is. Of course, many of these considerations
can contradict one another (Can we always stand up against injustice
while being “professional”, for instance?) or be mutually dependent (Can
we be a “good” person without respecting other people?). It also draws
attention to the inescapably personal nature of ethics and the inescapably
context-dependent nature of our decisions. There is no one “right” answer
in all situations.
? Using Figure 9.1, which overarching drivers do you feel are the most
helpful and/or important in terms of your ethical decision-making
overall?
? Again using Figure 9.1, which potential considerations would you
say are most important to you in a typical translation or interpreting
assignment? Try to highlight 2–3 and compare and contrast with
others.
Importantly, there is scope to explore each of these areas further (and
others besides!), and one of the aims of this illustration is to serve as a
quick-glance inspiration for future projects of all kinds. Practically all
of the areas covered in this book arguably warrant further exploration,
whether examining underlying theoretical bases or applying ideas to new
languages, practices, and contexts. The list below aims to go one step fur-
ther by providing some more specific, unanswered questions relating to
various domains of responsibility, as covered throughout this textbook. In
spite of the significant attention paid to ethics in the last few decades, its
vast overarching nature means that there is considerable scope for further
exploration in undergraduate and postgraduate essays, group presentations
and dissertations, at doctoral or even post-doctoral levels. Indeed, informa-
tion in so many of these domains remains rather fragmentary and there is
space for much more ethically focused research across the entire range of
topics.
Textual fidelity
? To what extent do different text types require differing levels of
fidelity or approaches to ethics?
? Which particular elements of texts are most ethically problematic,
and does this vary according to place, time, and language?
? How is technology shaping our relationship with texts and speakers?
Responsibility
? Can we make a case for a specific type of responsibility in translation
and interpreting (or indeed translation or interpreting)?
? Are there any layers of responsibility that have not been covered to
date?
New perspectives
? Are there any insights that can be drawn from your specific language
pair(s), or do any of the ideas discussed fail to apply to those contexts
requiring renewed ethical enquiry?
? Are there any cultural/ethical/political viewpoints not covered in the
literature that would bring new impetus to discussions of ethics?
? How do the ideas covered relate to specific geographic locations,
or specific groups of people? Are notions of ethics representative of
different groups and viewpoints?
? What distinct ethical issues arise in other parallel practices such as
subtitling, dubbing, and localisation, or variations such as remote
interpreting or sworn translation?
Codes of ethics
? What gaps must be addressed in codes of ethics?
? Are there other ways of codifying ethics that would lead to more pro-
ductive engagement with the domain?
Professionals
? How can we ensure the future sustainability of the translation profes-
sion in light of the various threats facing translation and interpreting?
? What ethical responsibilities do we have in relation to considerations
of money?
? How can we reconcile phenomena such as climate anxiety with our
personal need to survive, and what impact does this have upon our
professional roles?
Society
? In what way are translation and interpreting impacting upon various
crises in today’s globalised world? For example, environmental,
health, humanitarian crises.
? How can we make the languages industry more representative?
? How can translation and interpreting be harnessed to elicit societal
change?
And, more generally

? What gaps do you feel require further attention?
? What interests you in relation to ethics?
? Do you strongly disagree with any of the ideas outlined in this textbook?
? Has your further reading brought up any prominent gaps in the
literature?
Ethics is a broad and multifaceted domain, and part of what makes it so

dynamic and so exciting is that it can be used as the catalyst for explorations
of so many areas in TIS –there are always ethical underpinnings to our
work and ideas. As we saw in chapters 7 and 8, however, ethics remains a
relatively marginal topic in the professional domain in explicit terms and
there is little immediate sign of this changing drastically. That said, ethics is
slowly becoming a more prominent topic in the translation classroom and
translation associations do continue to tweak and improve their ethical pro-
vision, which may elicit changes on a wider level. It is clear that there are
several key ethical issues currently weighing on translators’ and interpreters’
minds, and these are not always the questions at the centre of existing ethical
provision. For instance, as we have seen, technological advances continue to
permeate and reconfigure professional workflows, while LSP practices, non-
professional translation, and these very technological advances continue
to apply downward pressure on rates. Meanwhile, wider environmental,
health, and financial crises continue to punctuate our personal and profes-
sional lives. All of these inevitably have an impact upon the professional’s
mental health, hence the vital importance of not only looking outwards to
consider how, where, and why we can focus our attentions, but also reflect
inwards on our own wellbeing.
Factoring in this vast range of concerns, ethics arguably looks more
prominent now than ever before, and merits further discussion and explor-
ation among professionals, students, associations, and academics alike.
Importantly, we all stake out a position in the world and, in order to nego-
tiate, shape, and challenge understandings, we must embrace our agency
rather than accepting an invisible, neutral conduit role. We need to be
empowered to consider and forward our individual and collective interests
and trusted to reflect critically on the impact that our decisions have.
Further Reading
As mentioned above, there are a number of fascinating areas that fall beyond the
scope of this introductory textbook and a key source that captures a number of
these areas is The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics (Koskinen and
Pokorn 2021). This fantastic volume has been cited at numerous points throughout
this textbook, but it is worth reiterating that this represents an ideal next step for
anyone looking to explore topics in this textbook (and topics not in this textbook!)
from a different perspective and, of course, in greater detail. Readers are also invited
to use this book’s Bibliography as a guide to further reading –the citations used
throughout this textbook come from leading voices in each of topic areas covered
and the sources used are by and large the most authoritative ones available.
Bibliography
Journal Articles
Abdallah, Kristina. 2011. “Towards Empowerment: Students’ Ethical Reflections on
Translating in Production Networks.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5,
no. 1: 129–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798815.
Anastasiou, Dimitra, and Rajat Gupta. 2011. “Crowdsourcing as Human-
Machine Translation (HMT).” Journal of Information Science 20, no. 10: 1–15.
DOI: 10.1177/016555150nnnnnnn.
Annas, Julia. 2004. “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing.” Proceedings and
Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 78, no. 2: 61–74. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3219725.
Awad, Edmond et al. 2018, October. “The Moral Machine Experiment.” Nature 563,
no. 7729: 59–64.
Baixauli-Olmos, Lluis. 2017. “Ethics codes as tools for social change in public service
interpreting: Symbolic, social and cultural dimensions.” JoSTrans, 28: 250–272.
Baker, Mona. 2005. “Narratives in and of Translation.” SKASE Journal of Translation
and Interpretation 1, no. 1: 4–13. www.skase.sk.
Baker, Mona. 2008. “Ethics of Renarration: Mona Baker Is Interviewed by Andrew
Chesterman.” Cultus 1, no. 1: 10–33.
Baker, Mona and Carol Maier. 2011. “Ethics and the Curriculum: Critical
Perspectives.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5, no. 1: 1–14.
Basalamah, Salah. 2001. “The Thorn of Translation in the Side of the Law: Toward
Ethical Copyright and Translation Rights.” In The Translator 7, no. 2: 155–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799098.
Bulut, Alev, and Turgay Kurultay. 2001. “Interpreters-in-Aid at Disasters: Community
Interpreting in the Process of Disaster Management.” In The Translator 7, no.
2: 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799104.
Burgess-Jackson, Keith. 2013. “Taking Egoism Seriously.” Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice, 16, no. 3: 529–542. DOI: 10.1007/s10677-012-9372-5.
Chan, Andy Lung Jan. 2017. “An Economist’s Proposal for the Study of the
Translation Profession in Southeast Asia.” Manusya: Journal of Humanities 20,
no. 3: 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-02003005.
Charron, Marc. 2001. “Berman, Unfaithful to Himself?” TTR 14, no. 2: 97–121.
https://doi.org/10.7202/000571ar.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath.” The Translator 7,
no. 2: 139–154.
176 Bibliography
Costa, Beverley, Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez and Tom Rausch. 2020, June. “Self-care
as an ethical responsibility: A pilot study on support provision for interpreters in
human crises.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 15, no. 1: 36–56. https://doi.
org/10.1075/tis.20004.cos.
DeTienne, Kristen Bell, Bradley R. Agle, James C. Phillips and Marc- Charles
Ingerson. 2012, February. “The Impact of Moral Stress Compared to Other
Stressors on Employee Fatigue, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover: An Empirical
Investigation.” Journal of Business Ethics 110, no. 3: 377–378. DOI: 10.1007/
s10551-011-1197-y.
Doherty, Stephen. 2016. “The impact of translation technologies on the process
and product of translation.” International Journal of Communication 10:
947–969.
Donovan, Clare. 2011, February. “Ethics in the Teaching of Conference Interpreting.”
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5, no. 1: 109– 128. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13556509.2011.10798814.
Drugan, Joanna, and Bogdan Babych. 2010. “Shared Resources, Shared Values?
Ethical Implications of Sharing Translation Resources.” JEC, 3–10. https://aclan
thology.org/2010.jec-1.2.
Drugan, Joanna, and Chris Megone. 2011. “Bringing Ethics into Translator
Training: An Integrated Inter- disciplinary Approach.” The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer 5, no. 1: 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.
10798817.
Drugan, Joanna, and Rebecca Tipton. 2017, May. “Translation, ethics and social
responsibility.” The Translator 23, no. 2: 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556
509.2017.1327008.
Dyson, Steve. 2003. “A Strategic Point.” Letters, Multilingual Computing and
Technology 14, no. 3: 11.
Fırat, Gökhan. 2021. “Uberization of Translation: Impacts on Working Conditions.”
The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 8, no. 1: 48–75. https://doi.
org/10.1075/jial.20006.fir.
Gallai, Fabrizio. 2017. “Pragmatic competence and interpreter- mediated police
investigation interviews.” In The Translator 23, no. 2: 177–196. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13556509.2017.1327317.
Garcia, Ignacio. 2010. “Is machine translation ready yet?.” Target. International
Journal of Translation Studies 22, no. 1: 7– 21. https://doi.org/10.1075/tar
get.22.1.02gar.
Goodwin, Phil. 2010. “Ethical Problems in Translation: Why we might need Steiner
after all.” The Translator 16, no. 1: 19– 42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556
509.2010.10799292.
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2001. “Ethos, ethics and translation: Toward a community
of destinies.” The Translator 7, no. 2: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556
509.2001.10799101.
Greenall, Annjo K., Cecilia Alvstad, Hanne Jansen, and Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov.
2019. “Introduction: voice, ethics and translation.” Perspectives 27, no. 5: 639–
647. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1631862.
Hale, Sandra. 2008. “Controversies over the role of the court interpreter.” Benjamins
Translation Library 76: 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.76.06hal.
Hutchings, Stephen ed. 2021. “Translation and The Ethics of Diversity.” The
Translator 27, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2022.2062108.
Bibliography 177
Inghilleri, Moira. 2008. “The ethical task of the translator in the geo-political arena.”
Translation Studies 1, no. 2: 212–223, DOI: 10.1080/14781700802113556.
Katan, David, and Francesco Straniero-Sergio. 2001. “Look who’s talking: The ethics
of entertainment and talkshow interpreting.” The Translator 7, no. 2: 213–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799102.
Ko, Leong. 2006. “Fine-tuning the Code of Ethics for Interpreters and Translators.”
Translation Watch Quarterly 2, no. 3: 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900
4299245_021.
Kopp, Ruth Katharina. 2012, December. “Skopos Theory and Ethics: A Paradox?.”
mTm. Minor Translating Major- Major Translating Minor- Minor Translating
Minor 4: 145–166.
Kotze, Haidee, and Anna Strowe. 2021, September. “Response by Kotze and Strowe
to “Representing experiential knowledge”.” Translation Studies 14, no. 3: 3503–
3554. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2021.1972039.
Kruger, Haidee, and Elizabeth Crots. 2014. “Professional and personal ethics in
translation: a survey of South African translators’ strategies and motivations.”
Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 43, no. 1: 147–181. https://hdl.handle.net/
10520/EJC157652.
Lambert, Joseph. 2018. “How ethical are codes of ethics? Using illusions of neu-
trality to sell translations.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 30: 269–290.
Lambert, Joseph, and Callum Walker. 2022. “Because We’re Worth It: Disentangling
freelance translation, status, and rate-setting in the United Kingdom.” Translation
Spaces, 1–26 https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21030.lam.
Lee, Hyang, and Seong Woo Yun. 2020, November. “How can we improve the codes
of ethics for translators?.” Babel 66, no. 4-5: 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1075/
babel.00190.yun.
Leiter, Michael P., and Christina Maslach. 2008, May. “Early Predictors of Job
Burnout and Engagement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 3: 498–512.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498.
Li, Hanji, and Haiqing Chen. 2018, March. “The construction of a new translation
ethics from the perspective of Chinese philosophy.” Philosophy 8, no. 3: 119–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2018.03.003.
Määttä, Simo K. 2015, January. “Interpreting the Discourse of Reporting: The Case
of Screening Interviews with Asylum Seekers and Police Interviews in Finland.”
The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 7, no. 3: 21–
35. http://dx.doi.org/10.12807/ti.107203.2015.a02.
Maitland, Sarah. 2016. “‘In-between’ a rock and a ‘third space’? On the trouble with
ambivalent metaphors of translation.” Translation Studies 9, no. 1: 17–32. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2015.1085432.
Marshman, Elizabeth. 2014. “Taking Control: Language Professionals and Their
Perception of Control When Using Language Technologies.” Meta 59, no. 2: 380–
405. https://doi.org/10.7202/1027481ar.
Martin Ruano, M. Rosario. 2015. “(Trans)formative theorising in legal transla-
tion and/or interpreting: a critical approach to deontological principles.” The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9, no. 2, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1750399X.2015.1051767.
McDonough Dolmaya, Julie. 2011a. “Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of pro-
fessional codes of ethics for translators.” The Journal of Specialised Translation
15: 28–49.
178 Bibliography
McDonough Dolmaya, Julie. 2011b. “A Window into the Profession.” The Translator
17, no. 1: 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10799480.
McDonough Dolmaya, Julie. 2017. “Expanding the sum of all human know-
ledge: Wikipedia, translation and linguistic justice.” In The Translator 23, no.
2: 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1321519.
Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. “Interpreter ethics: A review of the traditional and electronic
literature.” Interpreting 5, no. 1: 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.1.05mik.
Monzó-Nebot, Esther, and Melissa Wallace. 2020. “New societies, new values, new
demands.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 15, no. 1: 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1075/tis.00046.int.
Moorkens, Joss, Dorothy Kenny, and Félix do Carmo. 2020. “Fair MT: Towards eth-
ical, sustainable machine translation.” Translation Spaces 9, no. 1: 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1075/ts.00018.int.
Moster, Stefan. 2003. “Birthday Blues.” Books from Finland 1: 59–60. http://www.
finlit .fi /booksfromfinland /bff /103 /moster .html.
Nord, Christiane. 2001. “Loyalty Revisited.” The Translator 7, no. 2: 185–202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799100.
Nouss, Alexis. 2001. “Antoine Berman aujourd’hui.” TTR 14, no. 2: 9–10. https://
doi.org/10.7202/000564ar.
Ozolins, Uldis. 2014. “Rewriting the AUSIT Code of Ethics –principles, practice, dis-
pute.” Babel 60, no. 3: 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.60.3.05ozu.
Prunč, Erich. 1997. “Translationskultur (Versuch einer konstruktiven Kritik des
translatorischen Handelns).” TextConText Neue Folge 1: 99–127.
Pym, Anthony. 1996. “Venuti’s Visibility.” Target 8, no. 2: 165–177. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1075/target.8.1.12pym.
Pym, Anthony. 2001. “The Return to Ethics.” The Translator 7, no. 2: 129–138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799096.
Pym, Anthony, David Orrego-Carmona, and Ester Torres-Simón. 2016. “Status and
Technology in the Professionalisation of Translators.” The Journal of Specialised
Translation 25: 33–53.
Pym, Anthony. 2017. “Translation and economics: inclusive communication
or language diversity?” Perspectives 25, no. 3: 362– 377. DOI: 10.1080/
0907676X.2017.1287208.
Pym, Anthony. 2021b. “Cooperation, risk, trust: A restatement of translator ethics.”
STRIDON: Studies in Translation and Interpreting 1, no. 2: 5–24. https://doi.org/
10.4312/stridon.1.2.5-24.
Ramírez Giraldo, Juan. 2014. “Translation Right or Wrong.” The Translator 20, no.
2: 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.960654.
Rossi, Cecilia. 2021. “Writers and translators working together: the ethical
dimension of the translation of post conflict literature.” The Translator 27, no. 4:
384–399.
Schweda-Nicholson, Nancy. 1994. “Community Interpreter Training in the United
States and the United Kingdom: An Overview of Selected Initiatives.” Hermes,
Journal of Linguistics 12, no. 7: 127– 140. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.
v7i12.24930.
Sharma, Anurag. 1997. “Professional as agent: Knowledge asymmetry in agency
exchange.” Academy of Management Review 22, no. 3: 758–798. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.1997.9708210725.
Bibliography 179
Skaaden, Hanne. 2019. “Invisible or invincible? Professional integrity, ethics,
and voice in public service interpreting.” Perspectives 27, no. 5: 704– 717.
DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1536725.
Stupiello, Érika N.A. 2008. “Ethical Implications of Translation Technologies.”
Translation Journal 12, no. 1. http://translationjournal.net/journal/43ethics.htm.
Tack, Lieven. 2001. “Review of Beyond Ambivalence.” The Translator 7, no.
2: 297–321.
Tipton, Rebecca. 2017. “Contracts and capabilities: Public service interpreting and
domestic violence services.” In The Translator 23, no. 2: 237–254. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13556509.2017.1280875.
Topping, Suzanne. 2000. “Sharing Translation Database Information.” Multilingual
Computing and Technology 11, no. 5: 59– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zen
odo.6759984.
Tyulenev, Sergey. 2021. “In a wilderness of mirrors: the ethics of translation in Cold-
War espionage.” The Translator 27, no. 4: 368– 383. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13556509.2021.1992892.
Wang, Dongfeng. 2004. “The Deconstruction of ‘Fidelity’ and the Demythologization
of Translation.” Chinese Translators Journal, no. 6: 3–9.
Wang, Jie, and Yuanyuan Li. 2019. “Incorporating Ethics-Awareness Competence
in China Translator-Training Programme.” International Journal of Linguistics,
Literature and Translation 2, no. 4, 164–170. DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.4.16.
Wecksteen, Corinne. 2000. “Pour une éthique du traducteur.” The Translator 6, no.
1, 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799059.
Wilensky, Harold L. 1964. “The professionalization of everyone?” American Journal
of Sociology 70, no. 2: 137–158.
Wolf, Alain. 2015. “A Religious Ethics of Translation: The Love Command.” Journal
of Translation 11, no. 1: 61–73.
Zetzsche, Jost. 2005. “Translation Memories: The Discovery of Assets.” Multilingual
Computing and Technology 16, no. 4: 43–45.
Zhou, Meng. 2022, January. “Educating translation ethics: a neurocognitive ethical
decision-making approach.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer: 1–18. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2022.2030534.
Chapters in a Collection
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2021. “Ethics in Child Language Brokering.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike Pokorn,
383–397. Abingdon: Routledge.
Asimov, Isaac. 1950. “Runaround.” In I Robot, 40. New York: Doubleday.
Bancroft, Marjory A. 2017. “The Voice of Compassion: Exploring Trauma-Informed
Interpreting.” In Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service
Interpreting and Translation, edited by Carmen Valero- Garcés, and Rebecca
Tipton, 195–215. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, Mona. 2009. “Resisting state terror: Theorizing communities of activist
translators and interpreters.” In Globalization, Political Violence and Translation,
edited by Esperanza Bielsa and Christopher Hughes, 222–242. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
180 Bibliography
Basamalah, Salah. 2021. “Ethics of Volunteering in Translation and Interpreting.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen
and Nike Pokorn, 227–244. Abingdon: Routledge.
Berman, Antoine. 2000. “Translation and the trials of the foreign.” In The
Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 247– 260. London/
New York: Routledge.
Boéri, Julie, and Carmen Delgado Luchner. 2021. “Ethics of activist translation and
interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, 245–261.
London: Routledge.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2009. “An Ethical Decision.” In Translators and Their
Readers: In Homage to Eugene Nida, edited by Rodica Dimitriu, and Miriam
Shlesinger, 347–354. Brussels: Éditions du Hazard.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 46 BCE/1960 CE. “De optimo genere oratorum.” In Cicero
De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum, topica, translated by H. M. Hubbell,
347–373. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dancy, Jonathan. 2013. “An Unprincipled Morality.” In Ethical Theory: An
Anthology, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau, 772–775. Oxford: John Wiley.
Drugan, Joanna. “Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy,
edited by Piers Rawling and Philip Wilson, 243–355. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ergun, Emek. 2021. “Feminist Translation Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike Pokorn, 114–130.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Guangqin, Xin. 2021. “Translation Ethics in the Chinese Tradition.” In The Routledge
Haddow, Barry, Alexandra Birch and Kenneth Heafield. 2021. “Machine translation
in healthcare.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Health, edited by
Şebnem Susam-Saraeva, and Eva Spišiaková, 108–129. London: Routledge.
Hebenstreit, Gernot. 2021. “Functional Translation Theories and Ethics.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and
Nike Pokorn, 58–71. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hermans, Theo. 2018. “Schleiermacher.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Translation and Philosophy, edited by Piers Rawling and Philip Wilson, 17–33.
Hirvonen, Maija and Tuika Kinnunen. 2021. “Accessibility and Linguistic Rights.”
In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen
Hubscher-Davidson, Severine. 2021. “Ethical stress in translation and Interpreting.”
Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Glen Pettigrove. 2018. “Virtue Ethics.” In The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2018 edition, edited by Edward N. Zalta.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/.
Inghilleri, Moira, and Carol Maier. 2011. “Ethics.” In The Routledge Encyclopaedia
of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 100–104.
Israel, Hephzibah. 2021. “Ethics of Translating Sacred Texts.” In The Routledge
Bibliography 181
Jemielity, David. 2018. “Translation in Intercultural Business and Economic
Environments.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture, edited
by Sue-Ann Harding and Ovidi Carbonell Cortés, 533–557. Abingdon: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670898-30.
Jerome, E. H. (St Jerome) (395 CE/1997) ‘De optime genere interpretandi’ (Letter
101, to Pammachius), in Epistolae D. Hieronymi Stridoniensis, Rome: Aldi F.,
(1565), pp. 285–291, translated by P. Carroll as ‘On the best kind of translator’,
in Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche, edited by Douglas
Robinson (1997b), 22–30. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kadric, Mira, and Klaus Kaindl. 1997. “Astérix -Vom Gallier zum
Tschetnikjäger: Zur Problematik von Massenkommunikation und
übersetzerischer Ethik” In Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected
papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995, 135– 145. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kamocki, Pawel, and Jim O’Regan. 2016. “Privacy Issues in Online Machine
Translation Services: European Perspective.” In Proceedings of the Tenth
International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016),
edited by Nicoletta Calzolari et al., 4458– 4462. Paris: European Language
Resources Association. https://aclanthology.org/L16-1706.
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Nike K. Pokorn. 2021. “Ethics and Translation: An
Introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by
Kaisa Koskinen and Nike Pokorn, 1–12. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lambert, Joseph. 2021. “Professional Translator Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook
of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike Pokorn, 165–179.
Lambert, Joseph. 2023. “From Stagnation to Innovation: Codes of Ethics and the
Profession Today.” In Ethics and Professional Codes of Practice for Translators
and Interpreters: New Contexts in the Profession and Training. Granada: Editorial
Comares.
Laaksonen, Jenni and Kaisa Koskinen. 2021. “Venuti and the Ethics of Difference.”
Leblanc, Matthieu. 2017. “ ‘I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should we blame transla-
tion technologies or shifting business practices?” In Human Issues in Translation
Technology, edited by Dorothy Kenny, 63–80. London: Routledge.
Ko, Leong. 2015. “Training ethical translators and interpreters.” In Translation and
Cross-Cultural Communication Studies in the Asia Pacific, edited by Ko Leong
and Ping Chen, 337–350. Leiden: Brill-Rodopi.
Lin, Yutang. [1993] 2009. “On translation.” In An Anthology of Discourses on
Translation: Revised Edition, edited by Luo Xinzhang, and Chen Yingnian, 491–
507. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Maltby, Matthew. 2010. “Institutional Identities of Interpreters in the Asylum
Application Context: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Interpreting Policies in the
Voluntary Sector.” In Text and Context: Essays on Translation and Interpreting in
Honour of Ian Mason, edited by Mona Baker, Maeve Olohan and María Calzada
Pérez, 209–233. Manchester: St Jerome.
McAlester, Gerard. 2003. “A Comment on Translation Ethics and Education.” In
Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, edited by Gunilla Anderman, and
Margaret Rogers, 225–227. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
182 Bibliography
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Brian James Baer. 2021. “Research Ethics in
Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Moorkens, Joss and David Lewis 2020. “Copyright and the reuse of translation as
data.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by
Minako O’Hagan, 469–481. Abingdon: Routledge.
Moorkens, Joss, and Marta Rocchi. 2021. “Ethics in the Translation Industry.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen
and Nike Pokorn, 320– 337. Abingdon, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781003127970-24.
Moorkens, Joss. 2022. “Ethics and machine translation.” In Machine Translation
for Everyone: Empowering Users in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, edited
by Dorothy Kenny, 121– 140. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:10.5281/
zenodo.6759984.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. “The Rationality of Side Constraints.” In Ethical Theory: An
Anthology, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau, 521–523. Oxford: John Wiley.
Pokorn, Nike K., and Kaisa Koskinen. 2021. “The ethics of linguistic hospitality
and untranslatability in Derrida and Ricœur.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Translation and Ethics, 87–98. London: Routledge.
Pöllabauer, Sonja, and Iris Topolovec. 2020. “Ethics in public service interpreting.” In
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, 211–226. London: Routledge.
Prunč, Erich. 2008. “Zur Konstruktion Von Translationskulturen.” In
Translationskultur: Ein Innovatives Und Produktives Konzept, edited by Larisa
Schippel, 19–41. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Pym, Anthony. 1996. “Material Text Transfer as a Key to the Purposes of Translation.”
In Basic Issues in Translation Studies, edited by Albrecht Neubert, Gregory Shreve
and Klaus Gommlich, 337–346. Kent OH and Leipzig: Kent State University
Institute of Applied Linguistics.
Pym, Anthony. 2011. “Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for
Moments of Perplexity and Dispute.” In Translation Research Projects 3, edited
by Anthony Pym, 75–110. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group. www.interc
ultural.urv.cat/media/upload/domain_317/arxius/TP3/isgbook3_web.pdf.
Pym, Anthony. 2021a. “Translator Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Reiss, Katarina. 1977/ 1989. “Text types, translation types and translation
assessment.”, translated by Andrew Chesterman. In Readings in Translation
Theory, edited by Andrew Chesterman, 105–115. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.
Robinson, Douglas. 2021. “The Ethics of Postcolonial Translation.” In The Routledge
Schaffner, Christina. 2020. “Translators’ roles and responsibilities.” In The
Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited by Erik Angelone,
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Gary Massey, 63–90. London: Bloomsbury.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1992. “On the Different Methods of Translating.”
In Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida,
edited by John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, 36–54. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Bibliography 183
Schleiermacher, Freidrich. 2002a. “Akademievorträge.” In Kritische Gesamtausgabe
11.1, edited by Martin Rössler. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 2002b. Lectures on Philosophical Ethics. Trans. Louise
Adey Huish. Edited by Robert Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tate, Granville and Turner, Graham. 2002. “The code and the culture: Sign language
interpreting –in search of the new breed’s ethics”. In The Interpreting Studies
Reader, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 372–185. London: Routledge.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2003. “Ideology and the Position of the Translator.” In
Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology-Ideologies in Translation
Studies, edited by Maria Calzada Pérez, 182– 200. London and New York:
Routledge.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2014. “Why Literary Translation is a Good Model for Translation
Theory and Practice.” In Literary Translation: Redrawing the Boundaries, edited by
Jean Boase-Beier, Antoinette Fawcett and Philip Wilson, 11–31. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Van Wyke, Ben. 2013. “Translation and Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán, and Francesca Bartrina, 566–578.
London: Routledge.
Washbourne, Kelly. 2019. “Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Literary
Translation, edited by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke, 399–418. London
and New York: Routledge.
Zetzche, Jost. 2020. “Freelance Translators’ Perspectives.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 166–182.
Books and Reports

Angelelli, Claudia. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference,
Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
New York: John Benjamin.
Aristotle. [1985] 1999. Nicomachean Ethics, Second Edition, translated by Terence
Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Baker, Mona. 2006. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge.
Baker, Mona. 2011. In Other Words, Second Edition. London: Routledge.
Baker, Mona. 2014. Ethics in the Translation and Interpreting Curriculum:
Surveying and Rethinking the Pedagogical Landscape. York: Higher Education
Academy.
Berman, Antoine. 1984. L’épreuve de l’étranger: culture et traduction dans l’Allemagne
romantique: Herder, Goethe, Schlegel, Novalis, Humboldt, Schleiermacher,
Hölderlin. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Berman, Antoine. 1995. Pour une critique des traductions: John Donne. Paris:
Gallimard.
Berman, Antoine. 1999. La traduction et la lettre, ou, L’auberge du lointain. Paris:
7Letras.
Berman, Antoine, Isabelle Berman, Valentina Sommella, and Chantal Wright. 2018.
The Age of Translation: A Commentary on Walter Benjamin’s ‘The Task of the
Translator’. London: Routledge.
Blackburn, Simon. 2003. Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
184 Bibliography
Bowker, Lynne, and Jairo Buitrago Ciro. 2019. Machine Translation and Global
Research: Towards Improved Machine Translation Literacy in the Scholarly
Community. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. 2004. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes,
Issues and Debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2016. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation
Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2017. Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers
1993–2014. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cheyfitz, Eric. 1991. The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from
the Tempest to Tarzan. London: Oxford University Press.
Cronin, Michael. 2017. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the
Anthropocene. New Perspective in Translation and Interpreting Studies. London,
New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters
in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Federici, Federico, and Sharon O- Brien. 2019. Translation in Cascading Crises.
London: Routledge.
Folkart, Barbara. 2006. Second Finding: A Poetics of Translation. Ottawa: University
of Ottawa Press.
Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.73.
Gouadec, Daniel. 2009. Profession Traducteur. Paris: La Maison du Dictionnaire.
Hale, Sandra. 2007. Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, Christopher P. 2001. Japanese Education Reform: Nakasone’s Legacy.
London: Routledge.
Inghilleri, Moira. 2012. Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language.
London: Routledge.
Kelly, Louis. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and
Practice in the West. New York: St Martin’s.
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. Beyond Ambivalence: Postmodernity and the Ethics of
Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Lambert, Joseph. (forthcoming). Ethical Decision-Making. London: Palgrave.
Lanier, Jaron. 2010. You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Knopf.
Marx, Karl. 1867. Das Kapital: kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Hamburg: Verlag
von Otto Meissner.
McLaughlin, Martin, and Javier Muñoz-Basols, eds. 2021. Ideology, Censorship and
Translation. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Meschonnic, Henri. 2007/2011. Éthique et politique du traduire. Paris: Verdier;
translated and edited by Pier- Pascale Boulanger as Ethics and Politics of
Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Munday, Jeremy, Sara Ramos Pinto and Jacob Blakesley. 2022. Introducing Translation
Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.
Nord, Christiane. 2018. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist
Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Phelan, Mary, Mette Rudvin, Hanne Skaaden, and Patrick Kermit. 2020. Ethics in
Public Service Interpreting. London: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, Franz, ed. 2015. Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies.
London: Routledge.
Bibliography 185
Prunč, Erich. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft: Von den
Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht, 3rd edition.
TRANSÜD. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Pym, Anthony. 1997. Pour une éthique du traducteur. Ottawa: Artois Presses
Université and Presses d’Université d’Ottawa.
Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Sfreddo, and Andy LJ Chan. 2012. The
Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union. London and
New York: Anthem Press.
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie. 2. Aufl. 1991, reprint 2010. Linguistische Arbeiten 147.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Robinson, Dave. 2012. Ethics for Everyday Life: A Practical Guide.
London: Icon Books.
Rogers, Margaret. 2015. Specialised Translation: Shedding the ‘Non-literary’ Tag.
New York: Springer.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1862. Psychologie. Vol. 6. Reimer.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1998. Hermeneutics and Criticism and other Writings.”
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shafer-Landau, Russ, ed. 2013. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: John Wiley.
Skaaden, Hanne. 2013. Den topartiske tolken: lærebok i tolking. Oslo:
Universitetsforl.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. Enlarging Translation: Empowering Translators. London
and New York: Routledge.
Lawrence, Venuti. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation.
London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of
Difference. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2008. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation,
revised edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2013. Translation Changes Everything. London and
New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, Hans J. 1996. A Skopos Theory of Translation: (Some Arguments for and
Against). Heidelberg: TextconText-Verlag.
Weaver, Warren. 1947. ‘Letter to Norbert Wiener, March 4’, Rockefeller Foundation
Archives.
Webpage Content
DePalma, Don. 2014. “Free Machine Translation Can Leak Data.” TC World.
Accessed 26 August 2022. www.tcworld.info/e-magazine/translation-and-local
ization/free-machine-translation-can-leak-data-516/.
Inbox Translation. 2020. “Research Translator Survey 2020.” Accessed 2 July 2021.
https://inboxtranslation.com/resources/research/freelance-translator-survey-
2020/.
Institute of Translation and Interpreting. 2016. “Code of Professional Conduct”.
Accessed 26 August 2022. www.iti.org.uk/become-a-member/code-of-professio
nal-conduct.
Institute of Translation and Interpreting. 2020. “Spring 2020 Pulse Survey.” Accessed
14 July 2021. www.iti.org.uk/resource/spring-2020-pulse-survey.html.
186 Bibliography
McNicol, Tony. 2022. “In his shoes.” Institute of Translation and Interpreting,
Bulletin Article. Accessed 26 August 2022. In his shoes (iti.org.uk).
Stansfield, Kate. 2022. “The world we can save.” Institute of Translation and
Interpreting, Bulletin Article. Accessed 26 August 2022. https://www.iti.org.uk/
resource/the-world-we-can-save.html.
UX Content Collective. 2022. “The international guide to gender-inclusive writing.”
Accessed 26 August 2022. https://uxcontent.com/the-international-guide-to-gen
der-inclusive-writing/.
Thesis or Dissertation
Asiri, Eisa Ahmad S. 2016. “Developing a Code of Ethics for Professional Translation
in Saudi Arabia: A Survey of Translators’ Perceptions.” MA thesis, Macquarie
University, Sydney.
Somers, Margaret R. and Gloria D. Gibson. 1994. “Reclaiming the Epistemological
‘Other’: Narrative and the Social Constitution of Identity.” CSST Working
Paper, University of Michigan. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/
2027.42/51265/499.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
News Articles
Cohen, Randy. 2010, 2 July. “Properly Speaking the Improper?” The Ethicist Weekly
Column, New York Times Magazine. www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/
04FOB-Ethicist-t.html.
Flood, Alison. 2021, 6 March. “Marieke Lucas Rijneveld writes poem about Amanda
Gorman furore.” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/06/mari
eke-lucas-rijneveld-writes-poem-about-amanda-gorman-furore.
Kelly, Nataly. 2014, 19 June. “Why so many translators hate translation technology.”
Huffpost UK. www.huffingtonpost.com/nataly-kelly/why-so-many-translators-
h_b_5506533.html.
Pidd, Helen. 2011, 12 May. “John Demjanjuk, the ‘littlest of little fish’, convicted
for Nazi atrocities.” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/12/
john-demjanjuk-guilty-nazi-killings.
Smith, David. 2013. 12 December. “Mandela memorial interpreter says he has
schizophrenia.” The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/mand
ela-memorial-interpreter-schizophrenia-sign-language.
Index
Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures on the corresponding pages.
Abdallah, K. 129, 136, 170–171 Berman, A. 29, 43, 45, 77–78; on

accessibility 162 ethical translation 50–51; The
accountability 104–106; case study on Experience of the Foreign: Culture
106–107; telos and 109–110 and Translation in Romantic
accuracy in codes of ethics 122 Germany 46–47; La traduction et la
act consequentialism 22 lettre 51–54; on translating idioms
activism: to accountability 104–106; 52–53; on trials of the foreign 47–48;
from advocacy to 101–103; case on twelve deforming tendencies
study on 106–107 48–50; on universalisability of ethics
advocacy 98–101, 99; to activism in translation 54–55
101–103 Biden, J. 169
Alive 25–26 Bildung 46–47
American Translator’s Association Birch, A. 151
(ATA) Code of Ethics 119 Blackburn, S. 127
Angelelli, C. V. 89–90 Boéri, J. 84, 101
Annas, J. 25 Bogopane-Zulu, H. 113
applied ethics 16–19 borrowing 45
Aristotle 13–14, 24, 33, 37 Bowker, L. 150, 152, 153, 158
Arlt. R. 49 Bulut, A. 162
Ars Poetica 33 Burgess-Jackson, K. 167
Asimov, I. 21 burnout 144
Asylum Aid (AA) 132
Australian Institute of Interpreters and categorical imperative 19
Translators (AUSIT) 122, 124, 126, censorship in translation 162
127 Chamberlain, B. H. 36–37
Charron, M. 55
Babych, B. 155 Chesterman, A. 2–3, 29–33, 58–59, 70,
Baixauli-Olmos, L. 118 73, 91, 153, 170; on codes of ethics
Baker, M. 1, 96, 99, 102, 113; on 126; on ethical domains 30–31; on
accountability 102–106; moral fidelity 130–131; on loyalty and
relativism and 111–112 cooperation 71–72; moral relativism
Bancroft, M. A. 120, 143–144 and 112; on neutrality 76; on
Basalamah, S. 139, 156 translational telos 94, 107–111; on
Bastos, R. 51 translator loyalty 68; on virtue ethics
Bauman, Z. 96 32–33
Bentham, J. 22 Cheyfitz, E. 78
188 Index
child language brokering 162 court interpreting 35
Chinese tradition 40–41, 163 coverage of codes of ethics 128–129
Christianity 15; metaethics in 17; Cronin, M. 141
normative ethics in 17 Crots, E. 94–95
Cicero 33, 41 crowd-sourced translation 162
clarification 48 cultural hegemony 156–158, 157
codes of ethics 116–134; accuracy cultural innovation 77–82
guideline in 122; American cultural mediators 76, 87–90
Translator’s Association (ATA) 119;
competence guideline in 122–123; Dancy, J. 105
confidentiality guideline in 123, 130; Delgado Luchner, C. 84, 101
conflicts of interest guideline in 123; Demjanjuk, J. 97
content of 130–132; continuing Demosthenes 33
professional development (CPD) Dentro de la tierra 109–110
guideline in 123–124; coverage deontological ethics 19–21
of 128–129; defined 117–118; deontology: Berman’s 45; romantic
effectiveness of 126–132; enforcement roots and underpinnings of 46–47;
of 127–128; guidelines within translation and 44–45
120–125; impartiality/neutrality De optimo genere oratorum 33
guideline in 124; integrity and DePalma, D. 155
professionalism guidelines in Derrida, J. 163
124–125; internal conflicts in Deul, J. 169
126–127; neutrality of 132; problems do Carmo, F. 163
of interpretation and application of Donovan, C. 127, 128
129; role boundaries guideline in 125 Drugan, J. 8, 128–129, 133, 140, 145,
Cohen, R. 106–107 149, 150, 155, 162
Cold War espionage 163 Dyson, S. 152
commitment 93–114; from activism to
accountability 104–106; advocacy egoism and self-interest 165–167
and 98–101, 99; from advocacy to emancipatory translation 76–77
activism 101–103; moral relativism enforcement of codes of ethics 127–128
and 111–113; personal versus enlightened egoism 165–167
professional ethics and 94–98; ennoblement 48–49
translator’s telos and 107–111 environmental sustainability 141–142
communication, ethics of 31 equivalence 35, 45
competence in codes of ethics 122–123 ethical copyright 162–163
computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) ethical dilemmas 106–107
tools 150, 151 ethical stress 142–147
conceptual narratives 102 ethics 11–27; approaches to studying
confidentiality: in codes of ethics 123, 16–19; as branch of Western
130; of translation technology 155 philosophy 13–14; codes of
conflicts of interest 106–107; codes of 117–134; of communication 31;
ethics on 123 consequentialism and 21–23; of
Confucianism 15, 40 cooperation 65–66, 66; definitions
consequentialism 21–23, 77 of 12–14; deontological 19–21;
content of codes of ethics 130–132 fundamental questions in 14–16;
continuing professional development gender-inclusive language and
(CPD) 123–124 164–165; metaethics, normative,
contractarianism 62 and applied 16–19; norm-based 31;
cooperation 62–63, 65–68, 66, 71; case personal versus professional 94–98;
study on loyalty and 71–73; with of representation 30–31; roots in
technology tools 156 Western translation studies 33–35;
Costa, B. 144 of service 31; subjectivity and 77;
Index 189
textual 43; universalisability of 44, Hitler, A. 23, 71–72
54–55; virtue 24–26, 32–33; why Hölderlin, F. 46
study 26–27 see also translation Horace 33
ethics Hubscher-Davidson, S. 142–143
exoticization of vernacular networks
49–50 identity 68–69
expansion 48 idioms: destruction of expressions and
Experience of the Foreign: Culture and 50; translating 52–53
Translation in Romantic Germany, Igarashi, H. 97
The 46–47 impartiality 85–87; in codes of ethics
explanation 45 124
expressions and idioms, destruction of Inghilleri, M. 2, 75, 76, 91, 133;
50 on cultural mediators 87–89;
on dismantling neutrality and
“fake sign language interpreter” impartiality in interpreting 85–87;
112–113 on mediation 99; on moving from
Fédération Internationale des textual justice to wider justice 84–85;
Traducteurs (FIT) 118 on personal ethics 96; on professional
Federici, F. 139 codes 131, 133, 134
fidelity 33–35; Chinese tradition and In Other Words 104
40–41; loyalty from 59–64, 60; Institute of Translation and Interpreting
problematising translation and (ITI) code 118
37–40; with technology tools 156; integrity in codes of ethics 124–125
textual 43 interpretation and application of codes
Folkart, B. 80 of ethics 129
foreign, trials of the 47–48 Interpreting Justice 85, 131
foreignisation 78–81; in practice 82–84 irrationality of language 39
functionalism 59–60, 60 ITI Bulletin 141, 169
Garcia, I. 152 Jantjie, T. 112–113

gender-inclusive language 164–165 Japanese national anthem 36–37
gender studies 162 Jemielity, D. 141
Gibson, G. D. 101–102 Judaism 15; metaethics in 17;
God 15, 16; deontological ethics and normative ethics in 17
20; metaethics and 17–18; normative justice 75–91; cultural mediators and
ethics and 17; virtue ethics and 25 87–90; dismantling neutrality and
Goethe, J. W. von 46 impartiality in interpreting 85–87;
Google Translate 151, 157, 157 foreignisation in practice and 82–84;
Gorman, A. 169–170 overturning neutrality and looking
Gouadec, D. 148 to emancipatory translation and
Gouanvic, J.-M. 34–35, 54, 82, 93 76–77; from textual to wider 84–85;
Grapes of Wrath, The 34 visibility and cultural innovation in
Greenall, A. K. 162 77–82
Gross, M. 67
Kamocki, P. 155
Haddow, B. 151 Kant, I. 20, 24
Hale, S. 89, 117, 120, 126 Katan, D. 162
Heafield, K. 151 Kelly, N. 152
Hebenstreit, G. 62 Kenny, D. 163
Hermans, T. 38–39 Khomeini, R. 97
hermeneutics 37 Kimigayo 36–37
Heyvaert, S. 46 Ko, L. 129
Hieronymic Oath 32–33 Kopp, R. K. 60
190 Index
Koskinen, K. 2, 18, 43; on ethics Moorkens, J. 138, 152, 156, 163
of linguistic hospitality 163; on moral absolutes 43
positioning in intercultural space 69; moral particularism 105
on Venuti 78, 80, 82; on visibility 91 moral relativism 111–113
Kotze, H. 168–169 Moster, S. 71–72, 110
Kruger, H. 94–95
Kurultay, T. 162 narrative theory 101–103
National Association of Judiciary
Laaksonen, J. 78, 82 Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT)
Lambert, J. 121, 127–128, 134, 126
137–138, 147, 165–166 National Council on Interpreting in
Lan Hongjun 41 Health Care (NCIHC) 125
Laozi 15 Nazi war crimes 97
La traduction et la lettre 51–54 NCIHC (National Council on
LeBlanc, M. 150, 156 Interpreting in Health Care) 99–100
Lenin, V. 34 neural machine translation (NMT) 150,
Leong Ko 117 157
L’épreuve de l’étranger: Culture neutrality 76–77, 85–87; in codes of
et traduction dans l’Allemagne ethics 124; codes of ethics and 132
romantique 46 New York Times Magazine 23
LGBTQ activism 169 Nicomachean Ethics 24, 37
linguistic hospitality 163 Nishimura, K. 169
linguistic patternings, destruction of 49 non-professional translation and
literal translation 51–54 interpreting 163
Lomax, E. 145–147 Nord, C. 1, 59, 61–64
loyalty: case study on cooperation and normative ethics 16–19
71–73; function and fidelity 59–64, norm-based ethics 31
60; how to achieve 63 Nouss, A. 46
Nozick, R. 20
Määttä, S. K. 143
machine translation post-editing Obama, B. 112
(MTPE) 152–153 O’Brien, S. 139
machine translation (MT) tools 151; omission 44
post editing and professional status “On the Different Methods of
and sustainability 152–153 Translating” 37
macro-ethical matters 2 On Translator Ethics 65
Maier, C. 2, 133 oral interpretation 38
Maitland, S. 109–110 O’Regan, J. 155
Maltby, M. 132 Other, the 51, 161
Mandela, N. 112
Martin Ruano, M. R. 129, 131 Paasilinna, A. 71
Marx, K. 34, 147 Pammachius 33–34
McAlester, G. 144 paraphrasing 44
McDonough Dolmaya, J. 120, 121, particularism 105
126, 128–129 pay rates and payment practices,
McNicol, T. 169 translator 147–149
Megone, C. 8, 128–129, 133, 149 personal/ontological narratives 102
metaethics 16–19 personal versus professional ethics
meta (master) narratives 103 94–98
micro-ethical matters 2–3 Phelan, M. 3, 114, 118; on advocacy
Mikkelson, H. 120 125, 131–132; on codes of ethics
Mill, J. S. 22 120–121, 127, 133; on professional
Monzó-Nebot, E. 162–163 ethics and commitment 94, 95
Index 191
Plato 33 role boundaries in codes of ethics 125
Pokorn, N. 18, 163 Routledge Handbook of Translation
police investigative interviews 162 and Ethics 162, 174
Pöllabauer, S. 85, 99 Routledge Handbook of Translation
post-colonial translation studies 162 Studies 137
Pour une éthique du traducteur 67 rule consequentialism 22
privacy and confidentiality of Rushdie, S. 97
translation technology 155 Rütter, C. F. 97
professionalism in codes of ethics
124–125 Satanic Verses, The 97–98
professionals, ethical 136–159; Scandals of Translation, The 78, 80, 83
definitions of professions and Schaffner, C. 137
professionals in translation and Schlegel, A. W. 46
136–139; egoism and self-interest of Schleiermacher, F. 29, 37–40, 41, 44, 67,
165–167; ethical stress and 142–147; 78, 91
rates of pay and ethical payment Schweda-Nicholson, N. 120–121
practices for 147–149; responsibility self-care 144–145
of (see responsibility); social self-interest and egoism 165–167
responsibility of 139–142; translation Septuagint 33
technology and 150–158, 157 service, ethics of 31
proverbs 51, 53 Shafer-Landau, R. 20
Prunč, E. 107, 123 Skaaden, H. 89–90, 120
public narratives 102 skopos theory 34, 60–64, 96
Putin, V. 67 socialist translation theories 163
Pym, A. 29, 41–42, 75, 114, 162; social responsibility 139–142, 159
on codes of ethics 117, 124; on Socrates 33
commitment 94; on cooperation, Somers, M. R. 101–102
risk, and trust 65–71, 66; on ethics standards see codes of ethics
as either/or situation 44; on fidelity Stansfield, K. 141
81; on translation technology 150; on Steinbeck, J. 34
translator responsibility 45, 59, 97 St Jerome 33–34
Straniero-Sergio, F. 162
qualitative impoverishment 49 stress, ethical 142–147
quantitative impoverishment 49 Strowe, A. 168–169
subjectivity 77
Railway Man, The 145–147 superimposition of languages,
rationalization 48 effacement of 50
Reiss, K. 34, 59 sustainability: environmental 141–142;
religious perspective on ethics 163 in machine translation 163; machine
representation, ethics of 30–31, translation post editing and
167–170 professional status and 152–153
representativeness 167–170
research ethics 162 Tack 68
responsibility 58–74, 170–174, 171; Tate and turner 134
cooperation, risk, and trust 65–71, technology, translation 150–158;
66; from function and fidelity to collaboration, quality, and fidelity
loyalty 59–64, 60; social 139–142, with 156; cultural hegemony and
159 156–158, 157; machine translation
rhythms, destruction of 49 post editing and professional
Ricoeur, P. 163 status and sustainability 152–153;
Rijneveld, M. L. 169–170 money, ethics, and 158; privacy
Robinson, D. 77 and confidentiality of 155; sharing
Rocchi, M. 138 and commoditisation of translation
192 Index
resources and 154–155; types of translation proper 38–39
150–151 Translation Spaces 163
telos 94, 107–111; accountability and Translator, The 45, 162
109–110 Translator’s Charter 118
textual ethics 43 Translator’s Invisibility, The 46, 78, 81
Tipton, R. 140, 145, 162 Trump, D. 67
Topolovec, I. 85, 99 truth 43–56; Berman’s deontology
Topping 154 and 46; deontology and translation
Translating as a Purposeful Activity 61 and 44–45; producing ethical
translation: Berman on producing translation 50–54; romantic roots
ethical 50–52; deontology and and deontological understanding of
44–45; emancipatory 76–77; ethical 46–47; trials of the foreign and
professionals in (see professionals, 47–48; twelve deforming tendencies
ethical); functionalist models of and 48–50; universalisability and
59–60, 60; literal 51–54; narrative 54–55
theory of 101–103; neutrality in Tymoczko, M. 55, 90
76–77, 85–87; new fields in 162–164; Tyndale, W. 34
as political act 78; range of options
for 44–45; technology tools for underlying networks of signification,
150–158; twelve deforming destruction of 49
tendencies in 48–50; universalisability universalisability of ethics in translation
of ethics in 44, 54–55 44, 54–55
Translation and Interpreting Studies utilitarianism 22
162–163 UX Content Collective 164–165
Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS)
1, 29–30; codes of ethics in (See codes van Vogt, A. E. 34
of ethics); egoism and self-interest in van Wyke, B. 137
165–167; environmental sustainability Venuti, L. 29, 46, 47, 73, 75, 76, 90; on
in 141–142; future of 162–164; as egoism 165; on visibility and cultural
multi-dimensional, complex, and innovation 77–84
evolving 161–162; representation and Vermeer, H. J. 34, 61
representativeness in 167–170 vernacular networks, destruction of
“Translation and the Trials of the 49–50
Foreign” 47 Vian, B. 34
translation ethics 1–2, 29–42; case vicarious trauma (VC) 143
study-based approach to 7–8; in the virtue ethics 24–26, 32–33
classroom 8–9; commitment in visibility 77–82
93–114; fidelity in 33–35; volunteer interpreters 162
functionalism in 59; justice in 75–91;
key ethical domains in 30–31; levels Walker, C. 147
in 3, 3; macro-ethical matters in Wallace, M. 162–163
2; micro-ethical matters in 2–3; war crimes 97
philosophical foundations of 11–27; Washbourne, K. 167
problematising translation and fidelity Weaver, W. 151
in 37–40; responsibility in 58–74; Wecksteen, C. 65
skopos theory in 34, 60–64, 96; Wilensky, H. L. 117
standards in 116–134; technology written translation 38
and 150–158; truth in 43–56; see also
ethics Xie Tianzhen 41
Translation in Cascading Crises 139
translation memory (TM) tools 150, Yo, El Supremo 51, 55
151; sharing and commoditisation of
154–155 Zhou, M. 9

Translation Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translation Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translation Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the textbook about?

What is the textbook about?

What does the textbook cover?

What does the textbook cover?

Translation Ethics

Translation Ethics introduces the topic of ethics for students, researchers,

Joseph Lambert is a Lecturer in Translation Studies at Cardiff University.

Routledge Introductions to Translation and Interpreting is a series of

Most recent titles in the series:

Translation Project Management

Translation Tools and Technologies

Additional resources for Translation and Interpreting Studies are available on

8 Ethical Professionals 136

9 Other Viewpoints 161

Dr Joseph Lambert is a Lecturer in Translation Studies at Cardiff University,

Translator and interpreter training programmes have become an integral

xii Series Editor’s Foreword

What is the ‘right’ way to translate a text? How should a ‘professional’

[d]‌espite growing commitment amongst groups of translation scholars

And though Koskinen convincingly argues that “conclusive historical

Chapter Content and Design

Micro-​ethical matters, meanwhile

Social – Community Sphere

About this Book

Audience and features

A case study-​based approach

Box 1.1 Starting out: A problem to ponder

If possible, discuss in small groups or note down some ideas relating to

1 [usually treated as plural] moral principles that govern a person’s

? What does ethics mean to you?

The Fundamental Ethical Questions

Here another caveat is in order. It is important to make a clear point that

? What does being “good” mean to you?

Approaches to Studying Ethics

Metaethics, Normative and Applied Ethics

? Can you think of examples of contradictions on the level of metaethics,

? What deontological principles do you follow on a daily basis? What is

Box 1.2 Deontology in practice: A thought experiment

are anticipating a range of tricky scenarios once your vehicles are on

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction,

Clearly, we cannot reach a satisfactory answer to our dilemma based

Box 1.3 Consequentialism

? Where do you stand on this question?

Of course, the hypothetical nature of the question clouds our decision-​

Box 1.4 Alive, but at what cost? A test of ethical stances

? What is your take on this situation? Were the survivors right

Why Study Ethics?

Discussion, Presentation, and Assignment Topics

? What does fidelity mean to you, both in general and in relation to

A Powerful Theoretical Basis –​Andrew Chesterman

1. Ethics of representation: this deals with fidelity, accuracy, truth, and

The number of cross-​ references in four explanations above clearly

Box 2.1 The link to virtue ethics

? What are your thoughts on these virtues? Are they elements

The Roots of Ethics in Western Translation Studies: Fidelity

Box 2.2 Kimigayo

? Which translation is more faithful? How do we decide?

Even those of us with no knowledge of Japanese can see that the

with our expectations for a national anthem in English. What about

Friedrich Schleiermacher: Problematising Translation and Fidelity

8 Ethical Professionals 136

9 Other Viewpoints 161

Micro-ethical matters, meanwhile

A case study-based approach

Of course, the hypothetical nature of the question clouds our decision-

A Powerful Theoretical Basis –Andrew Chesterman

The number of cross- references in four explanations above clearly

In the context of “translation proper” –where substance and expression

• Paraphrase –replacing the term with a description, for instance: ‘a trad-

Figure 4.1 Functionalist model of communication.

Figure 4.2 Areas of responsibility in Pym’s ethics of cooperation.

a first-hand unmediated glimpse into what all translation is, in what-