Abstract What are the potential impacts of new technological advancements over research on the lives and work of literary translators? The emerging concept of human-centredness in translating with Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers unique opportunities to address this question from the existing perspective of Literary Translator Studies. Whereas much research in Translation Studies focuses on texts and processes, Translator Studies delves into individual people practically engaged in translation. Ever since the term “Translator Studies” was employed by Andrew Chesterman in 2009, the interplay between humans and technology in the context of literary translation has remained a potential topic of research. However, studies in this area have historically placed focus on sociological, cultural, and cognitive aspects of the translation industry. The sudden widespread availability of AI since the end of 2022, more than any previous technological development, carries with it substantial potential implications for literary translators. This article assesses the ways in which human-centredness is being studied at the beginning of the era of translation with AI. It synthesises existing Translator Studies research, identifying patterns and lacunae. It also takes stock of current conversations in the context of Literary Machine Translation and Computer-Assisted Literary Translation, in order to identify research questions and emerging methodological innovations at the point when the practical usability of generative AI in the context of literary translation is first emerging. At present, research in Translator Studies that is relevant to both literature and technology does not appear to have changed substantially in response to the introduction of generally available Large Language Models. Based on these findings, the article looks to the future, suggesting research topics that move beyond the isolated case study model, integrating the impact of emerging technologies within and beyond Literary Translator Studies. It also suggests that human-centred research that considers the interplay of literary translators and technology could likely make extensive use of data drawn from direct interaction with the humans involved.

Abstract One of the key ways to realizing linguistic justice, as alluded to by Phillipe van Parijs (2011), is to welcome the use of English as a global lingua franca. Linguistic justice is defined as the condition in which the languages of linguistic groups are accorded official recognition, and the speakers do not suffer from social, economic, and dignity inequality on the basis of their language. However, the acceptance of English as an international language, as pointed out by many scholars, including Van Parijs himself, can also lead to potentially unjust linguistic situations. There are, in particular, three issues that come with the use of English as a global language, and they are (1) inequality in communication; (2) unfair resource allocation; and (3) lack of speaker dignity. This paper will provide a review of how political philosophers have talked about these problems, and the normative solutions to achieving linguistic justice. The aim of this article is to provide a linguistic perspective to the issue of linguistic justice. The author endeavors to do so by looking at linguistic justice through the lens of two dominant paradigms in the field of English linguistics: the World Englishes (WE) paradigm, pioneered by Braj Kachru; and the English as Lingua Franca (ELF) paradigm, a relatively more recent alternative developed by Jennifer Jenkins. The tenets of how each paradigm views speakers of English around the world are compared and a solution to the problem of linguistic justice is offered by thinking about “Englishes” instead of a single monolithic linguistic entity “English”. In doing so, efforts are made to highlight how linguistic justice can be achieved in the world of Englishes.

Abstract During the two years that Malaysia was under intermittent lockdown under the COVID-19 pandemic, the public paid close attention to the daily media briefings from the Ministry of Health and Home Affairs Ministry. While the public waited eagerly for the press conferences, a small corner of the television screen with a gesturing individual caught their imagination, and there were many viral memes and discussions in the social media. This study examines these public perceptions through the lens of personal accounts and retrospective interviews with each of the sign language interpreters to examine the challenges and demands they encountered when working in the context of a civil and health emergency. The impact, control measures, and general wellbeing of these sign language interpreters pre-, during, and post-coverage are analyzed to provide comprehensive insight into their experiences of the Catch-22 situations where they found it difficult to break away. These personal accounts are contrasted with the perceptions of the Malaysian Deaf Community, who were highly critical of the interpreters’ skills regarding their understanding of the degree of accessibility and the quality of their interpretation of technical and critical information under circumstances when the interpreters themselves and the audience were under tremendous stress from the bombardment of dire news, global uncertainties, and unrelieved economic pressures. This study debunks many of the myths and misconceptions of the public on the Deaf Community and sign language interpreters, such as the use of a standardized or universal sign language, the environmental demands of interpreting during a crisis, the conflicting interpersonal and intrapersonal moments experienced by the interpreters, and the linguistic and paralinguistic demands encountered during the press conferences. Even interpreters with many decades of interpreting on television and in the community found their personal worldviews as well as their understanding of their role and their profession dramatically altered and reassessed because of interpreting during these two unprecedented years.