ISSN: 1579-9794

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower or to

Digitally Disempower Migrant Communities?

Las políticas de traducción: ¿Una herramienta para

empoderar o desempoderar a los migrantes en el contexto

digital?

ELENA RUIZ-CORTÉS

eruizc@ugr.es

Universidad de Granada

Fecha de recepción: 16/03/2021

Fecha de aceptación: 28/07/2021

Abstract: Digitally mediated communication in the public sector has

changed how citizens and authorities communicate. Within this digital

context, it has been identified that language problems may be an underlying

cause of social exclusion for migrant groups (see Khorshed and Imran,

2015, p. 347), which seems to indicate that the lack of language proficiency

in the host country’s language may give rise to new forms of digital divides in

migratory contexts. Bearing this in mind, here we claim that, for migrants

with language barriers, access to key digital services within the public sector

can happen through translation provision, which may be used as a tool to

digitally empower them. Thus, based on this logic, in this paper the digital

empowerment (Mäkinen, 2006) of migrant communities is explored

assessing to what extent the implementation of translation policy empowers

migrants’ digital communication with the host country’ authorities within the

public services. To this end, we will focus on a case study in which the

methodological concept of domain will be used to investigate the translation

policy implemented in the case of the digital communication between the

Spanish Ministry for Inclusion, Social Security and Migration and migrants in

two immigration procedures. Our initial findings suggest that the translation

policy implemented by this Spanish Ministry results in diametrically opposed

levels of migrants’ digital empowerment in our case study. Thus, arguably,

even if translation policy could be used as a tool to digitally empower all

migrants in our case study, it seems to be used as a tool to empower only

some of them; the most powerful migrant communities.

Keywords: Translation policy; Digital empowerment; E-government;

Immigration procedures; Spain.

400 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Resumen: La introducción de la comunicación digital en el sector público ha

cambiado la forma en la que los ciudadanos y la Administración se

comunican. En este contexto digital, las barreras lingüísticas se han

identificado como una causa de exclusión social para los migrantes (ver

Khorshed e Imran, 2015, p. 347), lo que parece indicar que la falta de

dominio del idioma del país de acogida puede dar lugar a nuevas brechas

digitales en contextos migratorios. Tomando este hecho en consideración,

aquí sostenemos que, en el caso de los migrantes que experimentan

barreras lingüísticas, la provisión de traducción puede darles acceso a

servicios digitales claves dentro del sector público, y por tanto, que la

traducción puede emplearse como una herramienta para empoderar a este

colectivo digitalmente. Con esta lógica, aquí exploramos el empoderamiento

digital (Mäkinen, 2006) de los migrantes analizando en qué medida las

políticas de traducción implementadas favorecen la comunicación digital

entre los migrantes y la Administración de acogida en los servicios públicos.

Para ello, nos centraremos en un estudio de caso, el que emplearemos el

concepto metodológico de dominio para analizar las políticas de traducción

implementadas por el Ministerio de Inclusión, Seguridad Social y

Migraciones español para comunicarse digitalmente con los migrantes en el

caso de dos procedimientos de extranjería. Nuestros resultados iniciales

sugieren que la política de traducción implementada por este ministerio

tiene como resultado un empoderamiento digital diametralmente opuesto de

las comunidades migrantes involucradas en nuestro estudio de caso. Por

consiguiente, se podría argumentar que, aunque la implementación de las

políticas de traducción podría usarse como una herramienta para

empoderar digitalmente a todos los migrantes por igual, en nuestro estudio,

parece emplearse como una herramienta para empoderar exclusivamente a

algunos; a aquellos más poderosos.

Palabras clave: Política de traducción; Empoderamiento digital; Gobierno

electrónico; Procedimientos de extranjería; España.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 401

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays technology permeates our everyday lives as individuals

and as citizens. In fact, the public sector has been profoundly influenced by

the digital era giving rise to the so-called E-government. According to

Longford (2002, p. 1) the concept of E-government refers to «using new

information and communications technologies […] to improve government

services, streamline internal administrative processes, and enhance

opportunities for citizens to engage with government». However, although E-

government is supposed to provide a more «efficient, affordable and

convenient citizen-centred service» (Longford, 2002, p. 2), Loveluck (2015,

p. 93) rightly argues that online procedures introduce «new layers of

complexity» for certain groups. This is the case «for individuals who may

already have a limited knowledge of the host country’s language» (Loveluck,

2015, p. 93), as may be the case for migrants. In fact, in these cases, «far

from making things more easy [sic] and efficient, […] online administration

can be a strong filter, which prevents many individuals entitled to welfare

benefits […] from actually receiving them» (Loveluck, 2015, p. 93).

Undeniably, this fact is generally connected to the so-called digital

divide

, and particularly to the «second-level digital divide» (Hargittai 2001 in

Loveluck 2015, p. 93), that takes into account «many other socioeconomic

factors and more subtle forms of resource inequalities such as experience

and abilities, social capital, autonomy of use, or availability of social support»

(Loveluck 2015, p. 93). Arguably, these socioeconomic factors within the

second digital divide go beyond the first-level digital division of the «haves

and haves not» in terms of material access, and it gives rise to more

elaborate forms of digital divisions

. Going one step further, other

researchers contend that digital literacy has arisen as a third-level digital

divide where different skill levels create new inequalities related to the

knowledge gap (see Khorshed and Imran, 2015, p. 347). If digital literacy is

generally understood as «having the skills you need to live, learn, and work

in a society where communication and access to information is increasingly

through digital technologies»

it is evident that, currently, a variety of skills

Mäkinen (2006, pp. 383-384) believes that digital exclusion describes the inequality suffered in

this context better than digital division: «The excluded people of the information society are the

ones who could increase their welfare and prospects by using the information technology, but

who don’t have the chance or ability to use it».

See Khorshed and Imran (2015, pp. 346-347) to revise how the notion of digital divide has

evolved over time.

https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/studysmart/home/study_skills_guides/digital_literacy/what_i

s_digital_literacy

402 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

may influence the adoption of digital technology; including languages skills

(Khorshed and Imran, 2015, p. 347).

Zooming in on the public sector, the above implies that language

skills, or the lack thereof, may influence how digital communication between

citizens and authorities actually occurs. Arguably, this is an aspect worth

exploring given that language problems have been identified as a underlying

cause of social exclusion for migrant groups in digital contexts (see

Khorshed and Imran, 2015, p. 347), which seems to indicate that the lack of

language proficiency in the host country’s language (Loveluck, 2015, p. 93;

Khorshed and Imran, 2015, p. 347) may play a major role in the

aforementioned digital divides or digital exclusions (Mäkinen, 2006). In fact,

this seems to have been corroborated by previous studies that reported that

language barriers may impede migrants from accessing digital and non-

digital services that others readily access within the public sector (Codó

Olsina, 2008; González Núñez, 2016; Ruiz-Cortés, 2020a). In our view,

access to these digital services can happen through translation, which may

be used as a tool to digitally empower migrants with language barriers. Here

«empowerment» is not merely a buzzword, but it is understood as «the

process of gaining freedom and power to do what you want or to control

what happens to you» (Cambridge Dictionary)

. What, then, does digital

empowerment exactly refer to?

Drawing on Mäkinen (2006, p. 381), in this study digital empowerment

is understood as «a multi-phased process […] to increase the competence

of individuals and communities to act as influential participants in the

information society». Specifically, the author (Mäkinen, 2006, pp. 391-392)

argues that digital empowerment is an «enabling process», which proceeds

like a spiral from the prerequisites for digital empowerment (first phase) —

such as awareness or motivation— to the improvements in skills and

knowledge (second phase) —such as being connected to widening social

networks or learning new ways to act and participate by using information

technology— to psychological changes that lead to digital empowerment

(third phase)

. In this paper, we contend that, in migratory contexts,

translation provision is a necessary prerequisite of the first phase of the

process of digital empowerment (Mäkinen, 2006, pp. 391-392). This is so

since, for migrants with language barriers, translation will allow for a vital

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/empowerment

Mäkinen (2006, p. 392) argues: «The changes in competence (1.1.) could lead to changes in

self-confidence (1.2.). The changes in participation (2.1.) could lead to changes in becoming

more aware of one’s social role and surroundings (2.2.). The changes in making choices and

influence (3) could lead to changes in freedom (3.2.), so that a person could think, choose and

act more freely. And the changes in control over things and situations (4.1.) could lead to

changes in control over one’s life (4.2.)». For a thorough description see Mäkinen (2006).

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 403

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

understanding of the digital context in question that, in turn, enables them to

develop the other prerequisites connected to this first phase (such as

motivation to use digital technologies) and, hence, to move towards the

following phases of the process.

Thus, with the understanding that «translation policy ultimately is

about deciding how people communicate, or even if they do it at all»

(González Núñez, 2017, p.152), here we will explore digital empowerment of

migrant communities within the public services, assessing to what extent the

implementation of translation policy (González Núñez, 2016, p. 42)

empowers migrants’ digital communication with the host country’ authorities

(our goal). To this end, we will focus on a case study, the translation policy

implemented in digital communication throughout immigration procedures in

the Spanish context, which has been chosen for the purpose of this research

for two main reasons. Firstly, because it is relevant to reveal how information

and communication technologies affect certain «administrative dimensions

of citizenship» such as «accessing and maintaining social rights» (Loveluck,

2015, p. 92), in this case the right to freedom of movement and residence in

Spain. And, secondly, because language and cultural barriers seem to play

an important role in hindering migrants’ access to digital information

throughout immigration procedures in Spain (see Ruiz-Cortés, 2020b).

Therefore, considering the impracticability of analysing how digital

communication occurs in all immigration procedures in Spain, we have

chosen two specific groups of procedures to be presented here. On the one

hand, we will address the case of the immigration procedures derived from

the Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de apoyo a los emprendedores y su

internacionalización, which allows investors, entrepreneurs, highly qualified

migrants and relevant researchers (and their families) to apply for residence

in Spain (hereinafter the Ley 14/2013 immigration procedures). On the other

hand, we will study the case of the immigration procedures that allow EU

nationals and their family members to apply for residence in Spain

(hereinafter the EU immigration procedures)

In short, this paper reports on the first stage of an on-going project, in

which digital empowerment is approached from a descriptive stance through

the lens of translation policy

. Consequently, this is a first exploratory

This choice was informed by the findings of our doctoral thesis (Ruiz-Cortés, 2020b). There, it

was identified that these two specific groups of procedures presented considerable differences

in terms of digital empowerment, which makes them a pertinent choice to compare in this paper.

It should be noted that the «Ley 14/2013 immigration procedures» are national law immigration

procedures (only applicable to third country nationals) while the «EU immigration procedures»

are immigration procedures within EU law (only applicable to EU nationals and their families).

We hope to perform future empirical studies based on the findings of this descriptive study.

404 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

analysis framed within Descriptive Translation Studies (Toury, 2012), in

which following the descriptive standpoint of González Núñez (2016, p. 42)

to study translation policy, the collection of our data will be organised via the

methodological concept of «domain». A domain is a sociolinguistic context

that can be identified in terms of three criteria: location (the Spanish public

sector), topic (the implementation of translation policy in the immigration

procedures chosen) and participants (the Spanish public bodies in charge of

these procedures and the migrants involved). Thus, in order to meet our

goal, we will first present an overview of how Spanish authorities generally

communicate with migrants in our case study (our participants) paying

special attention to the provision of translation within this context. Secondly,

this overview will lead us to address the provision of translation in the digital

context studied (our topic) within the Spanish public sector (our location).

Thirdly, after analysing our preliminary findings, a reflection on digital

empowerment in our case study will be presented, and finally, our main

conclusions will be summarised.

1. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPANISH AUTHORITIES AND MIGRANT

COMMUNITIES IN OUR CASE STUDY: AN OVERVIEW

Language rights of migrant minorities have been traditionally

politicised in our society, triggering very heated debates such as when, how

and to whom these language rights should be granted within the public

services (González Núñez, 2016). Issues that repeatedly arise in these

debates are the practicality and costs of granting language rights, the scarce

public resources to do so, or even, their (detrimental) impact on the

acquisition of the language of the host country in question. Given the link

between language rights and translation, translation tends to be present

amid all these debates, either overtly or covertly. Whichever the position

defended might be, in the end, as contended by Meylaerts (2011, p. 744):

«There is no language policy without translation policy»

. Notwithstanding

this, since State obligations to translate are rather limited in international law,

González Núñez (2016) argues that States have a lot of discretion to

implement translation policies at the national level, especially in the case of

migrant languages. In other words, as suggested by Monzó-Nebot (2020, p.

18), issues related to translation policy are still unresolved in most legal

Sandrini (2016, p. 55) argues: «we may say that there is no translation policy without a digital

translation policy». According to him, translation policy is «a term which may be paraphrased as

a translation technology policy stating the matters of principle on how to deal with translation in

a digital environment and what is to be done and by whom» (Sandrini, 2016, p. 55). However,

the focus of Sandrini seems to be on the use of translation technology in the production of

translations rather than on who decides and when and how it is decided which translations are

made available digitally. Perhaps this last aspect could be integrated in his proposal.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 405

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

systems, with attempts to regulate linguistic access mostly in criminal

proceedings (see Orlando, 2016). This is exactly the case in the Spanish

context studied, which implies that communication with migrant communities

within the Spanish public services will hinge on the decision of whether or

not to provide public service translation (PST)

by Spanish authorities. PST

is a field characterised by its social mission (Taibi and Ozolins, 2016, p. 11),

which intends to promote the civic integration of disempowered social

groups and to empower them enabling their communication in different

social contexts within the public services

. Therefore, PST promotes

citizens having «equitable access to public service information» (Taibi, 2018,

p. 2) in a variety of public services’ settings, such as the immigration setting

studied here (see Ruiz-Cortés, 2021). However, even with this key social

role, PST has a generally low social status as a professional activity. This

may be due to the fact that it «is closely concerned with migrants, refugees

and local languages minorities», and then «as these groups usually fall into

low socio-economic strata and lack of social, economic and political power,

community translation itself has been perceived as a non-priority service»

(Taibi and Ozolins, 2016, p. 19). It is against this background that translation

policy is implemented in the Spanish migratory context explored below.

In Spain the ministry in charge of immigration procedures nationally is

the Ministerio de Inclusión, Seguridad Social y Migraciones (Ministry for

Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, hereinafter the Ministry)

. Even if

this Ministry provides an array of digital information concerning immigration

procedures for migrants (section 2), generally, the submission and the

subsequent processing of immigration applications are done locally in the

Immigration Offices. In fact, recently, this has been changed in the case of

the Ley 14/2013 procedures, whose applicants are now supposed to apply

for residence exclusively online (see section 2). However, until this recent

change, in order to initiate any immigration procedure, all migrants in Spain

were required to go to the local Immigration Office in person to complete the

corresponding application form and to provide the necessary complementary

documentation (this is still the case for the applicants of the EU procedures

involved in this study).

Even though Spanish Immigration Offices are bureaucratic agencies

«of key symbolic and material significance for migrants’ insertion into a host

society» (Sabaté Dalmau, Garrido Sardà and Codó Olsina, 2017, p. 561),

Also known as Community Translation (Taibi and Ozolins, 2016).

Our understanding of PST foregrounds its use as a tool for social inclusion, against the

narratives that perceive it as a social and economic burden for society (see Ruiz-Cortés, 2020a,

p. 221).

https://www.inclusion.gob.es/.

406 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

and whilst they are almost exclusively dedicated to migrants, neither

translation or interpreting services are offered nor are their officials required

to have foreign language skills (Codó Olsina, 2008, p. 200)

. Furthermore,

empirical studies have shown that, even if its officials very often witness the

considerable language barriers that migrants experience in these offices,

these public officials are unaware of the role that translators and interpreters

could play in this multilingual setting (Acuyo Verdejo, 2009, pp. 236-237).

This occurs in a bureaucratic context where there is an asymmetrical

relationship between the participants involved, with migrants being in a

subordinate position to the authorities or, as Sarangi and Slembrouck (2013,

p. 59) put it, with «an examinee supplying information to an examiner, who,

in his/her turn, is also mandated to doubt, challenge and probe into any

aspects of the applicant´s life that he/she may deem relevant to the

procedure». As is to be expected, this sociolinguistic environment does not

favour migrants’ understanding of immigration procedures in these offices,

as confirmed by Codó Olsina (2008) in her ethnographic study in the

Immigration Office in Barcelona

Spanish was constructed as the only legitimate language of

frontline communication. Failure by clients to know the language

was taken to index their unwillingness to «integrate» into Spanish

society. […] Other languages, mostly English, were employed in

actual communication, but they were categorized as exceptional

linguistic resources. […] This restricted migrants’ possibilities of

comprehending the progress/fate of their applications and sent

clear messages to them about the practical and symbolic value of

Spanish in the state administration (Sabaté Dalmau, et al. 2017,

pp. 562-563).

Consequently, it could be argued that migrants’ language barriers are

not addressed in face-to-face communication in these offices in Spain, even

if «The clients of the immigration ofﬁces are mostly foreigners, newcomers

who strive to make sense of the bureaucratic realities they encounter»

(Codó Olsina, 2008, p. 10).

In our case study, the migrant communities involved are rather

heterogeneous. On the one hand, the applicants for the EU procedures have

heterogeneous profiles that differ in age, nationality, language, culture,

There may be some exceptions to this rule across Spain.

The communicative practices that take place in these offices have been under-researched in

the Spanish context. A few exceptions to this trend are, on the one hand, the ethnographic

study performed by Codó Olsina (2008) in the Immigration Office of Barcelona (Catalonia) and

the field study performed by Acuyo Verdejo (2009) in the Immigration Offices of the

Autonomous Region of Andalusia.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 407

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

socio-economic situations or educational backgrounds

. On the other hand,

given the profiles of the applicants for the Ley 13/2014 (big investors,

entrepreneurs, highly qualified migrants or researchers), they may be rather

heterogeneous in all of the abovementioned traits except their common

generally good socio-economic situations and educational backgrounds;

factors which have a direct impact on digital divisions (Loveluck, 2015, p.93).

Notwithstanding this, all the applicants involved in this study share a

common denominator: they are all migrants. Precisely, due to this fact,

previous studies indicate that they will generally share their initial

misunderstanding not only of Spanish bureaucracy (Codó Olsina, 2008), but

also of the implications that their statements may have on the final

administrative decision on their granting of legal residence (Sarangi and

Slembrouck, 2013). In other words, whatever their profile might be, the

communication divide between Spanish authorities and migrants generally

stays; the main difference would be how these migrants may bridge it.

Especially for those who do not have the means to pay for private translators

and interpreters, this communication divide may be addressed by other

social actors in Spain. However, previous research seems to suggest that

some of these actors may prioritise other institutional goals, as reported by

Codó Olsina (2013, pp. 36- 37) in the case of Barcelona:

Beyond informing, counselling and assisting migrants with

paperwork, trade unions and NGOs act as gatekeepers of the

legalisation process (in lieu of the state). It is they who decide who

is a legitimate applicant –that is, who meets the requirements, and

who does not– and therefore, it is in that sense that they (rather

than the state) regulate the bodies that get a chance of being

allowed into the country. Although decision making is the sole

responsibility of the state, […] migrant applicants’ selection process

is de facto carried out by the labour and non-governmental

agencies that assist them. This is so because these advice

agencies refuse to file those applications that do not fulfil the

requirements set by the government. Although one could think that

efficacy/success criteria would explain this policy, the data reveal

how these organisations’ strict control over who gets to apply for

legalisation is connected to the specific arrangements they have

with state authorities.

Consequently, this partnership seems to have resulted in these

organisations having «a great deal of bureaucratic, linguistic and moral

control over migrant advice seekers» (Codó Olsina, 2013, p. 26), to the point

that they are the ones that decide which cases are to be presented in the

See the section Estadísticas of the Portal de Inmigración of the abovementioned ministry:

https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/estadisticas/index.html

408 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Barcelona Immigration Office. Similarly, Sarangi and Slembrouck (2013, p.

152), addressing social workers’ roles in the British migratory context,

suggest that «their actions are only remedial and do not have the effect of

fundamentally challenging the communicative divide»

. Unquestionably

these situations highlight the importance of migrants’ understanding of the

immigration procedure in order to assess, for instance, if this kind of filter

can be applied by these mediating institutions. Beyond this, understanding

the immigration procedure will allow migrants to identify what information

they are required to provide in order to pass the administrative scrutiny they

are facing, while allowing them to construct their narratives properly during

the application process (see Ruiz-Cortés, 2020a)

. However, even if this

were the ideal situation, as highlighted above, this understanding is

generally neglected for migrants with language barriers in face-to-face

communication with Spanish authorities in Immigration Offices (this also

applies to the Ley 14/2013 applicants since they may go to these offices to

gather information concerning their procedure).

In sum, the sociolinguistic environment succinctly described above

foregrounds the relevant role that digital communication may play in bridging

the existing communicative divide in the context studied. In other words,

considering the high price that migrants may pay for miscommunication in

this migration context— i.e. not being granted legal residence in Spain—for

those who lack Spanish language skills, this key understanding could

happen through the translation of the instantly available digital information

concerning their procedures provided by this Ministry. Based on this logic, in

the next section, the extent to which translation is used in the digital context

studied to bridge this communicative divide will be explored (section 2), in

order to later assess if these decisions favour migrants’ digital empowerment

in this case study (section 3).

2. DIGITAL COMMUNICATION WITH MIGRANT COMMUNITIES IN OUR CASE STUDY

Before delving into our description of how digitally mediated

communication actually occurs in our case study, a succinct explanation of

how this description will be approached is required. In this section, the

webpages of the «Portal de Inmigración» of the Spanish Ministry involved

This does not mean that we do not acknowledge the crucial role, and in most cases beneficial

role, that all these actors play within the migration context. However, at the same time, these

previous findings highlight the important role translators and interpreters could have in these

contexts, in which the other actors involved lack the training to bridge this communicative divide.

As suggested in Ruiz-Cortés (2020a, p. 222): «Migrants’ narratives […] can be defined as the

´basic mode of understanding and sharing of experience’ (De Fina and Tseng, 2017: 381) on

the part of migrants when communicating their situation to the authorities.»

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 409

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

(hereinafter the Immigration Portal) concerning the immigration procedures

studied will be analysed. Considering that when analysing webpages an

array of «modes» (Kress, 2010, p.79)

should be brought into the equation,

such as «linguistic elements, images, colour, layout, animations, voice,

music, etc.», our description will be approached as follows. On the one

hand, the array of semiotic elements included in these webpages and how

their interplay contributes to the construction of meaning in them will be

addressed. On the other hand, the extent to which translation is provided to

make this digital information available to its multilingual audience will be

assessed.

2.1. Ley 13/2014 immigration procedures

In the Immigration Portal, this Spanish Ministry has created a specific

webpage exclusively dedicated to the procedures regulated under the Ley

13/2014 (see Annex 1). In this webpage, applicants not only find most of the

digital information concerning these procedures, but also the pertinent links

to access the rest of the relevant information available. Thus, in terms of

access to these procedures’ digital information, unlike the applicants of other

immigration procedures in Spain (Ruiz-Cortés, 2020b), these applicants do

not need to navigate through the different webpages of this Ministry in order

to find this information, since it has been gathered for them in a fairly

straightforward webpage which is easily accessible.

As can be observed in Annex 1, on the left hand side of the webpage,

a grey vertical column, in the form of an index of the Immigration Portal, can

be found. Horizontally, Annex 1 is divided into three main sections. The

upper section comprises: (1) the emblem of the Spanish government; (2) the

names of the different institutions involved (Spanish government, the

Ministry involved and the department responsible for immigration within this

Ministry); (3) the Immigration Portal reference and (4) a navigation bar for

information search. Apart from having the function of clearly situating the

webpage in the Spanish institutional context, it is worth highlighting that the

colour blue selected for this upper section is quite revealing. This is the case

since, as suggested by empirical studies, «‘stability’ and ‘trustworthiness’ are

traditionally associated with blue» (Hynes, 2009, p.551); two attributes public

sector’s institutions may want to foreground in this context. As for the central

section of Annex 1, a visual image of a face-to-face interaction between

authorities and citizens is shown. Even if it is not clear if these citizens may

be migrants, this image seems to represent the interaction between Spanish

According to Kress, a mode is «a socially shaped and culturally given semiotic resource for

making meaning» (2010, p. 79).

410 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

authorities and migrants in Spanish Immigration Offices, possibly with the

aim to convey that a similar immigration service is also been provided in this

webpage. This makes sense bearing in mind that, currently, these applicants

are supposed to apply for residence strictly online, which means that, to

some extent, this webpage replaces the face-to-face interaction in

Immigration Offices in the case of these procedures. Lastly, in the lowest

section of Annex 1, the actual digital information and documents available

concerning these immigration procedures are found. As follows, all these

digital resources will be described following a top-down approach.

Firstly, the full name of the Spanish law that regulates these

procedures (the Ley 14/2013) appears as the title of this webpage.

Secondly, in the section «Autorizaciones» a variety of leaflets can be found

in Spanish and also in English, Russian, Chinese and Portuguese. It is worth

noting that the title chosen for this second section, «Permits», may be

misleading considering that it only contains the abovementioned leaflets.

Thirdly, in the section «Modelo de solicitud» a link to a subpage to access

the relevant application forms is provided (see Annex 2)

. As can be

observed in Annex 2, the distribution of this webpage is the same as the one

presented in Annex 1, except the image chosen for the horizontal middle

section; a mountain in this case. Interestingly, this image of a mountain

appears in all the webpages of this portal presenting immigration forms,

however, it remains a mystery to us if its selection may have a specific

meaning for Spanish authorities. As for the documents included in Annex 2,

it should be noted that the application forms for each procedure are not only

provided in Spanish, but they are also translated into six foreign languages

in this case. Furthermore, in the case of these forms, this Spanish Ministry

provides a justification of its decision to translate them: «In order to help

applicants with the completion of the application forms derived from Law

14/2013, the applications forms have been translated into English, Russian,

Chinese, French, German and Portuguese for informative purposes»

However, in the same webpage, there are another four documents (such as

an affidavit) that are only made available in Spanish. Fourthly, and resuming

the information in Annex 1, in the section «Presentación de solicitudes»,

Spanish authorities provide a link to a subpage for applicants to submit their

forms online, and subsequently, in the section «Buzón de consultas», an

email address is provided for these applicants to contact the authorities if

We have decided to present the two main webpages related to these procedures in the

Immigration Portal as Annexes. Due to space constraints, the access to other relevant

subpages will be provided in a link hereinafter. In this paper, the specific information included in

the complementary digital documents mentioned will not be analysed.

https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/ModelosSolicitudes/ley_14_2013/index.html Our

translation.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 411

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

problems arise. Lastly, in Annex 1, these applicants are presented with an

array of complementary documents. On the one hand, in the section

«Documentación» they can find a summary of the relevant sections of the

Ley 14/2013 law in Spanish, a summary that has also been translated into

English, and also a report on the implementation of the Ley 14/2013 in

Spanish, which has also been translated into English. On the other hand, in

the section «Apoyo al solicitante», these applicants find: (1) a frequently

asked questions (FAQ) document in Spanish translated into English; (2) a

link to a subpage in Spanish with nine documents in Spanish summarising

the documentation to be submitted during these procedures also translated

into English

; and (3) a link to a subpage in Spanish where the residence

card fee form required can be found

In the light of the description above, several aspects are worth

highlighting in relation to the linguistic dimension of these decisions. Firstly,

even if «websites are a crucial point of entry for many citizens seeking

services» (González Núñez, 2017, p. 163), the content of the webpages

analysed are not translated into any foreign language

. Secondly, while this

Ministry has decided to translate both the application forms and the leaflets

related to these procedures into different foreign languages, the languages

into which these documents have been translated differ. Specifically, both

types of documents are translated into English, Russian and Chinese, while

the forms are also translated into French, German and Arabic, and the

leaflets are also translated into Portuguese. These decisions are rather

surprising and lead to several questions: Why translate the leaflets into

Portuguese and not the application forms? Why provide French, German

and Arabic translations of the forms without providing the complementary

leaflets in the same languages? Thirdly, even if it seems clear that all of the

above languages seem to have been used as a lingua franca, at the same

time, this Ministry’s choice of which languages to translate both types of

documents into (English, Russian and Chinese) is also revealing. On the

one hand, unquestionably, English is used because of its condition as the

global lingua franca. However, on the other hand, choosing Russian and

Chinese seems to be linked to economic reasons, and particularly to the so-

https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/UnidadGrandesEmpresas/ley14_2013/documentacion/i

ndex.html

https://sede.inclusion.gob.es/es/sede_electronica/tramites/tasa-038/index.htm

This ministry has only translated the information of its initial webpage into Catalan, Basque,

Galician, English and French. However, no webpages of the Immigration Portal are translated.

412 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

called golden visas granted for applicants under Ley 14/2013, that according

to El País, have proved popular with Russian and Chinese migrants

Lastly, from a multimodal perspective, it is worth mentioning that while

there seems to be a connection between the content of Annex 1 and the

meaning given to the image used there, this does not seem to be the case

with the image of the mountain in Annex 2. Furthermore, it is worth analysing

the multimodal decision to use flags to visually represent the languages

available for each document. As can be observed in Annexes 1 and 2, and

in the links provided throughout section 2.1., on the one hand, the Spanish

flag has been used to mark the digital information that has been made

available in Spanish. Even if Spanish is not only spoken in Spain, and

Spanish-speaking migrants worldwide are the end users of these

documents, the logic of this decision may be understandable since Spain is

the country from which all these immigration documents originate. However,

on the other hand, the situation is far more complicated in the case of the

flags used to visually represent the languages chosen for translation. This is

so since specific country’s flags have been used to represent a language

that is spoken in several of the potential translations users’ countries.

Specifically, the British flag has been used for the English translations, the

French flag for the French translation, the German flag for the German

translation, the flag of Saudi Arabia for the Arabic translation and the

Portuguese flag for the Portuguese translation. Even if, generally, these

visual images may be understood across cultures to convey a language in

this context, it they may also mislead some applicants, who may believe that

these translations are specifically applicable to the nationals of the countries

of the flag in question. With or without misunderstanding, an evident

Eurocentric perspective seems to underlie these multimodal decisions of the

Spanish authorities. Interestingly, this Eurocentrism certainly contrasts with

the decisions that will be highlighted below concerning how digital

communication is approached in the case of the EU immigration procedures.

2.2. EU immigration procedures

In the case of the EU immigration procedures analysed, several

similarities and differences may be found if compared with the procedures

above. Firstly, as far as access to the relevant digital information is

concerned, unlike the case presented above, these applicants do need to

navigate through the different webpages of this Ministry in order to find all

the scattered digital information concerning their procedures. Specifically,

this information can be found consulting several sections of the vertical index

https://elpais.com/economia/2020-05-18/espana-bate-por-septima-vez-el-record-de-visados-

dorados-entrego-mas-de-8000-en-2019.html

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 413

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

of the Immigration Portal previously mentioned

. On the one hand, in the

«Estudiar, trabajar y residir. Hojas informativas» section, and after

navigating through several intermediate webpages, these applicants find two

relevant documents for their procedures: the «Hoja informativa» for both

procedures

, which is an extended leaflet roughly explaining the procedure,

and the actual leaflet applicable to these procedures (see Annex 3). In both

cases, this digital information is only made available in Spanish. This is

especially surprising in the case of these last leaflets, since, as can be

observed in Annex 3, the other leaflets included in this webpage (applicable

to third country migrants not studied here) have been translated into English

and French. Furthermore, for comparison purposes, it is also worth

highlighting the differences in the languages chosen for the leaflets shown in

Annex 3 (English and French) compared to the languages chosen for the

leaflets in Annex 1 (English, Russian, Chinese and Portuguese).

Notwithstanding this, the most relevant aspect for this study is that neither

the extended leaflets nor the leaflets related to these EU procedures are

actually translated into any foreign languages by the Spanish authorities. On

the other hand, the other relevant documents available for the EU

procedures can be found in the «Modelos de solicitud» section of the vertical

index. There, after once again navigating through several webpages, these

applicants will find the application forms applicable to these procedures (see

modelo EX-18 and EX-19 in the link provided)

. Surprisingly, these

application forms are not translated either.

The situation described above implies that the applicants of the EU

procedures studied do not have access to any multilingual digital information

concerning their procedures on this institutional website. Furthermore, as

occurred in the case presented in section 2.1., the content of the webpages

included in this section have not been translated either. As for the

multimodal features included in this case, apart from the ones already

discussed in section 2.1., a new visual horizontal image has been used in

Annex 3 to accompany the information concerning the leaflets (also in the

case of the extended leaflets, as can be seen in the link provided above). In

this case, the Spanish authorities have opted for an image in which people,

mostly young people, can be seen studying in a library. This image is

certainly intriguing, since even if it seems to depict EU migration as mostly

All the information included in section 2.1., concerning the general vertical and horizontal

layout of this Immigration Portal, is also applicable to this section, except a visual image that will

be mentioned later.

https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/InformacionInteres/InformacionProcedimientos/Ciudada

nosComunitarios/index.html

https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/ModelosSolicitudes/Mod_solicitudes2/index.html. As

can be seen, the mountain image is maintained in this webpage dedicated to application forms.

414 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

students in Spain, in 2020 La Vanguardia reported that Spain was the third

EU country to receive the most EU workers

. Whatever the logic may be,

once again, this multimodal decision calls into question whether a lot of effort

has been put into analysing how to reconcile texts and images in the

Immigration Portal.

2.3. Digital (multilingual?) communication in our case study: A brief

comparison

After the descriptions presented in sections 2.1. and 2.2., a summary

is presented in Table 1. In this table we will mark when the digital resource in

question is provided by this Ministry for the procedures studied with an X,

while we will specify in writing if it is translated or not for each case. The

result is the following table:

DIGITAL

RESOURCE

LEY 14/2013 IMMIGRATION

PROCEDURES

EU IMMIGRATION

PROCEDURES

Webpage content

concerning the

procedure

No translation provided

Application forms

Translated into English, Russian,

Chinese, French, German and

Portuguese

No translation provided

Leaflets (extended

or not)

Translated into English, Russian,

Chinese and Portuguese

No translation provided

Relevant legal

instruments

information

Translated into English

—

Related reports

Translated into English

—

FAQ

Translated into English

—

Required

documentation

Translated into English

Table 1: Comparison of the Digital Resources Provided for the Immigration

Procedures Studied

Source: The Author.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20200130/473221459259/espana-tercero-de-ue-con-

mas-trabajadores-procedentes-de-otro-estado-miembro.html

Partially addressed in the «Hojas informativas» of these procedures.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 415

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

As can be observed in Table 1, the only common denominator in

terms of digital communication is that the applicants of both groups of

procedures will find the content of the webpages consulted only available in

Spanish. Beyond that, only differences can be inferred from the table above.

Firstly, there is a clear imbalance between the digital documents provided in

Spanish for the immigration procedures under study, which results in the

applicants of the Ley 14/2013 clearly benefitting from this in terms of the

digital information made available in the portal. Secondly, as for the

provision of PST in this digital context, while most of the digital documents

concerning the Ley14/2013 procedures are translated (at least into one

foreign language), the documents concerning the EU procedures are not

made available in any foreign language. In short, it is evident that the

situation described throughout section 2 clearly situates migrants under the

Ley 14/2013 in a more advantageous position in terms of provision of

multilingual digital resources in our case study. Based on these exploratory

findings, we will address the implementation of translation policy in our case

study in section 3, with the aim to later assess whether it favours these

migrants’ process of digital empowerment.

3. TRANSLATION POLICY: A TOOL TO DIGITALLY EMPOWER OR DIGITALLY

DISEMPOWER?

As highlighted in the Introduction, our goal is to explore digital

empowerment assessing to what extent the implementation of translation

policy (González Núñez, 2016) empowers migrants’ digital communication

with Spanish authorities in our case study.

Given the divergent translation decisions described in section 2, we

contacted the Spanish Ministry involved to understand the rationale behind

these decisions and, then, the rationale of its translation policy. Since, unlike

other Spanish ministries, this ministerial body does not have a translation

department itself, our main questions concerning its translation policy were:

who translated the immigration documents uploaded to its website (and if it

was done in-house in other ministries, or were they outsourced) and how the

decisions of which documents to translate and into which languages were

made and by whom. Despite their initial reluctance to disclose information,

its officials finally confirmed that the last time translations were outsourced

by the Ministry was in 2013 to a human resources company called Adecco

The fact that these translations were outsourced to a private company was

not surprising; however, the fact that Adecco was the company hired to

translate them certainly was. Effectively, De las Heras (2017, pp. 63-64)

https://www.adecco.es/ This was confirmed in several emails and telephone conversations

with the Dirección General de Migraciones of this Ministry in 2019.

416 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

highlights the low threshold required by Adecco’s recruitment in terms of

training and qualifications: knowledge of a foreign language or being a native

speaker of the language are sufficient to consider applicants as qualified for

translator positions

. Furthermore, the fact that the Ley 14/2013 was

created in 2013, which was confirmed as the last year this Ministry

outsourced translations, may indicate that all or some of the

abovementioned documents related to this law may have been translated

by Adecco. As for the translation of the content of this Ministry’s website, we

found that, in July 2019, this ministerial body published a tender offer to

translate part of its website into several languages

. However, it remains an

enigma whether the webpages related to the Immigration division of this

Ministry will be translated or not. Until 2021, no translations have been

provided in the case of these webpages, as highlighted in section 2.

In the light of the above, and considering that translation policy

encompasses «translation management, translation practice and translation

beliefs» (González Núñez, 2016, p. 42), we will use these three parameters

to describe translation policy in our case study. Firstly, if translation

management «refers to the decisions regarding translation made by people

in authority to decide a domain’s use or non-use of translations» (González

Núñez, 2016, p. 54), it seems that translation management is quite

inconsistent in our case study. That is, process and logic that this Ministry

uses to determine which immigration procedures will (or will not) be

supported by translations are not clear, nor have they been clarified by the

Ministry upon enquiry. Undeniably, this reveals poor translation management

on the part of this Ministry, which leaves the procuring of translation of public

documents for some citizens while providing it free of charge for others. This

poor translation management can also be inferred from its decision not to

translate its whole website, but only the initial webpage, which results in a

significant part of the population it serves —migrants with language barriers

seeking digital immigration services— not being able to access this public

information. Arguably, this Ministry’s decision of not to translate its whole

website has also impacted on the multimodal features analysed in section 2.

In other words, little thought seems to have been given to which images to

include in the webpages analysed (such as the case of the mountain), and to

how certain images, such as the flags discussed in section 2.1., could

actually be interpreted by a heterogeneous migrant population. Thus,

translation of this whole website could have improved the selection of these

Some examples of actual Adecco job offers can be consulted in Annex 9 of Ruiz-Cortés

(2020b).

https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-B-2019-41374. This tender was won by

Moretto Group SRL.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 417

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

multimodal features, since translators are trained to know how the synergy

of an array of semiotic signs, such as images and texts, create meaning and

how this synergy may impact on the understanding of their end users.

Secondly, if translation practice «involves questions such as what

texts get translated […] into and out of what languages, and where it takes

place» (González Núñez, 2016, p. 55), arguably translation practice within

this Ministry also behaves inconsistently in our case study. In other words,

(1) why only the initial page of this Ministry’s website is currently translated

and not the webpages concerning the immigration procedures studied; and

(2) why some documents concerning the immigration procedures studied are

translated (and into and out which languages) and why some other

documents are not, seems to remain an enigma in this institutional context.

Interestingly, the only aspect that has been disclosed by this Ministry

concerning translation practice seems to suggest that Adecco was the

company that translated the digital multilingual documents highlighted in

section 2, which may be worrying given Adecco’s commissioning process in

the recruitment of translators (see De las Heras Caba, 2017). Whatever the

case may be, our description certainly shows that, in the case study

presented, Spanish authorities only address communication problems in the

case of the immigration procedures regulated by the Ley 14/2013 and that

no common strategy to deal with and to solve communication problems with

migrant communities seem to exist.

And, thirdly, behind translation management and practice, there seem

to lie specific «translation beliefs» or «beliefs that members of a community

hold about the value of translation» (González Núñez, 2016, p. 55).

Arguably, this Ministry’s justification of why translations are provided in the

case of the forms of the Ley 14/2013 («to help applicants with the

completion of the application forms», see section 2.1.), suggests this

institution is aware of the positive value of translation in this multilingual

context; however, both its translation management and its translation

practice prevent all migrant groups from benefiting from it equally. As for the

translation beliefs that lurk beneath this, linking the situation described

strictly to the beliefs concerning the high costs of offering PST to migrant

communities or the scarce public resources to do so, would be rather naive.

In other words, if budgetary constraints were the problem, and effective

communication with migrant communities the goal to be achieved,

translation would not be provided for the most powerful group of migrants

who, in most cases, will be able to pay for translation services (if needed).

Furthermore, if it may be argued that providing digital translation services for

the Ley 14/2013 applicants may respond to the fact that, currently, these

immigration procedures are initiated exclusively online, then for the EU

418 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

applicants to be in an equal position, translation should be also provided in

Spanish Immigration Offices. Since this is not the case (see section 1), with

this decision to provide translation services exclusively to the Ley 14/2013

applicants in this digital context, this Ministry clearly seeks to secure this

lucrative migration in particular. Thus, arguably, our description shows that,

instead of using translation as a tool for the digital inclusion of migrants who

lack Spanish language skills, in our case study it seems to be used as a tool

for further marginalising the most vulnerable groups of migrants; those with

the lowest literacy levels and those who lack the means to pay for

multilingual information in order to access public services

. Therefore, even

if our description does not account for every translation case in this Spanish

migratory context, it seems to reveal some typical features of translation

policy in this specific domain (González Núñez, 2016) that may be

considered troublesome, to say the least.

What does all of the above imply in terms of digital empowerment

then? Broadly speaking, our descriptive analysis reveals considerable

differences in how the Spanish authorities support, or fail to support,

migrants digitally throughout these procedures in terms of both the amount

of digital materials available in Spanish and, especially, the digital translated

materials available. In other words, our analysis shows that, in our case

study, migrants have unequal access to (multilingual) digital information,

depending on the kind of immigration procedure in which they are involved.

Thus, arguably, the translation policy implemented by this Spanish Ministry

results in diametrically opposed levels of migrants’ digital empowerment in

the immigration procedures studied, with only the most powerful group of

migrants being linguistically empowered through translation to act as

influential participants in the information society. This fact has three direct

implications. Firstly, it highlights that Spanish authorities act as gatekeepers

in this digital context, since they exert control not only over the flow of the

digital information provided to access this social right (Vuorinen, 1997, p.

161), but also over the multilingual digital resources facilitated to achieve it.

Secondly, it foregrounds that the migrants under Ley 14/2013 will be more

likely to overcome language barriers, which in turn will «increase their

welfare and prospects» (Mäkinen, 2006, p. 384) during the application

process for residence documentation. Thus, thirdly, our analysis brings to

the fore that, paradoxically, the imbalance described results in citizens who

are supposed to have preferential immigration treatment in Spain (EU

However, not only translation is used to this end, since as shown in section 2, the digital

information concerning the Ley14/2013 immigration procedures is easier to access than the

digital information concerning the EU immigration procedures. This may be regarded as another

digital filter to access public services for applicants of the EU procedures.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 419

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

nationals and their families) being at a distinct disadvantage in this migratory

context for, possibly, economic reasons.

In sum, our findings show that the translation policy implemented by

this Ministry neglects the potential of translation in the context of digital

empowerment to allow all migrants «to grow as competent subjects who

have control over their lives and surroundings» (Mäkinen, 2006, p. 381).

Therefore, this translation policy seems to neglect their chance of having a

participative role rather than a passive role in this digital context, and it

certainly reinforces the subordinate position of migrants to the authorities

within this already asymmetrical administrative context.

CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS LINGUISTIC DIGITAL EMPOWERMENT THROUGH

TRANSLATION POLICY?

Digitally mediated communication in the public sector has changed

how citizens and authorities interact and communicate. Although E-

government’s goal is to provide «greater access to information regarding

government services and programs» (Longford, 2002, p. 2), this descriptive

study highlights that digital communication may be impaired by language

barriers, which may prevent access to key social rights in migratory contexts.

Specifically, our findings seem to indicate that translation provision is a

prerequisite of the first phase of the digital empowerment process in the

context studied. This is the case, since translation provision is an essential

element for digital communication to actually occur for migrants with

language barriers in this context and, hence, for them to move towards the

following phases of the digital empowerment process.

As for the implementation of translation policy in our case study, two

main conclusions are worth highlighting. Firstly, our analysis brings to the

fore that, the implementation of translation policy within the digital context

not only impacts how citizens’ exercise their rights, but it may also disguise

elaborate forms of digital marginalisation (Mäkinen, 2006, p. 383) based on

linguistic grounds. This is so since, ultimately, when the inability to

communicate in the dominant language prevents citizens from accessing

digital (and non-digital) services that others readily access, exclusion takes

place. Secondly, given that miscommunication in this migratory context may

lead to an unsuccessful immigration decision (Sarangi and Slembrouck,

2013), through the implementation of this specific translation policy, which

only favours multilingual communication with a specific group of migrants,

Spanish authorities seem to camouflage new forms of immigration control.

In the light of the preliminary conclusions highlighted above, in this

first descriptive analysis we have identified future lines of research to further

this study. Firstly, whether the translation policy implemented in our case

420 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

study affects other immigration procedures in the Spanish context needs to

be analysed. Secondly, the justifications behind the inconsistent translation

policy of this Spanish Ministry should be further examined considering that

«arguments about practicability [of the provision of translation] are neither

neutral nor innocent, but function to advance dominant groups and

disadvantage others» (Mowbray, 2017, p. 39). In this specific context, these

arguments seem to be closely connected with the great deal of discretion

Spanish authorities have to implement a specific translation policy within the

public services. Thus, this foregrounds the need to approach issues related

to translation policy through legislation in the future, at least if we seek to

avoid providing a legal framework that gives rise to policies of «translation as

marginalisation» (Mowbray, 2017)

. Thirdly, after this descriptive analysis,

the extent to which the implementation of translation policy actually impacts

on migrants’ digital empowerment needs to be empirically tackled. This may

be approached through a pilot study with the applicants, with and without

Spanish proficiency, which explores (1) the impact of this translation policy

on the success of immigration procedures in both scenarios and also (2) the

functionality of the translations already made available by this Ministry.

These lines of research will contribute to explore the extent to which digital

literacy has arisen as a «third-level digital divide» (Khorshed and Imran,

2015, p. 347) in which language proficiency in the host country’s language

impacts on migrants’ digital participation in the host society. Fourthly, the

beneficial role that translators may play as advisers in this institutional

context should be addressed. This is relevant since our analysis suggests

that translators may be of use not only in translating this institutional website

and its digital documents, but also in advising on how to make them more

functional. Lastly, similar studies on the digital empowerment of migrant

communities may be performed in other domains (González Núñez, 2016)

within the Spanish context, or in an array of international contexts (see Ruiz-

Cortés, 2020a).

In short, even if translation policy should be a used as a tool to

linguistically empower migrants in the digital context, this paper shows that it

can also be used as a tool to disempower them. Bearing this in mind, future

studies should strive to foreground the potential of translation policy as a tool

for linguistic digital empowerment

, which may be broadly understood as

the extent to which the implementation of translation policy enables citizens

«to grow as competent subjects who have control over their lives and

As is to be expected, in order to explore the aforementioned justifications, several of the

unanswered questions concerning translation management and translation practice within this

Ministry will need to be further addressed.

This term has been coined by the author.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 421

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

surroundings» (Mäkinen, 2006, p. 381) when using digital technologies. In

our view, assessing to what extent online administration can be a filter

(Loveluk, 2015, p. 93) for citizens has become even more pressing after

COVID-19, which has evinced that the Public Administration needs to be

ready to provide functional digital services. Then, addressing these lines of

research will not only promote an inclusive digital society, but they will also

foster citizens exercising their rights on an equal footing in a society that is

becoming more and more digital by the minute.

REFERENCES

Acuyo Verdejo, M. C. (2009). El idioma como elemento de integración de la

población inmigrante en Andalucía: Visión práctica de la

Administración Pública. In S. Sánchez Lorenzo (Ed.), La integración

de los extranjeros: Un análisis transversal desde Andalucía (pp. 215-

240). Granada, Spain: Atelier, Libros Jurídicos.

Codó Olsina, E. (2008). Immigration and Bureaucratic Control: Language

Practices in Public Administration. Berlin, Germany: Walter de

Gruyter.

Codó Olsina, E. (2013). Trade Unions and NGOs under Neoliberalism:

Between Regimenting Migrants and Subverting the State. In A.

Duchêne, M. Moyer and C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, Migration and

Social Inequalities (pp. 25-55). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual

Matters.

De Fina, A. and Tseng, A. (2017). Narrative in the Study of Migrants. In S.

Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Migration and

Language (pp. 381-396). New York, United States: Routledge.

De las Heras Caba, M. (2017). La profesión de traductor jurídico en España:

titulación y conocimientos exigidos para su ejercicio a raíz de la

creación del título universitario de Licenciado en traducción e

interpretación en 1991. FITISPos International Journal: Public Service

Interpreting and Translation, 4, 49-68. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2017.4.0.123

González Núñez, G. (2016). Translating in Linguistically Diverse Societies:

Translation Policy in the United Kingdom. Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins.

González Núñez, G (2017). Law and Translation at the U.S.-Mexico Border:

Translation Policy in a Diglossic Setting. In G. González Núñez and R.

Meylaerts (Eds.), Translation and Public Policy: Interdisciplinary

422 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Perspectives and Case Studies (pp. 152-170). New York, United

States: Routledge.

Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in

People’s Online Skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from:

https://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864

Hynes, N. (2009). Colour and Meaning in Corporate Logos: An Empirical

Study. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 545-555. Retrieved from:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/bm.2008.5

Khorshed, A. and Imran, S. (2015). The Digital Divide and Social Inclusion

among Refugee Migrants. Information Technology & People, 28(2),

344-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2014-0083

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to

Contemporary Communication. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Longford, G. (February, 2002). Rethinking E-Government: Dilemmas of

Public Service, Citizenship and Democracy in the Digital Age,

Presentation in the Workshop on Public Sector Innovation, Ottawa,

Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.innovation.cc/news/innovation-

conference/longford.pdf

Loveluck, B. (2015). Digital Citizenship and Social Inclusion: Uses of ICTs by

Migrant Populations and Minority Groups. In A. Alietti, M. Olivera and

V. Riniolo (Eds.), Virtual Citizenship? Roma communities, Inclusion

Policies, Participation and ICT Tools (pp. 89-96). Milan, Italy:

McGraw-Hill Education.

Mäkinen, M. (2006). Digital Empowerment as a Process for Enhancing

Citizens’ Participation, E–Learning, 3(3), 381-395. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.381

Meylaerts, R. (2011). Translational Justice in a Multilingual World. Meta,

56(4), 743-757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1011250ar

Monzó-Nebot, E. (2020). Translation, Power, Ethics. Challenging Injustice in

Cross-Cultural Understanding and Cooperation, Linguapax Review, 8,

13-31. Retrieved from: https://www.linguapax.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/12/LinguapaxReview2020-1.pdf

Mowbray, J. (2017). Translation as Marginalisation? International Law,

Translation and the Status of Linguistic Minorities. In G. González

Núñez and R. Meylaerts (Eds.), Translation and Public Policy:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies (pp. 32-57). New

York, United States: Routledge.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 423

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Orlando, D. (2016). Legal Translation as a Human Right: Ensuring a Fair

Trial through Translation Quality and Training, New Voices in

Translation Studies, 14, 23-45. Retrieved from:

https://www.iatis.org/index.php/new-voices-in-translation-

studies/item/1336-issue14-2016

Ruiz-Cortés, E. (2020a). To Translate or not To Translate: Narratives and

Translation in the UK Home Office. CULTUS: The Journal of

Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 13, 220-238. Retrieved

from: http://www.cultusjournal.com/files/Archives/Ruiz-Cortez.pdf

Ruiz-Cortés, E. (2020b). Investigación-acción en traducción e inmigración: la

utilidad del estudio pretraductológico para el análisis crítico de la libre

circulación en España y en el Reino Unido (un estudio de caso)

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Granada, Granada.

Ruiz-Cortés, E. (2021). A Pre-translation Framework for Public Service

Translation: A Sociological Approach to Enhance Translation

Effectiveness. The International Journal of Translation and

Interpreting Research, 13(2), 164-182. DOI:

10.12807/ti.113202.2021.a09

Sabaté Dalmau, M., Garrido Sardà, R. and Codó Olsina, E. (2017).

Language Services for Migrants: Top-down Monolingualist Nation-

State Policies and Bottom-up Multilingual Practices. In S.

Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Migration and

Language (pp. 558-576). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Sandrini, P. (2016). Towards a Digital Translation Policy. In D. Dejica, G.

Hansen, P. Sandrini and I. Para (Eds.), Language in the Digital Era.

Challenges and Perspectives (pp. 50-59). Berlin, Germany: De

Gruyter Open.

Sarangi, S., and Slembrouck S. (2013). Language, Bureaucracy, and Social

Control. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Taibi, M. and Ozolins, U. (2016). Community Translation. London, United

Kingdom: Bloomsbury.

Taibi, M. (Ed.). (2018). Translating for the Community. Bristol, United

Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies–and Beyond. Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Vuorinen, E. (1997). News Translation as a Gatekeeping. In M. Snell-

Hornby, Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as

424 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Intercultural Communication: Selected papers from the EST Congress

Prague 1995 (pp. 161-172). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John

Benjamins.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 425

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Annex 1.

426 Translation Policy: A Tool to Digitally Empower […]

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Annex 2.

Elena Ruiz-Cortés 427

Hikma 20 (2) (2021), 399 - 427

Annex 3.