Until recently, linguistic hybridity was considered a sign of impurity. The traces of a foreign language, often viewed as inferior – as the Other’s tongue, were considered to be contaminating the superior status of one’s native language. However, as a consequence of large-scale migration, technological progression, and economic globalisation, this understanding of linguistic hybridity is now obsolete. Nowadays, the movement of peoples and communicative scenarios in cities and cyberspaces make daily use of all available languages and semiotic codes in a specific manner that combines them in unprecedented processes of hybridisation. English and its many variations, both on and offline, are salient examples of such a paradigm shift, as well as of contemporary hybridity. The outdated conception of English as a bounded and uniform system, separate from other languages, has been replaced by other proposals. One such proposal arose from the arrival of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) at the turn of the century. Additionally, the recent success of a multi- or translingual paradigm highlights that English can no longer be considered a self-contained language. The attitude towards hybridity has therefore changed in all cultural spheres. The varieties of English that the official British form tried to silence in the public domain have recently started to demand recognition as standards. Although this subject has gained a significant scholarly recognition, Bennett and Queiroz de Barros’ work addresses it from a rather original perspective. It analyses how the phenomenon of hybridity affects the theory and practice of translation, focusing on the variegated hybrid Englishes that are spoken, written and translated over the globe. The volume successfully problematises the question of how is it possible, or even conceivable, to translate from or into English when hybridity is present in the source text, especially taking into account that languages can no longer be considered bounded systems. The volume seems to assume, and is to some extent based on, a multi- or translingual paradigm. However, we could perhaps detect a slight incoherence. The mentioned paradigm states that languages are not delimited and enclosed apparatuses; instead, they constitute a scattered, ceaseless net of linguistic confluences all over the world. Why, then, does the volume talk about hybridity if it is defined as the occasional convergence of tongues, therefore understood as bounded systems? Bennett, who admits in the introduction that the term is to some extent conservative, adduces two reasons for having opted for its use. First, due to its broadness and versatility among a wide range of disciplines, and second, because the present work was born from a special issue on translation and international English. This special issue received several papers that revolved around hybrid manifestations of English, rather than the lingua franca that Bennett and Queiroz de Barros had at first envisaged. It is also important to mention a further controversial aspect of the volume, that is, the variety of discourses present in the volume. Each contributing author appears to write their chapter in a different style. Once again, Bennett offers a convincing explanation, that is, that this heterogeneity should not be considered a sign of irregularity or inconsistency, but a smart vindication of hybridity. Bennett and Queiroz de Barros use the term polyvocality to define the volume’s variety of discourses, which allows multiple “voices to proliferate from different disciplinary worlds” (p. 13). Together with a multi- or translingual paradigm, the polyvocality of the book aims to change “the very construction of knowledge in the Western world.” The volume is made up of three well-structured sections. The first section studies the importance of translation for the constitution of contemporary identities, taking as examples the …