Why Common Ground Is Not Automatically Space for Cooperation: On Chesterman versus Arrojo

Anthony Pym
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona
Table of contents

Andrew Chesterman will not particularly like my reading of the text he wrote conjointly with Rosemary Arrojo, no matter how much I should praise both writers for the dialogue. Yes, such things can only be positive for Translation Studies. Then again, no, will say Chesterman, the dialogue is not linguistic empiricism ‘versus’ deconstruction; it is a matter of finding common ground, a basis for cooperation, a set of consensual items that might bring us together around a discipline, a group effort, a loose social structure able to provide jobs, publications, students, knowledge, whatever. And yet, I’m afraid, the competitive ‘versus’ is there, and not just because of my own penchant for debate. Let me explain why.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.