Shared ground in translation studies: Continuing the debate. Being constructive about shared ground

Daniel Gile

Table of contents

In their joint statement, Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo (C&A) note what they perceive as a gap between those who approach Translation Studies (TS) with a cultural, text-theoretical paradigm and those whose approach is “empirical, descriptive-field” oriented, and attempt to find the largest common denominator between the two approaches (pp.151–152). The idea of identifying the largest common denominator and the actual differences between approaches found in TS is valuable, because Holmes’s much-cited map of TS (Holmes 1972) is no longer sufficient as a basis for further development of the field in view of the diversity of paradigms which have developed strongly and challenge the very idea of TS as a discipline. In this respect, C&A’s endeavor was relevant and potentially useful from its inception, as it provided the beginning of a foundation for the exploration of TS in discipline-institutional terms, including research-policy strategies for its further development, and explicit elements contributing to the crystallization of a TS-identity, distinct from that of other disciplines. This joint endeavor should become more useful as input representing more paradigms and positions from the field is received.

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.


Holmes, James S.
1972The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. Unpublished manu¬script, reprinted in James S Holmes. Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1988 66–80.Google Scholar