The lively debate which has been going on in this journal bears witness to the vitality of the discipline. It is, however, also indicative of a certain rank-growth of ideas and opinions. Wherever individual students interested in generalisations tend to look they manage to find a thread on which to hang a theory. The only requirement is a view one cannot share and in no time a new concept is thrown into the ring to replace it. Just to give two examples: Anthony Pym complains “I believe that a narrow focus on translation and nothing but translation is ideologically pernicious, since it invites us not to compare the costs and advantages of translation against the range of alternative modes of cross-cultural communication”. What we should rather look for instead are “the conceptual geometries of intercultures” (2000: 336). Or take Rakefet Sela-Sheffy’s discarding of the “‘autonomy of the text’ ideology” because it “imposes a priori restrictions on any prospects of theoretical research into socio-historical factors of translation”. In exchange, she wants “the study of translation [to] serve ... as a perfect laboratory for the study of cultural dynamics (and not just linguistic behavior) in general” (2000: 348; original emphasis). Criticising the original position paper by Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo (1999) because it “seems to perpetuate the restricted text-centred perspective” the discussant replaces it by “a comprehensive culture-centred approach to translation” (2000: 346). Interventions like these remind the sceptical observer of the discussions staged at the many conferences on translation, which very rarely end in theoretical conclusions shared by the majority of the participants.
[ p. 338 ]References
1997Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo
1999 “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160.
2001 “In the midst of losses”. The New York review of books, July5. 4–8.
2001 “A break from dullness: The virtues of Brodsky’s English verse”. The times literary supplement, June22. 9–10.
1968 “Pragmatische Aspekte der Übersetzung”. Albrecht Neubert, ed. Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft [= Fremdsprachen, Beiheft 2]. Leipzig, 1968. 21–33.
1983 “Discourse analysis of translation”. Proceedings of the thirteenth international congress of linguists. Tokyo, 1983.
1991a “Methodology for translation theory”. Werner Bahner, Joachim Schildt and Dieter Viehweger, eds. Proceedings of the fourteenth international congress of linguists (Berlin 1987). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1991 2569–2573.
1991b “Models of translation”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies: Selected papers of the TRANSIF seminar, Savonlinna 1988. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1991 17–26.
1992 “Alternative Modelle des Übersetzens”. Klaus Gnutzmann and Frank Königs, eds. Fremdsprachenunterricht im internationalen Vergleich: Perspektive 2000. Frankfurt a.M.: Diesterweg 1992 119–214. [Schule und Forschung: Schriftenreihe für Studium und Praxis.]
1996 “Alternative models in Translation Studies: Introduction to the conference theme, Leipzig 1992”. Albrecht Neubert, Gregory Shreve and Klaus Gommlich, eds. Basic issues in Translation Studies. Kent, OH: The Institute of Applied Linguistics 1996 xi–xiii.
Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory Shreve
1992Translation as text. Kent, OH and London: The Kent State University Press. [Kent Studies in Translation 1.]
Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory Shreve
1994 “ ‘A house of many rooms’: The range of Translation Studies”. Foreword to: Doris Kadish and Francoise Kenny. Translating slavery, gender and race in French women’s’ writing, 1783–1823. Kent, OH and London: The Kent State University Press 1994 vii–xiv. [Kent Studies in Translation 2.]
2000 “Why common ground in not automatically space for cooperation”. Target 12:2. 334–337.
2000 “The suspended potential of culture research in TS”. Target 12:2. 345–355.
2000 “When in doubt, contextualize...”. Target 12:2. 337–341.
2000 “Working for the dictionary”. The New York review of books. October19. 9–12.