Do we need a shared ground?

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, Jukka Mäkisalo, Riitta Jääskeläinen, Mirja Kalasniemi and Pekka Kujamäki
Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, Finland
Table of contents

Instead of taking a stand on the individual theses presented by Andrew Chesterman (AC) and Rosemary Arrojo (RA), we will focus on the rationale of the three questions that they have chosen as sub-headings for their paper. The questions are: (1) What is Translation? (2) Why is This (Kind of) Translation Like This? and (3) What Consequences Do Translations Have? We feel that translation scholars answer these questions implicitly, if not explicitly, through the kind of research they advocate or do themselves. Thus there is a good justification to discuss them openly every now and then, and we appreciate the initiative taken by Chesterman and Arrojo (2000). AC and RA have answered these questions in such a way, however, that makes us wonder how far the common ground extends and whether it has a centre of any kind. In what follows we will look at the three questions to see how they might bear on a shared ground as we see it.

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.


Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo
2000 “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1: 151–160.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette
1997 “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 1997 25–56.Google Scholar
[ p. 343 ]
Halverson, Sandra
1998Concepts and categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of English. [Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
1998a “Translation Studies and representative corpora: Establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 4: 494–514.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “The fault line in our common ground”. Target 12:2: 356–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili
1996 “The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory”. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, eds. Translation and meaning, Part 3. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press 1996 482–495.Google Scholar
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet
2000 “The suspended potential of culture research in TS”. Target 12:2. 345–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar