Considering all the multiple and complex questions raised by colleagues in the three series of responses to Chesterman and Arrojo (2000), I find it impossible to adequately address even the most recurring issues in the limited space of this short commentary. Therefore, instead of a proper reply, I propose to share with readers (and fellow participants of the debate) a brief reflection on the general nature of the fruitful exchange sponsored by Target and on what it seems to reveal about the field and its scholars.

References

Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo

2000 “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160.  

Derrida, Jacques

1985 “Des Tours de Babel”. Joseph F. Graham, ed. Difference in translation. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press 1985 165–207.

Gentzler, Edwin

2001 “Expanding horizons or limiting growth?” Target 13:1. 160–164.  

Gile, Daniel

2001 “Being constructive about shared ground”. Target 13:1. 149–153.  

[ p. 143 ]

Holmes, James S.

2000 “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies reader. London and New York, Routledge 2000 172–185.

Neubert, Albrecht

2001 “Shared ground in Translation Studies dependent on shared views of looking at translation”. Target 13:2. 333–339.  

Pym, Anthony

2000 “Why common ground is not automatically space for cooperation.” Target 12:2. 334–337.

Rose, Marilyn Gaddis

2001 “A senior surveys the common grounds”. Target 13:2. 348–350.  

Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet

2000 “The suspended potential of culture research in TS”. Target 12:2. 345–355.

Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo, Riitta Jääskeläinen, Mirja Kalasniemi and Pekka Kujamäki

2001 “Do we need a shared ground?”. Target 13:2. 339–343.