Microsoft Word 05 descriptions doc

5.8 Frequently had arguments 
We will now try to gather together a few general observations concerning the historical 
development of the descriptive paradigm.
The following are points that would generally be considered positive aspects of 
the paradigm:
1.
The historical variety and vitality of translation has been revealed.

---

2.
The paradigm has played a central role in the legitimization of Translation 
Studies as an academic discipline.
3.
It has created knowledge that is potentially useful for all aspects of 
Translation Studies, including the prescriptive approaches it originally 
opposed.
4.
It breaks with many of the prescriptive opinions of the equivalence 
paradigm, albeit at the expense of creating its own illusions of objectivity.
The counterweight to these positive points must be a series of arguments about 
the apparent failings of the paradigm:
1.
The descriptivist enterprise is ultimately positivist, without awareness of its 
own historical position and role. It suffers the same drawbacks as the rest of 
structuralism.
2.
The definition of “assumed translation” is circular, and must at some stage 
rely on the theorist’s own criteria. 
3.
Descriptions do not help us in the training situation, where we ultimately 
need prescriptions.
4.
The models all concerns texts and systems, but not people (see the Holmes 
map, where there is no room for studies of translators). 
5.
The target-side focus cannot explain all relations (particularly the case of 
translation in postcolonial frames, or wherever power asymmetries are so 
great that the source side simply cannot be hidden from view).
6.
The focus on norms promotes conservative positions, allowing “ought” to 
be derived from “is.” This blocks off work on critical ethics.
Various scholars have responded to these points.