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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: