Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Establishingcommongrounds
appropriatewaysoflanguageuse”.Strongasthisconvictionis,how-
ever,itdoesnotprecludethepossibilityofdrawingconclusionsfrom
theoreticalreasoning,orscientificfindings,toactualbehaviour,beits
orientationretrospective(suchastranslationcriticism)orprospective
(suchastranslatortrainingortranslationplanning.Thispossibilitydoes
exist,ofcourse.However,drawingconclusionsisuptothepractitio-
ners,notthescholars(Toury1995:17).
41
Thisdeterminedviewofthetheoryvs.practicedividemightseemdatedat
thepresenttimewheremostTSscholarsviewthestudyoftranslationasa
perfectgroundtoobservehowtheoryandpracticefeedoneachotherand
stimulatenewideas(Kussmaul1995,ChestermanandWagner2004).Yet,
Toury(1995)wasaheadofhisowntimewhenhepointedoutthatnoneof
theAppliedExtensionsofTScan“drawonTranslationStudiesalone”and
pointedoutthattheareaoftranslatortraining,forexampleapartfromdraw-
ingonpureTSwouldbemodifiedbyatheoryofteachingandlearning.
Thispioneeringobservationhasforyearsattheworstremainedunno-
ticedandatthebestwastakenupintheworkslikePhDdissertationsthat
haveneverbeenpublished.AsobservedbyCronin(2005),
Translationtheoreticianshadinpreviousdecadestendedtoneglect
translationpedagogyforconsiderationsoftranslation,text,history,ab-
stractedfromtheteachingprocess.Presentationsonpedagogyattrans-
lationconferencesweredevotedeithertoascornfulrepudiationofthe-
oryinthenameofexperienceortothoughtdeadeningoutlinesof
coursesyllabiwhichtoldlittleifanythingabouthowcourseswerede-
liveredorwhattheirdeepertheoreticalunderpinningswere(Cronin
2005:250).
Toury’s(1995:19)remarkonthe“inherentheterogeneity”oftheapplied
TSgrantedbythefactthateachofthebranchesisan“extension‘intothe
world’ofthediscipline”impliestheneedforaninterdisciplinaryapproach
totranslatortraining.Hisfurthercomment,howeverinwhichheclaims
thatappliedTS“cannotbeanythingbutprescriptive”isnowquestionable
6.
---
---
---
6Atthetime,howevermanyofthe‘new’theoriestookoveroldideas(Ljudskanov
1969;Seleskovitch1976,1978)whichofferedpurelytheoreticalconstructswithstages
takenforgrantedbasedonenvisaging“whatatranslatormightdo”(Fawcett1997:139)
orwhathe/sheshoulddowhenworkingonatranslation(i.e.Toury’sconceptofa‘na-
tivetranslator’).