Prefatory note (2010): The following is a slightly revised version of the article published in Target 8/2 (1996), pp. 165-177, with the original page breaks indicated in square brackets. Revisiting the text now, in 2010, I am a little surprised to note the extent to which it was read as being overly “sarcastic” (Munday 2001: 155), as poking fun merely for the sake of fun. At the time, in 1995-96, I sincerely appreciated Venuti’s work for the intellectual space it legitimized: I would have hoped that the last sentence of my article would carry significantly more weight than the opening gambit. Venuti was a lot more engaging than the technocratic would-be scientists of the day. I was certainly not trying to be sarcastic in any gratuitous sense – if I had, I would have had a field-day with Venuti’s decidedly retro triple-substantive titles, and the like – and I was seriously trying to make a few points about the sociology of translation. But we are not able to control the way we are read; readers see more beginnings than ends. So here is the text, more or less as it was.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anthony Pym (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: