Translation Theory between Theorization and Theoricization

Abstract

There has been an accumulation of a huge stuff of theorization about translation enveloping and cramming translation theory and threatening its existence by demeaning and probably blasting its bases, thus leading to the chaos in translation theory. Yet, a substantial part of this theorization is mere destructive theoricization that has caused considerable damage to translation theory. In translation, it aims at creating ambivalent situations and conflicting hypotheses in translation theory, tools and tactics, casting doubts on some basic topics of translation theory, including claims like untranslatability of culture, translation prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, equivalence as a chimera, breaking translation norms, regularities and boundaries, demoralising the SL text and putting it in the service of the TL culture and suspecting the definition of key terms in the field on the top of which is the term "translation. That would jeopardize the stability and credibility of translation theory as a whole, and may render it inoperative. This is indeed the most serious challenge for the substance of contemporary translation theory. The present paper is a comparative study drawn between the facts of genuine constructive theorization and damaging destructive theoricization that aims at suffocating any attempt to set out an institutionalized body of knowledge of guidelines and principles of a solid translation theory, and develop it in a systematic and on-the-ground way to tackle any new issue or problem of translation in application. The study virtually ends up with a decisive conclusive result that, despite few shortcomings, a rigorous, practice-based translation theory does exist the world over.