The next few sections will discuss the often uneasy relationships between four professional and academic groups: linguists, professional translators, translation theorists and scientists, and how each group approaches the phenomenon of translation.

Translators and linguists

According to Halliday (2001: 13), linguists have introduced nearly all known translation theories. To most linguists, translation theory is about 'the study of how things are'including 'the nature of the translation process and the relation between texts in translation' (Halliday 2001: 13) and 'why translations are the way they are'(Mossop 2000: 44). The perspective is descriptive in nature (Mossop 2000: 44). The goal is to provide explanations by describing linguistic usage as it actually is (Crystal 1993: 100; see also Shreve 2002). This is a departure from the prescriptive perspective propagated by earlier generations of scholars whereby linguists sought to prescribe norms of usage (Crystal 1993: 275; see also Riccardi 2002b). The change in linguistics has also influenced the way translation is viewed by linguists. As viewed by many, translation is an extension of language studies (Neubert 1996: 88) or a sub-field of applied linguistics (Baker 2001: 47); hence the dependence on linguistics as a descriptive and explanatory discipline is inevitable.

To most professional translators, on the other hand, translation theory is about 'how things ought to be: what constitutes good or effective translation and what can help to achieve a better or more effective product' (Halliday 2001: 13). For translators, translation theory is a 'solution provider' to problems they encounter during translation (Chesterman 2000). Professional translators continue to view translation theory from a prescriptive perspective expecting theory to take on a problem-solving role. Thus the two groups have very different ideas as to what embodies translation theory.

Translators and translation theorists

The 'antagonism between "practicing" [sic][professional] translators and "theorists of translation"" (Lefevere 1996: 46-50) runs deep because each camp has its own traditions and holds the firm opinion that their method is best. Newmark (1981: 23-36) states that translation theorists are concerned primarily with meaning and the varieties of meaning. They are also concerned with the appropriate general method of translation, every type of translation procedure, specific linguistic problems such as cultural terms and metaphor, and with ensuring that no linguistic or cultural factor is ignored during the translation process. For translation

theorists, solving the problems of professional translators is a matter of interest only when the approaches they have suggested are involved.

It has been said that professional translators do not always produce convincing theoretical explanations for their translation decisions. They are also said to be only interested in 'workplace procedures... in order to help them improve' their translations (Mossop 2000: 46). However, translation theorists as well as linguists often have little interest in providing specific guidelines to professional translators and to translation trainees, with a few exceptions such as Malone (1988) and Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/ 1995). Their research focus is to describe and explain the processes and products of translation (Fawcett 1997; Chesterman 2000).

One professional translator (Moore 2002: personal communication) finds that his lack of knowledge of translation theory considerably reduces his ability to explain to his clients the reason why he translates in a particular way (see also Ulrych 2002). Noguiera (2002), also a professional translator, captures this sentiment when he states that there are many bright and brilliant translators who could but do not contribute to translation theory. Since they are practising translators they can ill-afford to spend the time or effort working on theory. Thus most of what they write is usually found in the form of short e-mails in discussion lists for professional translators. As a result, the majority of written contributions come from the theorists. The existence of two groups among professional translators, the translators of creative texts on the one hand, and of specialists including the translators of technical texts on the other hand, complicates the matter further, with the former subscribing to literary- and/or cultural studies-based theories, and the latter favouring linguistic-based theories, according to Lefevere (1996: 45-55).

Given the contradictory functions of translation theorists and professional translators with respect to translation theory, Newmark (1981: 36) offers a suggestion about what translation theory can do for professional translators: it can show what is or what may be involved in the translation process, offer general principles and guidelines, and stop translators from making mistakes. He cautions, however, that no translation theory can turn a bad translator into a good one.