Target 13:1 (2001), 149–168. issn 0924–1884 © 2001 John Benjamins Publishing Company Forum Shared ground in translation studies Continuing the debate Being constructive about shared ground Daniel Gile Université Lumière Lyon 2 1. Introduction: Reading Chesterman and Arrojo’s statement In their joint statement, Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo (C&A) note what they perceive as a gap between those who approach Translation Studies (TS) with a cultural, text-theoretical paradigm and those whose approach is “empirical, descriptive-field” oriented, and attempt to find the largest common denominator between the two approaches (pp.151–152). The idea of identifying the largest common denominator and the actual differences between approach- es found in TS is valuable, because Holmes’s much-cited map of TS (Holmes 1972) is no longer sufficient as a basis for further development of the field in view of the diversity of paradigms which have developed strongly and challenge the very idea of TS as a discipline. In this respect, C&A’s endeavor was relevant and potentially useful from its inception, as it provided the beginning of a foundation for the exploration of TS in discipline-institutional terms, including research-policy strategies for its further development, and explicit elements contributing to the crystallization of a TS-identity, distinct from that of other disciplines. This joint endeavor should become more useful as input represent- ing more paradigms and positions from the field is received. 2. Summarizing the statement Several authors who have responded to the statement so far have correctly suggest- ed that postmodern cultural studies and textual theories are not incompatible