Questions of causation have been dealt with quite badly in contemporary translation theory. In fact, there has been little awareness that causation might actually be at issue. When prescriptive linguistic approaches describe how to >translate= a source-text unit, the unit is effectively seen as the cause of the translation. In reaction to source-side approaches, more recent theorists assume the dominant cause lies axiomatically on the target side, such that the target system would somehow be the main cause of the translations entering it. Other theories merely pass the buck into unknown territory. For example, some say the dominant cause is the client=s instruction to the translator, so that we then have to locate the causes of the client=s instructions, and so on. A variant of this evasive strategy is to invest causation in the individual translator=s purpose or aim, which once again begs a series of questions leading beyond most disciplinary frames. Similarly, when a wilderness voice claims there is a causal relationship between the material transfer of a text and a translator=s subsequent work on that text, the hunt for causes must explain why the text was transferred in the first place. Questions of causation are thus bounced away from strict translation history.