To ask: How is understanding possible? I don't imply here to invoke Kantian epistemology. The main focus of my question is to find and how do we understand sentences including those belonging to other languages and cultures. To do this, I put the problem in a perspective. It is the speaker - hearer's perspective in a communication that I believe may be used as a model for explaining the connection between translation and understanding. A translator is a hearer. A hearer in a communication situation, employs a strategy to understand the meaning of a speaker's utterances. There may be several such strategies. I shall only broadly indicate their nature in order to explain the inseparable connection between theory of translation and theory of understanding.

     First is the incomplete background knowledge. It has been pointed out while discussing on meaning that the meaning of a sentence or any utterance has to be seen in relation to a set of assumptions. These assumptions are called background assumptions because in an important sense they help in forming the meaning of an expression. It is not only meaning but true conditions of a sentence is also determined by the background assumptions. Understanding of sentences is thus necessarily based on a whole background of information regarding facts of nature, regularities, social institutions, cultural, cultural practices, etc. However, the fact is there is always a gap existing in hearer's understanding of the speaker's sentences. The gap arises because of hearer's having incomplete knowledge about the background assumptions relating to the speaker's sentences. To overcome this the hearer constructs possible contexts, that may be taken as forming the background assumptions of the speaker's sentence.

     But, how one can a hearer construct possible contexts of speaker's utterances? I think the answer can be given in the light of P.F. Strawsson who argues that there is a common conceptual structure which is running all through our thinking, be it the most common place thinking or the sophisticated thinking of the specialist. This common conceptual structure implies a frame work of understanding without which speaker's identifying inference will not be hearer - successful. To explain how communication is possible one needs to go to the problem of identification which, as Strawsson argues, can not be possible without assuming that there is a framework of understanding existing between the speaker and the hearer.

     We may not however stop at the problem of identification only. The same Strawssnian line of argument may be extended to argue further that the framework of understanding also implies certain presuppositions in the light of which we understand each other. A speaker when he is planning a discourse he assures that a hearer, if necessary, can resort to this strategy. A hearer will then assume the role of a speaker. This is significant in the context of translation where the author knows that there is a point where the author and the reader meets. The author that he can not say something which will be totally unintelligible to the reader. The urge to communicate is the basic urge of the speaker or author and accordingly he will place himself in relation to the hearer or reader or translator. But this will be impossible unless he accepts certain presuppositions relating to relationality, intelligibility and what Donald Davidson 12 calls a commonly shared network of beliefs. This is an important point in the context of actual interpretation to which I shall come later. The same consideration applies to the hearer. A hearer is not a passive observer and for the success of communication, his contribution is as much as the speaker. As the speaker has the urge to communicate the hearer has the understand what the speaker or the author says. Here what matters is not just knowing the meaning of the words, but something more is required, viz., knowledge of the background assumptions. Now what strategy the hearer adopts to know these assumptions? The hearer or translator infers what could be the speaker's or author's perspective at the background of which the whole discourse is made. This is where the idea of constructing possible contexts comes. The hearer / translator's construction of the context are not purely arbitrary. They are on the other hand, constrained by the same presuppositions which also work as a constraint for the speaker / author. The hearer / translator tries to put the speaker / author's discourse within the context of certain parameters. This is really to determine the domain of discourse and once the domain of discourse is fixed, the hearer / translator can think of all those possible assumptions relating the meaning of speaker's / author's discourse. The domain of discourse is really the ground for all the constructions. The reason is that you know that given the domain (the set of parameters) what could be the possible contexts that can be rationally inferred. This way one can also rule out some of the interpretations, which according to you are inconsistent with the domain of discourse. Finally comes the actual interpretations or should we say translations? Note that we have two things at hand. First is the text information and second is possible contexts. In addition, there is a third thing which I have earlier mentioned as the part of the presuppositions of our communication. This is an argument of Davidson, which says that the very fact that we understand each other, communicate each other or even disagree with each other indicates that we share most of our beliefs. On the other hand, in the absence of sharability of beliefs, communication will be impossible and misunderstanding is bound to arise. Even the disputes and disagreements presuppose that there is an agreement. There is a common ground that makes disputes possible. Beliefs do not exist in isolation. They form a system where each of our beliefs is supported by what Davidson calls a "dense pattern" of beliefs and it is within the pattern or system a particular belief is identified and described. More importantly, by virtue of this interlocking system of beliefs we as interpreters - think that other's beliefs and desires are like our own. Now based on this information a translator has to infer the most plausible interpretation. This is how translation is still possible and this is how we can reply to those who are skeptical of translation. To deny translation will be to deny the possibility of communication.

     However, one should not think that the above view assumes a rigid structure. I want to put everything in a particular order. But I do not have any such deductive ideal. Translation is a creative process where a translator enjoys a freedom. But this freedom is not an anarchic notion. If this is so then translation will be impossible. Freedom that a translator enjoys is constrained by certain common presuppositions belonging to our framework of thought. Since the presuppositions are actually the presuppositions of thought, they are also equally shared by the hearer / translator.