本土的翻譯理論，在某個弔詭的意義上，其實是種「翻譯的翻譯理論」 （translated translation theory）。我們鮮少努力的去嘗試從自己的翻譯傳統中汲取 建構當代翻譯理論所需的養份，結果在不斷引介西方翻譯理論而缺乏反省的情形 下，本土的翻譯理論事實上是在從事一種「重覆而無差異」（repetition without difference）的行為。 如果翻譯可以被視為一種意義交換的經濟活動─其中包括了意義的生產、包 裝、行銷與消費（以及再生產）的過程─本土的譯／讀者大概只在裏面扮演消極 的消費角色。我們不但只是經過翻譯代／加工過的「二手知識」的盲目消費者， 我們甚至經常天真的以為這種知識是道地的「本土知識」。這種「透明翻譯」的 現象讓翻譯淪為意義空轉的浪費行為，使得翻譯可以擁有的意義再生產的機會遭 到剝奪。 然而翻譯做為一種after-writing 暗示了「意義遲來的接觸」（belated encounter of meanings）。換句話說，翻譯雖然出現在原文之後活動，但是那個「在後」（a tergo）的位置卻可以發揮特別的功能，從而轉化／昇華原文的意義。因此就一個 類比的關係而言，本土的文化位置就算是錯誤的被認為落後歐美先進國家，我們 仍然可以藉由在後的力量成為後起之秀。更重要的是，當我們反思目前只有進口 而無出口的理論窘況，也許我們應該從被我們拋棄在後的傳統之中，搜尋上述支 持的力量來替本土的翻譯理論建構找出一條出路。

Ironically, the contemporary translation theory that prevails in Taiwan often comes in the form of “translated translation theory” that simply manifests itself in a constant act of “repetition without difference,” and consequently seems detrimental to the development of indigenous translation enterprise. It is argued, however, that translation, as “after-writing” that always already presupposes a “belated” encounter of meaning between two languages, may exert the power of what Derrida has called “a tergo.” Hence it follows that if one can be more aware of the extraordinary position that translation takes up in the global economy of meaning and attempt to render the act of translation more meaningful in the sense of laying open, or rather producing, the difference, one should have no doubt that even a translated translation theory can give birth to progeny that out-shine/out-shadow its predecessors. In other words, in order to open up the possibility of difference and if we are to (de)construct a so-called indigenous translation theory, it is necessary that we look “back” on our long-ignored translation tradition and find out whether there lies for us a way out of the mire of contemporary “translated translation theory” in Taiwan.