In my thesis I have attempted to develop an integrated translation approach materialized in the form of a Dynamic Translation Model (DTM). This endeavour can be justified to the extent that Translation Studies is perceived so far as a fragmentary discipline with implicitly and explicitly opposed and apparently irreconcilable points of view: linguistics-oriented approaches and culture-and-literature-oriented approaches. The main problem arising from this lack of common ground for further developing Translation Studies is that the disciplinary boundaries are not well-established and therefore the discipline itself cannot be developed coherently. Besides, Translation Studies is still to be constructed as an autonomous and an independent discipline that has a common core of theoretical and practical problems. This lack of coherent development of the discipline is due, I think, to an epistemological mistake: to believe that one single approach can account for (that is, describe and explain) all the translational reality. I propose to distinguish a two-phase epistemological move: 1. each translation approach works on its own research interests and acknowledges that its approach deals only with one part of the whole subject matter of Translation Studies; and 2. the results obtained by each translation approach are incorporated into a holistic integrative model like the Dynamic Translation Model I propose. In order to achieve this goal I have attempted to show the key tenets of modern translation approaches, both linguistics-oriented and culture-and-literature-oriented, by quoting the main theses of the representatives of these approaches. I have then presented the most important criticisms that have been raised in relation to these diverse translation approaches, together with my own criticisms (chapters 1 and 2). Also, I have introduced the theoretical basis for an integrated approach taking Holmes’ differentiation between theoretical (product-, process-, and function-oriented) and practical approaches as a point of departure. Likewise, I have discussed the problems of integrating Translation Studies, as well as Snell-Hornby’s integrated proposal and some key aspects of literary translation relevant for my integrative endeavour (chapter 3). Finally, I have developed my proposal for a Dynamic Translation Model (chapter 4). As to the conclusions of my thesis, I can say that my holistic DTM was able to integrate functionally aspects from both linguistics-oriented and culture-and-literature-oriented approaches: historico-cultural context (Leipzig School and postcolonial studies); norms, ideology and power (Descriptive Translation Studies; G. Toury and A. Lefevere); translation commisioner (Skopos theory); sender’s communicative purpose (linguistic and pragmatic approaches: W. Koller, J. House, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, etc); importance of source language text (linguistic and textlinguistic approaches; stylistic approaches; B. Spillner, B. Sandig); translator’s comprehension process (hermeneutic, deconstructive, and poststructural approaches), target language receiver in the target language historico-cultural context (Descriptive Translation Studies; postcolonial and gender studies). On the other hand, the three levels of the Dynamic Translation Model help to explain the flux of translational proceses and the variables that are activated or neutralized therein. They also incorporate concepts from other disciplines such as text linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, and the communication theory. In my integrative endeavour I also proposed new concepts and, accordingly, coined new terms: Compulsory Translational Forces (CTF) (which include both Initiator’s Translational Instructions (ITI) and Target Language Valid Translational Norms (TL-VTN), Default Equivalence Position (DEP). In the pragmatic dimension of the model special attention is paid to what I call Text Illocutionary Indicators (TII) as well as the strengthening (upgraders) and weakening (downgraders) illocutionary mechanisms in relation to the Source Language Text (SLT) and the Target Language Text (TLT). Semantic/lexical fields play a crucial role in the establishment of equivalences between SLT and TLT in the text semantic dimension, as well as what I have called Fictionalizing Stylistic Shifts in the text stylistic dimension. As to the future developments of translation research within the framework of the Dynamic Translation Model I would say that some modificationbs may be called for so that interpretation can also be accounted for. This proposal can be used profitably in the field of translation criticism. As is the case with any other integrative approach, DTM should be widely discussed and criticized in order to validate its theoretical soundness and its application in Translation Studies. This thesis is an attempt to contribute in this research direction.