The twentieth century saw the development of Western translation ideas, which turned translation from a practical art form into a formal academic field. The Prague School, the London School, the Chomskyan School, and the School of Communications are some of the most significant frameworks. Each of these models offered unique insights into the nature of translation, including generative, communicative, structural, and semiotic viewpoints. But their methods also highlight important theoretical and practical drawbacks. The impossibility to achieve total equivalency, the excessive reliance on linguistic structures at the expense of contextual and cultural elements, and the intrinsic subjectivity of translator decisions are some of the ongoing difficulties. Furthermore, their limited application is highlighted by the persistent gap between theoretical abstraction and actual translation practice. This paper critically examines these divergences to highlight how Western translation schools, despite their intellectual depth, struggle to fully accommodate the dynamic interplay of language, culture, and meaning in translation.