Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Language Interpretation and Translation

Cognitive translatology: A primer, revisited

Profile image of Ricardo Muñoz MartínRicardo Muñoz Martín

2021, 语言、翻译与认知 [Studies in Language, Communication & Cognition]

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, we have seen a steady growth of research in Cognitive Translation & Interpreting Studies (CTIS). One of the paradigms within CTIS, Cognitive Translatology (CT), draws from Situated Cognition and already is an alternative to traditional views on the interface between brain, mind and diverse forms of multilectal mediated communication. One decade after the original presentation of the CT framework, this article aims to clarify and update the notions introduced there. First, the article elaborates on prerequisite concepts such as inter-textuality, meaning, language, and communication from cognitive translatological perspectives. Second, it reviews the nature of translations and translating and presents a précis on CT's disciplinary basics, such as the object of study, research methods and future directions. Altogether, we hope to contribute to dispelling misunderstandings and answer some recurrent questions on the theoretical edifice of Cognitive Translatology.

Related papers

Cognitive Approaches to Translation Process
Kairong Xiao

A balanced development of translation studies as a discipline entails effective researches in all the three branches of Descriptive Translation Studies mapped by James , namely the product-, function-and process-oriented studies. With more research findings in the first two fields made in the latter part of the 20 th century, the process-oriented research acquires promising momentum in the first decade of the 21 st century, as it borrows the latest theoretical models and research methods from the neighboring cognitive disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics, neurophysiology and computational linguistics. New methods of gathering multi-media data about translator behaviour and large-scale joint research projects have emerged with findings about the underlying nature of translation as a cognitive activity. These findings are unimaginable previously with the traditional research methods.

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Approaches to Translation
Hanna Risku

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2012

Obviously, there is more to translation than just associating words in one language with those in another. Cognitive scientifi c approaches to translation try to understand and explain the workings of translators' minds: How do translators and the other actors involved in translation create meaning in the situations and texts they handle? How do they arrive at their strategies and choices? How does their cultural and linguistic background infl uence their thinking and understanding? How do they develop translation competence? All cognitive scientifi c approaches to answering these questions have one thing in common: they do not restrict their description to intelligent behavior like learning, problem solving, and translation. Their main goal is to explain the development and workings of the mental processes that make complex cognitive behavior like translation possible (Shlesinger, 2000; Thagard, 2005, p. 3). This is why (and how) cognitive approaches differ from other-e.g., linguistic or psychological-approaches to translation: They refer to and expand existing cognitive scientifi c models of the mind to describe the processes which might serve to explain the behavior and choices of translators. Cognitive translation research is closely related to the ever-increasing process research in translation studies, which uses different methods to observe the actual chronological activity of translating by different groups of participants with different text types and different contexts. What makes cognitive translation research cognitive is the fact that it tries to look "behind" the observable processes and, when doing so, refers to certain cognitive scientifi c concepts or approaches as a framework (which can thus be confi rmed or disproved). Consequently, cognitive approaches focus clearly on the people and processes involved in translation and employ a primarily descriptive-as opposed to a normativemode of research, applying various empirical and experimental research designs. Thus, they can be seen as part of "translator studies," the recent tendency in translation studies to focus explicitly on the translator, rather than on translations as texts (Chesterman, 2009, p. 13: "A broad outline of Translator Studies would cover sociology, culture and cognition, all looking at the translator's agency, in different ways"). Instead of only analyzing texts or external behavior (in a behaviorist manner), cognitive scientists consider inner processes. The mind is no longer a "black box." There are, for example, now sophisticated methods and instruments available which make the neurological processes in the brain visible. However, the cognitive processes as such are neither visible nor self-evident, and there are several competing hypotheses in cognitive science regarding the meaning of the neurological and behavioral evidence. One question that remains open is, for example, the location of meaning. Does meaning reside in words, languages, texts (Wilss, 1988, p. 104), neuronal patterns, brains, or interaction? Consequently, the different cognitive scientifi c approaches propose different answers to the question of what happens in the minds of translators. An understanding of cognition is a prerequisite for explaining many of the practical tasks relevant in translation, since these tasks are based on thinking, learning, and understanding. What are the effects of different methods of teaching and learning? Why do translators fi nd some things easy to translate, yet others diffi cult? How can meaning be The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

View PDFchevron_right
Translation psychology: rethinking and perspectives
Iryna Afonina

PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND TRANSLATION STUDIES: EUROPEAN POTENTIAL, 2022

View PDFchevron_right
A New Visibility: On Culture, Translation and Cognition. Lisboa: UCE 2015. Ed. Peter Hanenberg
Peter Hanenberg

2015

Current research in Translation Studies has expanded the perspective on Translation – and the notion of its centrality not only as a question of language but also as a crucial issue for the study of culture and the human mind. The present volume builds upon these developments, endowing a new visibility to culture, translation and cognition in their conceptual interdependence. It follows necessarily a multidimensional and thus multidisciplinary approach, dealing with topics such as the translation of historical narrative, a semio-cognitive approach to translation, translation and imagination, the epistemic status of the term translation and its conceptual identity and transversality, notes on world literature and translation, the voice of the translator, the issue of dictionaries and the question of translation in a mobile world.

View PDFchevron_right
Proposal for a cognitive theory of translation and interpreting. A methodology for future empirical research
Presentación Padilla

Interpreters' Newsletter, 1999

View PDFchevron_right
Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting
Aline Ferreira

Benjamins Translation Library, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
From process studies to cognitive translatology
Ricardo Muñoz Martín

Outline of the evolution from process studies to translation process research, and from there to cognitive translation studies

View PDFchevron_right
The position of psycholinguistics and cognitive science in translation and interpreting: An introduction
Aline Ferreira

Translation Studies (TS), the young academic discipline which has developed around research on translation and interpreting, spans a remarkably wide spectrum of approaches, theories and research methods. he present collection highlights the input of psycholinguistics and cognitive science to TS through a scrutiny of recent indings and current theories and research. Before presenting the contributions ofered in this volume, it is perhaps useful to recall some historical and contextual background to gain a better overall perspective and view of where and how they it in the wider framework of past and present TS.

View PDFchevron_right
The Development of Translation Studies as a Discipline – from Linguistics to Cognition
Radegundis Stolze

2011

We are reading repeatedly in many articles that Translation Studies (TS), i.e. research regarding the transference of texts into another language, were not yet a fully fledged discipline of its own. However, this opinion gets weaker the more publications are coming out in this area. No longer are studies on translation and interpreting only an appendix of language learning, rather they have grown into a special discipline. This is particularly true, if we don‟t define a discipline by the application of only one method of research, a so-called research paradigm. In TS a great variety of approaches and methods is visible, and they all are valid as they contribute to a better understanding of the complex problematic linked to translation.Whereas no unique research paradigm is yet given for TS, the subject of the studies is clear: translating written texts or interpreting spoken messages. But here, again, there is a variety of research objects: translation as a product (the finished tra...

View PDFchevron_right
The Cognitive And Intuitve Nature Of The Translation Process
Irina Remkhe

The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

View PDFchevron_right

References (208)

  1. Alfer, A. (ed.). 2017. 'Translaboration'. Translation as Collaboration [J]. Special issue of Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (3 ).
  2. Alves, F. & A. L. Jakobsen (eds.). 2020. The Routledge Handbook of Translation & Cognition [C]. Abingdon: Routledge.
  3. Amigo Extremera, J. J. 2015. Fitting CULTURE into translation process research [J]. Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 26-46. http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/368
  4. Antonini, R. 2016. Caught in the middle: child language brokering as a form of unrecognised language service [J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (7): 710-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127931
  5. Aslin, R.N. 2017. Statistical learning: A powerful mechanism that operates by mere exposure [J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Cognitive Science 8:e1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1373
  6. Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition [J]. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617-645.
  7. Berent, I., H. Pan, X. Zhao, J. Epstein, M. L. Bennett, V. Deshpande, R. T. Seethamraju and E. Stern. 2014. Language Universals Engage Broca's Area [J]. PLoS ONE 9 (4): e95155. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095155
  8. Bhandari, P., S. Prasad & R. K. Mishra. 2020. High proficient bilinguals bring in higher executive control when encountering diverse interlocutors [J]. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 4: 201-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-020-00060-7
  9. Bialystok, E. & G. Poarch. 2014. Language experience changes language and cognitive ability [J]. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft 17 (3): 433-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0491-8
  10. Bistué, M. B.. 2014. Collaborative Translation and Multi-Version Texts in Early Modern Europe [M]. Farnham: Ashgate.
  11. Boroditsky, L. 2019. Language and the brain [J]. Science 366 (6461): 13. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz6490
  12. Cañas Delgado, J. J. 2017. Fatigue and theories of resources: The energetic metaphor of the mind functioning might be reconsidered [A].
  13. In K. S. Hale & K. M., Stanney, Kay M (eds.), Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering [C]. Cham: Springer. 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41691-5_23
  14. Carl, M. 2010. A computational framework for a cognitive model of human translation processes [J]. Proceedings of the 32 nd International Conference on Translating and the Computer. 18-19 November 2010, London. Available at www.mt-archive.info/10/Aslib-2010-Carl.pdf
  15. Carl, M. 2013. A computational cognitive model of human translation processes [A].
  16. In S. Bandyopadhyay, S. K. Naskar, & A. Ekbar (eds.), Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research [C].
  17. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. 110-128.
  18. Castro Arce, M. 2008. Procesos de lectura y comprensión al traducir [A].
  19. In M. M. Fernández and R. Muñoz (eds.), Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traducción y la interpretación [C]. Granada: Comares. 31-54
  20. Chan, C. H. 2020. Legal Translation and Bilingual Law Drafting in Hong Kong: Challenges and Interactions in Chinese Regions [M]. Abingdon: Routledge.
  21. Chen, G. M. & W. J. Starosta. 1998. Foundations of Intercultural Communication [M]. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cifuentes Férez, P. & A. M. Rojo López. 2015. Thinking for translating. A think-aloud protocol on the translation of manner-of-motion verbs [J]. Target 27 (2): 273-300. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.27.2.05cif
  22. Cordingley, A. & C. F. Manning (eds.). 2017. Collaborative Translation. From the Renaissance to the Digital Age [C]. London: Bloomsbury.
  23. Corrigan, T. 2017. Defining Adaptation [A].
  24. In T. Leitch (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23-35.
  25. Costa Martínez, A. 2005. Lexical access in bilingual production [A].
  26. In J. Kroll & A. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches [C]. New York: Oxford University Press. 308-326.
  27. Costa Martínez, A., M. Hernández Pardo, J. Costa Faidella & N. Sebastián Gallés. 2009. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don't [J]. Cognition 113 (2): 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001
  28. Dam-Jensen, H., C. Heine & I. Schrijver. 2019. The nature of text production -Similarities and differences between writing and translation [J]. Across Languages and Cultures 20 (2): 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2019.20.2.1
  29. Davier, L. 2017. Les enjeux de la traduction dans les agences de presse [M]. Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
  30. Díaz Cintas, J. & P. Muñoz Sánchez. 2006. Fansubs: Audiovisual translation in an amateur environment [J]. JosTrans 6: 37-52. https://jostrans.org/issue06/art_diaz_munoz.php
  31. Dilkina, K., J. L. McClelland, & D. C. Plaut. 2010. Are there mental lexicons? The role of semantics in lexical decision [J]. Brain Research 1365: 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.057
  32. De Boe, E. 2020. Remote Interpreting in Healthcare Settings. A Comparative Study on The Influence of Telephone and Video Link Use on the Quality of Interpreter-Mediated Communication [D]. University of Antwerp.
  33. Defrancq, B. & S. Verliefde. 2018. Interpreter-mediated drafting of written records in police interviews. A case study [J]. Target 30 (2): 212-239. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16141.def
  34. De Mey, W. 1982. The Cognitive Paradigm [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  35. De Rooze, B. 2003. La traducción, contra reloj. Consecuencias de la presión por falta de tiempo en el proceso de la traducción [D].
  36. Doherty, S. [in press] Multisensory integration in audiovisual translation [A].
  37. In R. Muñoz & S. Halverson (eds.), Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition [C]. London: Routledge. 155-170.
  38. Dorner, L. M., M. F. Orellana & R. Jiménez. 2008. It's one of those things that you do to help the family: Language brokering and the development of immigrant adolescents [J]. Journal of Adolescent Research 23 (5): 515-543.
  39. Elliott, K. 2013. Theorizing adaptations/Adapting theories [A].
  40. In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik & E. Frisvold (eds.), Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions [C]. London: Bloomsbury. 19-45.
  41. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. Elman, J. L. 2009. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. [J] Cognitive Science 33 (4): 547-582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01023.x
  43. Ehrensberger-Dow, M. 2014. Challenges of translation process research at the workplace [A].
  44. In R. Muñoz (ed.) Minding Translation. Special issue 1 of MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting [C]. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. 355-383. http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/43732
  45. Enríquez Raído, V. 2014. Translation and Web Searching [M]. New York: Routledge.
  46. Eskola, S. 2004. Untypical frequencies in translated language [A].
  47. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds.), Translation Universals: Do They Exist? [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 83-99.
  48. Evans, J. S. B. T. 2010. Thinking Twice: Two minds in One Brain [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Evans, V., B. Bergen & J. Zinken. 2007. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview [A].
  50. In Evans, Vyvyan & Jörg Zinken (eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader [C]. London: Equinox. 263-266.
  51. Ferrara, A. 1980a. An extended theory of speech acts: Appropriateness conditions for subordinate acts in sequences [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 4 (3): 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90038-7.
  52. Ferrara, A. 1980b. Appropriateness conditions for entire sequences of speech acts [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 4 (4): 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90028-4.
  53. Filippi, R., R. Leech, M. S. C. Thomas, D. Green & Frederic Dick. 2012. A bilingual advantage in controlling language interference during sentence comprehension [J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15 (4): 858-872. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000708
  54. Filippi, R., J. Morris, F. M. Richardson, P. Bright, M. S. C. Thomas, A. Karmiloff-Smith & V. Marian. 2015. Bilingual children show an advantage in controlling verbal interference during spoken language comprehension [J]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18 (3): 490-501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000686
  55. Firestone, C. 2016. Embodiment in Perception [A].
  56. In B. P. McLaughlin & H. Kornblith (eds.), Goldman and His Critics [C].
  57. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118609378.ch15
  58. Garagnani, M., T. Wennekers & F. Pulvermüller. 2009. Recruitment and consolidation of cell assemblies for words by way of Hebbian Learning and Competition in a multi-layer neural network [J]. Cognitive computation 1(2): 160-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-009-9011-1
  59. Georgiou, H. V. 2014. Estimating the intrinsic dimension in fMRI space via dataset fractal analysis-Counting the CPU cores' of the human brain [J]. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7100
  60. Glenberg, A. M. 1997. What memory is for [J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1): 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97000010
  61. Granell Zafra, X. [Joaquín]. 2015. Multilingual Information Management: Information, Technology and Translators [M]. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
  62. Green, D. W., & J. Abutalebi. 2013. Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis [J]. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25 (5): 515-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377
  63. Grosjean, F. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person [J]. Brain and language 36 (1): 3-15.
  64. Grosjean, F. 1992. Another view of bilingualism [J]. Advances in Psychology 83: 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61487-9
  65. Hall, N. & S. Sham. 2007. Language brokering as young people's work: Evidence from Chinese adolescents in England [J]. Language and Education 21 (1): 16-30. https://doi.org/10.2167/le645.0
  66. Halverson, S. L. 2004. Assumed translation. Reconciling Komissarov and Toury and moving a step forward [J]. Target 16 (2): 341-354.
  67. Halverson, S. L. & R. Muñoz Martín. [in press]. The times, they are a-changin'. Multilingual mediated communication and cognition [A].
  68. In R. Muñoz & S. Halverson (eds.), Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition [C]. London: Routledge. 1-17.
  69. Harris, B. 1973. La traductologie, la traduction naturelle, la traduction automatique et la sémantique [A].
  70. In J. McA'Nulty (ed.), Cahier de linguistique 2. Problèmes de sémantique [C]. Montreal: Presses de l'Université du Québec. 133-146.
  71. Harris, B. & B. Sherwood. 1978. Translating as an innate skill [A]. In D. Gerver & H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication [C]. New York: Plenum. 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615- 9077-4_15 Hebb, D. O. 1949. The Organisation of Behaviour [M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  72. Hernández Guerrero, M. J. 2009. Traducción y periodismo [M]. Bern: Peter Lang.
  73. Hirvonen, M. & L. Tiitula. 2018. How are translations created? Using multimodal conversation analysis to study a team translation process [J]. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 17: 157-173.
  74. Ho, C., T. Chen & J. Tsai. 2020. How does training shape English-Chinese sight translation behaviour? An eyetracking study [J]. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3 (1): 1-24.
  75. Hoeben Mannaert, L. N., K. Dijkstra, & R. A. Zwaan. 2017. Is color an integral part of a rich mental simulation? [J]. Memory & cognition 45 (6): 974-982. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0708-1
  76. Hofstede, G., G. J. Hofstede & M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (revised and expanded 3rd ed.) [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  77. Hohwy, J. 2013. The Predictive Mind [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001
  78. House, J. 2008. Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation? [J]. trans-kom 1 (1): 6-19. http://www.trans- kom.eu/ihv_01_01_2008.html
  79. Iacoboni, M. 2008. Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons [J]. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163604
  80. Immonen, S. 2006. Translation as a writing process. Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production [J]. Target 18 (2): 313-335.
  81. Jakobsen, A. L. and K. T. H. Jensen. 2008. Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading tasks [A].
  82. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen and I. M. Mees (eds.), Looking at Eyes. Eyetracking studies of reading and translation processing [C]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 103-124.
  83. Jakobson, R. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation [A].
  84. In R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation [C].
  85. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 232-239.
  86. Jia, Y., M. Carl & X. Wang. 2019. Post-editing neural machine translation versus phrase-based machine translation for English-Chinese [J]. Machine Translation 33: 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-019-09229-6
  87. Jiménez Crespo, M. A. 2017. Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations: Expanding the limits of Translation Studies [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  88. Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  89. Johnson, M. 2014. Experiencing language: What's missing in linguistic pragmatism? [J]. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy VI (2): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.284
  90. Johnson, M. 2017. Embodied Mind, Meaning, and Reason. How Our Bodies Give Rise to Understanding [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  91. Ketola, A. 2018. Word-Image Interaction in Technical Translation: Students Translating an Illustrated Text [D]. University of Tampere.
  92. Kidawara, Y., E. Sumita and H. Kawai (eds.). 2020. Speech-to-Speech Translation [C]. Singapore: Springer.
  93. Komter, M. L. 2006. From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record [J]. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (3): 201-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2
  94. Koppel, M. and N. Ordan. 2011. Translationese and its dialects [J]. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1318-1326. Portland, OR: ACL. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1132
  95. La Heij, W. 2005. Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access [A].
  96. In J. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches [C]. New York: Oxford University Press. 239-307.
  97. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  98. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  99. Landauer, T. K. & S. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge [J]. Psychological Review 104 (2): 211-240.
  100. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites [M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  101. Langille, J. J. & R. E. Brown. 2018. The synaptic theory of memory: A historical survey and reconciliation of recent opposition [J]. Frontiers in systems neuroscience 12: 52. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2018.00052
  102. Lei, V. & D. Li. 2019. Tracking where the professional conference interpreter looks: A case study in naturalistic settings [J]. Paper presented at the 2nd International Congress on Translation, Interpreting and Cognition Interdisciplinarity: The Way out of the Box Germersheim, Germany, 4-6 July 2019.
  103. Leitch, V. B. 1983. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction [M]. London: Hutchinson.
  104. Lemarié, J., R. F. Lorch Jr. & M. P. Péry-Woodley. 2012. Understanding how headings influence text processing [J]. Discours 10. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.8600
  105. Levert, L. A. 2004. Bilingual and bijural legislative drafting: To be or not to be? [J]. Statute Law Review 25 (2): 151- 164. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/25.2.151
  106. Levý, J. 1967. Translation as a decision making process [A]. To Honor Roman Jakobson, vol. 2 [C]. The Hague: Mouton. 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349121-031
  107. Liu, Y. and F. Fang. 2020. Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language [J]. RELC Journal [s.p.]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220939222
  108. Lorenzo, M. P. 2002. Competencia revisora y traducción inversa [J]. Cadernos de Tradução 2 (10): 133-166. https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/traducao/article/view/6148/5706.
  109. Lörscher, W. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation [M]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  110. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. 1 [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  111. Mårtensson, J., J. Eriksson, N. C. Bodammer, M. Lindgren, M. Johansson, L. Nyberg, & M. Lövdén. 2012. Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning [J]. NeuroImage 63 (1): 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.043
  112. Malakoff, M. E. 1992. Translation ability: A natural bilingual and metalinguistic skill [J]. Advances in Psychology 83: 515-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61514-9
  113. Malinowski, B. K. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages [A].
  114. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning [C]. London: Kegan Paul, Trend, Trubner. 296-336.
  115. Malinowksi, B. K. 1935. Coral Gardens and their Magic, vol. 2 [M]. London: Allen & Unwin.
  116. Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization [J]. Text 8 (3): 243-281.
  117. Massey, G. & M. Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. Investigating information literacy: A growing priority in translation studies [J]. Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4
  118. McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis [J]. Human Relations 55 (1): 89-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004
  119. Mellinger, C. D. and G. M. Shreve. 2016. Match evaluation and over-editing in a translation memory environment [A].
  120. In R. Muñoz (ed.), Reembedding translation process research [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131-148.
  121. Meltzoff, A. N., & R. A. Williamson, R. A. 2013. Imitation: Social, cognitive, and theoretical perspectives [A].
  122. In P. D. Zelazo (ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (Vol. 1): Body and mind [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 651-682.
  123. Muñoz de Escalona Fernández, E., J. J. Cañas Delgado, & P. I. Noriega Pinto Machado. 2020. Inconsistencies between mental fatigue measures under compensatory control theories [J]. Psicológica Journal 41 (2): 103- 126. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicolj-2020-0006
  124. Muñoz Martín, R. 2010. On paradigms and cognitive translatology [A].
  125. In G. Shreve & E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and Cognition [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
  126. Muñoz Martín, R. 2011. Nomen mihi Legio est: A cognitive approach to Natural Translation [A].
  127. In Mª J. Blasco & A. Jiménez (eds.), Interpreting… naturally [C]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 35-66.
  128. Muñoz Martín, R. 2016. Of minds and men-Computers and translators [J]. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 351-381. DOI 10.1515/psicl-2016-0013
  129. Muñoz Martín, R. 2017. Looking toward the future of Cognitive Translation Studies [A].
  130. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition [C]. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 555-571. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch30
  131. Muñoz Martín, R. & A. M. Rojo López. 2018. Meaning [A].
  132. In Sue-Ann Harding & Ovidi Carbonell Cortés (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture [C]. London: Routledge. 73-90.
  133. Muñoz Martín, R. & Olalla-Soler, C. [in press]. Translation is not (only) problem solving [J].
  134. Nowotny, H., P. B. Scott & M. T. Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty [M]. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  135. O'Brien, S. 2011. Collaborative translation [A].
  136. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2 [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17-20.
  137. OECD. 2019. Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills [M]. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en
  138. Olalla-Soler, C. [in press].
  139. Yes! we're open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies [J].
  140. Olalla-Soler, C, J. F. Aixelà & S. Rovira-Esteva. 2020. Mapping Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies. A bibliometric approach [J]. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 19: 25-52.
  141. Omori, K. 2017. Cross-cultural communication [A].
  142. In M. Allen (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, vol. 1 [C].
  143. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 309-312. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n116
  144. Orrego Carmona, D. 2015. The Reception of (Non)professional Subtitling [D]. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
  145. Pedersen, D. 2016. Transcreation in Marketing and Advertising: An Ethnographic Study [D]. University of Aarhus.
  146. Perlman, M. 2017. Debunking two myths against vocal origins of language. Language is iconic and multimodal to the core [J]. Interaction Studies 18 (3): 376-401. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.05per
  147. Pliatsikas, C., V. DeLuca, & T. Voits. 2020. The many shades of bilingualism: language experiences modulate adaptations in brain structure [J]. Language Learning 70 (52): 133-149. ISSN 0023-8333 https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12386
  148. Pöchhacker, F. 1995. Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist Perspective [J]. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 14: 31-53.
  149. Polit, D. F. & C. T. Beck. 2010. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies [J]. International Journal of Nursing Studies 47: 1451-1458.
  150. Pulvermüller, F. & L. Fadiga. 2010. Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language [J]. Nature Reviews Neuroscience (11): 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2811
  151. Purmohammad, M. (2015). Grammatical encoding in bilingual language production: A focus on code-switching [J]. Frontiers in psychology, 6: 1797. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01797
  152. Pym, A. 2004. The Moving Text: Localization, translation, and distribution [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  153. Pym, A., F. Grin, C. Sfreddo and A. L. J. Chan. 2013. The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union [M]. London: Anthem Press.
  154. Reddy, M. J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language [A].
  155. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 284-310.
  156. Risku, H., J. Miloševic & C. Pein-Weber. 2016. Writing vs. translating. Dimensions of text production in comparison [A].
  157. In R. Muñoz (ed.), Reembedding translation process research [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 47-68.
  158. Risku, H. & R. Rogl. 2020. Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition [A].
  159. In F. Alves & A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition [C]. 2020. Abingdon: Routledge. 478-499.
  160. Roberts, D. 2000. Training interpreters for La Relève-Part III [J]. Terminology Update 33 (3): 16.
  161. Sandelowski, M. 2001. Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research [J]. Research in Nursing & Health 24: 230-240.
  162. Sapir, E. 1933. Language [A].
  163. In E.R. Anderson & A. Saunders (eds.), Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 9 [C]. New York: Macmillan. 155-169.
  164. Schilling, M. A. 2005. A small-world network model of cognitive insight [J]. Creativity Research Journal 17 (2-3): 131-154.
  165. Schwieter, J. W. & A. Ferreira. 2017. Bilingualism in cognitive translation and interpreting studies [A].
  166. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition [C].
  167. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 144-164
  168. Schwieter, J. W. & A. Ferreira (eds.). 2017. The Handbook of Translation and Cognition [C].
  169. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
  170. Seeber, K. G. 2017. Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting [A].
  171. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition [C]. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch25
  172. Seeber, K. G. and Carmen Delgado Luchner. 2015. Simulating simultaneous interpreting with text: From training model to training module [A].
  173. In M. D. Rodríguez, I. Horváth & K. Ferguson (eds.), The Role of Technology in Conference Interpreter Training [C]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 129-151.
  174. Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication [J]. The Bell System Technical Journal XXVII (3): 379-423.
  175. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication [M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  176. Shatz, C. J. 1992. The developing brain [J]. Scientific American 267 (3): 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0992-60
  177. Shreve, G. M., C. Schäffner, J. H. Danks and J. Griffin. 1993. Is there a special kind of "reading" for translation? An empirical investigation of reading in the translation process [J]. Target 5 (1): 21-41.
  178. Signorini, P., R. Wiesemes & R. Murphy. 2009. Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstede's cultural difference model [J]. Teaching in Higher Education. Critical Perspectives 14 (3): 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898825
  179. Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 2001. Cognition and tasks [A].
  180. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009
  181. Slobin, D. I. 1996. From ''thought and language'' to ''thinking for speaking.'' [A] In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 70-96.
  182. Spalding, K. L., O. Bergmann, K. Alkass, S. Bernard, M. Salehpour, H. B. Huttner, E. Boström, I. Westerlund, C. Vial, B. A. Buchholz, G. Possnert, D. C. Mash, H. Druid, & J. Frisén. 2013. Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans [J]. Cell 153 (6): 1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.002
  183. Spivey, M. J. & R. Dale. 2006. Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition [J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (5): 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00437.x
  184. Stefaniak, K. 2013. Multilingual legal drafting, translators' choices and the principle of lesser evil [J]. Meta 58 (1): 58-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1023809ar
  185. Stietz, J., E. Jauk, S. Krach & P. Kanske. 2019. Dissociating empathy from perspective-taking: Evidence from intra- and inter-individual differences research [J]. Frontiers in Psychiatry 10: s.p. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00126 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00126
  186. Sutton, J. & K. Williamson. 2014. Embodied remembering [A]. In L. Shapiro (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition [C]. New York: Routledge. 315-325.
  187. Thibodeau, P. H. & L. Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning [J]. PLoS ONE 6 (2): e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
  188. Tiselius, E. 2013. Experience and expertise in conference interpreting: an investigation of Swedish conference interpreters [D]. University of Bergen.
  189. Toomela, A. 2010. Quantitative methods in psychology: Inevitable and useless [J]. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00029
  190. Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  191. Uhlmann, F. and S. Höfler. 2018. Multilingual legislative drafting in Swiss cantons: Burden or blessing? [J]. The Loophole -Journal of the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel (1): 54-62. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-146872
  192. Vandeberg, L., T. Guadalupe & R. A. Zwaan. 2011. How verbs can activate things: Cross-language activation across word classes [J]. Acta Psychologica 138 (1): 68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.05.007
  193. van Moort, M. L., A. Koornneef & P. W. van den Broek. 2018. Validation: Knowledge-and text-based monitoring during reading [J]. Discourse Processes 55(5-6): 480-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1426319
  194. van Moort, M. L., A. Koornneef & P. W. van den Broek. 2020. Differentiating text-based and knowledge-based validation processes during reading: Evidence from eye movements [J]. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1727683
  195. van Moort, M., D. D. Jolles, A. Koornneef & P. van den Broek. 2020. What you read versus what you know: Neural correlates of accessing context information and background knowledge in constructing a mental representation during reading [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 149(11): 2084-2101. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000764
  196. Verhagen, A. 2007. Construal and perspectivisation [A].
  197. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 48-81.
  198. Volansky, V., N. Ordan, & S. Wintner. 2015. On the features of translationese [J]. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (1): 98-118. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt031
  199. Whyatt, B. 2017. We are all translators: Investigating the human ability to translate from a developmental perspective [A]. In Antonini, L. Cirillo, L. Rossato & I. Torresi (eds.), Non-professional Interpreting and Translation [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45-64.
  200. Yee, E. & S. L. Thompson-Schill. 2016. Putting concepts into context [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23: 1015- 102.
  201. Yu, C., L. B. Smith & A. F. Pereira. 2008. Grounding word learning in multimodal sensorimotor interaction [A].
  202. In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society [C].
  203. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. 1017-1022.
  204. Zhou, Z., K. Chen, X. Li, S. Zhang, Y. Wu, Y. Zhou, K. Meng, C. Sun, Q. He, W. Fan, E. Fan, Z. Lin, X. Tan, W. Deng, J. Yang & J. Chen. 2020. Sign-to-speech translation using machine-learning-assisted stretchable sensor arrays [J]. Nat Electron 3: 571-578. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-0428-6
  205. Zwaan, R. A. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension [A].
  206. In B. H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory [C]. New York: Elsevier. 35-62.
  207. Zwaan, R. A. 2014. Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18 (5): 229-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008
  208. Bionotes

Related papers

Cognitive translation studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge
Ricardo Muñoz Martín

LANS-TTS, 2020

Several indicators seem to suggest that, through nearly six decades of development, Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS) may be taking shape as an autonomous field of study. The main challenges ahead seem to be building sounder theoretical models and carrying out more rigorous methodological scrutiny. These two strands converge as central themes in the 11 contributions to this special issue of LANS-TTS. To provide a context for theoretical modelling and to frame critical discussions of the methods included in this volume, we first trace the present landscape of CTS and how it evolved so as to test Holmes’ criteria for disciplines: founding new channels of communication and sharing a “disciplinary utopia”. The contributions are arranged into four thematic categories as applied to CTS, namely, scientometrics, framing or reframing our field, the reliability and validity of popular research methods, and new methods or novel approaches. This article closes with a call to reflect on some fundamental issues on the next steps of humankind regarding communication, with ever-growing societal demands and expectations that call for refreshing our notions of translation in the context of increasingly diversified forms of multilectal mediated communication.

View PDFchevron_right
27 Translation and cognitive science.PPT
Zouheir Maalej

The talk argues against the segmentation of translating by linguistics, anthropology, or philosophy, which has proved any of these disciplines alone to be an impediment to a comprehensive approach of translating. To mirror the complexity of translating, the talk shows translating to be multi-disciplinary par excellence. It seeks to highlight the inherent cognitive science dimensions of translating through disciplines such as cognitive linguistics, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and artificial intelligence to. To substantiate the claims made, the talk overly relies on the cognitive ability of metaphor and related topics such as idioms and proverbs.

View PDFchevron_right
Translation and Cognition: An Overview
Aline Ferreira

Wiley-Blackwell, 3-18. , 2017

Translation has been carried out for millennia, but understanding the particularities of the complicated process of transforming a piece of information from one language into another language increasingly intrigues researchers around the world. Perhaps this is one of the many reasons why researchers have become so motivated to conduct studies explaining the processes of translation and interpreting. The integration of cognitive science into translation and interpreting studies (TIS) has formed an interdisciplinary‐ rich field that is the foundation and impetus of The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. In a comprehensive and critical review, the Handbook builds on existing theories and research designs by bringing together contributions from international experts affiliated with institutions and research centers in 17 countries.

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics and Translation
Rojo López

2013

This collection of scholarly studies consists of a Foreword by Mona Baker, an Introduction by the editors, thirteen essays apportioned into five major parts, and several helpful indices (author information, author and subject, language). In this overview, I will simply list the titles of the various chapters along with their authors and cite several significant insights or applications from each one. In my opinion, this is one of the most important texts in the field of translation studies to appear in recent years for two principal reasons: (a) all authors write from the perspective of cognitive linguistics, which in my opinion as a translation practitioner and consultant offers the best theoretical foundation for this discipline; and (b) the writers do not muddy the waters by delving into arcane metaphorical extensions of the concept of translation, which is unfortunately a rather common practice nowadays. 2 1 A review by Wendland of this same book Cognitive Linguistics and Translation by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano has also appeared in 2017 in the American Journal of Academic Research 2(1).

View PDFchevron_right
Looking toward the future of cognitive translation studies
Ricardo Muñoz Martín

In John W. Schwieter & Aline Ferreira, eds. The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, pp.555-571. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Translation Studies
  • Situated Cognition
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Cognitive Linguistics
  • AVT (Translation Studies)
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Bilingualism and cognition
  • Cognitive Translatology
  • Translation and Interpreting
  • Writing Processes
  • Translation & Interpreting Studi...
  • Translation and Interpreting Stu...
  • Translation Process Research
  • Post editing
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved