Translation Teaching and Cognitive Linguistics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.04Keywords:
translation teaching, cognitive linguistics, conceptual systemAbstract
This paper is mainly concerned with the implications of cognitive linguistics for translation teaching and pedagogy. It sets out to succinctly chart some presumed shortcomings of replacement-based pedagogical methods that have long been centred around linear mechanical substitution of linguistic signs and patterns. Replacement approach, the paper argues, falls short of reinforcing what it takes to be the conceptual competence. In this connection, we account for our main assumption that translation teaching should be based on a sound theoretical footing that takes the conceptual system and the frames, or other structuring entities, populating it on board. Experimentally focusing on the conceptual system, cognitive linguistics’ framework, we contend building on some relevant literature, provides a wide range of far reaching procedural models conductive to the innovation of translation pedagogy and practice. The examples investigated in the paper reveal that translation teaching may be more prolific if it is equally based on such models, which inform our understanding of textual lexico-semantic units in terms of their surface functioning as prompts serving for dynamically constructing semantic-conceptual equivalence.
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E.F. (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 21-74.
Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence, W. 2003b. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes,18, 513–562.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000026
Brislin, Richard, W. 1970. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1. 185-216.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. In B. Joseph and R. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics; 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
Cienki, Alan. 2010. Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0007
Christoffels, Ingrid K and De Groot, Annette M.B. 2005. Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In J. Kroll and A. M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. 454–479. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Clausner, Timothy C, Croft, William. 1999. Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1). 1-31.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001
Coulson, Seana and Teenie, Matlock. 2009. Cognitive science. In S. Dominiek, J. O. Östman and J. Verschueren, Cognition and Pragmatics (ed.), 86–109.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.3.06cou
Cronin, Michael. 2006. Translation and Identity. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015698
Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press UK
Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M.B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. New York and Hove: Psychology Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841228
Ellis, Nick C. et al 2008. Formulaic Language in Native and. Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL.TESOL QUARTERLY 42 (3).
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x
Evans, Vyvyan et al. 2007. The Cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview. In V Evans, B Bergen and J Zinken (eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader. Advances in cognitive linguistics, Equinox Publishing Ltd, London, 2-36.
Google Scholar
Evans. Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.003.0007
Faber, Pamela B. 2009. The cognitive shift in terminology and specialized translation. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, MonTI. 1. 10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.5.
Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities.Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Feldman, Jerome, A. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural theory of Language. MIT Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Linguistics Structures Processing, ed. by Antonio ZampolliAmsterdam and New York: North Holland Publishing Company? 55-81.
Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
Google Scholar
Gee, James P. 2010. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Taylor & Francis
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press. Clara Molina, Universidad Autónoma.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L. 2014. Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator. In: J. House (ed.), Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics. Palgrave.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025487_7
Hejwowski, Krzysztof. 2004. Translation: a cognitive-communicative approach. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej,
Google Scholar
Holmes, Games S. 1988. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Rodopi, Amsterdam.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004486669
Kiraly, Donald C. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent State University Press.
Google Scholar
Kitis. Eliza. 2009. The pragmatic infrastructure of translation. Traduçãoe Comunicação. Revista Brasileira de Tradutores 18.
Google Scholar
Königs, Frank. G. 1987. Was beim Übersetzen passiert; Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die neueren Sprachen, 2, 162-185.
Google Scholar
Krüger, Ralph. 2013. A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on Explicitation and Implicitation in Scientific and Technical Translation. trans-kom, Vol. 6, 285-314
Google Scholar
Kwon, Hazel, K., et al. 2009. Assessing cultural differences in translations : A semantic network analysis of the universal declaration of human rights. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(2). 107-138.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17513050902759488
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
Lakoff, George. 1993. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Google Scholar
Lakoff, George., & Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1-40.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
Langacker, Ronald. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In: Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI, 1-63.
Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
MacWhinney, Brian. 1997 Second language acquisition and the competition model. In De Groot, A. M. B., and Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: psycholinguistic perspectives, 113-142.
Google Scholar
Rojo López, Ana M. (2002). Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example. Meta, 47(3), 312–350. https://doi.org/10.7202/008018ar
Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. 2013a. Integrating probabilistic models of perception and interactive neural networks: A historical and tutorial review. Frontiers in Psychology.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00503
McElhanon, Kenneth A. 2005. From word to scenario: the influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation. Journal of Translation, 1(3), 29-67.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-mm6ek
Nida, Eugene A. 1975b. Exploring semantic structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: implications for bilingualism. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of Second Languages. 393-419. London: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Prigogine Ilya, Nicolis, Gregoire. 1985. Self-Organisation in Nonequilibrium Systems: Towards A Dynamics of Complexity. In: Hazewinkel M., Jurkovich R., Paelinck J.H.P. (eds) Bifurcation Analysis. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6239-2_1
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6239-2_1
Risku, H. 2010. A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference?” Target 22 (1). 94–111.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris
Risku, H et al. 2013. A dynamic network model of translatorial cognition and action. Translation Spaces, 2, 151–182.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.2.08ris
Rojo López, A. 2002. Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example. Meta, 47(3), 312–350.https://doi.org/10.7202/008018ar.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/008018ar
Sickinger. Pawel. 2017. Aiming for Cognitive Equivalence – Mental Models as a Tertium Comparationis for Translation and Empirical Semantics. Research in Language, 15(2). 213-236.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0013
Shannon, Claud. E. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3).
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2005. Of catfish and blue bananas: scenes-and-frames semantics as a contrastive ‘knowledge system’ for translation.’ In: DAM, V.; ENGBERG, J.; GERZYMISCH-ARGBOGAST, H. (eds.) Knowledge systems and translation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 193-206
Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive-Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3
Termina, Baaziz. 2018. Semantic Uncertainty and Cognitive Noise. مجلة أبحاث لسانية. 11. 10.37257/1360-000-034-009.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37257/1360-000-034-009
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. John Benjamins Publishing.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4
Turocy, Theodore L. and Bernhard von Stengel. 2001. Game Theory. CDAM Research Report LSE- CDAM- 2001-09.
Google Scholar
Vannerem, Mia and Snell-Hornby, Mary.1986. Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘Scenes-and-frames semantics’ in der Übersetzung. In M. Snell-Hornby (ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft: eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis, 184-205. Vienna: WUV-Universitätsverlag.
Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London; New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. 2004. Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611-619.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2804_5
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.