Translation Teaching and Cognitive Linguistics

Authors

  • Baaziz Termina Mohammed V University of Rabat, Morocco

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.04

Keywords:

translation teaching, cognitive linguistics, conceptual system

Abstract

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

2020-06-30

How to Cite

Termina, B. (2020). Translation Teaching and Cognitive Linguistics. Research in Language, 18(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.04

Issue

Section

Articles