Translation Teaching and Cognitive Linguistics

• Authors: Baaziz Termina

Abstracts

EN

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.

Keywords

EN

translation teaching; cognitive linguistics; conceptual system

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 173-203

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Baaziz Termina

• Mohammed V University of Rabat, Morocco

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.
• Barsalou, Lawrence, W. 2003b. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes,18, 513–562.
• Brislin, Richard, W. 1970. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1. 185-216.
• 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.
• Cienki, Alan. 2010. Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens.
• 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.
• Clausner, Timothy C, Croft, William. 1999. Cognitive Linguistics 10 (1). 1-31.
• Coulson, Seana and Teenie, Matlock. 2009. Cognitive science. In S. Dominiek, J. O. Östman and J. Verschueren, Cognition and Pragmatics (ed.), 86–109.
• Cronin, Michael. 2006. Translation and Identity. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
• Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press UK
• De Groot, Annette M.B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. New York and Hove: Psychology Press.
• Ellis, Nick C. et al 2008. Formulaic Language in Native and. Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL.TESOL QUARTERLY 42 (3).
• 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.
• Evans. Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities.Basic Books.
• Feldman, Jerome, A. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural theory of Language. MIT Press.
• 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.
• Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-254.
• Gee, James P. 2010. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Taylor & Francis
• Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press. Clara Molina, Universidad Autónoma.
• Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• 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.
• Hejwowski, Krzysztof. 2004. Translation: a cognitive-communicative approach. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej,
• Holmes, Games S. 1988. Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Rodopi, Amsterdam.
• Kiraly, Donald C. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent State University Press.
• Kitis. Eliza. 2009. The pragmatic infrastructure of translation. Traduçãoe Comunicação. Revista Brasileira de Tradutores 18.
• Königs, Frank. G. 1987. Was beim Übersetzen passiert; Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die neueren Sprachen, 2, 162-185.
• Krüger, Ralph. 2013. A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on Explicitation and Implicitation in Scientific and Technical Translation. trans-kom, Vol. 6, 285-314
• 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.
• Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1993. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge University Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Lakoff, George., & Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
• Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
• Langacker, Ronald. W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1-40.
• Langacker, Ronald. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, Ronald. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In: Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI, 1-63.
• Langacker, Ronald. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Rojo López, Ana M. (2002). Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example. Meta, 47(3), 312–350. https://doi.org/10.7202/008018ar
• McClelland, James L. 2013a. Integrating probabilistic models of perception and interactive neural networks: A historical and tutorial review. Frontiers in Psychology.
• McElhanon, Kenneth A. 2005. From word to scenario: the influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation. Journal of Translation, 1(3), 29-67.
• Nida, Eugene A. 1975b. Exploring semantic structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• Risku, H et al. 2013. A dynamic network model of translatorial cognition and action. Translation Spaces, 2, 151–182.
• Rojo López, A. 2002. Applying Frame Semantics to Translation: A Practical Example. Meta, 47(3), 312–350.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.
• Shannon, Claud. E. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3).
• 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
• Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive-Approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Termina, Baaziz. 2018. Semantic Uncertainty and Cognitive Noise. مجلة أبحاث لسانية. 11. 10.37257/1360-000-034-009.
• Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Turocy, Theodore L. and Bernhard von Stengel. 2001. Game Theory. CDAM Research Report LSE- CDAM- 2001-09.
• 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.
• Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London; New York: Routledge.
• Zwaan, R. 2004. Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611-619.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.04

Biblioteka Nauki

1368399