1887
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Despite Cognitive Translation Studies’ (CTS) interest in didactic applications, the actual impact of research on training programs has been modest in comparison with the advances made in terms of methodology, theoretical sophistication and expansion of the object of study. It is argued that the modest impact of CTS on training originates, on the one hand, in an epistemological problem – one of mild incommensurability – and, on the other, on the difficulty of developing realistic cognitive task models. Adopting constructs and models in CTS and didactics that share an embodied, extended view on cognition may contribute to fitting empirical data and describing skill development. To that end, a sketch of a template to develop translation task models is presented for discussion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00086.gar
2021-11-22
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, F., & Gonçalves, J. L. V. R.
    (2007) Modelling translator’s competence: Relevance and expertise under scrutiny. In: Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (ed.). Translation Studies: Doubts and directions, (pp.41–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.72.07alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.07alv [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelone, E.
    (2018) Reconceptualizing problems in translation using triangulated process and product data. InI. Lacruz & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Innovation and expansion in translation process research (pp.17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.18.02ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.18.02ang [Google Scholar]
  3. Angelone, E., & Marín García, A.
    (2017) Expertise acquisition through deliberate practice: Gauging perceptions and behaviors of translators and project managers. Translation Spaces, 6(1), 122–158. 10.1075/ts.6.1.07ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.07ang [Google Scholar]
  4. Arevalillo, J. J.
    (2020) El perfil del traductor especializado desde los ámbitos profesional y académico: retos, expectativas y el proyecto eTransfair. InS. Álvarez Álvarez & M. T. Ortego Antón (Eds.), Perfiles estratégicos de traductores e intérpretes (pp.5–26). Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baggs, E., & Chemero, A.
    (2018) Radical embodiment in two directions. Synthese, 1–16. 10.1007/s11229‑018‑02020‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02020-9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baggs, E., Raja, V., & Anderson, M. L.
    (2020) Extended Skill Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1956. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01956
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01956 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeby, A.
    (2000) “Choosing an Empirical-Experimental Model for Investigating Translation Competence: The PACTE Model,” Maeve Olohan (ed.). Intercultural faultlines: Research models in translation studies I textual and cognitive aspects (pp.43–55). Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumczynski, P., & Hassani, G.
    (2019) Towards a meta-theoretical model for translation. Target, 31(3), 328–351. 10.1075/target.17031.blu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17031.blu [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, S.
    (1991) Towards a model of translation competence. Meta, (36)2/3, 329–343. 10.7202/002190ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002190ar [Google Scholar]
  10. Chemero, A.
    (2011) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cnyrim, A., Hagemann, S., & Neu, J.
    (2013) Towards a framework of reference for translation competence. New Prospects and Perspectives for Educating Language Mediators. Translationswissenschaft, 10, 9–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Colina, S.
    (2003) Translation teaching, from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers. McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Heeb, A. H.
    (2016) Investigating the ergonomics of the technologized translation workplace. InR. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (pp.69–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.04ehr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.04ehr [Google Scholar]
  14. Ericsson, K. A.
    (1996) The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues. InK. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to Excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports and games (pp.1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N.
    (1997) Cognitive and developmental factors in expert performance. InP. Feltovich, M. Ford, and R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in Context: Human and Machine (pp.3-41). Cambridge, MA: The MIt Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C.
    (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363. 10.1037/0033‑295X.100.3.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 [Google Scholar]
  17. EUATC (European Union of Associations of Translation Companies)
    EUATC (European Union of Associations of Translation Companies) (2019) Language industry survey – Expectations and concerns of the European language industry. Available athttps://www.euatc.org/images/2019-Language-Industry-Survey-Report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Feyerabend, P.
    (1975/2010) Against method. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Friedlander, K. J., & Fine, P. A.
    (2016) The grounded expertise components approach in the novel area of cryptic crossword solving. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 567. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00567
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00567 [Google Scholar]
  20. Galán-Mañas, A., & López García, P.
    (2020) Las competencias transversales en el mercado de la traducción. InS. Álvarez Álvarez & T. Ortego Antón (Eds.) Perfiles estratégicos de traductores e intérpretes (pp.27–42). Granada: Editorial Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibson, J. J.
    (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gile, D.
    (2017) The Effort Model Clarifications. Presentation. doi:  10.13140/RG.2.2.21975.27049, [Last visited on20th February 2021 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313774322_The_Effort_Models_Clarifications]
    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21975.27049 [Google Scholar]
  23. González Davies, M.
    (2004) Multiple voices in the translation classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.54 [Google Scholar]
  24. Göpferich, S.
    (2008) Translationsprozessforschung [Translation Process Research]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp. InS. Göpfeirch, A. L. Jackobsen & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research (pp.11–37). Copenhagen: Samfundslitterature Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Halverson, S. L.
    (2013) Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies. InA. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp.33–74). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2015) Cognitive TS and the merging of empirical paradigms: The case of ‘literal translation’. Translation Spaces, 4(2), 310–40. 10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) ‘Default’ translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 187–210. 10.1075/tcb.00023.hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00023.hal [Google Scholar]
  29. Hambrick, D. Z., Macnamara, B. N., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2020) Is the deliberate practice view defensible? A review of evidence and discussion of issues. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1134. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01134
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01134 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansen-Schirra, S., Hofmann, S., & Nitzke, J.
    (2018) Acquisition of generic competencies through project simulation in translation studies. InO. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, G. Wittum & A. Dengel (Eds.), Positive learning in the age of information (pp.267–280). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑19567‑0_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_16 [Google Scholar]
  31. Holz-Mänttäri, J.
    (1984) Translatorisches handeln. Theorie und methode. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hubscher-Davidson, S.
    (2011) A discussion of ethnographic research methods and their relevance for translation process research. Across Languages and Cultures, 12(1), 1–18. 10.1556/Acr.12.2011.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hurtado Albir, Amparo
    (2018) Training. InL. D’hulst & Y. Gambier (Eds.), A history of modern translation knowledge: Sources, concepts, effects (Vol.142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.142.59hur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.142.59hur [Google Scholar]
  34. Inoue, I., & Candlin, C. N.
    (2015) Applying task-based learning to translator education: Assisting the development of novice translators’ problem-solving expertise. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(1), 58–86. 10.1075/tis.10.1.04ino
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.1.04ino [Google Scholar]
  35. Kelly, D.
    (2005) A handbook for translator trainers. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kiraly, D.
    (2000) A Social constructivist approach to translator education. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kiraly, D. C.
    (2015) Occasioning translator competence: Moving beyond social constructivism toward a postmodern alternative to instructionism. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(1), 8–32. 10.1075/tis.10.1.02kir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.1.02kir [Google Scholar]
  38. Kussmaul, P.
    (1995) Training the translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.10 [Google Scholar]
  39. Latour, B.
    (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Laudan, L.
    (1978) Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, C.
    (2013) A quantitative enquiry into the translator’s job-related happiness: Does visibility correlate with happiness?Across Languages and Cultures, 14(1), 123–147. 10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.14.2013.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Marais, K.
    (2012) Translation theory and development studies: A complexity theory approach. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Marín García, A.
    (2019) The opportunities of epistemic pluralism for Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 165–185. 10.1075/tcb.00021.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00021.mar [Google Scholar]
  44. (in press). Against coherence: Intradisciplinary dialogues in Translation and Interpreting Studies. InG. Silva & M. Radicioni Eds. Recharting territories: Intradisciplinarity in translation studies. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J.
    (1980) Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living, 42, 59–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mellinger, C. D.
    (2019) Metacognition and self-assessment in specialized translation education: Task awareness and metacognitive bundling. Perspectives, 27(4), 604-621. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1566390
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1566390 [Google Scholar]
  47. Muñoz Martín, R.
    (2010) On paradigms and Cognitive Translatology. InG. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp.169–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun [Google Scholar]
  48. (2014a) A blurred snapshot of advances in translation process research. InR. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Minding Translation (Special issue No. 1 of MonTI), 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2014b) Situating translation expertise: A review with a sketch of a construct. InJ. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp.2–56). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Reembedding translation process research: An introduction. InR. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.01mun [Google Scholar]
  51. PACTE
    PACTE (2003) Researching translation competence by PACTE group. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. PACTE
    PACTE (2005) Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta, 50(2), 0609–619. 10.7202/011004ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011004ar [Google Scholar]
  53. Pym, A.
    (2003) Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: In defence of a minimalist approach. Meta, 48(4), 481–97. 10.7202/008533ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008533ar [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) Training translators. InK. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies (pp.475–485). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rico, C.
    (2010) Translator training in the European higher education area: Curriculum design for the Bologna Process. A case study. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 4(1), 89–114. 10.1080/1750399X.2010.10798798
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2010.10798798 [Google Scholar]
  56. Risku, H.
    (2002) Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 523–533. 10.1016/S1389‑0417(02)00055‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2010) A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference?Target, 22(1), 94–111. 10.1075/target.22.1.06ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris [Google Scholar]
  58. Risku, H., Rogl, R., & Milosevic, J.
    (2017) Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. Translation Spaces, 6(1), 3–26. 10.1075/ts.6.1.01ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.01ris [Google Scholar]
  59. Schäffner, C., & Adab, B.
    (Eds.) (2000) Developing translation competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.38
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.38 [Google Scholar]
  60. Seeber, K.
    (2013) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods. Target, 25(1), 18–32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  61. Shapiro, L. A.
    (2012) Embodied Cognition. InE. Margolis & S. Stich (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp.118–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195309799.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195309799.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  62. Shreve, G. M.
    (2002) Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies. InA. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline (pp.150–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2006) The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. Journal of Translation Studies, 9(1), 27–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Shreve, G. M., & Angelone, E.
    (2010) Translation and cognition: Recent developments. Translation and cognition (pp.1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.01shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.01shr [Google Scholar]
  65. Shreve, G. M., Angelone, E., & Lacruz, I.
    (2018) Are expertise and translation competence the same?InI. Lacruz & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Innovation and expansion in translation process research (pp.37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.18.03shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.18.03shr [Google Scholar]
  66. Teixeira, C. S., & O’Brien, S.
    (2017) Investigating the cognitive ergonomic aspects of translation tools in a workplace setting. Translation Spaces, 6(1), 79–103. 10.1075/ts.6.1.05tei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.05tei [Google Scholar]
  67. Ullen, F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Mosing, M. A.
    (2016) Rethinking expertise: A multifactorial gene–environment interaction model of expert performance. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 427–446. 10.1037/bul0000033
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000033 [Google Scholar]
  68. Von Uexküll, J.
    (1934/1992) A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: a picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4):319–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Whitehead, A. N.
    (1929) The aims of education and other essays. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Wilss, W.
    (1976) Perspectives and limitations of a didactic framework for the teaching of translation. InR. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation applications and research (pp.117–137). New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhu, L.
    (2018) An embodied cognition perspective on translation education: Philosophy and pedagogy. Perspectives, 26(1), 135–151. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1328449
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1328449 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00086.gar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00086.gar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): incommensurability; task model; translator training; unwelt, affordances
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error