Bridging the epistemological gap

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. Göpferich, S.
    (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. Halverson, S. L.
    (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. Halverson, S. L.
    (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. Marín García, A.
    (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. Muñoz Martín, R.
    (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. Muñoz Martín, R.
    (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. Muñoz Martín, R.
    (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. Pym, A.
    (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. 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. 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. Shreve, G. M.
    (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]