Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



As the object of study of Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS) expands to encompass social and cultural aspects of multilingual communicative events, scholars face the challenge of combining research methods and analytical perspectives to investigate cognitive phenomena. While plurality has been so far considered transitory, eventually converging on a unified theory of translation, I propose to adopt a functional assessment framework for competing models in order to endorse epistemic pluralism. The development of cognitive translatology as an emergent tradition combining multifarious approaches presents a new epistemological landscape in which epistemic pluralism can be embraced, fostered and practiced for the benefit of producing new knowledge. Far from being a relativist stance defending that all systems of knowledge are equally useful or appropriate, pluralism entails an assessment framework, which I introduce, so that we can improve our empirical designs and streamline our theoretical frameworks.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alves, Fabio
    2003Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 “Translation Process Research at the Interface: Paradigmatic, theoretical, and methodological issues in dialogue with Cognitive Science, Expertise Studies, and Psycholinguistics.” InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Edited byA. Ferreira and J. Schwieter, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves, Fabio, and Amparo Hurtado Albir
    2017 “Evolution, Challenges, and Perspectives for Research on Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 537–554. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  4. Angelone, Erik , Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Gary Massey
    2015 “Cognitive processes.” InResearching Translation and Interpreting. Edited by B. Baer and C. Angelelli , 61–75. Manchester: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackburn, Simon
    2016Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd Ed.Online version. Last accessed5 October 2018. 10.1093/acref/9780198735304.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198735304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell, Stuart
    1991 “Towards a Model of Translation Competence.” Meta36 (2–3): 329–343. 10.7202/002190ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002190ar [Google Scholar]
  7. Chang, Hasok
    2012Is water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3932‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3932-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chesterman, Andrew
    1993 “From ‘is’ to ‘ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies.” Target5 (1): 1–20. 10.1075/target.5.1.02che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.5.1.02che [Google Scholar]
  9. Coliva, Annalisa, and Nikolai J. L. L. Pedersen
    eds. 2017Epistemic Pluralism. Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑65460‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65460-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dancette, Jeanne , and Nathan Ménard
    1996 “Modèles empiriques et expérimentaux en traductologie: Question d’épistémologie.” Meta41 (1): 139–156. 10.7202/002448ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002448ar [Google Scholar]
  11. Duhem, P.
    1954The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Trans. Ph. P. Wiener . Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1119/1.1933818
    https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1933818 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ericsson, Karl Anders
    1996 “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to some of the Issues.” InThe Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games. Edited by K. A. Ericsson , 1–50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gallie, Walter Bryce
    1955 “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society56: 167–198. 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gambier, Yves
    2006 “Pour une socio-traduction.” InTranslation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Edited by J. F. Duarte , A. A. Rosa and T. Seruya , 29–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.68.04gam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.68.04gam [Google Scholar]
  15. Halverson, Sandra Louise
    2010 “Cognitive TS: Developments in Theory and Method.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited byG. Shreve and E. Angelone, 349–369. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.18hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.18hal [Google Scholar]
  16. Halverson, Sandra Louise
    2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for TS.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications. Edited by A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxe , 33–74. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The Case of ‘Literal Translation.” Translation Spaces4 (2): 310–340. 10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Multimethod Approaches.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. Schwieter and A. Ferreira , 95–212. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  19. Holmes, James
    1988Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
    1984Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Horst, Stephen
    2016Cognitive Pluralism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jääskeläinen, Riitta
    2010 “Are All Professionals Experts?” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone , 213–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.12jaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.12jaa [Google Scholar]
  23. Kellert, Stephen , Helen Longino and Kenneth Waters
    eds. 2006Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuhn, Thomas
    1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1970 “Reflections on My Critics.” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave , 231–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1977The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays 1970–1993 with an Autibiographical Interview. Edited by J. Conant and J. Haugeland . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakatos, Imre
    1970 “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” InCriticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave , 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Laudan, Larry
    1977Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1984Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Longino, Helen
    2002The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691187013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691187013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malmkjær, Kirsten
    2000 “Multidisciplinarity in Process Research.” InTriangulating Translation. Edited by F. Alves , 163–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martín Ruano, Rosario
    2006 “Conciliation of Disciplines and Paradigms.” InTranslation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Edited by J. F. Duarte , A. A. Rosa and T. Seruya , 43–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.68.05mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.68.05mar [Google Scholar]
  35. Mayoral Asensio, Roberto
    2001 “Por una renovación en la formación de traductores e intérpretes: Revisión de algunos de los conceptos sobre los que basa el actual sistema su estructura y contenidos.” Sendebar12: 311–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mees, Inger M. , Susanne Göpferich and Fabio Alves
    eds. 2009Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. Copenhaguen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mill, John Stuart
    1859On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son. Print. Reprintedited by G. Himmelfarb , Harmondsworth: Penguin 1974, 1982.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mulkay, Michael
    1975 “Three Models of Scientific Development.” The Sociological Review23 (3): 509–526. 10.1111/j.1467‑954X.1975.tb02231.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1975.tb02231.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2009 “Typos & Co.” InBehind the Mind. Edited by S. Göpferich , A. L. Jakobsen and I. Mees , 167. Copenhaguen: Samsfundliterattur.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2010 “Leave no Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies5 (2): 145–162. 10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010a “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone , 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun [Google Scholar]
  42. 2013 “Cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies. Edited by C. Millán & C. Bartrina , 241–256. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” InMinding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz , 1–14. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. MonTI special issue 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2014b “Situating Translation Expertise: A Review with a Sketch of a Construct.” InThe Development of Translation Competence. Edited by J. Schwieter and A. Ferreira , 2–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016 “Of Minds and Men—Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2): 351–381. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0013 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2016a “Processes of What Models?: On the cognitive indivisibility of translation acts and events.” Translation Spaces5 (1): 145–161. 10.1075/ts.5.1.08mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.1.08mun [Google Scholar]
  47. 2016bReembedding Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128 [Google Scholar]
  48. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2017 “Looking at the Future of Cognitive TS.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 555–572. Hoboken NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch30
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  49. Neunzig, Wilhelm
    2002 “Estudios empíricos en traducción: apuntes metodológicos.” Cadernos de Traduçao2 (10): 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Brien, Sharon
    2013 “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” Target25 (1): 5–17. 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr [Google Scholar]
  51. PACTE
    PACTE 2003 “Building a Translation Competence Model.” InTriangulating Translation. Edited by F. Alves , 43–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  52. Peirce, Charles
    1877 “The Fixation of Believe.” Popular Science Monthly12: 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pym, Anthony
    2003 “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach.” Meta48 (4): 481–49. 10.7202/008533ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008533ar [Google Scholar]
  54. Quine, W. V. O.
    1953From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Risku, Hannah
    2014 “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From Mental to Socio-cognitive Processes.” InMinding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz , 331–353. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. MonTI special issue 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sellars, Wilfrid
    1963 “Abstract Entities.” The Review of Metaphysics1: 627–671.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Shreve, Gregory Monroe
    1997 “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Edited by J. Danks , G. M. Shreve , S. B. Fountain and M. McBeath , 120–136. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 1997b “Prolegomenon to an Empirical Translation Studies.” InModelle der Translation: Festschrift für Albrecht Neubert. Edited by Gerd Wotjak and Heide Schmidt , 41–58. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. 10.31819/9783964567468‑004
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783964567468-004 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2002 “Knowing Translation: Cognitive and Experiential Aspects of Translation Expertise from the Perspective of Expertise Studies.” Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Edited A. Riccardi , 150–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2018 “Levels of Explanation and Translation Expertise.” Hermes57: 97–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Shreve, Gregory Monroe , and Erik Angelone
    2010 “Translation and Cognition: Recent Developments.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone , 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.01shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.01shr [Google Scholar]
  62. Shreve, Gregory Monroe , and Bruce J. Diamond
    2016 “Cognitive Neurosciences and Cognitive Translation Studies.” InBorder Crossings: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines. Edited by Y. Gambier and L. Van Doorslaer , 141–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.126.07shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.126.07shr [Google Scholar]
  63. Shreve, Gregory Monroe , and Isabel Lacruz
    2017 “Aspects of a Cognitive Model of Translation.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. Schwieter and A. Ferreira , 127–143. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  64. Toulmin, Stephen
    1970 “Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited byI. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 49–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  65. Whewell, William
    1840History of the Inductive Sciences. London: John W. Parker & Son.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wilss, Wolfram
    1976 “Perspectives and Limitations of a Didactic Framework for the Teaching of Translation.” InTranslation Applications and Research. Edited by R. Brislin , 117–137. New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wimsatt, William
    2007Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
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