From the black box to Cognitive Translation & Interpreting Studies, but still part of the original Descriptive Translation Studies (original) (raw)
Toward a Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies
We welcome theoretical papers on the methodological aspects/issues of CTIS and empirical studies comparing practices and theories of translation/interpreting in different societies and cultures. We welcome papers exploring both pros and cons of creating CTIS. We hope to address the following and similar questions: I. Is TIS mature enough as a discipline to undertake comparative studies? And also: Can TIS become mature enough without undertaking comparative studies? II. Is the insularity of translation/interpreting research—whether geographical or temporal—epistemologically problematic? Are comparative studies feasible/promising? III. What can the relationship between regional/case studies and more generalizing, comparative studies be? To what extent is W. H. Goodenough’s insistence on keeping ethnography and comparative sociology apart because an ethnographer is constructing a theory that will make intelligible what goes on in a particular social universe, while a comparatist is trying to find principles common to many different universes, mutatis mutandis, applicable to translation/interpreting studies? IV. Can chronotopically-specific studies help researchers fathom the generalizability of identified translational phenomena? Based on a comparison of time- and space-specific findings, can a typology of translation/interpreting be developed? What axes of the quest for types can be proposed or explored: different types of translation/interpreting praxis? different types of translation/interpreting descriptions and/or prescriptions, social and cultural representations, histories and historiographies, theories and conceptualizations of translation/interpreting? the roles assumed by or ascribed to translation/interpreting? V. What might the methodological and conceptual ‘nitty-gritty’ of CTIS look like?
Translation Studies (TS), the young academic discipline which has developed around research on translation and interpreting, spans a remarkably wide spectrum of approaches, theories and research methods. he present collection highlights the input of psycholinguistics and cognitive science to TS through a scrutiny of recent indings and current theories and research. Before presenting the contributions ofered in this volume, it is perhaps useful to recall some historical and contextual background to gain a better overall perspective and view of where and how they it in the wider framework of past and present TS.
The Development of Translation Studies as a Discipline – from Linguistics to Cognition
2011
We are reading repeatedly in many articles that Translation Studies (TS), i.e. research regarding the transference of texts into another language, were not yet a fully fledged discipline of its own. However, this opinion gets weaker the more publications are coming out in this area. No longer are studies on translation and interpreting only an appendix of language learning, rather they have grown into a special discipline. This is particularly true, if we don‟t define a discipline by the application of only one method of research, a so-called research paradigm. In TS a great variety of approaches and methods is visible, and they all are valid as they contribute to a better understanding of the complex problematic linked to translation.Whereas no unique research paradigm is yet given for TS, the subject of the studies is clear: translating written texts or interpreting spoken messages. But here, again, there is a variety of research objects: translation as a product (the finished tra...
27 Translation and cognitive science.PPT
The talk argues against the segmentation of translating by linguistics, anthropology, or philosophy, which has proved any of these disciplines alone to be an impediment to a comprehensive approach of translating. To mirror the complexity of translating, the talk shows translating to be multi-disciplinary par excellence. It seeks to highlight the inherent cognitive science dimensions of translating through disciplines such as cognitive linguistics, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and artificial intelligence to. To substantiate the claims made, the talk overly relies on the cognitive ability of metaphor and related topics such as idioms and proverbs.
Target, 2003
This Benjamins Translation Library 32nd volume is a selection of 25 papers presented at the 4th International Congress on Translation in Barcelona, 1998. The book is remarkable in several respects: thanks to the editors' meticulous efforts it brings well-written (and translated) articles arranged into four coherent sections; although the content is diverse, the focus of the book is on advances in empirical research in the late 1990s, accompanied by several theoretical articles and translators' reflections. With sixteen papers by Spanish contributors, this volume also includes a representative selection from state-of-the-art TS research in Spain -the European country with the highest number of T/I schools. The pace of advance in TS research is remarkable, and one cannot but agree with Gile's concluding assumption (p. 89) that Spain, so active in the late 90s, may now take the lead in TS research. Reports on three major Spanish projects related to T/I teaching and supported by the Spanish Ministry or universities are further evidence that the Spanish authorities have acknowledged the relationships between research and university training in our field (an achievement many countries still dream of) and that Spain has developed a strong human potential in TS research. An added value of the book is the representative nature of the articles on current TS research in Spain. Section I -"Investigating translation paradigms" -presents seven papers addressing diverse methodological aspects. While Eugene A. Nida, through his reflection and carefully chosen illustrative examples, brings the reader to the conclusion that the text on any level is culturally embedded and must be seen as such, Albrecht Neubert complements his personal reflections as a Leipzig teacher and scholar with a historiographic account of the development of the discipline and its institutionalization in Europe since the 1960s. The path from the linguistic to the interdisciplinary paradigm, as he concludes, has not