Cover not available
Article published In:
Developments in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Kairong Xiao and Sandra L. Halverson
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2] 2021
► pp. 307–327

Translation teams as cognitive systems

Archival material, cognitive artifacts, and group-level cognitive processes

ORCID logo | Stockholm University
This paper aims to bring research on different forms of group-level cognition into conversation with Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS), the focal point of the paper being cognitive processes in translation teams. It is argued that an analysis of cognition in translation teams, which exhibit the properties of a cognitive system, needs to be placed on group-level. A case study of a team, translating the Hebrew Bible Book of Psalms into Swedish in the 1980’s, is presented. The empirical base for the case study consists of archival material in the form of draft translations and paratexts. The methodological question is thus raised whether, and if so in what way, cognitive processes may be analyzed retrospectively, and not only from a real time perspective. By treating the archival material as cognitive artifacts which have constituted an integral part of the team’s cognitive process, the question is tentatively answered in a favourable way. This, it is finally argued, opens up interesting possibilities for joining CTS with translator archives research, Genetic Translation Studies (GTS), and cognitive archeology.
Keywords: cognitive translation studies, group-level cognition, cognitive archeology, archival material, genetic translation studies, translation teams, Bible translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Shared cognition, interaction, and group-level cognition
  • 3.Group-level cognition in translation teams
  • 4.The Hebrew Bible translation team. Reconstructing group-level cognition with the help of cognitive artifacts
  • 5.Case study: Group-level cognition in the team translation of Psalm 27
    • 5.1Source language expert text, with comments from the target language expert
    • 5.2Translation unit text
    • 5.3Translation team members’ comments on the translation unit text
    • 5.4Translation team text
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00080.ple
References (52)
References
Angelone, E. (2010). Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berneking, S. (2016). A sociology of translation and the central role of the translator. The Bible Translator, 67(3), 265–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (4th ed.). A. Alt et al. (Eds.) (1977). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Buzelin, H. (2007). Translations “in the making.” In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 135–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C., & Duran, J. (2011). Theoretical underpinning of interactive team cognition. In E. Salas (Ed.), Theories of team cognition. Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 187–207). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cordingley, A. (2020). Genetic criticism. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopaedia of translation studies (3rd ed.) (pp. 208–213). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cordingley, A., & Frigau Manning, C. (2017). What is collaborative translation? In A. Cordingley & C. Frigau Manning (Eds.), Collaborative translation. From the rennaissance to the digital age (pp. 1–30). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cordingley, A., & Montini, C. (2015). Genetic translation studies. An emerging discipline. In A. Cordingley & C. Montini (Guest Eds.), Towards a genetics of translation. Special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 141, 1–18.Google Scholar
De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2017). An ergonomic perspective of translation. In J. W. Schwieter, & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 332–349). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freiman, M. (2015). The art of drafting and revision: Extended mind in creative writing. New Writing, 12(1), 48–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallotti, M., & Frith, C. D. (2013). Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 160–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillmayr-Bucher, S. (2004). Body images in the Psalms. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 28(3), 301–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleick, J. (1993). Genius. Richard Feynman and modern physics. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Heersmink, R. (2013). A taxonomy of cognitive artifacts. Function, information, and categories. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 465–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, D. (2011). Post-Cartesian approaches to narrative and mind: A response to Alan Palmer’s target essay on “social minds”. Style, 45(2), 265–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivaska, L. & Paloposki, O. (2018). Attitudes towards indirect translation in Finland and translators’ strategies: Compilative and collaborative translation. Translation Studies, 11(1), 33–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., & Alves, F. (2020). Introduction. In A. L. Jakobsen & F. Alves (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 1–21). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolb, W. (2017). “It was on my mind all day.” Literary translators working from home. Some implications of workplace dynamics. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Miloševic (Guest Eds.), Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. Special issue of Translation Spaces, 6(1), 27–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, K. (2008). Translating institutions. An ethnographic study of EU translation. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based translation. A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Larson, J. R. & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. A theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MS: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Bringing things to mind. 4Es and material engagement. In A. Newen, L. De Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 755–773). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language Sciences, 29(5), 621–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. (2016). Reembedding translation process research: An introduction. In R. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (p. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
New Revised Standard Version. (1990). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, A., Moura, J., & Pacheco Pinto, M. (Eds.) (2020). Genetic translation studies. Conflict and collaboration in liminal spaces. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Palermos, S. O. (2016). The dynamics of group cognition. Minds and Machines, 26(4), 409–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paloposki, O. (2017). In search of an ordinary translator: Translator histories, working practices and translator–publisher relations in the light of archival documents. The Translator, 23(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Service Research, 34(5), 1189–1208.Google Scholar
Pleijel, R. (2018). Om Bibel 2000 och dess tillkomst. Konsensus och konflikt i översättningsprocessen inom Bibelkommissionens GT-enhet [‘The making of Bibel 2000: Consensus and conflict in the translation process within the Old Testament team of the Bible commission’]. Skellefteå: Artos & Norma.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.) (2010). The cognitive life of things. Recasting the boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.Google Scholar
Risku, H. (2014). Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI, 31, 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., & Rogl, R. (2020). Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition. In A. L. Jakobsen & F. Alves (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 478–499). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., Rogl, R., & Pein-Weber, C. (2016). Mutual dependencies: Centrality in translation networks. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 25(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Risku, H., & Windhager, F. (2013). Extended translation. A sociocognitive research agenda. Target, 25(1), 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M. (2014). Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 workshop on humans and computer-assisted translation (pp. 29–37). Stroudsbourg, PA: The Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2009). On collective cognition and language. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and cognition. Expressions of the social mind (pp. 163–180). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Solano-Flores, G., Backhoff, E., & Contreras-Niño, L-Á. (2009). Theory of test translation error. International Journal of Testing, 9(1), 78–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theiner, G. (2018). Groups as distributed cognitive systems. In M. Jankovic & K. Ludwig (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of collective intentionality (pp. 233–248). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Theiner, G., Allen, C., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Recognizing group cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(4), 378–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H. M., Dykema-Engblade, A. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2002). Shared cognition in small groups. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 1–30). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. (2002). Organizations as true believers. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(3), 395–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hulle, D. (2014). Modern manuscripts. The extended mind and creative undoing from Darwin to Beckett and beyond. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Archival sources
The Bible Commission’s archive. Riksarkivet, Landsarkivet in Uppsala (ULA), Sweden. Volumes ULA F 19:5:05, 10, 22, & 26.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Sannholm, Raphael & Hanna Risku
2024. Situated minds and distributed systems in translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 36:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Li
2024. The Diagnosis Model of Students’ Cognitive Level Based on Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Based Information Processing and Applications–Volume 1 [Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 196], ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Li, Ang
2023. 2023 International Conference on Data Science and Network Security (ICDSNS), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Korhonen, Annamari
2022. When and how to revise?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.