Chapter published in:
Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 367–398

On the reception of translations

Exploring the impact of typological differences on legal contexts

| Universidad de Murcia
| Universidad de Murcia
Three experiments are designed to test the effects that the loss of manner information may have on the translation of crime accounts. The first two experiments hypothesize that losing Manner in the Spanish translation of an English crime description will elicit a less severe judgment of the offense than that elicited by a translation that reproduces a higher degree of manner information. Results reveal significant differences between the two versions except for those cases that involve an extremely high degree of violence. The third experiment shifts the focus from reception to the product and process of translation, investigating what professional interpreters do when requested to interpret a crime account. General results from the three experiments suggest that manner information influences the audience’s judgments on the degree of criminal violence involved.
Keywords: degree of violence, Manner of motion, translation process, translation product
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.15roj
References

References

Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
2010 The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 331–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I.
1994 Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cifuentes-Férez, P., & Rojo, A.
2015 Thinking for translating: A think-aloud protocol on the translation of manner of motion verbs. Target, 27(2), 273–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C.
2010 Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar (201–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L.
2010 Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 175, 644–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, C., & Boroditsky, L.
2011 Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 150–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Cifuentes-Férez, P.
2013 Remembering how: language, memory and the salience of manner. Journal of Cognitive Science, 144, 379–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L.
1999 Language-specific expression of motion and its use in narrative texts. MPhil Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
2007a Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 142, 245–267.Google Scholar
2010a Thinking and speaking about motion: Universal vs. language‑ specific effects. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language. Proceedings of the Pisa international conference (235–248). Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
2010b Typology meets witness narratives and memory: Theory and practice entwined in cognitive linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: Theory to application and back (269–291). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: Bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 466–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013a Constructing causation in language and memory: implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20(1), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Typology as a continuum: Intratypological evidence from English and Serbo-Croatian. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (17–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Geva, S.
2012 Language-specific effects on lexicalization and memory of motion events. In L. Filipović, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time across languages and cultures. Language, culture and cognition (269–282). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2015 Motion. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton handbook of cognitive linguistics (526–545). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, T.
2002 Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2003 What translation tells us about motion: A contrastive study of typologically different languages. International Journal of English Studies, 32, 153–178.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Filipović, L.
2013 Lexicalisation patterns and translation. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (251–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., & Gennari, S. P.
2003 Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (81–111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Molés-Cases, T.
2016 La traducción de los eventos de movimiento en un corpus paralelo alemán-español de literatura infantil y juvenil. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L.
2002 Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: the representations of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1991 Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1, 7–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996a From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (195–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996b Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (195–220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1997 Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
2003 Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought (157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives in Translation (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2005 Narrating events in translation. In D. Ravid, & H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (115–129). Dordrecht: Kluver. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 What makes manner of motion salient? In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (59–82) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strömqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L.
(Eds.) 2004 Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and lexical descriptions. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 480–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000a Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000b Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A.
2010 Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 64–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trujillo, J.
2003 The difference in resulting judgments when descriptions use high-manner versus neutral-manner verbs. Senior Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto
2019. Translating accurately or sounding natural?. Pragmatics and Society 10:1 ► pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Molés-Cases, Teresa
2019. Why typology matters: a corpus-based study of explicitation and implicitation of Manner-of-motion in narrative texts. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 890 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.