Mental Models across Languages

The visual representation of baldness terms in German, English, and Japanese

| University of Bonn
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027201782 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027263230 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book presents a study that triangulates the meanings of expressions across English, German and Japanese via their perception-based conceptual representations. In an online experiment, native speakers of the three languages were asked to design visual representations of expressions referring to baldness phenomena. These sets of visualizations are used to determine conceptual overlap or distance between expressions in the three languages, resulting in lexical-conceptual 'maps' for MALE BALDNESS. The study is discussed against the background of an embodied, perceptual symbol-based understanding of linguistic meaning. A section of the book further applies this perspective to the issue of translation, developing a process model of translation based on the concept of cognitive equivalence.

The book presents a novel approach to lexical semantics from a cognitive linguistic perspective, tested through a methodologically innovative experiment. It is a compelling read to scholars in cognitive semantics, contrastive semantics, embodied cognition and cognitive translation studies.

[Human Cognitive Processing, 63]  2018.  xv, 328 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of figures
ix–xi
List of tables
xiii–xiv
Acknowledgments
xv
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–6
Chapter 2. Mental models, perceptual simulation, and the conceptual-linguistic interface
8–69
Chapter 3. Translation, equivalence, and lexical meaning
72–128
Chapter 4. Methodology
130–181
Chapter 5. Results*
184–297
Chapter 6. Conclusion
300–310
Bibliography
311–320
Appendix A. Basic data BT categories for each language
322–324
Appendix B. Detailed listing of the pre-study interviewees
Terms for index
References

Bibliography

Al-Hasnawi, A. R.
2007A cognitive approach to translating metaphors. Translation Journal 11(3), n. pag. Retrieved from http://​www​.bokorlang​.com​/journal​/41metaphor​.htm.
Ameel, E., & Storms, G.
2006From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 402–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. L.
2003Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 245–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D.
2003Why translation is difficult for computers. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (119–142). Benjamin’s Translations Library 35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2000On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (31–58). Topics in English Linguistics 30. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
2010Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
2002Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Representation, memory, and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler (1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 1177–1187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Situated conceptualization. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (619–650). St. Louis: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 364, 1281–1289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (239–258). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D.
2008Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. B.
2011Ealiest directly-dated human skull-cups. PLoS ONE 6(2).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.
2007Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (277–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Feldman, J.
2008Embodied concept learning. In P. Calvo, & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (313–331). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
1969Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Black, M.
1949Language and philosophy: Studies in method. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bolaños Cuéllar, S.
2002Equivalence revisited: A key concept in modern translation theory. Forma y Función, 15, 60–88.Google Scholar
Breuer, E. O.
2014First language versus foreign language: Fluency, errors and revision processes in foreign language academic writing. Dissertation, University of Bonn. URL: http://​nbn​-resolving​.de​/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5​-34803.
Brown, R. W., & Lenneberg, E. H.
1954A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49(3), 454–462.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P.
2002The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25(6), 657–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cangelosi, A., Bongard, J., Fischer, N. H., & Nolfi, S.
2015Embodied intelligence. In J. Kacprzyk, & W. Pedrycz (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence (697–714). Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C.
1965A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R.
2001Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1), 80–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
1996On similarity. Target 8(1), 159–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.
1998aBeing there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998bMagic words: How language augments human computation. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (162–183). Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3), 181–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L.
1984Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
2002Paradigmatic relations of inclusion and identity III: synonymy. In D. A. Cruse (Ed.), Lexikologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen (485–497). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W.
1997The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A.
1977A model of slips of the tongue. In R. J. Dipietro, & E. L. Blansitt (Eds.), The third LACUS forum 1976 (448–455). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Dennison, H., & Bergen, B. K.
2010Language-driven motor simulation is sensitive to social context. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (901–906). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
2006Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4), 491–534.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1985Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A.
2006From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A., & Narayanan, S.
2004Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1977Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1982Frame semantics. In T. L. S. of Korea (Ed.): Linguistics in the morning calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
1985Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
2006Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (373–400). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
1975The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Garcia, I.
2010Is machine translation ready yet? Target 22(1), 7–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
1994Varieties of lexical variation. In W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Euralex International Congress on Lexicography (78–84). Amsterdam (no publisher).Google Scholar
2006aIntroduction: A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (1–28). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 2006bCognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
1994The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
2005Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
2006Image schema: The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (239–268). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G.
1996Mind as computer: Birth of a metaphor. Creativity Research Journal 9(2&3), 131–144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P.
2002Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I.
2006Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S.
2008Translationsprozessforschung – Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., & Mees, I. M.
(Eds.) 2009Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Grice, P.
1975Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guarrera, M., Cardo, P., Arrigo, P., & Rebora, A. E.
2009Reliability of Hamilton-Norwood classification. International Journal of Trichology 1(2), 120–122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E. -A.
1989Translation and relevance. Dissertation, University College London. Retrieved from: http://​discovery​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/1317504​/1​/241978​.pdf.
1991Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L.
2014Reorienting translation studies: Cognitive approaches and the centrality of the translator. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (116–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. B.
1951Patterned loss of hair in man; Types and incidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 53(3), 709–728.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S.
2002Symbol grounding and the origin of language. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New directions (143–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heider, E. R.
1971“Focal” color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology 4(3), 447–455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic method: The case of Dani colour names. Man, 7, 448–466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hillmer, A. M., Hanneken, S., Ritzmann, S., Becker, T., Freudenberg, J., Brockschmidt, F. F., Flaquer, A., Freudenberg-Hua, Y., Rami, Abou J., Metzen, C., Heyn, U., Schweiger, N., Betz, R. C., Blaumeiser, B., Hampe, J., Schreiber, S., Schulze, T. G., Hennies, H. C., Schumacher, J., Propping, P., Ruzicka, T., Cichon, S., Wienker, T. F., Kruse, R., & Nöthen, M. M.
2005Genetic variation in the human androgen receptor gene is the major determinant of common early-onset androgenetic alopecia. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 77, 140–148.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N.
1987Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttärri, J.
1990Funktionskonstanz – eine Fiktion? In H. Salevsky (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung: Akten der ersten internationalen Konferenz Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung (66–74). Berlin: Humboldt Universität.Google Scholar
House, J.
1997Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2008Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualization and a third space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 7, 149–175.Google Scholar
Hubert, M., & Van der Veeken, S.
2008Outlier detection for skewed data. Journal of Chemometrics 22(3–4), (235–246).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, J.
2003Machine translation: General overview. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (501–511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivir, V.
1996A case for linguistics in translation theory. Target, 8, 149–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., Pei Yun Poh, R. & Paivio, A.
2013L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin – English bilinguals: A test of bilingual dual coding theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 383–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
1983Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2004The history of mental models. In K. Manktelow, & M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (179–212). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kade, O.
1968Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Probleme der Translation. In A. Neubert (Ed.), Grundlagen der Übersetzungswissenschaft (3–19). Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. K.
1978The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54(3), 610–646.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, V.
1999The computational metaphor of mind: More bugs in the program. Metaphor and Symbol 14(4), 281–292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E.
2013Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koller, W.
1979Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
1992Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 4th edition. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P.
2005Wege ins Labyrinth: Fragestellungen und Methoden der Übersetzungsprozessforschung im Überblick. Meta 50(2), 342–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B.
2008Culture, society, and cognition: Collective goals, values, action, and knowledge. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
1973The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. -J. N. Bailey, & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (340–373). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1986An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999Assessing the cognitive linguistics enterprise. In T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (13–60). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
1983Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
2010Re-conceptualization and the emergence of discourse meaning as a theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (105–148). Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Equivalence. In L. Bogucki, S. Gozdz-Roszkowski, & P. Stalmaszczyk (Eds.), Ways to translation (1–47). Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C.
1974Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1995Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malin, S.
2001Nature loves to hide: Quantum physics and reality, a Western perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ping, L., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E.
2015Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, N.
1996The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory. In M. Thelen, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning, part 3: Proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 2nd International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and meaning” (483–495). Maastricht: Universitaire Press.Google Scholar
1997Grammatical blending: Creative and schematic aspects in sentence processing and translation. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Retrieved from: http://​www​.cogsci​.ucsd​.edu​/~faucon​/NILI​/contents​.html.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E.
1981Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milikan, R. G.
2001The language-thought partnership: A bird’s eye view. Language & Communication, 21, 157–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M.
1975A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. W. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mira, J.
2008Symbols versus connections: 50 years of artificial intelligence. Neurocomputing, 71, 671–680.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muscarella, F., & Cunningham, M. R.
1996The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 17, 99–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, S.
2010Mind changes: A simulation semantics account of counterfactuals. Unpublished paper, 1–47. Retrieved from: http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~snarayan​/counterfactuals​.pdf.
Newmark, P.
1976The theory and the craft of translation. Language Teaching 9(1), 5–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. A.
1964Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill Archive.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R.
1969The theory and practice of translation. London, New York & Stuttgart: United Bible Societies.Google Scholar
Nord, C.
1989Loyalität statt Treue: Vorschläge für eine funktionale Übersetzungstypologie. Lebende Sprachen 34(3), 100–105.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Function plus loyalty: Ethics in professional translation. Génesis. Revista Científica do ISAG, 6, 7–17.Google Scholar
Norwood, O. T.
1975Male pattern baldness: Classification and incidence. Southern Medical Journal 68(11), 1359–1365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, A. G.
1960Automatic language translation: Lexical and technical aspects, with particular reference to Russian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A.
1989 [1923]The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. 8th edition. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
2009Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J.
1946La formation du symbole chez l’enfant: Imitation, jeu et rêve, image et représentation. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
1959The language and thought of the Child. 3rd edition. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, R., & Souza Bittencourt, R. de
2008An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer: From neurons to sociocultural situatedness. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (21–51). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.
1994Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik. München: Piper Verlag.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F.
1999Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pym, A.
1992Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1997Koller’s Äquivalenz revisited. The Translator 3(1), 71–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Western translation theories as responses to equivalence. Unpublished paper. N. pag. Retrieved from http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/translation​/2009​_paradigms​.pdf.
2010Exploring translation theories. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.
1960Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
2001What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
1979The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (284–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, K.
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J.
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Amsterdam: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, H.
2000Situated Translation und Situated Cognition: ungleiche Schwestern. In M. Kadric et al. (Eds.), Translationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag (81–91). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2013Cognitive linguistics and translation studies: Past, present and future. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (3–30). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
1973Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1998Categorization. In J. -O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
1975Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C.
2013Free will, determinism, quantum theory and statistical fluctuations: A physicist’s take. N. pag. Retrieved from http://​www​.edge​.org​/conversation​/free​-will​-determinism​-quantum​-theory​-and​-statistical​-fluctuations​-a​-physicists​-take.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J.
1986Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. I.
2009Semantics. 3rd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
1916Cours de linguistique générale publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne/Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. D. E.
1814Alte Literatur: Ueber die Farbengebung des Alterthümlichen in Verdeutschung alter klassischer Prosa. Die Musen, 102–120.Google Scholar
Schnelle, H.
2010Language in the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1980Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3), 417–457.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, J. A.
2000The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 23–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M.
1989Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W.
1949The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L.
2007The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass, 2, 338–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Embodied cognition. New Problems of Philosophy. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sickinger, P.
2012Mental models and linguistic cues: Investigating the interface between language and mental representation across cultures. 35th International LAUD Symposium: Cognitive psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, cognition and communication. Essen: LAUD, 125–146.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R., & Ferreira, V. S.
2006Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 515–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1973Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M.
1988Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 1986Übersetzungswissenschaft – eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L.
2003Machine translation: Latest developments. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (512–528). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D.
1996Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taheri-Ardali, M., Bagheri, M., & Eidy, R.
2013Towards a new model to metaphor translation: A cognitive approach. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies 11(41), 35–52.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000Toward a cognitive semantics 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
1995Linguistic categorization. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Prototyes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (39–65). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, R., Matassa, J., Leavy, J. E., & Fritschi, L.
2004Validity of self reported male balding patterns in epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health 4(60).Google Scholar
Thomas, J.
2005Androgenetic alopecia – current status. Indian Journal of Dermatology [serial online] 50(4), n. pag. [179–190]. Retrieved from: http://​www​.e​-ijd​.org​/text​.asp​?2005​/50​/4​/179​/19741.
Toury, G.
1995Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M., & Bergen, B.
2005Lexical processing drives motor simulation. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (2206–2211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W.
1983Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Venuti, L.
1998The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of the difference. London & New York: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, H. J.
1994Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft – Eine Neuorientierung (30–53). Tübingen: Franke Verlag.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. -P., & Darbelnet, J.
1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vincente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F.
2005Semantic underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language. Mind & Language 20(5), 537–558.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C. F.
1954Multiple stage translation. International Journal of American Liguistics, 20, 271–280.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B.
1956Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benhamin Lee Whorf. [Edited by J. B. Carroll]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1990The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 99–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W.
1982The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1990Cognitive aspects of the translation process. [Translated by Roger C. Norton]. Language & Communication, 10, 19–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Übersetzungsfertigkeit. Annäherungen an einen komplexen übersetzungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A.
2004The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
1998Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2), 162–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E.
2004Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H.
2002Research report: Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13(2), 168–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFD – Psycholinguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018034771 | Marc record