Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 22:2 (2010) ► pp.177–193

Cognates as lexical choices in translation

Interference in space-constrained environments

| Universidad de Granada
This article approaches the issue of lexical choices in translation that result from the presence of cognates. It analyzes methodological issues regarding cognate production in translation tasks carried out in technical contexts. Specifically, we studied the presence of cognates as a lexical manifestation of interference (Toury 1995), concentrating on cognates as part of phraseological and terminological units. We report on empirical data on cognate production by advanced students of translation working from English into Spanish in reduced-segments and space-constrained contexts. Additionally, we studied advanced learners of Spanish’s production in an experimental task.
Keywords: cognates, corpus use, interference, lexical choices, space-constrained translation contexts, languages in contact.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The study
    • 2.1Production of cognates by students of translation
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Taskandpresentation
      • 2.1.3Results and discussion
    • 2.2Production of cognates by advanced learners of Spanish
      • 2.2.1Participants
      • 2.2.2Stimuli and presentation
      • 2.2.3Results and discussion
  • 3.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 January 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.2.01ter
References (35)
References
Colina, Sonia. 1999. “Transfer and unwarranted transcoding in the acquisition of translational competence: An empirical investigation”. In Translation andthe (Re)location of meaning. Selectedpapers of the CETRA research seminars in Translation studies. Leuven, Belgium. CETRA. 375-391.Google Scholar
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available at: [URL]
Costa, Albert; Caramazza, Alfonso; Sebastián Galles Nuria. 2000. “The Cognate Facilitation Effect: Implications for models of lexical access”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2000, vol. 26, n 5. 1283–1296Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M.B., andNas, Gerard L.J. 1991. “Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals”. Journal of Memory and Language, 301. 90–123.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz Cintas, Jorge and Remael, Aline. 2007. Audiovisualtranslation: subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2005. “Segmentation in translation. Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty”. Target 17–1. 49–70.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2005. “Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view”. Godijns, R. and M. Hinderdael, eds. Directionality in interpreting. The ‘Retour’ or the Native? Ghent: Communication and Cognition. 9–26.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne and Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2009. “Process research into the development of translation competence: where are we, and where do we need to go?” Across languages and cultures 10–2. 169–191.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 2003. “English as Lingua Franca and its influence on discourse norms in other languages”. Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, eds. Translationtoday: trends and per-spectives. Bristol: Multilingual matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1991. “Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol study”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Narr. 89–109.Google Scholar
Jiménez Crespo, Miguel Ángel. 2008. El proceso de localización web: estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del género sitio web corporativo. Doctoral dissertation, unpublished. Granada: University of Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Ángel Jiménez Crespo Miguel and Maribel Tercedor. In Press. “Applying corpus data to define needs in web localization training”. To appear in Meta.
Kirsner, K., Smith, M.C., Lockart, R.S., King, M.L. & Jain, M. 1984. “The bilingual Lexicon: Language-specific units in an integrated network”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 231. 519–539.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kondo, Masaomi. 2003. “3-Party 2-language model of Interpreting revisited”. Forum, 11. 77–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F. and Stewart, Erika. 1994. “Category interference in Translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations”. Journal of Memory and Language 331. 149–74.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1995. “Think-Aloud Protocol analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR VIII. 177–99.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Rodríguez, Clara Inés and Tercedor, Maribel. 2008. “Corpora and students autonomy in Scientific and Technical translation training”. Journal of Specialised Translation91. 2–19. [URL]Google Scholar
Macizo, Pedro and Bajo, María Teresa. 2006. “Reading for repetition and reading for Translation: Do they involve the same processes?”Cognition991. 1–34   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Brenda. 2009a. “When idioti (idiotic) becomes “fluffy”: Translation students and the avoidance of target language cognates”. Meta54–2, 2009. 309–325.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “Translation as a decision process. Evidence from cognates”. Babel 55: 3, 228–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Frauenfelder, Uli, Casado, Beatriz and Künzli, Alexander. 2000. “Searching to define expertise in interpreting”. Birgitta.E. Dimitrova and Keneth Hyltenstam, eds. Language processing and simultaneous interpretation. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 107–131.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabadán, Rosa; Labrador, Belén;; Ramón, Noelia. 2009. “A tool for translation quality assessment English → Spanish”.Babel 55: 4. 303–328.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA). Corpus de referencia del español actual. <[URL]> [Accessed: 30th April 2010].
Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2004. “Code-switching”. U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier and P. Trudgill, eds. Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 589–596.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David Poplack, Shana; and Vanniarajan, Swathi. 1990. “The Case of the nonce loan in Tamil”. Language Variation and Change 21. 71–101.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherkina, M.2003. “The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual speech processing”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 211:135–151Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam and Malkiel, Brenda. 2005. “Comparing modalities: cognates as a case in point”. Across Languages and Cultures 6(2). 173–193.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 2003. “Words and sense: Revisiting lexical processes in Interpreting”. Forum, 11. 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, Paula J. and Shoben, Edward J.1983. “Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials”. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, andcognition, 9. 82–102.Google Scholar
Tercedor Sánchez, Maribel and López Rodríguez Clara Inés. 2008. “Integrating corpus data in dynamic knowledge bases: the Puertoterm project”. Terminology 14: 2. 159–183.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tercedor Sánchez, Maribel Alarcón Navío, Esperanza, Prieto Velasco, Juan Antonio and López Rodríguez, Clara Inés. 2009. “Images as part of technical translation courses: implications and applications”. Journal of Specialised Translation 111. 143–168. [URL]Google Scholar
Val Álvaro, José Francisco. 1999. “La composición”. Bosque, Ignacio and Demonte, Violeta, eds. Gramáticadescriptivadelalenguaespañola. Madrid: Espasa. 4757–4839.Google Scholar
Voga, Madeleine and Graigner, Jonathan. 2007. “Cognate status and cross-script translation priming”. Memory and cognition 35:5. 938–952.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Garrido-Pozú, Juan J.
2024. Cross-linguistic effects of form overlap in aural recognition of Spanish–English cognates. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski & Anna Cieślewicz
2020. The eye or the ear?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Casado Valenzuela, Alicia
2019. Los universales de localización. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 65:5 ► pp. 678 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation/Interpreting Product Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Gregory M. Shreve
2016. Match evaluation and over-editing in a translation memory environment. In Reembedding Translation Process Research [Benjamins Translation Library, 128], ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Blasco-Morente, G., C. Garrido-Colmenero, J. Tercedor-Sánchez & M. Tercedor-Sánchez
2015. Severe: A False Friend. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (English Edition) 106:6 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
Blasco-Morente, G., C. Garrido-Colmenero, J. Tercedor-Sánchez & M. Tercedor-Sánchez
2015. El falso amigo: «severo». Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas 106:6 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Inés, Patricia
2014. ¿Cómo traducen traductores y profesores de idiomas? Estudio de corpus. Meta 58:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group [Benjamins Translation Library, 127], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.