The cognitive basis of translation universals

Sandra L. Halverson
University of Bergen, Norway
Abstract

At present, there are few attempts to provide external explanations for the patterns subsumed under the heading of “translation universal”. In this paper, I discuss the possible cognitive basis for the patterns/processes that have been variously referred to as simplification/generalization, normalization, standardization, sanitization, and exaggeration of target language features. The framework that I adopt is that of cognitive grammar, and my claim is that all of the above arise from the existence of asymmetries in the cognitive organization of semantic information. I also propose that the converse case is true: cases involving a lack of conspicuous cognitive asymmetries will demonstrate the opposite effect in translated text. In closing, I place the argument in a larger perspective by adopting Croft’s (1990) scalar notion of generalization in a discussion of explanation in translation studies.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Research into so-called “translation universals” is a productive and innovative area in Translation Studies. Not only is empirical research expanding through the development of electronic corpora; the theoretical constructs on which this research is based are also being questioned and refined (see e.g. Chesterman 2001, Englund-Dimitrova 2001, Mauranen 2001, Tirkonnen-Condit 2001). The level of activity and increasing generation of empirical results make it all the more imperative that we begin to posit explanations for these findings.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Baker, Mona
1992 In other words. London: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Corpora in Translation Studies: An overview and suggestions for future research”. Target 7:2. 223–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence
1987 “The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts”. Ulric Neisser, ed. Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 101–140.Google Scholar
[ p. 238 ]
1992 Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William
1988 Philosophy of science: An overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay
1969 Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural comunication. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1986 17–35.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka Shoshana and Eddie A. Levenston
1983 “Universals of lexical simplification”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman 1983 119–139.Google Scholar
De Bot, Kees and Robert Schreuder
1993 “Word production and the bilingual lexicon”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 . 191–214.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1988 “The diachronic dimension in explanation”. John A. Hawkins, ed. Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1988 350–379.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
ed. 1989 Readings in translation theory. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.Google Scholar
2000 “A causal model for translation studies”. Olahan 2000 . 15–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Hypotheses about translation universals”. Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August–1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Englund-Dimitrova, Birgitta
1997 “Translation of dialect in fictional prose—Vilhem Moberg in Russian and English as a case in point”. Norm, variation and change in language: Proceedings of the centenary meeting of the Nyfilologiska sälskapet, Nedre Manilla, 22–23 March 1996. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell 1997 49–65.Google Scholar
2001 “Explicitation—universal or umbrella?” Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August– 1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1989 “Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory”. Linguistics 27. 587–612.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Salience phenomena in the lexicon”. Liliana Albertazzi, ed. Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2000 79–101.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. and Herbert L. Colston
1995 “The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations”. Cognitive linguistics 6:4. 347–378.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1998 “Patterns of experience in patterns of language”. Michael Tomasello, ed. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to langauge structure. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 1998 203–219.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1968 Anthropological linguistics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
1979 “Rethinking linguistics diachronically”. Language 55. 275–290.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Anette M. B.
1992a “Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations”. Ram Frost and Leonard Katz, eds. Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning. Amsterdam: North Holland 1992 389–412.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 239 ]
De Groot, Anette M.B.
1992b “Determinants of word translation”. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition 18:5. 1001–1018.Google Scholar
1993 “Word-type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed representational system”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 . 27–51.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Anette M. B.
1997 “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks/ London/New Delhi: Sage 1997 25–56.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1996 “Norwegian–English translation and the role of certain connectors”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1996 . 129–139.Google Scholar
2000 “The fault line in our common ground”. Target 12:2. 356–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “An outline of a cognitive theory of translation”. Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August–1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, Sandra
In preparation. “Investigating gravitational pull in translation: The case of the English progressive construction”.
Hasselgren, Angela
1993 Right words, wrong words and different words: An investigation into the lexical coping of Norwegian advanced learners of English. Department of English, University of Bergen. [Unpublished master’s thesis.]Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ijaz, I. Helene
1986 “Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language”. Language learning 36:4. 401–451.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Sonja Tirkonnen-Condit
1991 “Automised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study”. Sonja Tirkonnen-Condit, ed. Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1991 89–109.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The body in the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, Eric
1978 “Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability”. Working papers on bilingualism 15. 60–92.Google Scholar
1979 “The problem with difficulty”. Interlanguage studies bulletin 4. 27–48.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
2000 “Lexical hide-and-seek: Looking for creativity in a parallel corpus”. Olahan 2000 . 93–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
1996 “Concretization and generalization of meaning in translation”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1996 . 141–163.Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F.
1993 “Accessing conceptual representations for words in a second language”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 . 53–81.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
1998 “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose”. Meta 43:4. 557–570.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 240 ]
2001 “Simplification before and after the advent of corpora”. Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August–1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1996 The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A resource and a methodology for the empirical study of translation. Manchester: UMIST. [Ph.D. thesis.]Google Scholar
Levenston, Eddie and Shoshana Blum
1977 “Aspects of lexical simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult learners”. S. Pit Corder and Eddie Roulet, eds. The notions of simplification, interlanguages, and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy. Genève: Droz and Neuchâtel: Faculté des Lettres 1977 51–71.Google Scholar
Lie, Helene
1998 Much ado about ( ): Explicitation in translation. Department of English, University of Bergen. [Unpublished master’s thesis.]Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1998 “Love thy neighbor: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators?”43:4. 534–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, A. Sophie S
1996 “Directionality in translation processes and practices”. Target 8:1. 49–73.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2000 “Strange strings in translated language: A study on corpora”. Olahan 2000 . 119–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Issues of data in the search for translation universals”. Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August– 1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Olahan, Maeve
ed. 2000 Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies. Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike
2001 “Changing the myth of the native speaker’s competence in translation theory”. Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August–1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1975 “Universals and cultural specifics in human categorization”. Richard W. Brislin et al., Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1975 177–206.Google Scholar
1978 “Principles of categorization”. Eleanor Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, eds. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 1978 27–48.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Robert and Bert Weltens
eds. 1993 The bilingual lexicon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John
1989 Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
eds. 1996 Translation and meaning Part 3. Proceedings of the 2nd International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”. Maastricht, The Netherlands, 19–22 April 1995. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
Tirkonnen-Condit, Sonja
2001 “Unique items—over-or underrepresented in translated language?” Paper presented at the Third International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 30 August–1 September 2001.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 241 ]
1997 “What lies beyond descriptive translation studies, or: Where do we go from where we assumedly are?” Miguel Ángel Vega and Rafael Matín-Gaitero, eds. La palabra vertida: Investigaciones en torno a la traducción. Madrid: Instituto Universitario de Lenguas Modernas Y Traductores. Universidad Complutense de Madrid 1997 69–80.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985 Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a minority literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Øverås, Linn
1996 In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Department of British and American Studies, University of Oslo. [Unpublished master’s thesis.]Google Scholar