A cognitive scientific view on technical A cognitive scientific view on technical: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference?

Hanna Risku
Danube University Krems, Austria
Abstract

This article provides a brief presentation of the development of some cognitive scientific views on technical communication and translation. I look in detail at one of the latest cognitive scientific trends, namely Situated and Embodied Cognition. According to this approach, humans are creative beings who are dependent on their physical and psychological circumstances. I provide a brief overview of the background to situated, embodied cognition, present some of its main concepts and conclude with a number of proposals about how findings in this field can be used to further develop research in Technical Communication and Translation Studies. In doing so, I argue that the new findings in cognitive science will necessarily change some of the common concepts and methodological traditions with regard to the actual text production process and competencies.

Keywords:
Table of contents

This article provides a brief presentation of a cognitive scientific view of translation. Particular emphasis is given to two relatively new and innovative concepts in modern Cognitive Science, namely embodiment and situatedness.

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

Barsalou, Lawrence W., Paula M Niedenthal, Aron K Barbey and Jennifer A. Ruppert
2003 “Social embodiment”. Brian H. Ross, ed. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 43. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 43–92.Google Scholar
Beer, Randal and Hillel J. Chiel
1993 “Simulations of cockroach locomotion and escape”. Randal D. Beer, Roy E. Ritzmann and Thomas McKenna eds. Biological Neural Networks in Invertebrate Neuroethology and Robotics. Academic Press. 267–285.Google Scholar
Brooks, Rodney
1995 “Intelligence without reason”. Luc Steels and Rodney Brooks, eds. The Artificial Life Route to Artificial Intelligence. Building Embodied, Situated Agents. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 25–81.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund
1996 „Zur Deverbalisierung im Übersetzungsprozeß“. Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Tübingen: Narr. 259–269.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., P. J. Feltovich and R. Glaser
1981 „Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices“. Cognitive Science 5: 121–152.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. and Terrence J. Sejnowski
1992 The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancey, William J.
1997 Situated Cognition. On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy
1997 Being there. Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus
1986 Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1977 “Scenes-and-frames semantics”. Antonio Zampolli ed. Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 55–81.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg
1972 Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. 3. Auflage, Tübingen: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1997 „The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice“. Lauren B. Resnick, Roger Säljö, Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Barbara Burge, eds. Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition. Berlin: Springer, 111–140.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks-Jansen, Horst
1996 Catching Ourselves in the Act. Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution, and Human Thought. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1993 „Textdesign—verantwortlich und gehirngerecht“. Justa Holz-Mänttäri and Christiane Nord, eds. Traducere navem. Festschrift für Katharina Reiß zum 70. Geburtstag (studia translatologica a 3). Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto, 301–320.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G.
1995 Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1993 “Investigating Translation Strategies”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, eds. Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research (Kielitieteellisiä tutkimuksia 28). Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto, 99–120.Google Scholar
[ p. 109 ]
Kirsch, David and Paul Maglio
1994 “On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action”. Cognitive Science 18: 513–549.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
2000 Kreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke
2007 “Embodiment and social interaction: A cognitive science perspective”. Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev and Roslyn M. Frank, eds. Body, Language and Mind. Volume 1: Embodiment (= Cognitive Linguistics Research 35.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 129–163.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. and David E. Rumelhart
eds. 1986 Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
2000 “Multidisciplinarity in Process Research”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 163–170.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1993 Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen (UTB für Wissenschaft 1734). Tübingen: Franke.Google Scholar
Nord, Chistiane
1997 Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Norman, Donald A.
ed. 1993 Special issue on situated cognition. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17:1.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993a Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Prunč, Erich
2007 Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
1998 Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2002 “Situatedness in Translation Studies”. Cognitive Systems Research 3:3, 523–533.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna and Angela Dickinson
2009 “Translators as Networkers. The Role of Virtual Communities”. Special issue of Hermes: “Translation Studies: Focus on the Translator”, Helle V. Dam and Karen Korning Zethsen. ed. 49–70.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna and Richard Pircher
2006 “Translatory Cooperation: Roles, Skills and Coordination in Intercultural Text Design”. Michaela Wolf, ed. Übersetzen—Translating—Traduire: Towards a “Social Turn”? Münster: LIT, 253–264.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna and Florian Windhager
2009 “Transcultural Communication: Managing Knowledge and Diversity”. SYNAPS Fagspråk, Kommunikasjon, Kulturkunnskap 23. Bergen: Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration NHH, 3–14.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973 “Natural Categories”. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–350.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. and James L. McClelland
eds. 1986 Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Kjeld and Ina Wagner
2002 “Coordinative artifacts in architectural practice”. M. Blay-Fornarino, A-M.Pinna-Dery, Dery, K. Schmidt and P. Zaraté, eds. Cooperative Systems Design. A Challenge of the Mobility Age. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 257–274.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988 Translation Studies—An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 110 ]
Steels, Luc and Rodney Brooks
eds. 1995 The Artificial Life Route to Artificial Intelligence. Building Embodied, Situated Agents. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy A.
1987 Plans and Situated Actions. The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sudnow, David
1978 Ways of the Hand: The Organisation of Improvised Conduct. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Thelen, Esther amd Linda B. Smith
1994 A dynamics systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Gelder, Tim
1998 “The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:5, 616–628.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannerem, Mia Mary Snell-Hornby
1986 “Die Szene hinter dem Text: `schenes-and-frames semantcs´ in der Übersetzung”. Mary Snell-Hornby, ed. Übersetzungswissenschaft—eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis: Tübingen: Francke, 184–205.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. and Heidrun Witte
1990 Mögen Sie Zistrosen? Scenes & Frames & Channels im Translatorischen Handeln, Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Wagner, Ina
1997 Esprit Project DESARTE First Phase Final Report, Technical University, Vienna.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Michael
2008 “Cognition in Context: Phenomenology, Situated Robotics, and the Frame Problem”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 16:3, 323–349.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1988 Kognition und Übersetzen. Zur Theorie und Praxis der menschlichen und maschinellen Übsersetzung (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 41). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziemke, Tom
ed. 2002 Special issue on situated and embodied cognition. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3).   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 111 ]