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.
Although some authors refer to cognates as words with exactly the same form and meaning in language pairs, cognates are more widely understood as translation equivalents that have a relatively high level of form overlap due to their sharing a common etymological root (Voga and Graigner 2007: 938). Cognates always need to be carefully considered in both the comprehension of a source text and the production of a target text. In this article, cognates are considered to be lexical items with a shared form and semantic overlap in two languages. This definition allows us to include borrowings (Poplack 2004) and nonce borrowings (Sankoff et al 1990) even though these may not share etymological roots.
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.
2000 “The Cognate Facilitation Effect: Implications for models of lexical access”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2000, vol. 26, n 5. 1283–1296
De Groot, Annette M.B., andNas, Gerard L.J.
1991 “Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals”. Journal of Memory and Language, 30. 90–123.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge and Remael, Aline
2007Audiovisualtranslation: subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome.
2005 “Segmentation in translation. Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty”. Target 17–1. 49–70.
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.
[ p. 192 ]
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.
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.
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.
Jiménez Crespo, Miguel Ángel
2008El proceso de localización web: estudio contrastivo de un corpus comparable del género sitio web corporativo. Doctoral dissertation, unpublished. Granada: University of Granada, Spain.
Ángel Jiménez Crespo Miguel and MaribelTercedor
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, 23. 519–539.
2003 “3-Party 2-language model of Interpreting revisited”. Forum, 1. 77–96.
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 33. 149–74.
1995Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kussmaul, Paul and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1995 “Think-Aloud Protocol analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR VIII. 177–99.
2006 “Reading for repetition and reading for Translation: Do they involve the same processes?”Cognition99. 1–34
2009a “When idioti (idiotic) becomes “fluffy”: Translation students and the avoidance of target language cognates”. Meta54–2 2009 309–325.
2009b “Translation as a decision process. Evidence from cognates”. Babel 55: 3, 228–243.
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.
Rabadán, Rosa; Labrador, Belén;; Ramón, Noelia
2009 “A tool for translation quality assessment English → Spanish”.Babel 55: 4. 303–328.
1998Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
[ p. 193 ]
Sankoff, DavidPoplack, Shana; and Vanniarajan, Swathi
1990 “The Case of the nonce loan in Tamil”. Language Variation and Change 2. 71–101.
2003 “The cognate facilitation effect in bilingual speech processing”. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21:135–151
Shlesinger, Miriam and Malkiel, Brenda
2005 “Comparing modalities: cognates as a case in point”. Across Languages and Cultures 6(2). 173–193.
2003 “Words and sense: Revisiting lexical processes in Interpreting”. Forum, 1. 139–168.
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.
Tercedor Sánchez, Maribel and López Rodríguez Clara Inés
2008 “Integrating corpus data in dynamic knowledge bases: the Puertoterm project”. Terminology 14: 2. 159–183.
Tercedor Sánchez, MaribelAlarcón Navío, Esperanza, Prieto Velasco, Juan Antonio and López Rodríguez, Clara Inés