Fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation: A cognitive perspective
Macquarie University / North-West University
This paper argues for the addition of a cognitive perspective to the concepts of fluency/resistancy and
domestication/foreignisation. Given the disjunctions between the ontological levels (and analytical levels of specificity) implied
in these concepts (cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural), the paper first sets out an argument for how these ontologies are
related, demonstrating how cognitive processing, and specifically cognitive effort for both translators and readers, form a
second-level constituent of both these sets of concepts, by drawing on usage-based theories of language. From within this
conceptual frame, the paper turns its attention to an empirical investigation. The study demonstrates how a combination of product
and process methods may be utilised to explore the cognitive effort involved in domesticating and foreignising choices. The
findings of the study are used to formulate some suggestions regarding how investigations of cognitive effort in translation may
contribute to an understanding of fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation in diverse contexts.
Both House (2013) and Tymoczko (2012) have made proposals for micro-level cognitive approaches to translation to be integrated with approaches to translation that focus on translation as cultural and social phenomenon, at the macro-level. This paper takes up the challenge by investigating this possibility of integrating different ontologies of translation from both a conceptual and empirical point of view, based on the assumption that empirical data, concept formation and theoretical development are closely interwoven. It specifically argues for the addition of a cognitive perspective to the concepts of fluency/resistancy, and domestication/foreignisation. Given the disjunctions between the ontological levels (and analytical levels of specificity) implied in these concepts (cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural), the paper first sets out an argument for how these ontologies are related, at disciplinary, theoretical and conceptual levels. It then narrows the focus to the concept level, focusing on the relationship between the basic, constituent and data levels in the concepts fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation, demonstrating how cognitive processing, and specifically cognitive effort, form second-level constituents of both these sets of concepts. In this, the argument draws on usage-based theories of language (specifically focusing on lexical and collocational priming) that argue that individual, psycholinguistic processing, and social forces combine in how language is used, and how it changes over time. Having established a conceptual frame of reference, the paper then turns its attention to the empirical investigation of the concepts fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation. It reports on a small study investigating one particular dimension where domesticating and foreignising choices drawing on fluent and resistant features of the target language may be effected — lexical items that metonymically evoke culture. The study illustrates how a combination of text analysis, process data and prompted retrospective verbalisation may be utilised to explore the cognitive processing and effort involved in these choices. The findings of the study are used to formulate a number of provisional hypotheses regarding how investigations of cognitive processing in translation may contribute to an understanding of fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation in translation in diverse contexts.
2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” In Shreve and Angelone 2010, 17–40.
2000 “Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I — Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 29–42. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner
2002Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome.
2011 “Using Translation and Parallel Text Corpora to Investigate the Influence of Global English on Textual Norms in Other Languages.” In Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications, ed. by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday, 187–208. London: Continuum.
2015R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422.
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT), ed. by Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn, Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Casacuberta, Robin Hill, and Sharon O’Brien, 29–37. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Shreve, Gregory M., and Erik Angelone
eds.2010Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2006The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints?Amsterdam: John Benjamins.