202 390 1 PB
202 390 1 PB
202 390 1 PB
Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, eds. 2013. Cognitive Linguistics and Translation.
Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 420
pp. ISBN: 978-3-11-030199-1. ISSN: 1861-4078.
Brian Mott
Universitat de Barcelona
mott@ub.edu
The work here reviewed begins with a foreword by Mona Baker, Professor of
Translation Studies at the University of Manchester (xi-xii), in which she recognizes
the publication as “one of the few sustained attempts to explore the interface between
Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Studies from a range of perspectives” (xi), and an
introduction by the editors (1-30). It is then divided into five parts, each consisting of
two or three articles, amounting to thirteen contributions in all (30-414). Two indexes
(415-420) complete the volume, the first being an author and subject index, and the
second a language index.
In the introduction the editors trace the gradual rapprochement of Translation
and Linguistics up to the so-called “cultural turn” (5) of the 1980’s and 90’s, after
which more attention is paid to “adequacy” (5) of the target text (i.e. translation of
the pragmatics of the source-language text with correct interpretation of the author’s
intention) and less to invariant meaning equivalence. Section 4 of the introduction
(13-18) lists important considerations in linking Cognitive Linguistics (henceforth CL)
to Translation Studies (henceforth TS), and these provide the backbone for the layout
of the book, whose content is summarized chapter by chapter (15-18). In view of this
summary, section 5 of this initial chapter (18-26) seems redundant.
Part I, entitled “Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Theory,” opens with a
paper by Sandra L. Halverson, “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation
Studies,” who supports the idea that words and sentences do not have meaning, but
are subject to “the dynamic construal of meaning” (36) (see Croft and Cruse 2004,
97). Due importance is given to the probable activation of both languages in the
language production of bilinguals (41) and to the relevance of this for a cognitive
theory of translation. Section 2 of this paper (42-54) outlines “a small selection of
key translational issues” (without making the criteria for this selection explicit), while
section 3 (54-59) describes the work of several research groups using psycholinguistics
as a basis to study the translation process. The relative merits of corpus-based and
—245—
246 BRIAN MOTT
experimental research are explained, but definite conclusions are apparently difficult to
draw, though it is stated that CL may illuminate how different members of different
cultures draw on a common cognitive apparatus (64).
In “More than a way with words. The interface between Cognitive Linguistics and
Cognitive Translatology,” Ricardo Muñoz Martín concentrates on prototype semantics,
conceptual metaphor and Frame Semantics. Relevance Theory is also applied, but it is
different in that it is mentalistic and generative. The problem with Prototype Theory
is that translatologists try to impose limits on fuzziness (76-80). After ten pages of
theory, we finally encounter some examples (85). The processes of “simplification” and
“explicitation” (Mauranen and Kujamäki 2004) are mentioned and Muñoz accepts
House’s argument that some translators’ choices are imposed externally by readers,
revisers, etc. (House 2008, 11). Muñoz hits the nail on the head regarding the
importance of the competence of the translator (88).
In “Who cares if the cat is on the mat? Contributions of cognitive models of meaning
to translation” (99-122), Celia Martín looks at meaning construction processes and
examines the contribution of theories like Connectionism, Prototype Theory and
Frame Semantics to the interpretation of meaning. The aims are stated clearly from the
start and there are many references, but little personal opinion is adduced. Moreover,
there is much insistence on the need for further research instead of an attempt to reach
some conclusions.
Like Part I, Part II, “Meaning and translation,” contains three papers. The first paper,
by Hans C. Boas, “Frame Semantics and translation,” shows how Frame Semantics
(henceforth FS) can be used in translation and in the compilation of dictionaries. It
also considers the universal vs. culture-specific nature of frames. The author links FS
with its origins in Fillmore’s Case Grammar and illustrates its use well with the theft
frame. We are shown how meanings may cut across frame distinctions made on the
basis of English data (e.g., German fahren translates both English drive and ride [143]).
Conversely, translation equivalents may simply be lacking: the Brazilian legal system
has no exact equivalent of the American notification of charges frame (145). This
is a very sound paper with well-chosen examples and a fair exposition of controversies.
Eva Samaniego Fernández’s contribution, “The Impact of Cognitive Linguistics
on Descriptive Translation Studies: Novel metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper
translation as a case in point,” laments the fact that the few studies dealing with the
translation of metaphor from a cognitive perspective often show a prescriptive bias
(159). Section 2.1 of the article (162-168), which discusses the translatability of
metaphor, seems largely obvious, while section 2.2 (168-175), “Cognitive approaches
to metaphor translation,” requires exemplification, although it does provide a useful
review of the papers published in this field. Unfortunately, the topic of novel metaphors
is not reached until pages 175-194, where Samaniego comments on examples found
in the newspaper El Mundo in a one-year period. The sampling methodology is
adequately explained and the results satisfactorily articulated. However, the idea that
[86], “the most amount” [86], “it might find it worth” [89], “objection against” [89]),
gives both “saliency” and “salience” within four lines of each other (87). Presumably,
translators are expected to be a model in this respect.
A final criticism that could be levelled at the work is the lack of exemplification in
some of the papers (for example, in Halverson’s and Martín’s articles) and overlapping
of topics. More meticulous editing would have avoided unnecessary repetition in the
presentation of well-known theories.
Works Cited
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.
Feist, Michele I. 2010. “Inside in and on: Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives.”
In Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions, edited by
Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton, 95-114. London: Equinox.
House, Juliane. 2008. “Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation?” Trans-kom 1
(1): 6-19.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London:
The U of Chicago P.
Mauranen, Anna and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. 2004. Translation Universals: Do they
Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. “Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation.”
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 480-
519.
—. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brian Mott teaches Phonetics, Semantics and Translation in the English Department of the University
of Barcelona. He also taught in the Escola d’Idiomes Moderns for thirty years, and has tutored on the
Summer Course in English Phonetics at UCL. He has an MA in Spanish Studies (Aberdeen, 1969)
and a PhD in Aragonese Dialectology (Barcelona, 1978). He has published some twenty books.
Address: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya. Facultat de Filologia. Gran Via de les Corts
Catalanes, 585. 08007, Barcelona, Spain. Tel.: +34 934037217. Fax: +34 933171249.