Cover not available
Article published In:
Culture & Society issue
[Translation Spaces 4:2] 2015
► pp. 310–340

Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms

The case of ‘literal translation’

 | Bergen University College, Norway
The current reintroduction of the concept of ‘literal translation’ is an important development for two main reasons. Firstly, it has led to a range of intriguing empirical findings. Secondly, this revival exemplifies a more profound development in the field. This paper argues that the trajectory of this concept is one example of how cognitively oriented explanatory models are driving an integration of product- and process-based approaches to translational phenomena. In order to better understand this development and to investigate its potential to change Translation Studies, the paper first provides a brief historical overview and then proceeds to decompose the concept into key constituent parts. Two constituent concepts will be used as the basis for identifying the alternative ways in which product and process-oriented approaches have studied the same phenomenon. As a way of moving forward, pertinent theoretical tools from bilingualism research are identified, and concluding remarks focus on implications for the field.
Keywords: default translation, empirical paradigms, cognitive translation studies, literal translation, multi-methods research
Published online: 28 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
References (85)
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010. “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts. Towards an Integration of Product - and Process-Based Translation Research. In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antii, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel. 2010. “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology. Corpora 5 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balling, Laura Winther, Kristian Tangsgaard Hjelpelund, and Annette C. Sjørup. 2014. “Evidence of Parallel Processing During Translation. Meta 59 (2): 234–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Adriano Ferraresi. 2011. “Practice, Description and Theory Come Together: Normalization or Interference in Italian Technical Translation? META 56 (2): 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownlie, Siobhan. 2003. “Investigating Explanations of Translational Phenomena. A Case for Multiple Causality. Target 15 (1): 111–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Eef Ameel, and Gert Storms. 2014. “Semantic Memory and Bilingualism: a Review of the Literature and a New Hypothesis. Accessed 3 April 2014. [URL].
Campbell, Stuart. 2000. “Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 29–42. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 1999. “A Cognitive Approach to Source Text Difficulty in Translation. Target 11 (1): 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “The CRITT TPR-DB 1.0: A Database for Empirical Human Translation Process Research. In Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (SPTP 2012), edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 9–18. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production. Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz Schaeffer. Forthcoming. “Processes of Literal Translation and Post-editing. In Translation in Transition, edited by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa Lao. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. [1965] 2000. “Translation Shifts. In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 141–147. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 15–27. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, edited by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 23–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid, and Annette de Groot. 2005. “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Cognitive Perspective. In Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, edited by Judith F. Kroll and Annette M.B. de Groot, 454–479. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delaere, Isabelle, and Gert De Sutter. 2013. “Applying a Multidimensional, Register-Sensitive Approach to Visualize Normalization in Translated and Non-translated Dutch. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 271: 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. An Introduction. New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Yanping, Shichun Gui, and Brian MacWhinney. 2005. “Shared and Separate Meanings in the Bilingual Lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8 (3): 221–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., K.I. Forster, J. Nicol, and K. Nakamura. 2004. “The Role of Polysemy in Masked Semantic and Translation Priming. Journal of Memory and Language 511: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, Wendy S., Natasha Tokowicz, and Judith Kroll. 2014. “The Consequences of Language Proficiency and Difficulty of Lexical Access for Translation Performance and Priming. Memory and Cognition 421: 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Words and Other Wonders. Papers on Lexical and Semantic Topics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. “Useful Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. In A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Selected Approaches, edited by Aquilino Sánchez and Moisés Almela, 269–291. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gries, Stephan Th., and Dagmar S. Divjak. 2010. “Quantitative Approaches in Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics: Myths, Erroneous Assumptions, and a Proposal. In Cognitive Linguistics Research: Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, edited by Dylan Glynn and Kerstin Fischer, 333–353. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François. 2012. “Bilingual and Monolingual Language Modes. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A. Chapelle. London: Blackwell. Accessed June 10, 2015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1997. “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado about Something. Target 9 (2): 207–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals. Target 15(2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Elements of Doctoral Training: The Dynamics of the Research Process. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (1): 79–106 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and Method. In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 349–369. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Schematic Networks in Translation: Bringing Together Process and Corpus Data. Paper presented at Text-process-text, Stockholm, 17-19 November 2011.
. Forthcoming a. “The status of Contrastive Data in Translation Studies. Forthcoming in Across Languages and Cultures. DOI logo
. Forthcoming b. “Developing a Cognitive Semantic Model: Magnetism, Gravitational Pull and Questions of Data and Method. Forthcoming in New Ways of Analysing Translational Behaviour in Corpus-Based Translation Studies, edited by Gert de Sutter, Isabelle Delaere, and Marie-Aude Lefer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hareide, Lidun. 2014. Testing the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis in Translation. A Corpus Based Study of the Gerund in Translated Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Martin J. Pickering. 2008. “Language Interaction in Bilingual Sentence Production. Acta Psychologica 1281: 479–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp. 2004. “Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between Languages? Cross-linguistic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15 (6): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, Kris, José Tummers, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. “Methodological Issues in Corpus-Based Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, edited by Gitte Kristiansen and René Dirven, 91–127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited. In Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, edited by Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury, 51–59. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Formal/Contrastive Correspondence and Translation Equivalence. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagreviensa XLII1: 167–180.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1993. “Investigating Translation Strategies. In Recent trends in Empirical Translation Research, edited by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, 99–120. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Koppel, Moshe, and Noam Ordan. 2011. “Translationese and its Dialects. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 1318–1326. Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Krings, Hans-Peter. 1986. Was in der Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht? Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Erika Stewart. 1994. “Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections between Bilingual Memory Representation. Journal of Memory and Language 331: 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Natasha Tokowicz. 2005. “Models of Bilingual Representation and Processing: Looking Back and to the Future. In Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, edited by Judith F. Kroll and Annettee M.B. de Groot, 531–553. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, Alet, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday. 2012. Corpus-based Translation Studies. Research and Applications. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2012. “Register and the Features of Translated Language. Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, Thomas P. 1990. Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volumes I and II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 2011. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: Where Does it Come From? Where is it Going? In Corpus-based Translation Studies. Research and Applications, edited by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday, 13–32. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Universals. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 306–310. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laxén, Jannika, and Jean Marc Lavaur. 2010. “The Role of Semantics in Translation Recognition: Effects of Number of Translations, Dominance of Translations and Semantic Relatedness of Multiple Translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 131: 157–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiří. 1967. “Translation as a Decision Making Process, In To Honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. 21, 1171–1182. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2011. “Universals. In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 83–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki. 2004. Translation Universals: Do they Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, Christian. 2001. “The Environments of Translation. In Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content, edited by Erich Steiner and Colin Yallop, 41–117. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 1995. Lingüística para traducir. Barcelona: Teide.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Just a Matter of Scope. Mental Load in Translation Process Research. Translation Spaces 11: 169–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Situating Translation Expertise: A Review with a Sketch of a Construct. In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by John Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 2–57. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Oakes, Michael. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1994. “Toward a Neurolinguistic Theory of Simultaneous Translation: The Framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 101: 319–335.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2009. The Bilingual Mental Lexicon. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlović, Nataša, and Goranka Antunović. 2013. “The Effect of Interpreting Experience on Distance Dynamics: Testing the Literal Translation Hypothesis. Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 233–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Victor S. Ferreira. 2008. “Structural Priming: A Critical Review. Psychological Bulletin 134 (3): 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1995. “European Translation Studies, Une Science qui Dérange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t be a Dirty Word. TTR 8 (1): 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Schlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler. 2013. “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Dognition and Action. Translation Spaces 21: 151–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz. 2013. The Ideal Literal Translation Hypothesis: The Role of Shared Representations During Translation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl. 2013. “Shared Representations and the Translation Process. A Recursive Model. Translation and Interpreting Studies. 8 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes. Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Schaeffer, Mortiz J., Kevin Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kirsten Malmkjær. Forthcoming. “Reading for Translation. Forthcoming in Translation in Transition, edited by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa Lao. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schoonbaert, Sophie, Walter Duyck, Marc Brysbaert, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2009. “Semantic and Translation Priming from a First Language to a Second and Back: Making Sense of the Findings. Memory and Cognition 37 (5): 569–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C. 2013. Cognitive Effort in Metaphor Translation. An Eye-tracking and Key- logging Study. Doctoral dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2004. “Unique Items – Over- or Under-represented in Translated Language? In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 177–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revised: Evidence from Process Research. META 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo, and Sini Immonen. 2008. “The Translation Process– Interplay between Literal Rendering and a Search for Sense. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 2004. “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies. Welcome as they are, Would they Qualify as Universals? In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 15–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, José, Kris Heylen, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. “Usage-Based Approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A Technical State of the Art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (2): 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volansky, Vered, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2013. “On the Features of Translationese. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (33)

Cited by 33 other publications

Castagnoli, Sara
2023. Exploring variation in student translation. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
de Baets, Pauline & Gert de Sutter
2023. How do translators select among competing (near-)synonyms in translation?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lacruz, Isabel
2023. Chapter 1. Translation in transition. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Shreve, Gregory M.
2023. Chapter 2. The strange attractions of translation. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Jonas Freiwald, Stella Neumann & Zoë Miljanović
2022. Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2021. Micro Units and the First Translational Response Universal. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2021. Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2023. Chapter 12. The Monitor Model and its misconceptions. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
García, Álvaro Marín
2021. Bridging the epistemological gap. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo
Marín García, Álvaro
2019. The opportunities of epistemic pluralism for Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Joseph V. Casillas
2021. Literal is not always easier. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Xiaodong
2021. Cognitive Processing Routes: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. In Cognitive Processing Routes in Consecutive Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Reynaert, Ryan, Lieve Macken, Arda Tezcan & Gert De Sutter
2021. Building a New-Generation Corpus for Empirical Translation Studies: The Dutch Parallel Corpus 2.0. In New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Talavira, Nataliia, T. Andrienko, S. Potapenko & L. Slavova
2021. Constructionist basis of composing and translating political speeches: A case study of President Trump’s inaugural address. SHS Web of Conferences 105 ► pp. 03006 ff. DOI logo
Valdez, Susana
2021. Literalization in the self-revision process of novice and experienced biomedical translators. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 356 ff. DOI logo
Vanroy, Bram, Moritz Schaeffer & Lieve Macken
2021. Comparing the Effect of Product-Based Metrics on the Translation Process. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Zheng, Jianwei & Wenjun Fan
2021. Different processes for translating expressive versus informative texts? A computer-assisted study of professionals’ English–Chinese translation. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:3 ► pp. 782 ff. DOI logo
Deckert, Mikołaj
2020. Decision-Making: Putting AVT and MA into Perspective. In The Palgrave Handbook of Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility [Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, ], ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2020. The “technological turn” in translation studies. Translation Spaces 9:2 ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo
Hatzidaki, Anna
2019. Using experimental approaches to study translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Daniel Couto Vale & Stella Neumann
2019. Shorter than a text, longer than a sentence. Target 31:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Molés-Cases, Teresa
2019. Why typology matters: a corpus-based study of explicitation and implicitation of Manner-of-motion in narrative texts. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 890 ff. DOI logo
Vandevoorde, Lore
2019. Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch. Meta 63:3 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2018. Re-thinking translation quality. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Ferreira, Aline & John W. Schwieter
2017. Translation and Cognition. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2017. Multimethod Approaches. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2019. ‘Default’ translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Hansen‐Schirra, Silvia
2017. EEG and Universal Language Processing in Translation. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 232 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee & Jan‐Louis Kruger
2017. Cognition and Reception. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Martín, Ricardo Muñoz
2017. Looking Toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 555 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2016. Of minds and men – computers and translators. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2 DOI logo
Schwieter, John W. & Aline Ferreira
2017. Bilingualism in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2016. Quality and translation process research. In Reembedding Translation Process Research [Benjamins Translation Library, 128], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.