Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series—Themes in Translation Studies
Issue 19, publication year 2020
CALL FOR PAPERS
Cognitive Translation Studies
Theoretical Models and Methodological Criticism
Guest edited by Kairong Xiao and Ricardo Muñoz
Southwest University, Chongqing, China | University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
S INCE THE 1960S, scholars from different disciplines
have been interested in translators and interpreters’
mental activities. From the process-oriented branch of
Holmes's (1972/1988) Descriptive Translation Stud-
ies through process studies, this disciplinary area has
grown and widened to become Cognitive Translation Stud-
ies (Halverson, 2010), which comprises at least computa-
tional approaches (mainly labeled Translation Process Re-
search), 4EA cognition approaches (e.g., Cognitive Trans-
latology, Muñoz, 2010a, 2010b) and AV reception studies
(e.g., Kruger et al., 2016). Common to all of the approaches
is the basic assumption that translation is inherently a com-
plex cognitive activity involving not only linguistic struc-
tures, but also other skills, knowledge, and abilities.
Today, Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS) is gath-
ering momentum within Translation Studies. It boasts an
ever-growing research community, an expanding set of
prominent research topics (such as problem solving, cog-
nitive effort, attention and cognitive control, skill acquisi-
tion and development, stress management), a steadily in-
creasing number of volumes (e.g., Alves, 2003; Göpferich
et al., 2008; ; Muñoz, 2016; O’Brien, 2011; Rojo & Ibar-
retxe, 2013; ; Shreve & Angelone, 2010; Schwieter & Fer-
reira, 2017) and journal papers, and the gradual establish-
ment and consolidation of shared communication channels,
such as themed conferences and now a devoted jour-
nal, Translation, Cognition & Behavior. By Holmes’s
standards, these developments seem to suggest an emerg-
ing, relatively autonomous sub-discipline within Transla-
tion Studies. However, CTS is facing two challenges: the
need for building theoretical models to account for the pe-
culiarities of translational cognition, and the lack of critical
assessments of the methodologies.
Empirical studies start with hypotheses derived from
theoretical models about the objects of study. However, the
methodologically rigorous empirical research projects at
the interface between cognition and translation have thus
far often lacked this explicit theoretical basis. There seems
to be a growing agreement to the effect that some previous
models either lacked any empirical backing or could not
support hypotheses for empirical research. Shreve & An-
gelone (2010: 12) urged that “a strong, commonly-ac-
cepted model (or even viable competing models) of the
translation process will be a paramount concern of the next
decade”. Muñoz (2017: 559) also stated that many research
projects did not rely on solid theoretical foundations and
some projects “have been happy to simply pile up their re-
sults into a common pool as if they were self-explanatory”.
Therefore, building explicit theoretical models is still a par-
amount and crucial concern to further develop CTS.
At the same time, the state-of-the-art literature (e.g.,
Halverson, 2017) shows that another source of concern is
research methods—especially, experimental investigation
methods borrowed from other disciplines. Methodological
innovation has been the most prominent aspect of CTS in
the last decades. Ever since the early psycholinguistic in-
vestigations of simultaneous interpreting in the 1960s, sev-
eral generations of methods have been applied, including
verbal reports (such as TAPs), keylogging, screen-record-
ing, eyetracking, neurophysiological methods (such as
EEG and fMRI) and the combined use of various multi-
method approaches. These methods do bring revolutionary
changes to CTS but they have also been questioned for
their limited reliability and ecological validity. Some
scholars even worry about the danger of an overuse of em-
pirical methods against the more holistic, humanistic as-
pects of translation. Some emerging research areas in CTS,
such as social cognitive studies of translator behavior, call
for ethnographic approaches such as field work and partic-
ipant observation. A critical study of the reliability and eco-
logical validity of empirical methods is urgently needed to
advance CTS.
Therefore, this thematic issue of Linguistica Antver-
piensia, New Series—Themes in Translation Studies fo-
cuses on the building of theoretical models and methodo-
logical criticism in CTS.
(1) Theoretical models in Cognitive Translation Studies

The aim of building theoretical models in CTS is to formulate descriptions of translation as cognitive activi-
ties that may lead to testable hypotheses, including the theoretical assumptions of translation as cognition, the
cognitive process of translation production and reception, behavior of individual or group translators, transla-
tor skills, translator training and skill acquisition, socio-cognitive aspects of translation, etc. Possible topics
(list not exhaustive) include models of:

 translational cognition / production / reception

 translator behavior / skills / training
 socio-cognitive aspects of translation

(2) Criticism of research methods in CTS

Criticism of empirical research methods should review the tradition of translation research methods, and ex-
amine the reliability and ecological validity of existing and emerging (especially experimental) methods. Re-
searchers may also carry out comparative and contrastive studies of different research methods and suggest
new ones for CTS. Possible topics (list not exhaustive) include:

 Critical and comparative studies, analyses, and reviews of

o methodological traditions in translation studies
o emerging research methods in CTS
 Systematization and complementarity of research methods in CTS

Practical information and deadlines

Proposals: Please submit abstracts of approximately 500 words, plus relevant references (not included in the
word count), to both Dr. Kairong Xiao and Dr. Ricardo Muñoz
(kairongxiao@163.com | ricardo.munoz@ulpgc.es).

Abstract deadline: 1 May 2019

Acceptance of proposals: 1 July 2019
Submission of papers: 1 December 2019
Acceptance of papers: 28 February 2020
Submission of final versions of papers: 1 June 2020
Publication: November—December 2020
References

Alves, F. (Ed.). (2003). Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Göpferich, S., Bayer-Hohenwarter, G., Prassl, F., & Stadlober, J. (2011). Exploring translation competence
acquisition: Criteria of analysis put to the test. In S. O’Brien (Ed.), Cognitive explorations of transla-
tion (pp. 57—85). London: Continuum.
Göpferich, S. (2009). Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: The longitudinal study
TransComp. In S. Göpferich, J. Arnt Lykke, & I. Mees (Eds.), Behind the mind: Methods, models and
results in translation process research (pp. 11—37). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Halverson, S. (2010). Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in theory and method. In G. Shreve & E.
Angelone (Eds.),Translation and cognition (pp. 349—369). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halverson, S. (2017). Multimethod approaches. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of
translation and cognition (pp. 195—212). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Holmes, J. S. (1972/1988). The name and nature of Translation Studies. In J. Holmes (Ed.), Translated!: Pa-
pers on Literary translation and Translation Studies (pp. 67—80). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
House, J.. (2015). Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. In M. Ehrensherger-
Dow, S. Gopferich, & S. O’Brien (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process re-
search (pp.49—62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hurtado, A., & Alves, F. (2009). Translation as a cognitive activity. In J. Munday (Ed.), The Routledge com-
panion to Translation Studies (pp. 54—73). London: Routledge.
Jääskeläinen, R. (2000). Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit
& R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks
on empirical research (pp. 149—162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kruger, J. L., Soto-Sanfiel., M. T., Doherty, S., & Ibrahim, R. (2016). Towards a cognitive audiovisual trans-
latology: Subtitles and embodied cognition. In R. Muñoz (Ed.), Reembedding translation process re-
search (pp.171—194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Muñoz Martín, R. (2017). Looking toward the future of cognitive translation studies. In J. W. Schwieter & A.
Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 556—572). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Black-
well.
O’Brien, S. (2011). Cognitive explorations of translation: Eyes, keys, taps. London: Continuum.
O’Brien, S. (2015). The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. In M. Ehrensherger-
Dow, S. Gopferich, & S. O’Brien (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process re-
search (pp. 5—17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe, I. (2013). Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models
and applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shreve, G., & Angelone, E. (2010). Translation and cognition: Recent developments. In G. Shreve & E. An-
gelone (Eds.),Translation and cognition (pp. 1—13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.