Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Translation scholars have always been involved in the debate of the two cultures
described by Snow (1959). This debate roughly divides humanistic approaches
from scientific-oriented frameworks. This particular distinction is not the greatest of my concerns in this paper. Translation and interpreting, whether viewed as
one or two disciplines, host a vast array of perspectives and approaches covering
the scientific-humanistic spectrum, and this wide array of difference is positive
(Moser-Mercer 1991). I will not therefore suggest that scientific, cognitive approaches to translation are suitable for ali areas and interests in the broader field
of translation studies. However, since this article is primarily aimed at scholars
studying translation and interpreting and conducting process research, further
exploration and development of a science of translation and cognition, a cognitive
translatology, is called for.
In this paper, I will present sorne aspects of connectionism, which paved the
way towards new understandings of the mind, and of embodied, situated, and
distributed cognition. Then, I will propose sorne principles to develop a cognitive translatology based on these aspects. Finally, I will consider the relationship
170
between theory and research, especially from the perspective of these principles.
Let me start, however, by introducing a terminological note. In this paper I will
use the term paradigm with two meanings. The first one is epistemological, and
it points to the adoption of a generally accepted perspective which determines
the set of practices in a discipline in a given period (Kuhn 1962). Kuhn also formulated a pre-paradigmatic stage, the period before a paradigm has been broadly
accepted, which seems to describe well the situation today for cognitive translatologies, where disciplinary changes seem to have been faster at generating research questions and methods, than in developing new disciplinary tenets (or
challenging older ones) and ways of interpreting results. The second meaning of
paradigm is the one associated with the expression experimental paradigm, but
let us focus now on the first meaning and, in doing so, have a very brief look at
sorne new trends in connectionism that have a bearing on the development of
our discipline.
And also thanks to our ability to extend these processes to other domains by means of conceptual metaphors. These metaphors allow us to "reason about one kind of thing as if it were
another;" consequently, they can be viewed as grounded, inference-preserving, cross-domain
mappings (Lakoff and Nez 2000: 6). Conceptual metaphors are also crucial for theoretical
developments in translatology. For example, Martn (2005, 2008) convincingly argues that
unconscious use of the conduit metaphor (Reddy 1979) undermines the ReiB and Vermeer
(1984) and Holz-Manttari (1984) frameworks. The conduit metaphor is also present in widely
accepted terms in translatology, such as source text and target text.
1.
171
172
Situated cognition (Lave 1988) claims that human thought is adapted to the
environment in such a way that perception and action develop together: "much
of our thinking [ ... ] is devoted to interacting with the 'outsides: as opposed to operating on complex forros of representation and computation generated from the
'inside' (Friedenberg and Silverman 2006:444):' In other words, cognition takes
place in the context of inputs and outputs relevant to the task at han d. Early works,
such as Brooks ( 1991), contend that intelligent behavior is the consequence of the
embeddedness of the mind, rather than the product of internal representations.
Since the world guides behavior, there is no need for explicit representation. Today, situated views on mental representation are more tempered, internal repre-.
sentations are usually seen as:
2. Today, participants in translation processes are usually many more: client, reviser, project
manager, other translators, etc., but many of them are common to other text production scenarios, such as publishing.
173
174
175
both novel and useful."4 Damasio (2001) holds that information processing has
an impact on creativity, Langacker (1987) claims that understanding is creative,
and Dowd (1989) states that creativity fosters lateral or divergent thinking and
allows people to view problems under different scopes. Thus, translating is no
doubt a creative enterprise. But there is no contradiction in stating that, at the
same time, it is basically an imitative endeavor.
Readers typically use original texts to build conceptual structures which relate to the world as they envision it in that moment and situation. Translations
may be expected to meet additional demands: readers often expect that they portray or reproduce the symbolic coding of the original text as well. This is usually
so in literary translation, where readers want "a flavor of the style" of the author
of the original, but also in political and legal translation, where translations are
expected to inform about the original text in sorne detail. In these cases, translators use original texts as models to imitate in their new versions in other languages. Nevertheless, imitation is not restricted to such intentional actions when
translating specific kinds of texts. Translators are assumed to enter into deeper
mental processing strategies, namely, problem-solving and decision-taking,
only when direct, proceduralized formulations do not seem successful (Muoz
1994, 1995: 177-181; Toury 1995b: 191-192; Tirkkonen-Condit 2005), and many
of those unproblematic renderings tend to reproduce the symbolic codification
of the corresponding text segments in the original, language permitting. Thus,
translating usually entails imitating the original, and it is creative at least sometimes because imitation is not always possible, not only due to linguistic disparity, but also because the translations are to be used by different addressees in
new communicative events. Crucially, creativity can be learned and developed
(Cook 1998; Gehani 1998), and learning how to translate may be seen as steering
creativity through imitation, within the constraints of conventions and norms
(Toury 1988).
Translation expertise implies the continuous development of natural
cognitive skills
Translation expertise <loes not develop on a blank page for each person. Translating is a complex behavior (De Groot 2000) with many simpler behavioral components, sorne of which translators have developed to various degrees long before
they even started translating, such as reading, writing, and building and blending
4. There is no room here to take issue on the internal nature of creativity, as situated and distributed cognition would do, but see, for instance, Csikszentmihalyi (1996).
177
i78
conceptual structures. So, translation is not acquired from scratch, but arises because people develop their existing cognitive abilities to meet new ecological (social, interactional) demands (Berry 1987; Smith and Gasser 2005). The capacityto
translate, to mean the same thing in another language, is born at the very moment
people learn a word in that second language, probably as a natural extension of
intra-language rewording (Muoz in press b ). In this sense, it is a natural skill that
everybody is likely to possess, and not only bilinguals (cf. Harris 1977). Of course,
this <loes not mean that professional quality translation can be achieved easily
since it implies, at least, amassing "world knowledge;' learning a large, diffuse set
of conventions and norms, acquiring instrumental skills in the tools of the trade,
and also optimizing mental activities to carry out the tasks efficiently and in an
economical, profitable way. That is why both situated learning and feedback are
so important for developing translation expertise, and that, of course, is the basic
justification of translator training programs.
On the other hand, skills also vary in professionals over long periods beyond the magic ten years of continuous, relevant practice. Professionals will keep
adapting their complex behavior as long as they translate, so there is no end to
developing expertise. Thus, the state of expertise in a person can be thought of as
a function of personal background and task exposure, and there are probably as
many versions of expertise as experts in the field. Of course, there must be aspects
common to all of them, as expertise studies in different areas have shown. But
we still do not know what expert translators are (Pym 1994) and what may be
considered their defining characteristics, so the study of expertise should be a top
priority for any cognitive translatology.
Cognitive translatology should focus on the interaction between
translators and their environment
The notion of translation process may be understood at three levels. First, it may
refer to a fundamental level comprised of sets of mental states and operations
which play a role when translating and the ways they are constructed and carried out. At the second level, it may also be used to encompass the variable set of
sub-tasks and observable operations when a person translates, such as reading,
writing, using information resources, computing, revising and proofreading, and,
sometimes, designing, printing, or publishing (cf. Gouadec 2005). These two levels of translation processes are closely related, since basic mental mechanisms and
operations cannot be directly observed, but may be hypothesized from observed
behavior at the higher level. They should not be confused, though, for they lead to
different perspectives on mental events and their interaction. For example, while
179
180
arena (as scientific concepts must) this hints ata certain immaturity in the :field
of research. Theory and research interdependence in translatology is as necessary
as elsewhere (Dancette and Mnard 1996) and it urgently needs to be fostered,
so that the mutual bene:ficial feedback of concept formation, model-building and
empirical research can be restored. 5 After ali,
Theory formation within Translation Studies has never been an end in itself. Its
object has always been to lay a sound basis and supply an elaborate frame of
reference for controllable studies into actual behaviour and its results, and the
ultimate test of theory is its capacity to do that service.
(Toury 1988: 11)
Different approaches to empirical translatology point to the need for establishing sorne common experimental paradigms which should gain acceptance from
experimental translation scholars. 6 In any case, a new cognitive theoretical paradigm in translatology might help to improve research design, and experimental
studies should lead to the development of improved cognitive theories of translating. In other words, we should start benchmarking cognitive translatologies.
Benchmarking, in this context, should be understood as establishing general research standards against which individual research projects can be evaluated.
Theoretical paradigms impose sorne constraints on research methods, and
the one proposed here is not an exception. For instance, cognitive psychology
rejects introspection, and cognitive philosophy also casts doubts on it, since there
are only a few phenomena which are clearly conscious or unconscious and the
grey area in between is larger than the clear-cut cases at each extreme (Baars
1988). Cognitive translatology might bene:fit instead from considering consciousness and unconsciousness as two poles in a continuum, especially since parts of
the stream of thought are not (totally) conscious or controlled, and hence retrospective rationalizations include a great <leal of construction. According to Boring
(1953:s.p., apudBaars 1988:17-18),
The internal history of the field of automated and assisted translation, which is the story of
a series of trial-and-error attempts to apply successive theoretical models (cf. Akman 2000), is
a good example. In automated translation, new applications were developed at each stage, but
also new, more realistic models, even if today sorne of them still co-exist: rule models, lexical
and grammatical models, semantic models, statistical and knowledge-based systems.
5.
This view brings to mind again the problems of TAPs in translation research.
TAPs have been very useful for a generation of pioneering scientific researchers.
They have helped us build most of our current knowledge on translation processes, and they are still useful for pilot, orientational, and qualitative studies.
But methodological problems (Bernardini 1999, 2001; Li 2004), together with
criticism on the validity of the protocols for translating applications (Toury 1991;
Sguinot 1996), undermine their status as a viable procedure for data collection in
empirical translation process research today, even when they are combined with
sorne other collection procedures, such as keyboard logging (Jakobsen 2003).
The status of immediate retrospection in experimental subjects is also unclear, since we do not know whether they are still tapping the same mental structures they used when translating, or whether post hoc construction" is already
heavily at work in their account. Retrospective data should probably not be used
as indirect indicators ofhow processes actually happened, but asan excellent way
to study the way subjects construct what happened in their minds when they were
translating. This could shed light on the way translators envision their tasks. Correlations between systematic views of the translation tasks and behavioral routines, cognitive styles, and product results might help us to learn about the relationships between the conceptualization of the task, the quality of the product,
and the development of translation expertise. Research strategies such as those
used in Gentner and Gentner (1982), who observed the effects of different metaphorical conceptualizations on problem solving, might be good models to look at
for a breakthrough in this area.
Another point at which theoretical considerations impact research methods
is the notion of ecological validity. Neisser (1976, 1987) and other researchers
rightly pointed out that many experiments in cognitive psychology only apply to
laboratory circumstances, and we should try to make sure that this <loes not happen in translatology. If results from non-ecological testing are doubtful in science,
they are of equal concern in the stl;ldy of translation. 7 For example, the notion
of translating a whole text without interruptions for research purposes tends to
prompt researchers to use originals which are far shorter than the average text
6. Needless to say, not all empirical translatologists may be interested in a cognitive para-
digmas a basis. Such might be the case for corpora studies. Nevertheless, the wealth of data
in process research is turning test results into corpora and will make it necessary to build an
interface between them. The corpus CORPRAT of the LETRA Lab (UFMG) is an initiative
avant-la-lettre in this direction. The Transcomp Research Group (Univ. Graz) has also developed a notation system to codify process data from TAPs.
7. And, in this proposal, they may be deemed as nonsensical. This does not imply, however,
that complex research designs may not use lab type strategies to collect additional data to crossreference with naturalistic data collection activities which should constitute the base for predicating possible causal relationships.
181
182
length in real commissions, and differences between long and short translation
tasks still remain to be accounted for.
Theoretical frameworks also suggest new research topics or foster new interest on areas which may have previously been deemed uninteresting. Proceduralization is a case in point. Problem-solving has been one of the main foci of
research in the last decades in translatology, and differing approaches have shared
the notion of the translation process as a series of alternating mental activities or
ways of processing:
In the translation process of any individual, there are segments which are translated apparently automatically, without any problems, and other segments where
the translation is slow, full of many variants and deliberations, which necessitates
a problem solving approach and the application of strategies.
(Englund-Dimitrova 2005: 26)
There seems to be an emerging consensus that the problem-solving process benefits from the cognitive resources freed by proceduralized routines. Furthermore,
unproblematic renditions still entail judgments by translators, so there must be
evaluations that call into question the proposed, straight-through renderings
in the process. Under this perspective, unproblematic text segments are at least
as interesting as those where problem-solving strategies are applied, because
translators have been acting and cognizing in both. And, since each translation
problem represents a unique constellation of features, as perceived by a given
person in a given moment, stored knowledge about translating is more visible in
the unproblematic (recurrent) formulations. This, of course, <loes not mean that
problem-solving is not important. lt only points out that shifting disciplinary
attention to also include a focus on proceduralized and "unconscious" processes
might be useful.
Interiorizing procedures and storing solutions found in previous, comparable experiences also seems to be an important feature oflearning how to translate
and of developing translation expertise. But expertise should not be approached
in a winner-takes-all fashion, where novices and experts of assumed similar
skills are compared. Professionals vary in their abilities throughout their working lives, and changes in topic domain may place them sorne steps behind their
usual performance level. Trainees probably follow unique paths to develop their
expertise, due to their personal histories, with many intermediate stages which
can be metaphorically likened to those in the acquisition oflanguage command
(interlingua). Hence, if translation expertise is to be explored, we should adopt
a developmental perspective and think of it as a continuum with many facets
(not modules!). Correlations between types of problems and solutions and the
quality of results might be tested and associated to stages in the development of
References
Akman, Varol. 2000. "Introduction to the special issue on philosophical foundations of artificial intelligence:' Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):
247-250.
Anderson, Michael L. 2003. "Embodied cognition: A field guide:' Artificial Intelligence 149 (1):
91-130.
Baars, Bernard J. 1988. A Cognitive Theory ofConsciousness. Cambridge: University Press.
Barsalou, L. W. 2008. "Grounded cognition:' Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617-645.
Bernardini, Silvia. 1999. "Using think-aloud protocols to investigate the translation process:
Methodological aspects:' In RCEAL Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 6,
J. N. Williams (ed.), 179-199. Cambridge: University Press.
Bernardini, Silvia 2001. "Think-aloud protocols in translation research. Achievements, limits,
future prospects:' Target 13 (2): 241-263.
8. http://www.fti.uab.es/pacte/projectes/projectesingles.htm
9. http://gams.uni-graz.at/fedora/get/ container:tc/bdef:Container/ get
183
Berry, John W. 1987. "The comparative study of cognitive abilities:' In Intelligence and Cognition: Contemporary Frames of Reference, Stephen H. Irvine and Sidney E. Newstead (eds.),
393-420. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
Block, Ned. 1996. "What is functionalism? A revised version of the entry on functionalism in
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, Macmillan:' Available on line at http://www.
nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/functionalism.pdf.
Brooks, Rodney A. 1991. "Intelligence without representation:' Artificial Intelligence fournal
47: 139-159.
Buttler, Keith. 1994. "Neural constraints in cognitive science:' Minds and Machines 4 (2): 129162.
Cantor, Scott B., Byrd, Theresa L., Groff, Janet Y., Reyes, Yesenia, Tortolero-Luna, Guillermo
and Mullen, Patricia. 2005. "The language translation process in survey research: A cost
analysis:' Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 27: 364-370.
Churchland, Patricia S. and Sejnowski, Terrence. 1992. The Computational Brain. Cambridge,
MA:MIT.
Clancey, William J. 1997. Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations. Cambridge: University Press.
Clark, Andy. 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Cambridge,
MA:MIT.
Codde, Philippe. 2003. "Polysystem theory revisited: A new comparative introduction:' Poetics
Today 24 (1): 91-126.
Cook, Peter. 1998. Best Practice Creativity. Burlington, VT: Gower.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Plow and the Psychology ofDiscovery and Invention.
New York: Harper-Collins.
Damasio, Antonio R. 2001. "Sorne notes on brain, imagination and creativity:' In The Origins
of Creativity, Karl H. Pfenninger, Bruce Adolphe and Valerie R. Shubik (eds.), 59-68. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Dancette, Jeanne and Mnard, Nathan. 1996. "Modeles empiriques et exprimentaux entraductologie: questions d'pistmologie:' Meta 41 (1): 139-156.
De Groot, Anette M. B. 2000. ''A complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting:' In
Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, Sonja TirkkonenCondit and Riitta Jiiaskelfnen (eds.), 53-68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
De Mey, Marc. 1982. The Cognitive Paradigm. Chicago: University Press.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. "Culture and cognition:' Annual Review ofSociology 23: 263-288.
Dowd, E. Thomas. 1989. "The self and creativity: Severa! constructs in search of a theory:'
In Handbook of Creativity: Perspectives on Individual Differences, John A. Glover, Royce
R. Ronning and Cecil R. Reynolds (eds.), 233-242. New York: Plenum.
Englund-Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Feldman, Jerome and Ballard, Dana. 1982. "Connectionist models and their properties:' Cognitive Science 6: 204-254.
Friedenberg, Jay and Silverman, Gordon. 2006. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study
of Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gehani, R. Ray. 1998. Management of Technology and Operations. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Gentner, Dedre and Gentner, Donald R. 1982. Plowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity [Report # 4981]. Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman.
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Givn, Talmy. 1989. Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gomila, Toni and Calvo, Paco. 2006. Embodying Cognition: Towards an Integrated Approach.
Workshop summary available at http://www.eucognition.org/embodying_cognition_
2006/workshop_theme.pdf
Gouadec, Daniel. 2005. "Modlisation du processus d'excution des traductions:' Meta 50 (2):
643-652.
Gutt, Ernst A. 1991. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hansen, Gyde. 2008. "Kommunikative Kompetenz in bersetzungsprozessen: Eine Langzeitstudie:' Redit 1: 48-56.
Harris, Brian. 1977. "The importance of natural translation:' Working Papers in Bilingualism
12: 96-114.
Harris, Brian. 1988. "What I really meant by 'Translatology':' TTR 1(2):91-96.
Holz-Manttliri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Annales
Academiae Scientarum Fennicae.
Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Jakobsen, Arnt L. 2003. "Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation:' In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, Fabio Alves
(ed.), 69-95. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reason. Chicago: University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure ofScienti.fic Revolutions. Chicago: University Press.
Lachat Leal, Cristina. 1998. ''Anlisis del concepto de contexto en la teora de la relevancia:' In
Estudios de lingstica cognitiva, Jos Luis Cifuentes Honrubia (ed.), 103-112. Alicante:
Universidad.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University Press.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in The Plesh: The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George and Nez, Rafael E. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes Prom. New York: Basic
Books.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Pire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. "The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?"
Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1): 39-74.
Langacker, R. 1987. Poundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: University Press.
Lave, Jean. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Lije. Cambridge: University Press.
Li, Defeng. 2004. "Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation processes:' International fournal ofApplied Linguistics 14: 301-313.
Martn de Len, Celia. 2005. Contenedores, recorridos y metas. Metforas en la traductologa
funcionalista. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Martn de Len, Celia. 2008. "Skopos and beyond. A critica! study of functionalism:' Target
20: 1-28.
McClelland, James L. 1998. "Complementary learning systems in the brain: A connectionist
approach to explicit and implicit cognition and memorY:' Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 843: 153-169.
185
Moorman, Kenneth and Raro, Ashwin. 1994. A Functional Iheory of Creative Reading. [College
of Computing technical report no. 94-01]. Atlanta: Georgia Institute ofTechnology. Available online at ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/coc/tech_reports/1994/GIT-CC-94-01.ps.Z
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1991. "Paradigms gained or the art of productive disagreemenf' In
Bridging the Gap. Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, Sylvie Lambert and
Barbara Moser-Mercer (eds.), 17-23. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Muoz Martn, Ricardo. 1994. "La lingstica cognitiva, la teora de la traduccin y la navaja de
Occam [Cognitive linguistics, translation theory, and Ocham.'s razar]:' Unpublished presentation at the First International Conference on Translation and Interpreting. University
ofHavana, Cuba, December 7-9, 1994.
Muoz Martn, Ricardo. 1995. Lingstica para traducir. Barcelona: Teide.
Muoz Martn, Ricardo. In Press a. "Leave no stone unturned: On the development of cognitive
translatology:' Translation and Jnterpreting Studies 5 (2).
Muoz Martn, Ricardo. In Press b. "Nomn mihi legio est: A cognitive approach to natural
translation:' In Interpreting... Naturally, Mara Jess Blasco and Amparo Jimnez (eds.).
Castelln, Spain: Universitat Jaume l.
Neisser, Ulric. 1976. Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: Freeman.
Neisser, Ulric. 1987. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors
in Categorization. Cambridge: University Press.
Nierenberg, Gerard l. 1982. The Art of Creative Ihinking. New York: Barnes and Noble.
O'Brien, Gerard and Opie, Jon. 1999. "A connectionist theory of phenomenal experience:' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 127-148.
Pym, Anthony. 1994. "Ideologies of the expert in discourses on translator training:' In Problems
and Trends in the Teaching of Interpreting and Translation, Yves Gambier and Mary SnellHornby (eds.), 481-497. Misano: Istituto San Pellegrino.
Quinn, Naomi and Holland, Dorothy. 1987. "Culture and cognition:' In Cultural Models in
Language and Ihought, Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (eds.), 3-42. Cambridge: University Press.
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. "The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about
language:' In Metaphor and Ihought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 284-324. Cambridge: University Press.
ReiB, Katharina and Vermer, Hans. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie.
Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Risku, Hanna. 2002. "Situatedness in translation studies:' Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3):
523-533.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of Linguistics. Stanford: University Press.
Schmidt, Morena Azbel. 2005. How Do You Do It Anyway? A Longitudinal Study of Ihree Translator Students Translatingfrom Russian into Swedish. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.
Sguinot, Candace. 1996. "Sorne thoughts about think-aloud protocols:' Target 8 (1): 75-95.
Smith, Linda and Gasser, Michael. 2005. "The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons
from babies:' Artificial Lije 11 (1-2): 13-30.
Spivey, Michael. 2007. The Continuity of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and SituatedActions: Ihe Problem ofHuman Machine Communication.
Cambridge: University Press.
Sutton, John. 2008. "Remembering:' In The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, Philips
Robbins and Murat Aydede (eds.), 217-235. Cambridge: University Press.
Tabakowska, ElZbieta. 1993. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics ofTranslation. ,Tbingen: Narr.
Thagard, Paul. 1993. "Societies of minds: Science as distributed computing:' Studies in History
and Philosophy of Science 24: 49-67.
Thagard, Paul. 1994. "Mind, society, and the growth of knowledge:' Philosophy of Science 61:
629-645.
Thagard, Paul. 1997. "Collaborative knowledge:' Nous 31(2):242-261.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sanja. 2005. "The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research:' Meta 50 (2): 405-414.
Toury, Gideon. 1988. "A handful of paragraphs on "Translation'' and "Norms":' In Translation
and Norms, Christina Schaffner (ed.), 10-32. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Toury, Gideon. 1991. "Experimentation in translation studies: Achievements, prospects and
sorne pitfalls:' In Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, Sanja Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.), 45-66. Tbingen: Narr.
Toury, Gideon. l 995a. "The notion of "assumed translation'' - An invitation to a new discussion:' In Letterlijkheid, Woordelijheid, Henri Bloemen, Erik Hertog, and Winibert Segers
(eds.), 135-147. Antwerpen: Fantom.
Toury, Gideon. 1995b. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Evan and Rosch, Eleanor. 1991. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge,
MA:MIT.
Vermeer, H. J. 1983. "Translation theory and linguistics:' In Niikokohtia kiiiiniimisen tutkimuksesta, Pauli Roinila, Ritva Orfanos, and Sanja Tirkkonen-Condit (eds.), 1-10. Joensuu:
University Press.
Wilson, Margaret. 2002. "Six views of embodied cognition:' Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
9 (4): 625-636.
Winograd, Terry and Flores, Fernando. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New
Foundation for Design. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. by Gertrude E.M. Anscombe.
Oxford: Blackwell.
187