Exercise 2 -- Exercise 3 -- Exercise 4 -- Exercise 5 -- Exercise 6 -- Exercise 7 -- Exercise 8 -- Exercise 9 -- Exercise 10 -- Exercise 11 -- Exercise 12 -- Exercise 13 -- Bibliography -- Index

Although the notion of meaning has always been at the core of translation, the invariance of meaning has, partly due to practical constraints, rarely been challenged in Corpus-based Translation Studies. In answer to this, the aim of this book is to question the invariance of meaning in translated texts: if translation scholars agree on the fact that translated language is different from non-translated language with respect to a number of grammatical and lexical aspects, would it be possible to identify differences between translated and non-translated language on the semantic level too? More specifically, this books tries to formulate an answer to the following three questions: (i) how can semantic differences in translated vs non-translated language be investigated in a corpus-based study?, (ii) are there any differences on the semantic level between translated and non-translated language? and (iii) if there are differences on the semantic level, can we ascribe them to any of the (universal) tendencies of translation? In this book, I establish a way to visually explore semantic similarity on the basis of representations of translated and non-translated semantic fields. A technique for the comparison of semantic fields of translated and non-translated language called SMM++ (based on Helge Dyvik’s Semantic Mirrors method) is developed, yielding statistics-based visualizations of semantic fields. The SMM++ is presented via the case of inchoativity in Dutch (beginnen [to begin]). By comparing the visualizations of the semantic fields on different levels (translated Dutch with French as a source language, with English as a source language and non-translated Dutch) I further explore whether the differences between translated and non-translated fields of inchoativity in Dutch can be linked to any of the well-known universals of translation. The main results of this study are explained on the basis of two cognitively inspired frameworks: Halverson’s Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and Paradis’ neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism.

The papers compiled in the present volume aim at investigating the many fruitful manners in which cognitive linguistics can expand further on cognitive translation studies. Some papers (e.g. Halverson, Muñoz-Martín, Martín de León) take a theoretical stand, since the epistemological and ontological bases of both areas (cognitive linguistics and translation studies) should be known before specific contributions of cognitive linguistic to translation are tackled. Several works in the volume attempt to illustrate how some of the notions imported from cognitive linguistics may contribute to enrich our understanding of the translation process in a general translation problem such as metaphor (e.g. Samaniego), the relationship between form and meaning (e.g. Tabakowska, Rojo and Valenzuela) or cultural aspects (e.g. Bernárdez, Sharifian/Jamarani). Others use translation as an empirical field to test some of the basic assumptions of cognitive linguistics such as frames (e.g. Boas), metonymy (e.g. Brdar/Brdar-Szabó), and lexicalisation patterns (e.g. Ibarretxe-Antuñano/Filipovi?). Finally, another set of papers (e.g. Feist, Hatzidaki) opens up new lines of investigation for experimental research, a very promising area still underdeveloped.

Although the notion of meaning has always been at the core of translation, the invariance of meaning has, partly due to practical constraints, rarely been challenged in Corpus-based Translation Studies. In answer to this, the aim of this book is to question the invariance of meaning in translated texts: if translation scholars agree on the fact that translated language is different from non-translated language with respect to a number of grammatical and lexical aspects, would it be possible to identify differences between translated and non-translated language on the semantic level too? More specifically, this books tries to formulate an answer to the following three questions: (i) how can semantic differences in translated vs non-translated language be investigated in a corpus-based study?, (ii) are there any differences on the semantic level between translated and non-translated language? and (iii) if there are differences on the semantic level, can we ascribe them to any of the (universal) tendencies of translation? In this book, I establish a way to visually explore semantic similarity on the basis of representations of translated and non-translated semantic fields. A technique for the comparison of semantic fields of translated and non-translated language called SMM++ (based on Helge Dyvik’s Semantic Mirrors method) is developed, yielding statistics-based visualizations of semantic fields. The SMM++ is presented via the case of inchoativity in Dutch (beginnen [to begin]). By comparing the visualizations of the semantic fields on different levels (translated Dutch with French as a source language, with English as a source language and non-translated Dutch) I further explore whether the differences between translated and non-translated fields of inchoativity in Dutch can be linked to any of the well-known universals of translation. The main results of this study are explained on the basis of two cognitively inspired frameworks: Halverson’s Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and Paradis’ neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism.

Introduces the integration of theoretical and applied translation studies for socially-oriented and data-driven empirical translation research.

The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics explores the interrelationships between translation studies and linguistics in six sections of state-of-the-art chapters, written by leading specialists from around the world. The first part begins by addressing the relationships between translation studies and linguistics as major topics of study in themselves before focusing, in individual chapters, on the relationships between translation on the one hand and semantics, semiotics and the sound system of language on the other. Part II explores the nature of meaning and the ways in which meaning can be shared in text pairs that are related to each other as first-written texts and their translations, while Part III focuses on the relationships between translation and interpreting and the written and spoken word. Part IV considers the users of language and situations involving more than one language and Part V addresses technological tools that can assist language users. Finally, Part VI presents chapters on the links between areas of applied linguistics and translation and interpreting. With an introduction by the editor and an extensive bibliography, this handbook is an indispensable resource for advanced students of translation studies, interpreting studies and applied linguistics.

This book focuses on video game translation from the perspective of cognitive semantics. It presents how the translators' knowledge of cognitive semantics can affect translation. The work is interdisciplinary and aspires to complete gaps in the research on video games. It analyzes almost 3000 standard pages of texts found in eight different games.

The aim of this study is a comparative analysis of the role of semantics in the linguistic theory of four grammatical traditions, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic. If one compares the organization of linguistic theory in various grammatical traditions, it soon turns out that there are marked differences in the way they define the place of ‘semantics’ within the theory. In some traditions, semantics is formally excluded from linguistic theory, and linguists do not express any opinion as to the relationship between syntactic and semantic analysis. In other traditions, the whole basis of linguistic theory is semantically orientated, and syntactic features are always analysed as correlates of a semantic structure. However, even in those traditions, in which semantics falls explicitly or implicitly outside the scope of linguistics, there may be factors forcing linguists to occupy themselves with the semantic dimension of language. One important factor seems to be the presence of a corpus of revealed/sacred texts: the necessity to formulate hermeneutic rules for the interpretation of this corpus brings semantics in through the back door.