Mental Models across Languages

The visual representation of baldness terms in German, English, and Japanese

| University of Bonn
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027201782 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027263230 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book presents a study that triangulates the meanings of expressions across English, German and Japanese via their perception-based conceptual representations. In an online experiment, native speakers of the three languages were asked to design visual representations of expressions referring to baldness phenomena. These sets of visualizations are used to determine conceptual overlap or distance between expressions in the three languages, resulting in lexical-conceptual 'maps' for MALE BALDNESS. The study is discussed against the background of an embodied, perceptual symbol-based understanding of linguistic meaning. A section of the book further applies this perspective to the issue of translation, developing a process model of translation based on the concept of cognitive equivalence.

The book presents a novel approach to lexical semantics from a cognitive linguistic perspective, tested through a methodologically innovative experiment. It is a compelling read to scholars in cognitive semantics, contrastive semantics, embodied cognition and cognitive translation studies.

[Human Cognitive Processing, 63]  2018.  xv, 328 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.63
Table of Contents
List of figures
ix–xi
List of tables
xiii–xiv
Acknowledgments
xv
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–6
Chapter 2. Mental models, perceptual simulation, and the conceptual-linguistic interface
8–69
Chapter 3. Translation, equivalence, and lexical meaning
72–128
Chapter 4. Methodology
130–181
Chapter 5. Results*
184–297
Chapter 6. Conclusion
300–310
Bibliography
311–320
Appendix A. Basic data BT categories for each language
322–324
Appendix B. Detailed listing of the pre-study interviewees
Terms for index
References

Bibliography

Al-Hasnawi, A. R.
2007 A cognitive approach to translating metaphors. Translation Journal 11(3), n. pag. Retrieved from http://​www​.bokorlang​.com​/journal​/41metaphor​.htm.
Ameel, E., & Storms, G.
2006 From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 402–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. L.
2003 Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 245–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D.
2003 Why translation is difficult for computers. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (119–142). Benjamin’s Translations Library 35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2000 On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (31–58). Topics in English Linguistics 30. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
2010 Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
2002 Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Representation, memory, and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler (1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003 Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 1177–1187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Situated conceptualization. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (619–650). St. Louis: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 364, 1281–1289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (239–258). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D.
2008 Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. B.
2011 Ealiest directly-dated human skull-cups. PLoS ONE 6(2).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.
2007 Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (277–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Feldman, J.
2008 Embodied concept learning. In P. Calvo, & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (313–331). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
1969 Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Black, M.
1949 Language and philosophy: Studies in method. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bolaños Cuéllar, S.
2002 Equivalence revisited: A key concept in modern translation theory. Forma y Función, 15, 60–88.Google Scholar
Breuer, E. O.
2014 First language versus foreign language: Fluency, errors and revision processes in foreign language academic writing. Dissertation, University of Bonn. URL: http://​nbn​-resolving​.de​/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5​-34803.
Brown, R. W., & Lenneberg, E. H.
1954 A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49(3), 454–462.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P.
2002 The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25(6), 657–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cangelosi, A., Bongard, J., Fischer, N. H., & Nolfi, S.
2015 Embodied intelligence. In J. Kacprzyk, & W. Pedrycz (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence (697–714). Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C.
1965 A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R.
2001 Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1), 80–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
1996 On similarity. Target 8(1), 159–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.
1998a Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998b Magic words: How language augments human computation. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (162–183). Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3), 181–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L.
1984 Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
2002 Paradigmatic relations of inclusion and identity III: synonymy. In D. A. Cruse (Ed.), Lexikologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen (485–497). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W.
1997 The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A.
1977 A model of slips of the tongue. In R. J. Dipietro, & E. L. Blansitt (Eds.), The third LACUS forum 1976 (448–455). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Dennison, H., & Bergen, B. K.
2010 Language-driven motor simulation is sensitive to social context. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (901–906). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
2006 Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4), 491–534.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A.
2006 From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A., & Narayanan, S.
2004 Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1977 Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1982 Frame semantics. In T. L. S. of Korea (Ed.): Linguistics in the morning calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
2006 Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (373–400). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
1975 The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Garcia, I.
2010 Is machine translation ready yet? Target 22(1), 7–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
1994 Varieties of lexical variation. In W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Euralex International Congress on Lexicography (78–84). Amsterdam (no publisher).Google Scholar
2006a Introduction: A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (1–28). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 2006b Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
1994 The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
2005 Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
2006 Image schema: The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (239–268). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G.
1996 Mind as computer: Birth of a metaphor. Creativity Research Journal 9(2&3), 131–144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P.
2002 Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I.
2006 Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S.
2008 Translationsprozessforschung – Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., & Mees, I. M.
(Eds.) 2009 Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Grice, P.
1975 Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guarrera, M., Cardo, P., Arrigo, P., & Rebora, A. E.
2009 Reliability of Hamilton-Norwood classification. International Journal of Trichology 1(2), 120–122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E. -A.
1989 Translation and relevance. Dissertation, University College London. Retrieved from: http://​discovery​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/1317504​/1​/241978​.pdf.
1991 Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L.
2014 Reorienting translation studies: Cognitive approaches and the centrality of the translator. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (116–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. B.
1951 Patterned loss of hair in man; Types and incidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 53(3), 709–728.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S.
2002 Symbol grounding and the origin of language. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New directions (143–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heider, E. R.
1971 “Focal” color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology 4(3), 447–455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972 Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic method: The case of Dani colour names. Man, 7, 448–466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hillmer, A. M., Hanneken, S., Ritzmann, S., Becker, T., Freudenberg, J., Brockschmidt, F. F., Flaquer, A., Freudenberg-Hua, Y., Rami, Abou J., Metzen, C., Heyn, U., Schweiger, N., Betz, R. C., Blaumeiser, B., Hampe, J., Schreiber, S., Schulze, T. G., Hennies, H. C., Schumacher, J., Propping, P., Ruzicka, T., Cichon, S., Wienker, T. F., Kruse, R., & Nöthen, M. M.
2005 Genetic variation in the human androgen receptor gene is the major determinant of common early-onset androgenetic alopecia. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 77, 140–148.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N.
1987 Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttärri, J.
1990 Funktionskonstanz – eine Fiktion? In H. Salevsky (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung: Akten der ersten internationalen Konferenz Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung (66–74). Berlin: Humboldt Universität.Google Scholar
House, J.
1997 Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2008 Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualization and a third space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 7, 149–175.Google Scholar
Hubert, M., & Van der Veeken, S.
2008 Outlier detection for skewed data. Journal of Chemometrics 22(3–4), (235–246).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, J.
2003 Machine translation: General overview. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (501–511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivir, V.
1996 A case for linguistics in translation theory. Target, 8, 149–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., Pei Yun Poh, R. & Paivio, A.
2013 L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin – English bilinguals: A test of bilingual dual coding theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 383–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
1983 Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2004 The history of mental models. In K. Manktelow, & M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (179–212). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kade, O.
1968 Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Probleme der Translation. In A. Neubert (Ed.), Grundlagen der Übersetzungswissenschaft (3–19). Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011 Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. K.
1978 The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54(3), 610–646.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, V.
1999 The computational metaphor of mind: More bugs in the program. Metaphor and Symbol 14(4), 281–292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E.
2013 Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koller, W.
1979 Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
1992 Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 4th edition. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P.
2005 Wege ins Labyrinth: Fragestellungen und Methoden der Übersetzungsprozessforschung im Überblick. Meta 50(2), 342–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B.
2008 Culture, society, and cognition: Collective goals, values, action, and knowledge. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
1973 The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. -J. N. Bailey, & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (340–373). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 The neural theory of metaphor. Crossref. Retrieved from: https://​papers​.ssrn​.com​/sol3​/papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=1437794
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1986 An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Assessing the cognitive linguistics enterprise. In T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (13–60). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
1983 Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
2010 Re-conceptualization and the emergence of discourse meaning as a theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (105–148). Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Equivalence. In L. Bogucki, S. Gozdz-Roszkowski, & P. Stalmaszczyk (Eds.), Ways to translation (1–47). Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C.
1974 Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1995 Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malin, S.
2001 Nature loves to hide: Quantum physics and reality, a Western perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ping, L., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E.
2015 Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, N.
1996 The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory. In M. Thelen, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning, part 3: Proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 2nd International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and meaning” (483–495). Maastricht: Universitaire Press.Google Scholar
1997 Grammatical blending: Creative and schematic aspects in sentence processing and translation. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Retrieved from: http://​www​.cogsci​.ucsd​.edu​/~faucon​/NILI​/contents​.html.
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E.
1981 Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milikan, R. G.
2001 The language-thought partnership: A bird’s eye view. Language & Communication, 21, 157–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M.
1975 A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. W. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mira, J.
2008 Symbols versus connections: 50 years of artificial intelligence. Neurocomputing, 71, 671–680.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muscarella, F., & Cunningham, M. R.
1996 The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 17, 99–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, S.
2010 Mind changes: A simulation semantics account of counterfactuals. Unpublished paper, 1–47. Retrieved from: http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~snarayan​/counterfactuals​.pdf.
Newmark, P.
1976 The theory and the craft of translation. Language Teaching 9(1), 5–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. A.
1964 Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill Archive.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R.
1969 The theory and practice of translation. London, New York & Stuttgart: United Bible Societies.Google Scholar
Nord, C.
1989 Loyalität statt Treue: Vorschläge für eine funktionale Übersetzungstypologie. Lebende Sprachen 34(3), 100–105.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Function plus loyalty: Ethics in professional translation. Génesis. Revista Científica do ISAG, 6, 7–17.Google Scholar
Norwood, O. T.
1975 Male pattern baldness: Classification and incidence. Southern Medical Journal 68(11), 1359–1365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, A. G.
1960 Automatic language translation: Lexical and technical aspects, with particular reference to Russian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A.
1989 [1923] The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. 8th edition. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
2009 Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J.
1946 La formation du symbole chez l’enfant: Imitation, jeu et rêve, image et représentation. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
1959 The language and thought of the Child. 3rd edition. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, R., & Souza Bittencourt, R. de
2008 An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer: From neurons to sociocultural situatedness. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (21–51). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.
1994 Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik. München: Piper Verlag.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F.
1999 Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pym, A.
1992 Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1997 Koller’s Äquivalenz revisited. The Translator 3(1), 71–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Western translation theories as responses to equivalence. Unpublished paper. N. pag. Retrieved from http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/translation​/2009​_paradigms​.pdf.
2010 Exploring translation theories. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.
1960 Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
2001 What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
1979 The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (284–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, K.
1971 Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J.
1984 Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Amsterdam: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, H.
2000 Situated Translation und Situated Cognition: ungleiche Schwestern. In M. Kadric et al. (Eds.), Translationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag (81–91). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2013 Cognitive linguistics and translation studies: Past, present and future. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (3–30). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975 Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978 Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1998 Categorization. In J. -O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
1975 Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C.
2013 Free will, determinism, quantum theory and statistical fluctuations: A physicist’s take. N. pag. Retrieved from http://​www​.edge​.org​/conversation​/free​-will​-determinism​-quantum​-theory​-and​-statistical​-fluctuations​-a​-physicists​-take.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J.
1986 Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. I.
2009 Semantics. 3rd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
1916 Cours de linguistique générale publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne/Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. D. E.
1814 Alte Literatur: Ueber die Farbengebung des Alterthümlichen in Verdeutschung alter klassischer Prosa. Die Musen, 102–120.Google Scholar
Schnelle, H.
2010 Language in the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1980 Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3), 417–457.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, J. A.
2000 The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 23–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M.
1989 Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W.
1949 The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L.
2007 The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass, 2, 338–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Embodied cognition. New Problems of Philosophy. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sickinger, P.
2012 Mental models and linguistic cues: Investigating the interface between language and mental representation across cultures. 35th International LAUD Symposium: Cognitive psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, cognition and communication. Essen: LAUD, 125–146.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R., & Ferreira, V. S.
2006 Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 515–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1973 Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M.
1988 Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 1986 Übersetzungswissenschaft – eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L.
2003 Machine translation: Latest developments. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (512–528). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D.
1996 Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998 The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taheri-Ardali, M., Bagheri, M., & Eidy, R.
2013 Towards a new model to metaphor translation: A cognitive approach. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies 11(41), 35–52.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
1995 Linguistic categorization. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Prototyes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (39–65). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, R., Matassa, J., Leavy, J. E., & Fritschi, L.
2004 Validity of self reported male balding patterns in epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health 4(60).Google Scholar
Thomas, J.
2005 Androgenetic alopecia – current status. Indian Journal of Dermatology [serial online] 50(4), n. pag. [179–190]. Retrieved from: http://​www​.e​-ijd​.org​/text​.asp​?2005​/50​/4​/179​/19741.
Toury, G.
1995 Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M., & Bergen, B.
2005 Lexical processing drives motor simulation. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (2206–2211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W.
1983 Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Venuti, L.
1998 The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of the difference. London & New York: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, H. J.
1994 Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft – Eine Neuorientierung (30–53). Tübingen: Franke Verlag.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. -P., & Darbelnet, J.
1958 Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vincente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F.
2005 Semantic underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language. Mind & Language 20(5), 537–558.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C. F.
1954 Multiple stage translation. International Journal of American Liguistics, 20, 271–280.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B.
1956 Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benhamin Lee Whorf. [Edited by J. B. Carroll]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1990 The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 99–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W.
1982 The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1990 Cognitive aspects of the translation process. [Translated by Roger C. Norton]. Language & Communication, 10, 19–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Übersetzungsfertigkeit. Annäherungen an einen komplexen übersetzungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A.
2004 The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
1998 Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2), 162–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E.
2004 Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H.
2002 Research report: Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13(2), 168–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Semantics
Cognition and language
Theoretical linguistics
Cognitive linguistics
BIC Subject: CFD – Psycholinguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018034771 | Marc record