Interdisciplinary approach in

translation didactics

Hannelore Lee-Jahnke
Universit de Genve

Abstract
The question why interdisciplinary research and approach in translation didactics has
become essential and of interest to translation studies will be outlined prior to highlighting
three to our thinking major disciplines of interest. Those are: 1. cognitive and affective
sciences with a specific interest of evaluation methods and the implicit and explicit
knowledge; 2. cognitive sciences and neurosciences leading to a more proficient structuring
of a course; 3. research in competences, analyzing first and foremost the different
competences, such as social competence, methodological competence, personal competence
and acting competence. Linked to the research in competences is of course the pathway
which trainers pave for their learners and which leads from novices to experts, taking into
account the interface with the professional world.
A practical example of a course, in which all these reflections are integrated and
structured according to Blooms taxonomy, will mark the last part of this paper.

1.

Introduction

Before going in medias res, it seems of importance to better understand two issues:
1) Why do we need new approaches in translations didactics and 2) in which way
interdisciplinarity is the solution to higher performance and improved quality.
1) In our globalized world not only economy has undergone major changes, also
education and even more so higher education in which we face since 1990 a

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

very strong shift from teaching to learning. What does this mean? It means that
teaching has to aim at an individual learning process in which the trainer acts
mainly as facilitator. This implies of course that the student is in the center of
the process and no more the trainer: the latter helping mainly in the knowledge
and skills transfer, showing how to integrate actively new knowledge into
existing knowledge, hence to infer as much as possible.
In other words, many trainers have to change their way of teaching and also of
structuring their classes.
2) Interdisciplinarity implies that there are at least two disciplines which can
make inquiries related to common mechanisms or common methods. An
approach which is fairly young in as far as translation studies are concerned,
the latter being, as we know, a discipline of its own only since some 70 years.
This means that we still have to learn a lot and explore the best possible ways
in interdisciplinary research by looking at problems and general processes
which two or more disciplines could have in common: such as regularities,
describing i.e. kinship structures. Interdisciplinarity hence can help us to better
results by integrating knowledge from annexed disciplines through new
pathways.

2.

Interdisciplinarity: a result of the neighborhood factor?

In order to exemplify the above question it is interesting to have a look at the

genesis of psycholinguistics, which became a discipline of its own through the
merger of language and psychology. Aitchison (1992: 73) defined psycho linguistics as the study of the language and the mind. It was created through
collaboration between psychologists and linguists and goes back to the year 1951.1
Although the disciplines of psychologists and linguists were already well defined,
both had one aim in common: the thorough study of language aiming at making
a synthesis between psychology and learning processes and linguistics (Peterfalvi
1974). With the help of psycholinguistics we could also highlight some useful
methods of process-oriented translation training (Lee-Jahnke 2011: 113).2
The above question can clearly be answered with yes. Yet, it should be added that
interdisciplinarity is also the key to new approaches and hence new findings and
innovative didactical methods within the framework of translation. Hereafter we
show the disciplines which are of major interest for translation studies: for the
present study we shall only take into consideration neuro- and cognitive sciences,
the study of emotions or affective sciences and the study of competences since
they are all closely linked to the process-oriented teaching and learning which
strives to bring novices to experts in the given time.

1
2

In this context it is of interest to read the new edition of the Didactica magna by Ahrbeck
(1961)
For further reading see Lee-Jahnke (1998).

2.1 Interdisciplinary research in translation: past, present, future

2.1.1 Past: defining and understanding process-oriented translation
through scenes & frames and the Gestalt concept
The study and importance of neurocognitive aspects of translation and in
particular process-oriented research (Knigs 1996) with a solid empirical basis,
has to be viewed through a historic looking glass in order to better understand
the current endeavor of research within the neurocognitive approach in
translation. We are talking here on the one hand about a timeframe of some thirty
years in which different studies (Gile 2005; Kalina 2005; Krings 1986, 2005;
Mizuno 2005; Rydning 2005; Sguinot 1989, 2005; Tirkkonen-Condit 1989, 2005;
Jskelinen 1987; Lee-Jahnke 1998, 2005; Lrscher 2005; Zhong 2005) have been
conducted, all offering some insight into what goes on in the translators mind
during the translation process. Qui bono? The great benefit goes definitely to
translation and interpreting training, since this type of research shows the trainer
whether his didactical method enhances translation capacity through better
inferring abilities and the development of automatisms which can be observed
in professionals.
As a matter of fact we do believe that this approach has to take into
consideration the early studies made by Fillmore (1977: 55) which have clearly
shown the need of an integrated view of language structure, language behavior,
language comprehension, language change and language acquisition, as he puts
it. These studies, which have marked the cognitive turn in translation (Lee-Jahnke
2007: 367), identified three major issues:
1) Is it possible to formulate the description of meaning in a checklist?
2) How to interpret the increasing interest in scene and frame not only in
linguistics but also in cognitive sciences and cognitive psychology?
3) How to describe in a satisfactory way the process(es?) of the understanding of
a text?
Fillmores model of Scenes-and-frames semantics attempted at responding to the
need of a relevant theory which so far did not exist. In his own words, his research
was:
a tentative first step in seeking a solution to certain problems in semantic theory
within the framework of concepts that seem to be emerging in a number of disciplines
touching on human thought and behavior. (Fillmore 1977: 79)

Fillmore was not the only one to identify the importance of a Gestalt3 principle in
language matters: Lakoff (1977) also published an article in the same year on
Linguistic Gestalts and Attila (1977) on Dynamic fields and linguistic structure:
A proposal for a Gestalt linguistics. In our training situations we greatly benefited
from this knowledge in combining it with the enhancing of mental
representations prior to the translation process (see also Lee-Jahnke 2011).

The concept of Gestalt describes something which is more active than perception and
more passive than consciousness; in German another expression is often used:
Gewahrsein, which indicates that a perception is accompanied by a certain kind of selfconscious knowledge of perception (Blankertz & Doubrawa 2005).

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

2.1.2 Present: comprehending and developing competences and skills in

bilinguals
We also have to take into account the ongoing interdisciplinary research within
the fields of neurocognition, bilingualism,4 research in expertise and intelligence,
just to name a few, in order to have a more solid basis for a yet newer approach,
that of ToM5 and translation (see Annoni et al. 2012).
In the field of bilingualism experimental approaches resulted in many
interesting data, showing particularly that different languages have
fundamentally a common representation in the brain. This representation can be
modulated by different variables, such as the age of acquisition, immersion and
proficiency (van Heuven & Dijkstra 2010: 104-122). Thus, particularly the semantic
processing seems rather to be function of the level of proficiency of L2 and
syntactic processing seems to depend especially on the age of the second language
acquisition (Abutalebi et al. 2008).
Within this framework, the study of competences for translators is of
paramount importance, since learning outcomes are nowadays calculated by
social competence, methodological competences, personal and acting
competences.6 These competences are being stimulated through planning,
monitoring and evaluation, as high ranking control processes which Sternberg
(1985) describes as key issues in the triarchic theory of intelligence.7

2.1.3 Future: exploring yet new research combinations for higher

proficiency
With the upcoming of the interdisciplinary research in translation processes,
further studies have shown that consciousness has a general tendency to give
more importance to personal concepts, interpretations, memories, etc., than to
an objective perception (Schneiders 2007: 106). This aspect is of major concern in
translation didactics since it indicates clearly the importance of certain aspects of
expertise and, very specifically, that we have to handle very carefully the training
of inferences in teaching/learning situations.
While interdisciplinary research in cognitive sciences is of such a great
importance for translation, is certainly the fact that this type of research touches
upon memory, the capacity of making an abstract reasoning and to differentiate
between an analytical and an holistic outlook on a text.
On the other hand, research in cognitive sciences allows us also to better
understand and hence guide the cognitive learning strategies and more
4

See Sturm (2010). Some scientific findings have shown that, for instance, dyslexia
varies with language, a fact which also should interest translation studies. For further
reading see OConnor (2004), Marwinski (1998).
5 In Neuroscience, being able to imagine another persons mental state is known as
having a Theory of Mind (ToM). This skill seems dissociated from the group of executive functions though very dependent on them and seems to rely on a large but
individualized brain network. For further reading see Annoni et al. (2012).
6 See the EMT list of competences for translators.
7 For further reading see Lee-Jahnke (2008).

specifically the so called organization strategies, which enable the learner to

group information in a form which is easier for him or her to understand and reuse.8
Within the research of neurocognitive aspects in translation, the results obtained
by Kolodner (1991) who in his expertise studies examined the so-called episodic
definitions, i.e. the experience of how to best use and reorganize knowledge in
specific structures and, especially, in the research of the knowledge of specific
domains , are certainly of utmost interest to translation studies. He based his
reflections on episodic memory organization packets (E-MOPs)9of experts, who are
able to build up their experience-based knowledge in form of so-called E-MOPs.
The episodic memory, also called autobiographic memory, is located in the
prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus and the thalamus.
According to these findings, applicable knowledge is being recorded in form of
E-MOPs within the so-called episodic memory. But thanks to flexible mental
representations also declarative knowledge,10 procedural knowledge and
conditional knowledge can be likewise registered. Procedural knowledge has
certainly become one of the major domains of research in translation studies in
the past decades. It is characterized by its dynamic feature and concentrates on
how, with a certain procedure or a certain process, a clearly defined and desired
result can be achieved.
Concerning neurocognitive aspects of translation, the importance of
intelligence cannot be neglected, especially since, according to Mack (1996: 92114) a theory of intelligence can only be formulated in relation with a global
theory of cognition (Richardson 1993); cognition being defined here as the
processes which handle information and which are basic to perception, thinking
and acting. Sternberg (1984, 1985) was of course in the forefront trying to define
a theory of intelligence with his triarchic theory of intelligence (1985). In this theory
he describes three types of components which process information and which
should be taken into consideration in any didactical approach in translation:
1) metacomponents, which are controlling processes such as planning,
monitoring, evaluation;
2) performance components, which are considered as lower processes with the
following functions: stimulus encoding, inferring relations, selective attention,
elaboration;
3) components of knowledge acquisition, which involve processes which are
linked to learning and memorizing of new information such as selective
encoding, selective comparison, restructuring.
Within this context an interdisciplinary research led by Lehr (2010) has clearly
shown that experts do not only have an easier access to more knowledge because
of their highly developed automated processes, but that they are also able to
restructure the relevant knowledge much faster, according to the need of the
8
9

A detailed listing is mentioned under 5.

Schank (1982) defines an E-MOP as a generalized episode which contains the general
information of individual episodes, which are differentiated from the general episode.
10 In didactics this indicates factual knowledge.

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

moment (see also: Englund-Dimitrova 2005; Lee-Jahnke 2005). Since experts are
able to apply more effectively and efficiently their knowledge, they are able to
diminish the cognitive effort necessary to access to this knowledge.
Theories concerning the accumulation of knowledge, such as the one defined
by Staszewski (1990) the skilled memory theory, explain the excellent capacity of
memorizing by experts according to the encoding of information, taking into
account the existing knowledge, the development of cognitive structures from
which the experts takes his information and which is closely linked to the longterm memory; Staszewski (1990) also describes the existence of domain specific
slots which enable a quick encoding of information and stresses that repetition
and exercise help to diminish the time necessary to access information and to
operate the encoding.11
This short overview should not omit to mention the research within the field
of mirror neurons let by Rizzolatti (2003, 2005), where he stresses the importance
of interpersonal communication as a neuronal imitation process, and were
speech recognition and empathy develop the so-called hypothesis of shared
manifold inter-subjectivity and direct matching mechanism explained through motor
representations in the brain.

3. The pertinent disciplines

3.1 Cognitive and affective sciences with a specific interest of evaluation
methods and implicit and explicit knowledge
3.1.1 Decision making and evaluation
The fact that emotions and language are closely related has been largely
demonstrated amongst others in the studies by Damasio (2003), Cyrulnik
(2010) and of course, by one of the leading specialists in affective sciences, Klaus
Scherer (2001). For translation studies it is of interest, especially in the framework
of didactical issues, to better understand the reason for a given decision making
of the translator, and, hence, also for the erroneous decisions leading to
mistakes.12 This leads us to the importance of evaluation, stressing the fact that
one has to clearly differentiate between formative and summative evaluation.13
At the present stage, more attention is given to formative evaluation, since any
trainer knows how important a tool this is for the motivation of the learners and
hence the improvement of their skills. As far as summative evaluation is
concerned, assessment is to a certain extent still dealt with in a poorly systematic
manner, despite the numerous studies conducted in this field.
Didactical evaluation aims mainly at the improvement of the translation skills
during the translation process with a threefold target:

11 For further reading see also Pavlenko (2005: 192-224, especially chapter 7: Social cognition); Lee-Jahnke (2007).
12 Many studies have been conducted within the framework of evaluation in translation
such as Hansen (2006), House (2001), Lee-Jahnke (2001), Risku (1998).
13 Evaluation, used as a tool for training, can clearly be an incentive for motivation (LeeJahnke 2011: 127).

a) student centeredness
b) learning outcome
c) competence orientation.

3.1.2 Implicit and explicit knowledge

The pyramid below developed by Gassmann (1997) shows the great importance
of implicit knowledge since this hidden part of the iceberg is clearly the more
important one. This is particularly the case when we deal with translation, since
cultural and social issues play a paramount role, but also expert knowledge and
experience. Hence didactical procedures can never be schematized and should be
closely linked to the emotional component of a class in a face-to-face teaching.14

Fig. 1 Implicit and explicit knowledge.

4.

Cognitive sciences as a tool for more proficient structuring of a

course

Memory, the capacity of making an abstract reasoning and to differentiate

between an analytical and a holistic outlook on a text are deeply linked to
cognitive sciences. Research in cognitive sciences also allows us to understand
better and hence to guide the cognitive learning strategies and especially the so14 This explains also why pure virtual learning or mere ppt presentation have proven to
be useful only for the short term memory and are less apt to the necessary cognitive
flexibility which aims at helping students to learn skills for multiple use.

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

called organization strategies, which enable learners to group information in a way

that they can understand it easier, such as to highlight passages, to summarize
articles, to take notes while reading or listening. In other words, this is a very
individual approach and preparation of knowledge information and treatment,
a processing of the material in order to better adapt it to the individually
preexisting knowledge. This is probably also the reason why mere power point
presentations which do not incite the learner to process the learning material in
an individual way, are rarely stocked in the long term memory. In other words,
they cannot be reused in other circumstances because the elaboration strategy
which helps individuals to integrate new knowledge into the existing one does
not get stimulated. This elaboration strategy is also responsible for the capacities
of critical examining and the so-called repetition strategies.15
Research in neurosciences on bilinguals has shown that L1 and L2 share a
common network which is modulated according to the age of acquisition of the
language as well as according to the exposure to the language. These findings
(Perani & Abutalebi 2005) have also indicated that for L2 the language network
tends to be less broad as far as comprehension is concerned but larger for the
language production. The picture below illustrates these results:

Fig. 2 Common network of modulator factors acquisition age of L2:

Comprehension of late L2 acquisition: L2 weak: L2 < L1;
L2 strong: L2 = L1 (Perani & Abutalebi 2005).

5.

The shift from product to process oriented training and

neurosciences

This shift resulted from a natural approach to improve quality in translation and
hence to closely examine which process was more prone to lead to a high quality
product. One of the means to have a closer look at the translation process was of
course to examine which strategies lead to the best translation. As mentioned by
us in an earlier paper (Lee-Jahnke 2011: 114) at the present stage it would be of
interest to collect data from learners in order to follow more closely the optimal
pathways which the students used to reach their aim. Such a procedure may also
help to find out which patterns lead to the best translation. Ideally, this approach
is advantageously linked to the use of Translog.16
15 For further reading see Lee-Jahnke (2008).
16 Software developed by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen.

In order to develop new process-oriented methods in translation teaching, the

existing empirical research (Annoni et al. 2002) still needs to be further
developed, because during the past twenty years scientific psychology has evolved
rapidly and the debate between behaviorism and mentalism17 has led to a new
problem: where is information treated and how? Today, thanks to neighboring
disciplines, we know of five different memory systems which play a major role
for translation processes:
a) the procedural memory, which functions through repetition of an action and
is situated in the cerebellum and grey nucleus;
b) the semantic memory, which allows us to memorize concepts, the meaning of
words independent of their context, and is situated in the neocortex;
c) the representational memory, which helps to memorize an image or face and
allows us to recognize a piece of information more easily, if we have seen it
before. It is located in the neocortex;
d) the working memory or short-term memory is used to keep a piece of
information for the time of the realization of a task. It is located in the
neocortex and the prefrontal cortex;
e) the episodic memory, also called autobiographic memory, is located in the
prefrontal cortex, the hippocampus and the thalamus.
The knowledge of these five different types of memories is crucial for
structuring courses in translation with specific exercises at the different levels of
the learning process18 as the model class at the end of this article attempts to
illustrate.

6.

A course model to summarize the implementation of

interdisciplinary knowledge according to Blooms taxonomy

The example given below wants to show how a course in economic translation
could be structured with all the relevant text types and tasks for the students at
the given level of taxonomy. These two slides can be adapted to any type of
translation course and want to exemplify the implementation of the outcome of
interdisciplinary research in translation training.

17 See Borillo & Goulette (2002) for further reading.

18 Taking into account the taxonomy of Bloom (1972).

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

References

Abutalebi J., Annoni J.-M.,

Zimine I., Pegna A.J., Seghier ML., Lee-Jahnke H., Lazeyras F.,
Cappa S.E. & Khateb A. (2008)
Language Control and lexical
competition in bilinguals: an
event-related fMRI-study,
Cerebral Cortex 18:7, pp. 14961505.
Ahrbeck H. (1961) Grosse Didaktik,
Berlin, Volk und Wissen.

Aitchison J. (1992) Introducing

Language and Mind, London,
New York, Peguin.
Annoni J.-M., Michel C.M.,
Landis T. & Khateb A. (2002)
Variability of right hemisphere
activation during semantic word
processing in aphasic patients:
an electrophysiological study in
three patients, Rev. Neurol.
(Paris), 158:3, pp. 317-331.

10

Annoni J.-M., Lee-Jahnke H. &

Sturm A. (2012)
Neurocognitive aspects of
translation, META, CIUTI
Leader in Advocating
Employability and Research. Ed.
by H. Lee-Jahnke & M.
Forstner, 57:1, pp. 96-108.
Attila R. (1977) Dynamic fields
and linguistic structure: A
proposal for a Gestalt
linguistics, Die Sprache, 23:1,
pp. 1-10.
Blankertz S. & Doubrawa E.
(2005) Lexikon der
Gestalttherapie, Wuppertal,
Peter Hammer.
Bloom B. (1972) Apprendre pour
matriser, Lausanne, Payot.
Borillo M. & Goulette J.-P. (eds)
(2002) Cognition and Creation,
Mardaga, Sprimont.
Cyrulnik B. (2010) Mourir de
dire, Paris, Ed. Odile Jacob.
Damasio A. (2003) Spinoza
avait raison, Paris, Ed. Odile
Jacob.
Englund-Dimitrova B. (2005)
Expertise and Explicitation in the
Translation Process,
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia,
John Benjamins.
Fillmore C. (1977) Scenes-andframes semantics, in
Linguistic Structures Processing.
Ed. by A. Zampolli, Amsterdam,
North Holland, pp. 55-81.
Gassmann O. (1997) F&E
Projektmanagement und
Prozesse lnderbergreifender
Produktentwicklung; in
Globales Management von
Forschung und Innovation. Hrsg.
von A. Gerybadze, G. Regetr &
F. Meyer-Krahmer, Stuttgart,
Schffer-Poeschel, pp. 133-173.
Gile D. (2005) La recherche
sur les processus
traductionnels et la formation
en interprtation de
confrence, META, Processes
and Pathways in Translation and

Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 713-726.

Hansen G. (2006) Erfolgreich
bersetzen. Entdecken und
Beheben von Strquellen,
Tbingen, Gunter Narr.
House J. (2001) Translation
Quality Assessment: Linguistic
description versus social
evaluation, META, Evaluation,
Parameters, Methods, Pedagogical
Aspects. Ed. by H. Lee-Jahnke,
46:2, pp 243-257.
Jskelinen R. (1987) What
Happens in a Translation Process:
Think-aloud Protocols of
Translation, unpublished
thesis, Savolinna, University of
Joensuu.
Kalina S. (2005) Quality
Assurance for interpreting
processes, META, Processes and
Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp.768-784.
Knigs F.G. (ed.) (1996) META,
Translation Process(es), 41:1.
Krings H.-P. (1986) Was in den
Kpfen von bersetzern vorgeht:
Eine empirische Untersuchung
zur Struktur des bersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen
Franzsischlernern, Tbingen,
Gunter Narr.
Krings H.-P. (2005) Wege ins
Labyrinth Fragestellungen
und Methoden der
bersetzungsprozess forschung im berblick,
META, Processes and Pathways in
Translation and Interpretation.
Ed. by H. Lee-Jahnke, 50:2,
pp. 342-358.
Kolodner J.L. (1991)
Improving human decision
making through case-based
decision aiding, AI Magazine
12:2, pp. 52-68.
Lakoff G. (1977) Linguistic
Gestalts, in Papers from the
Thirteenth Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistics Society
(April 14-16). Ed. by W.A.

Interdisciplinary approach in translation didactics

Beach, S.E. Fox & S. Philosoph,

Chicago, Illinois, University of
Chicago, pp. 236-287.
Lee-Jahnke H. (1998)
Lintrospection haute voix :
recherche applique, in
Enseignement de la traduction et
traduction dans lenseignement.
Dir. par J. Delisle & H. LeeJahnke, Ottawa, Les Presses de
lUniversit dOttawa, pp. 155183.
Lee-Jahnke H. (2005) New
cognitive approaches in
process-oriented translation
training, META, Processes and
Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 359-377.
Lee-Jahnke H. (2007)
Kognition und Qualitt.
berlegungen zu kognitiven
Prozessen in der Translationsdidaktik, in Translationsqualitt. Hrsg. von P.A. Schmitt
& H.E. Jngst, Frankfurt a.M.,
Peter Lang, pp. 364 386.
Lee-Jahnke H. (2008) Von
Kompetenz zu Performanz
Ein Thema mit Variationen fr
Lehre und Praxis des
bersetzens, in CIUTI FORUM
2006, Sprachen in einer sich
ndernden Welt. Hrsg. von M.
Forstner & H. Lee-Jahnke,
Bern, Peter Lang, pp. 167-219.
Lee-Jahnke H. (2011)
Trendsetters & milestones in
interdisciplinary processoriented translation:
cognition, emotion,
motivation, in CIUTI FORUM
2010, Global Governance and
Intercultural Dialogue:
Translation and Interpreting in a
new Geopolitical Setting. Ed. by
M. Forstner & H. Lee-Jahnke,
Berne, Peter Lang, pp. 109-153.
Lehr C. (2010)
Psycholinguistik.
bersetzungswissenschaft
und Expertiseforschung im
Ramen der interdisziplinren
Forschung, in Why Translation

11

Studies Matters. Ed. by D. Gile, G.

Hansen & N. K. Pokorn,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins, pp. 211-222.
Lrscher W. (2005) The
translation process: methods
and problems of its
investigation, META, Processes
and Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 597-608.
Mack W. (1996) Expertise und
Intelligenz, in Expertiseforschung. Theoretische und
methodische Grundlagen. Hrsg.
von H. Gruber & A. Ziegler,
Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag,
pp. 92-114.
Marwinski D. (1998)
bertragungsstrategien und -fehler
bei Anfngern und
fortgeschrittenen Lernern,
unverff. Diplomarbeit,
Universit de Genve.
Mizuno A. (2005) Process
model for simultaneous
interpreting and working
memory, META, Processes and
Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 739-752.
OConnor A. (2004) Dylexia
varies with language,
International Herald Tribune, 9th
Sept., p. 9.
Pavlenko A. (2005) Emotions and
Multilingualism, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Perani D. & Abutalebi J. (2005)
The neural basis of first and
second language processing,
Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
15 :2, pp. 202-206.
Peterfalvi J.-M.
(1974) Introduction la
Psycholinguistique, 2. d., Paris,
Presses Universitaires de France.
Richardson K. (1993)
Understanding Intelligence,
Philadelphia, Open University
Press.

Risku H. (1998) Translatorische

Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen
des bersetzens als
Expertenttigkeit, Tbingen,
Stauffenburg.
Rizzolatti G. (2003) The mirror
system in humans, in Mirror
Neurons and the Evolution of Brain
and Language. Ed. by M.
Stamenov & V. Gallese,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins, pp. 37-59.
Rizzolatti G. (2005) The mirror
neuron system and its function
in humans, Anatomy and
Embryology, 210:5-6, pp. 419-421.
Rydning A.F. (2005) The return
of sense on the scene of
translation studies in the light of
the cognitive blending theory,
META, Processes and Pathways in
Translation and Interpretation. Ed.
by H. Lee-Jahnke, 50:2, pp.392404.
Schank R.C. (1982) Dynamic
Memory, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Scherer K. (2001) Appraisal
considered as a process of
multilevel sequential checking,
in Appraisal Processes in Emotion:
Theory, Methods, Research. Ed. by
K. Scherer, A. Schorr & T.
Johnstone, New York, Oxford
University Press, pp. 92-120.
Schneiders H.-W. (2007)
Allgemeine bersetzungstheorie.
Verstehen und Wiedergeben, Bonn,
Romanistischer Verlag.
Sguinot C. (1989) The
translation process: an
experimental study, in The
Translation Process. Ed. by C.
Sguinot, Toronto, H.G.
Publications, pp. 21-53.
Sguinot C. (2005) Shortcuts,
strategies and general patterns
in a process study of nine
professionals, META, Processes
and Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 522-548.

Staszewski J. (1990) Exceptional

memory: the influence of
practice and knowledge on the
development of elaborative
encoding strategies, in
Interactions among Aptitudes,
Strategies and Knowledge in
Cognitive Performance. Ed. by W.
Schneider & F.E. Weinert, New
York, Springer, pp. 252-285.
Sternberg R.J. (1984) Toward a
triarchic theory of human
intelligence, The Behavioral and
Brain Science, 7, pp. 269-287.
Sternberg R.J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A
Triarchic Theory of Human
Intelligence, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Sturm A. (2010) What Aphasics
can tell us about translation: The
role of interdisciplinary research
in translation studies, in CIUTI
FORUM. New Needs, Translators &
Programs. Ed. by M. Forstner & H.
Lee-Jahnke, Bern, Peter Lang,
pp. 145-157.
Tirkkonen-Condit S. (1989)
Professional versus nonprofessional translation: a thinkaloud protocol study, in The
Translation Process. Ed. by C.
Sguinot, Toronto, H.G.
Publications, pp. 73-84.
Tirkkonen-Condit S. (2005) The
Monitor Model revisited:
evidence from process research,
in META, Processes and Pathways in
Translation and Interpretation. Ed.
by H. Lee-Jahnke, 50:2, pp. 405414.
Van Heuven W.J. & Dijkstra T.
(2010) Language
comprehension in the bilingual
brain: fMRI and ERP support for
psycholinguistic models, Brain
Research Reviews, 64, pp. 104-122.
Zhong Y. (2005) A matter of
principles: empirical treatments
of translation principles A case
study, META, Processes and
Pathways in Translation and
Interpretation. Ed. by H. LeeJahnke, 50:2, pp. 495-510.

12