Causes, Translations, Effect

Target ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Chesterman

Abstract Conceptual analysis has a role to play in translation studies, but it is a means, not an end. An empirical paradigm gives central importance to testable hypotheses. Empirical research on translation profiles should result in a translation typology: one such typology is discussed. Translations have multiple causes, and we can already propose some possible causal laws. Three laws of translation effect are also proposed, and various parameters of effect are discussed, together with the associated problems of sampling and prescriptivism. I argue that prescriptive statements are hypotheses about translation effects; as such, they should be tested like any other hypothesis.

2021 ◽  
pp. 095935432110462
Author(s):  
Joel Michell

In his article, “‘Are Psychological Attributes Quantitative?’ is not an Empirical Question: Conceptual Confusions in the Measurement Debate,” Franz (2021) concludes that psychological measurement does not rest on empirical hypotheses but rather on linguistic deceptions. His major premise is that psychometrics is inherently Cartesian. History shows otherwise: the mantras of operationism and the rituals of construct validity were intended to exorcise psyche from psychometrics. These mainstays of psychometrics ensured that theoretical constructs were more frequently dispositional concepts than they were mental concepts. It is with the latter, however, especially with attempts to measure currently occurring mental states, such as anxiety, that Franz’s argument looks more promising, but nevertheless it fails because it rests upon Wittgenstein’s views about the grammar of mental discourse. I conclude that conceptual analysis, realistically construed and applied to mental concepts, may show that they exclude quantitative structure. Despite that, it is always possible that empirical research might elicit quantitative-friendly revisions of mental concepts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Aagaard

The word “multitasking” gets thrown around a lot these days. For years it was touted as the cognitive default for a new generation of digital natives, but psychologists are increasingly warning us against its harmful effects on many different forms of human activity. What exactly is meant by the concept of multitasking, however, remains peculiarly taken-for-granted. The purpose of this article is therefore to analyze, evaluate, and interpret how the word “multitasking” is currently being used in scientific practice. Taking departure in the domain of media multitasking research, the article reveals an unacknowledged normativity in the empirical research literature: Multitasking does not in fact denote a quantitative enumeration of tasks, but a qualitative distinction between on- and off-task activity. In other words, multitasking is functionally equivalent to distraction. This article discusses how this insight challenges the scientific rationality of current media multitasking research and concludes with implications for future research.


Author(s):  
Nina Bonderup Dohn

What roles can (educational) philosophy have within educational research? This question concerns the ways in which one can do philosophy as philosophy, not as something else with inspiration or data from philosophy. Further, it concerns doing philosophy within the field of educational research, that is, with the deliberate intention of engaging with educational research. The question is not how to do “philosophy of” education as a separate, outside reflection on the domain of education; instead, what is at stake is delineating the forms of cooperation that philosophy can engage in with educational research on matters of common interest. This question raises the further question of what kind of endeavor philosophy is in comparison with other kinds of investigations. A traditional answer to this question has been the claim that philosophizing consists of conceptual analysis and that philosophical analyses are a priori, providing the conceptual framework for a posteriori empirical investigations. There are several problems with the clear-cut distinction between a priori and a posteriori, but it can be made sense of if understood in a more relative sense rather than as designating absolute categories. Four different views on what philosophy is as regards other kinds of investigations are delineated, and it is pointed out which role each view correspondingly ascribes to philosophy in its cooperation with empirical educational research. The four roles are philosophy as (a) provider of a priori conceptual analyses, (b) clarifier of educational research concepts and their implications, (c) interpreter of educational research results, and (d) dialogue partner with a voice of its own. The first view of philosophy is the educational variant of the traditional view that philosophy is “queen of the sciences,” acting as conceptual legislator on what it makes sense to say. Philosophy does the conceptual groundwork a priori, as a prerequisite for empirical study and practice implementation, and research and practice then a posteriori investigate the phenomenon delimited by philosophy. Philosophers often take on this role in practice through what they write: they provide analyses of concepts that are significant within educational research, such as “knowledge,” “learning,” “value,” “Bildung,” or “becoming,” and explications of the relationships of these concepts to one another or to other concepts. The second view of philosophy is the educational variant of the opposing traditional designation of philosophy as “handmaiden to the sciences.” Here, philosophy takes a posteriori state-of-the-art educational research as its premise and outset and provides help in clarifying a priori conceptual issues within these a posteriori bounds. The third view of philosophy also takes a posteriori state-of-the-art educational research as its outset but does not content itself with being a helper. Instead, philosophy’s role is to assist educational research in interpreting its results by engaging philosophical methods. In addition to conceptual analysis, this can involve, for example, phenomenological, hermeneutical, and critical-theory analyses. Both a priori and a posteriori philosophical investigations can be undertaken in intertwinement within the a posteriori bounds. The fourth view of philosophy sees the relationship between philosophy and empirical research as symmetrical. Each party can question, challenge, support, inspire, and develop the claims set forth by the other. In this view, philosophy and empirical research within education are concerned with the same subject matter, namely, the actual empirical phenomena of education, such as human knowledge and learning; educational practice; and design of education, curricula, and activities. The research aims of philosophy and empirical research do not coincide, however: Philosophy pursues normative and foundational questions that transcend empirical accounts, and engages intertwined a priori and a posteriori investigations, whereas the various strands of empirical research investigate empirical phenomena in much greater detail.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weili Wang ◽  
Xiangdong Li

Abstract Translation Studies (TS), while being one academic discipline, may develop differently in different regions under the influence of sociocultural contextual factors. TS communities in different societies may have different research foci and standards. However, to date, there has been little empirical research into such regional variations. By piloting a cross-national comparative study of the TS communities in Spain and South Korea, this study aims to identify and map the research foci and standards of the two TS communities, describe and explain real or apparent differences and similarities between them, and ultimately enhance understanding and awareness of possible particularities in different TS communities. Scholarly articles published in 24 international, Spain-based and Korea-based TS journals were systematically analyzed. The contributions of Spain-based and Korea-based scholars were compared diachronically. Results suggest that the two TS communities have differences in research foci, methodology, and authorship, and that over time the differences seem to decrease, potentially attributed to context-specific factors of the two TS communities.


1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-23
Author(s):  
Tönu Parming

The present brief commentary is focused primarily on a topic which at first appearance might seem tangential, but which nevertheless is of central importance to a sociological study of dissent among the non-Russian people of the Soviet Union, who together make up approximately one-half of that country's total population. Ongoing sociological study of any phenomenon ideally is characterized by a data-theory cycle, where a conceptual or theoretical model or framework helps guide empirical research, and where the social reality manifest in observations or the data collected continually tests and refines the guiding model or framework. The ideal is, of course, rarely attained, a matter most noticeable and pronounced in the study of “Soviet minorities.”


2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Korning Zethsen

Abstract Modern society demands many different kinds of translation or translation-like activities which often exceed the boundaries of what translation theory traditionally terms translation proper. Highly functional translations, localisation, précis-writing, expert-to-layman communication, etc. are all part of modern life, but where do such activities fit in theoretically? In this article I shall discuss the fact that despite Jakobson’s classical definition, intralingual translation or rewording is de facto peripheral to translation studies and I shall argue that the relationship between interlingual and intralingual translation is a neglected area of research, as is a thorough description of intralingual translation. Since Jakobson’s definition, general definitions of translation have become less inclusive. This I consider a major setback as there seems to be much to gain theoretically as well as practically by looking for similarities and differences between various kinds of translational activities. With the ulterior motive of putting intralingual translation (back?) on the map of translation studies and to encourage future empirical research within this area I shall argue for a broader perception of translation and consequently of translation studies as a discipline. Inspired by Jakobson (1959), Toury (1995) and Tymoczko (1998, 2005), I shall attempt to draw up an open definition of translation which reflects the many-faceted nature of the phenomenon.


Author(s):  
Leyla Ilyas Hamidova

The article deals with one of the main and actual problems of modern translation studies - the transformation of sustainable word complexes, namely, the principles of translating SWC through the prism of the linguocognitive aspect. An attempt is made to reveal the main linguistic and translation aspects of the transformation process through the prism of the communicative function of these units in the context. Using examples that demonstrate the versatility of metaphorical thinking, the depth of the translation process is revealed, taking into account the comparison of the cognitive, cultural and pragmatic aspects of languages. By highlighting specific phenomena, each author of a work of art conceptualizes the world, filling the realities of existence with meanings, thereby constructing their own reality. The article proves that in the process of translation there is a problem of correlation of concepts presented in the USC, expressed in the relations of "content plan" and "expression plan", and related discursive possibilities for comparing these semantic categories in the translation language. Given this fact, it is possible to linguistically confirm many of the provisions concerning the content of the SWC concept. Namely, drawing a parallel between different ways of thinking, the comparison of certain concepts "spills out" the irregularities of the linguistic-cognitive worldview, that is, in order to identify these discrepancies, the article provides a conceptual analysis of options by comparing two different languages.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document