Turning Translation Training into Life Training

  • Francesca VigoEmail author


The need to communicate between peoples speaking different languages requires more language professionals. Translators’ training is, consequently, central in research and curriculum design.Moreover, it is gradually changing to encompass aspects of life that were not considered beforehand. It is turning into a perfect ‘place’ to raise trainees’ awareness, especially when specific matters, such as gender-related issues, are tackled. Hence, training translators can be considered an ethical social action, since it may turn the trainees into better equipped citizens. It concerns more the trainees as individuals and relates to their personal reliability more than their linguistic skills. This paper investigates how the classroom becomes an awareness-raising place, and how trainees are ‘forced’ to refer to reflections and cognition in order to solve translational problems that are otherwise considered merely linguistic. A framework of analysis that combines Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is employed and discussed.


Cognitive Translation Training Gender Sexuality Discourse analysis 


  1. Baker, Mona. 1998. Translation Studies. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. Mona Baker, 227–280. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Mona, and Carol Maier. 2011. Ethics in Interpreter & Translator Training Critical Perspectives. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  3. Chesterman, Andrew. 2009. The Name and Nature of Translator Studies. Hermes 42: 13–22.Google Scholar
  4. Corsellis, Ann. 2005. Training Interpreters to Work in the Public Services. In Training for the New Millennium—Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, ed. Martha Tennent, 153–173. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Influences. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 191–216. California and London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Hart, Cristopher. 2015. Discourse. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 322–345. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Holmes, James. 1972. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  10. Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10: 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Pre-requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lawrence, Anthony. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at
  13. Rahimi, Forough, and Mohammad Javad Riasati. 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis: Scrutinizing Ideologically-Driven Discourses. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1 (16) (November): 107–112.Google Scholar
  14. Risku, Hanna. 2013. Cognitive Approaches to Translation. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. Carol A. Chapelle, 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Shlesinger, Miriam. 2000. Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How Can We Know What Really Happens? In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translating and Interpreting, ed. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Rita Jääskeläinen, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  17. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Stockwell, Peter. 1999. Towards a Critical Cognitive Linguistics. In Discourses of War and Conflict, ed. Combrink Annette and Bierman Ina, 510–528. Potchefstroom: Ptochefstroom University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Thagard, Paul. 2005. Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Van Dijk, T. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. Ruth Wodak and Martin Meyer. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Vigo Translation. (in press). Human Relationships and Lexical Choices. A Case-Study for ‘Critical’ Cognitive Approach.Google Scholar
  22. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean-Luis Darbelnet. 1958/2000. A Methodology for Translation. In The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti, 227–238. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman. 2002. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  24. Wodak, Ruth, and Martin Meyer. 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanities Department (DISUM)University of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations