Abstract
In this response paper, I trace the origins of semiosic translation and explain why Jia’s interpretations are theoretically problematic. I also demonstrate that the view of translation endorsed by Jia is untenable from a cognitive perspective, since both perception and action are affordances of the living organisms and hence are not restricted to the “thinking mind” within a Lotmanian semiosphere. Finally, since translation is not a special case of semiosis, I show that semiosic processes, and not individual signs, are the source of all types of translations.
References
Allen, Micah & Marios Tsakiris. 2019. The body as first prior: Interoceptive predictive processing and the primacy of self-models. In Manos Tsakiris & Helena De Preester (eds.), The interoceptive mind from homeostasis to awareness, 27–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811930.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Ammereller, Erich. 2004. Puzzles around rule-following: PI 185–242. In Erich Ammereller & Eugen Fisher (eds.), Wittgenstein at work: Method in the philosophical investigations, 127–146. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203569443Search in Google Scholar
Berntson, Gary G., Peter J. Gianaros & Manos Tsakiris. 2019. Interoception and the autonomic nervous system: Bottom-up meets top-down. In Manos Tsakiris & Helena De Preester (eds.), The interoceptive mind from homeostasis to awareness, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811930.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. 2011. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1007/s11098-010-9598-9Search in Google Scholar
Corcoran, Andrew W. & Hohwy Jakob. 2019. Allostasis, interoception, and the free energy principle: Feeling our way forward. In Manos Tsakiris & Helena De Preester (eds.), The interoceptive mind from homeostasis to awareness, 272–292. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811930.003.0015Search in Google Scholar
De Vignemont, Frédérique. 2019. Was Descartes right after all? An affective background for bodily awareness. In Manos Tsakiris & Helena De Preester (eds.), The interoceptive mind from homeostasis to awareness, 259–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811930.003.0014Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew B. O’Donnell. 2015. Second language constructions: Usage-based acquisition and transfer. In John Schwieter (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing, 234–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107447257.010Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805844Search in Google Scholar
Gorlée, Dinda. 2004. On translating signs: Exploring text and semio-translation (Approaches to Translation Studies 24). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004454774Search in Google Scholar
Goschler, Juliana. 2013. Motion events in Turkish-German contact varieties. In Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events, 115–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.41.05gosSearch in Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1995. Mind embodied and embedded. In Yu-Houng Houng & Jih-Ching Ho (eds.), Mind and cognition, 207–237. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Dorothea. 2018. Restrictions on the usage of spatial frames of reference in location and orientation descriptions: Evidence from three Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 39(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1542927.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Gengshen. 2003. Translation as adaptation and selection. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 11(4). 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2003.9961481.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Xinyu, Xiangqing Wei & Runze Liu. 2020. Rethinking cultural terminology translation: Jakobson’s triadic division of translation revisited. Chinese Semiotic Studies 16(1). 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2020-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Jia, Hongwei. 2019. Semiospheric translation types reconsidered from the translation semiotics perspective. Semiotica 231(1/4). 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0151.Search in Google Scholar
Kirsh, David. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 73. 31–68.10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-USearch in Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Barbara, Kirsten O’Hearn & James E. Hoffman. 2010. Tethering to the world, coming undone. In Kelly S. Mix, Linda B. Smith & Michael Gasser (eds.), The spatial foundations of language and cognition, 132–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553242.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Leino, Jaakko. 2010. Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar, 103–136. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.10.06leiSearch in Google Scholar
Lotman, Juri. 1990. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Magagnin, Paolo. 2019. Ecologia e ideologia nei translation studies cinesi. Sinosfere 7. http://sinosfere.com/2019/10/01/paolo-magagnin-ecologia-e-ideologia-nei-translation-studies-cinesi/ (accessed 11 June 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1971 [1946]. Signs, language, and behavior. In Charles Morris (ed.), Writings on the general theory of signs, 366. The Hague: Mouton.10.1037/14607-000Search in Google Scholar
Nadin, Mihai. 2012. Reassessing the foundations of semiotics: Preliminaries. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems 2(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsss.2012010101.Search in Google Scholar
Passingham, Richard E. 2008. What is special about the human brain?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230136.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Patrão, André. 2018. Linguistic relativism in the age of global lingua franca Reconciling cultural and linguistic diversity with globalization. Lingua. 210–211. 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.006.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. [Hartshorne C. & Weiss P. (eds.), 1931–1935; Burks, Arthur (ed.), 1958.]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [electronic edition Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation.].Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 2000. Semiosis and semiosics vs. semiotics. Semiotica 128(3/4). 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2000.128.3-4.425.Search in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute, Matthew B. O’Donnell & Nick C. Ellis. 2014. Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal 98(4). 952–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12149.Search in Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 2013. From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the theory of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682195.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In John Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael. 2007. The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170788.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Typology and process in concept structuring (Toward a cognitive semantics 2). Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2015. Semiosic translation: A new theoretical framework for the implementation of pedagogically-oriented subtitling. Sign Systems Studies 43(1). 102–130. https://dx.doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2015.43.1.05.10.12697/SSS.2015.43.1.05Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2017. Working out multiword verbs within an applied cognitive construction grammar framework. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-0003.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018a. Semiosic translation. Semiotica 225(1/4). 353–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0227.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018b. Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions. Lingua 209. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.001.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019a. A semiosic translation of the term “bild” in both the Tractatus logico-philosophicus and the philosophical investigations. Semiotica 227(1/4). 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0137.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019b. A semiosic translation of Paul Celan’s Schwarze Flocken and Weggebeizt. Semiotica 231(1/4). 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0102.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019c. Introducing semiosic translation. Medellín: Self-published Monograph.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019d. Agentive cognitive construction grammar: Exploring the continuity of environment, body, mind, and language. Medellín: Self-published Monograph.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2020. Translating Wittgenstein: A semiosic translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Semiotica 233(1/4). 91–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0111.Search in Google Scholar
Verhagen, Ari. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984 [1922]. Werkausgabe, band 1: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Tagebücher 1914–1916/Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
