Processualizing Process in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Philosophical Intervention

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

53 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Starting from the observation that translational processing is routinely framed in terms of its productivity, this chapter offers a phenomenological, epistemological, and ontological corrective to this widespread tendency. The argument is guided by Whitehead’s process thought and its central concept of becoming, posed in contradistinction to Aristotelian substance metaphysics. This reconceptualization of process allows us to apply it to entities traditionally conceived of as “substances”: messages, texts, translations, their contexts, and all living beings as well as their actions. In line with the recent theorization efforts by Blumczynski and Marais, viewing translation as a negentropic process highlights its biosemiotic pulsation which cannot be reduced to a manipulation of products. It is argued that process-oriented cognitive translation and interpreting studies calls for an adequately processual philosophical sensitivity which validates various processes in their own right, without dismissing some as unproductive. This theoretical intervention is additionally supported by the recognition of a certain degree of autotelicity of translation and interpreting as cognitive processes.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationContesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
EditorsSandra L. Halverson, Álvaro Marín García
PublisherRoutledge
Chapter2
Pages32-50
Number of pages19
ISBN (Electronic)9781003125792
ISBN (Print)9780367646790
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2021

Publication series

NameRoutledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies
PublisherRoutledge

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Processualizing Process in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies: A Philosophical Intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this