Cognitive Dominants, Language-Specific Communication and Translation Problems

The paper is devoted to explaining the key cognitive distinctions characteristic to translation process and its teaching. Among them are linguistic interpretation of the input text’s contents, its conceptual adaptation to the accepting culture, etc. To demonstrate them, multiple examples are given to show that translators, particularly not trained enough, often choose for basic translation dominants in the accepting culture those equivalents that are primarily purely linguistic, ignoring conceptual and cultural background of the original and the accepting culture’s notions and forms. Meanwhile, the latter help avoid such translation failures as literal / word by word translation, etc. Special attention in the paper is paid to the translation into the foreign, English, language, its contrastive culture-specific and communicative features as compared to those in the Russian language: to their cognitive dominants in communication and their cross-linguistic asymmetry and in-congruency which generate quite «natural» cross-linguistic interference in Russian-English translation. It is particularly obvious when there are extensive textual nominal ex-pressions, especially terminological, which demonstrate at present an active, extensive and productive usage in English, but present a serious problem in teaching English as a foreign language and translation into it. It is also shown that in Russian their cross-linguistic idiomatic analogues are language specific and show different patterns, but still can be adequately matched with their foreign counter-parts.

1. Journal of English for Academic Purposes: 53. (2021). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-english-for-academic-purposes (accessed: 23.06.2021).

2. KIA-1 (44) — Cognitive studies of language: collection of scientific papers. (2021). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS; Tambov: Tambov State University named after G. R. Derzhavin. 473 p.

3. KIA-34 — Cognitive studies of language: collection of scientific papers. (2018). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS; Tambov: Tambov State University named after G. R. Derzhavin. 976 p.

4. Alimov, V. V. (2005). Interference in translation (on the material of professionally oriented intercultural communication and translation in the field of professional communication): textbook. Moscow: KomKniga. 323 p. (In Russ.).

5. Alinasab, M., Gholami, J., Mohammadnia, Z. (2021). Genre-based revising strategies of graduate students in applied linguistics: Insights from term papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100941.

6. Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students. London: Routledge. 303 р. ISBN 0-203-83165-9.

7. Bauer, L. (1998). When is a Sequence of Two Nouns a Compound in English. ELL, 2: 65—86. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674300000691.

8. Biber, D., Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26 (3): 263—286. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003.

9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at… : Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25: 371—405. DOI: 10.1093/applin/25.3.371.

10. Biber, D., Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (1): 2—20.

11. Biber, D., Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English. Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 277 p. ISBN: 978-1-107-00926-4.

12. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson. 1200 р. ISBN: 0582237254.

13. Boldyrev, N. N. (2018). Translation as a problem of choosing cognitive dominants. Cognitive studies of language, 34: 33—37. ISBN 978-56040651-4-3. (In Russ.).

14. Boldyrev, N. N., Dubrovskaya, O. G. (2019). Challenges of intercultural communication from the perspective of linguistic interpretation theory. Cognitive linguistics issues, 4: 20—27. DOI 10.20916/1812-3228-2019-4-20-27.

15. Cai, J. (2016). An exploratory study on an integrated genre-based approach for the instruction of academic lexical phrases. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24: 58—74.

16. Charykova, O. N. (2010). Scientific style of speech. Voronezh: Voronezh University. 55 p. (In Russ.).

17. Chen Jhih-Jie, Jim Chang, Ching-Yu Yang, Mei-Hua Chen, Jason S. Chang. (2017). Extracting Formulaic Expressions and Grammar and Edit Patterns to Assist Academic Writing. In: EUROPHRAS 2017. London, UK. 95—103. DOI: 10.26615/978-2-9701095-2-5_012.

18. Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17: 391—406. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2007.02.001.

19. Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12: 33—43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002.

20. Durrant, Р., Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47 (2): 157—177. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2009.007.

21. Dzhioeva, A. A. (2018a). English nominative and picture of the world. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University. 176 p. ISBN 978-5-4365-1350-8.

22. Dzhioeva, A. A. (2018b). Conceptualization of the world in the context of fundamental and integral science. Cognitive studies of language, 32: 230—237. ISBN 978-5-89016-442-1. (In Russ.).

23. Evtushenko, T. G. (2018). National and cultural specificity of an English-language scientific article. In: Foreign languages in the field of professional communication: materials of an international scientific conference. Moscow: MGLU. 15—16. (In Russ.).

24. Fang, Z., Gresser, V., Cao, P., Zheng, J. (2021). Nominal complexities in school children’s informational writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50: 100958. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100958.

25. Fazly, A., Stevenson, S. (2008). A distributional account of the semantics of multiword ex-pressions. Ital. J. Linguist, 1 (20): 157—179.

26. Flowerdew, J. (2019). The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52: 249—260. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444819000041.

27. Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In: Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow : Longman. 75—93.

28. Galperin, I. R. (2012). Essays on the stylistics of the English language: the experience of systematization of expressive means. Moscow: Librokom. 376 p. ISBN 978-5-397-02330-6. (In Russ.).

29. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: why global English may mean the end of English as a Foreign Language. London : The British Council. 132 p.

30. Hacken, T. P. (2016). Introduction: Compounds and their meaning. In: The Semantics of Compounding. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 1—12. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316163122.001.

31. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The Language of Science. London: New York : Continuum. 24 р. ISBN 10 0826458718.

32. Hanes, W. F. (2014). Nominal groups as an indicator of non-native English communication problems in top-ranked Brazilian science journals. Belas Infiéis, 2/2: 127—139.

33. Hanks, P. (2017). Mechanisms of Meaning. In: Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology. Springer. 54—68. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69805-2_5.

34. Haspelmath, M. The efficiency theory of asymmetric coding: An overview. Oral presentation. Available at: http://tipl.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/index.php/science/colloquium/colloquium-2019-2020/Oct2019 (accessed: 23.06.2021).

35. Hua, G., Chen, L. (2019). To our great surprise… : A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 156—168. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.021.

36. Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2: 705—715. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x.

37. Hüttner, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27/1: 34—79. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2013.830548.

38. Hüttner, J. (2010). Purpose-Built Corpora and Student Writing. Journal of Writing Re-search, 2: 197—218. DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2010.02.02.6.

39. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: an advanced resource book. London & NewYork : Routledge. 356 р.

40. Hyland, K. (2008a.). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (1): 41—62.

41. Hyland, K. (2008b). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27: 4—21.

42. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32: 150—169. DOI: 10.1017/S0267190512000037.

43. Ilson, R. (2014). Prolegomena to a Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Usage Problems. In: English Usage (Guides) Symposium. Cambridge. 4—5.

44. Jarvis, S., Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: London: Routledge. 308 p.

45. Komissarov, V. N. (1989). The problem of interference in the theory of translation. In: Interferenz in der Translation. Herausgegeben von Heide Schmidt. Leipzig: VEB VerlagEnzyklopädiye. 103—108. (In Russ.).

46. Kozhina, M. N. (2006). Stylistic encyclopedic words of the Russian language. Moscow: Flinta-Science. 696 p. ISBN 978-5-02-002791-6. (In Russ.).

47. Kuiper, K. (1999). Compounding by Adjunction and its Empirical Consequences. Language Sciences, 21: 407—422.

48. Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton De Gruyter. 427 р.

49. Larsen-Walker, M. (2017). How Does Data Driven Learning Affect the Production of Multi-Word Sequences in EAP Students’ Academic Writing? EUROPHRAS 2017. London, UK. 78—86. DOI: 10.26615/978-2-9701095-2-5_010.

50. Levitsky, A. E. (2019). Conventionalization of new characteristics of nominative units of modern English. In: Word. Vocabulary. Term. Lexicographer: a collection of articles based on the materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference in memory of Professor Yu. N. Marchuk (Moscow, March 1—2, 2019). Moscow: IIU MGOU. 354—362. ISBN 978-5-7017-3063-0. (In Russ.).

51. Meneghini, R., Packer, A. (2007). Is there science beyond English? EMBO Reports, 8: 112—116.

52. Mongileva, N. V., Chudinov, A. P. (2019). Schematic modeling in linguoculturological comparisons. Cognitive studies of language, 38: 52—58. ISBN 978-5-00078-280-4. (In Russ.).

53. O’Donnell, M., Romer, U., Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effect of frequency, association and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (1): 83—108. DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.07odo.

54. Parkinson, J. (2015). Noun-noun collocations in learner writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20: 103—113. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.003.

55. Peters, E. (2016). The learning burden of collocations: The role of interlexical and intralexical factors. Language Teaching Research, 20 (1): 113—138. DOI: 10.1177/1362168814568131.

56. Rogers, J. (2017). An Objective Method of Identifying Teachworthy Multiword Units for Second Language Learners. In: EUROPHRAS 2017. London, UK. 148—153. DOI: 10.26615/978-2-9701095-2-5_020.

57. Riabtseva, N. K. (2018a). Academic Paper Titles and Their Dominating Patterns: a Russian-English Perspective. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2, Linguis-tics, 17/2: 33—43. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.2.4. (In Russ.).

58. Riabtseva, N. K. (2018b). Сogitatio & communicatio in a cross-linguistic and cognitive perspective. Cognitive studies of language, 34: Cognitio and Communicatio in the Modern Global World: Proceedings of the VIII International Congress on Cognitive Linguistics. Moscow — Tambov. 830—833. ISBN 978-56040651-4-3 (In Russ.).

59. Riabtseva, N. K. (2019). “Construction Grammar” and Academic Communication: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Nauchnyi dialog, 6: 50—71. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2019-6-50-71. (In Russ.).

60. Riabtseva, N. (2020). Artificial vs human intelligence in digital vs human translation. In: Linguistic Forum 2020: Language and Artificial Intelligence: Abstracts of the International Conference. Institute of Linguistics RAS. Moscow. 25—27.

61. Riabtseva, N. K. (2020). Cross-Cultural Communication: Its Asymmetry and Authenticity. Nauchnyi dialog, 4: 130—150. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2020-4-130-150. (In Russ.).

62. Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunctions in spoken English and ESP writing. Applied Linguistics, 17 (3): 271—285. DOI: 10.1093/applin/17.3.271.

63. Shchemeleva, I. (2019). It seems plausible to maintain that…: Clusters of epistemic stance ex-pressions in written academic ELF texts. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 7 (1): 24—43. DOI: 10.18485/esptoday.2019.7.1.2.

64. Sinha, A., Banejee, N., Shastri, R. (2009). Interference of first language in the acquisition of second language. Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 1 (7): 117—122.

65. Soler, V. (2007). Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purpos-es, 26 (1): 90—102. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.001.

66. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 314 р. ISBN: 0-521-53334-1.

67. Sysoev, A., Nikishina, I. (2018). Smart Context Generation for Disambiguation to Wikipedia. In: Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language : Proceedings 7th International Conference-AINL. St. Petersburg. 11—22. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01204-5_2.

68. Tetreault, J. R., Chodorow, M. (2008). Native judgments of non-native usage: Experiments in preposition error detection. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Judgements in Computational Linguistics: Association for Computational Linguistics. Mancheste. 24—32.

69. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across Cultures . New York : The Guilford Press. 261 p. ISBN 1-57230-445-6.

70. Valipour, V., Assadi, N., Davatgari, N. (2017). The generic structures and lexico-grammaticality in English academic research papers. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 35/2: 169—182. DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2017.1373365.

71. Vinogradov, V. V. (2001). Russian language. Moscow: Russian language. 720 p. ISBN 5-200-03017-X. (In Russ.).

72. Vladimirova, T. L. (2010). Language and style of scientific text. Tomsk: Tomsk Polytechnic University. 81 p. (In Russ.).

73. Zabaykina, A. I. (2014). Linguistic features of the English-language scientific text. Ogarev-online, 13. Available at: http://journal.mrsu.ru/arts/lingvostilisticheskie-osobennosti-angloyazychnogo-nauchnogo-teksta (accessed: 04.01.2021). (In Russ.).