10.15160/1826-803X/233
Le Credenze sulla traduzione fanno parte del sistema di credenze sul  linguaggio, sul suo uso e apprendimento. Per uno studente di traduzione  queste credenze sono il punto di partenza, e una vista professionale,  scientificamente fondata, è una &lt;&lt; zona di sviluppo prossimale  &gt;&gt; (Vygotskj 2006). Le conoscenze della vita di tutti i giorni e i  concetti scientifici coesistono e interagiscono nella mente degli  individui. La relazione tra le concezioni naïve e quelle  scientifiche è ben altro che un’opposizione: è piuttosto un continuum  tra i due poli, in cui è determinante l’evoluzione storica, sia  personale sia sociale, Gli studenti si trovano in qualche modo “in due  menti” quando sviluppano le capacità e i punti di vista professionali.  Ciò che realmente pensano gli studenti di lingua e di traduzione a volte  è totalmente diverso da quello che gli insegnanti presuppongono.  Nell’articolo viene descritto il discorso ingenuo su lingua e traduzione  derivante dall’osservazione delle opinioni degli insegnanti riguardo  agli errori degli studenti e sulle opinioni degli studenti riguardo ai  propri risultati, e sulla base di interviste e questionari,  auto-narrazioni (interviste scritte), blog e live journal. L’analisi ha rivelato due serie di credenze simili alle credenze generali sul linguaggio e l’apprendimento, legate alla conoscenza o all’azione: teorie o strategie ingenue di traduzione. Le credenze ontologiche (che cos’è la traduzione) sono derivate dalle credenze sul linguaggio. Le credenze tecnologiche (come tradurre)  sono legate alle strategie personali di apprendimento, insegnamento e  uso del linguaggio. La rappresentazione metaforica della traduzione  nella metacognizione ingenua è “sostituzione fisica di unità”, o  traduzione parola per parola, simile alla metafora reificatrice del  linguaggio (“le parole sono come le cose materiali”).
application/pdf
1826-803X
233
it
Viacheslav Borisovich Kashkin
Sezione di Lettere
<i>Teaching Translation: Between "Naive" and "Scientific" Mind</i>
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Linguistica
2012-10-24
2012-11-05
2016-10-20
1-16
AOLF
Viacheslav Borisovich Kashkin
2011
10.15160/1826-803X/233
1
1826-803X
it
16
<i>Teaching Translation: Between "Naive" and "Scientific" Mind</i>
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/233/182
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 1/16




                                      VIACHESLAV BORISOVICH KASHKIN


                        Teaching Translation: Between “Naïve” and “Scientific” Minds∗


1. Introduction

When teachers of languages or translation trainers start speaking to their students, are they sure they
understand each other, moreover, do they use similar words with the same meaning? Spontaneous
observations and teachers’ complaints very often display a great degree of divergence and even
contradiction between their presuppositions. The starting point of this divergence lies in the primary
notions concerning language, language differences and translation. What students really think about
language is mostly quite the opposite to what the teacher expects them to think (Kashkin 2009).
This sphere of human knowledge, or rather belief, has been greatly disregarded up to the latest
decades, but, in fact, it plays the most significant role in raising language awareness or in
developing “scientifically based” language learning and translation strategies.
        Beliefs about translation are part of the total system of beliefs about cognition and language,
differences between languages and cultures, language use and learning. Research on beliefs, or
metacognition, or everyday knowledge about language (naïve metalinguistics, folk linguistics,
Sprachbewußtheit, spontaneous linguistics, language awareness, everyday philosophy, personal
theories/constructs of language, language ideologies, attitudes or conceptions, personal strategies of
language learning, etc.) has been very active in the latest three decades (Flavell 1979; van Lier
1988; Niedzielski – Preston 2000; Dufva 1994; Kashkin 2007; 2009; Golev 2007; to quote just a
few). Metacognitive discourse is aimed not so much at cognizing the outer world, but at cognition
itself and embraces controlling, monitoring and discussing this kind of activity (“thinking about
thinking” or “talking about thinking”). Metalinguistic discourse (“talking about talking” or “talking
about translation”) is based upon some sort of previously acquired knowledge and presuppositions,
scientifically based or naïve, but in any case individually appropriated in the form of personal
constructs, beliefs, myths or stereotypes.
        Beliefs influence activities involving language, and this influence might sometimes be
destructive to the process of communication or learning. In fact, this was the reason why learners’
beliefs came to be of primary interest to researchers, while less attention was given to general
beliefs about language, the “public image” of language or “everyday language philosophy”. Not so


∗
  The author is extremely thankful to Dr. Svetlana L. Lukina who helped collect narratives from the 1st year students of
translation. Special gratitude goes to the students of the 1st and the 4th year (2006-2011) at Voronezh State University
(Department of Translatology and Intercultural Communication) who participated in the research.
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                              V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 2/16




much was said or written concerning beliefs about translating from one language to another,
although this sphere might display both naïve epistemology (everyday conceptions of similarities
and differences between languages) and naïve linguistic technology (how to translate or what is a
“good translation” in popular view), to say nothing of training translators/interpreters which is also
a significant part of language education systems worldwide, and a sphere where the transition from
a non-professional to a professional conception of language and translation can be observed.
        There is no language activity and no learning without some sort of self-monitoring: «a
primitive capacity for the metalinguistic kicks in at the inaugural stages of language acquisition»
(Cappelen – Lepore 2007, vii). Metalinguistic activity is aimed at self-control of language use and
improving personal language learning, and implies monitoring these domains, reflecting upon them
and making deductions about them. Learners draw conclusions about linguistic and cultural
differences, demand what should be taught to them and how: «Expert learners also reflect on the
learning process» (St. Clair 2010). A specific area of metalinguistic thought is represented by
beliefs/knowledge about translation.
        There are two categories of students for whom beliefs about translation are relevant: students
of translation departments and students using translation as a subsidiary tool in learning, often
criticized as outdated (Liao 2006; Ashouri – Fotovatnia 2010). The latter include mainly LSP
students, although in Russia some of them take a special course in “Translation for Special
Purposes” (TSP, roughly equal to an extension or major, officially named “translation in the sphere
of professional communication”). The latter presupposes a more professional and theoretical
attitude to translation, thus making these students a third category or a subcategory of the first one.
There is also the general public (including students’ parents, customers of translation agencies, and
consumers of translation products) who share a naïve view upon language, language
differences/similarities, learning and translation. The present paper is an attempt to show how the
author’s previous studies (Kashkin 2007; 2009) might be extended into the sphere of translation
pedagogy.
        For a student of translation everyday beliefs about language contrasts are to a great degree the
starting point, and a scientifically based, “professional” view is the «zone of proximal
development» (Vygotsky 2006). The dialogue of the interacting parties (teacher/student) will
remain half-broken without learning what the students think about language, language differences
and translation, and, in return, without some sort of linguistic enlightenment.
        There is another very important sphere where naïve and professional theories of translation
come into conflict. It is a common mistake of translation novices to expect their customers to be
aware of the real nature of languages and translation. It leads to multiple instances of
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                              V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 3/16




misunderstanding or sometimes even underpayment and provokes lots of unprofessional criticism
of translation in media and, in return, complaints in translation blogs (see list of translators’ blogs
further).

2. Background

The nature of beliefs and their status in the human episteme has not yet been sufficiently disclosed.
The correlation between official science and other variants of human cognition has also been
disputed. Naïve beliefs are fortunately no longer considered as «mistakes» or «misinterpretation»,
or «inaccurate scientific constructs» (Baker 1989), or «stankos» (Niedzielski – Preston 2000, vii-
viii). Moreover, misunderstandings and misinterpretations in naïve users’ conceptions are
sometimes paralleled to «naïveté and myths» in some language theories (Harris 1980, 4–7). The
beliefs held by “lay people” are now assumed not only to co-exist in the modern world alongside
with “scientific” or publicly accepted knowledge, but also to precede historically what is nowadays
regarded as “scientific views” – folk conceptions are a source for scientific theories, cf. also:
Dennett (1993, 121f.). The history of language sciences shows that people have always made pre-
scientific observations about language, especially when they met with a different culture. But what
marks the borderline between everyday and scientific knowledge? Do lay people use scientifically-
based or naïve views about language nowadays? In spite of their opposition in essence, both types
of linguistic cognition display common epistemological invariables, or constants (reification,
monocentrism vs. polycentrism, etc.). Thus, the ZPD can be found both ontogenetically, and
phylogenetically, both in the meta-linguistic development of an individual and in the meta-linguistic
development of the humankind (Kashkin 2011). Everyday knowledge and scientific concepts co-
exist and inter-act in the mind of an individual, as well as in the public view upon language.
According to Vygotsky, in developing everyday notions we ascend from things to conceptualization,
while with scientific concepts we descend from concepts to things (Vygotsky 2006, 920). The
relationship between naïve and scientific conceptions of language or translation is greatly different
from an opposition, it is rather a continuum between the two poles, featuring historic variation and
development, both personal and social. Conceptualizations and metaphors used by the ancient
science of language are very often similar to those developed “naturally” by a naïve user. Some
earlier “misleading” beliefs later got rejected by newer scientific paradigms in the history of
linguistics or by education and enlightenment in the development of an individual. The same is true
about metaphors of translation (Shatalov 2009).
        The main starting points of naïve linguistics today are usually the practical issues of learning
and translating. Some researchers designate everyday activities as the principal, whereas scientific
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                            V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 4/16




activities as the subsidiary subject, giving more value to «man-the-scientist», to «personal theories»
or «personal constructs» (Kelly 1963; Wong 2002, 473f.). Are we far from admitting that, like Web
1.0 became Web 2.0 in the new communication era, Science 1.0 (created by the elite for the
community) has a tendency to develop into Science 2.0 (created by the scientific community, maybe
in relationship with lay users)?
        Most researchers underline the following features of naïve beliefs or everyday notions:
constructions of reality, they are social and individual, dynamic, contextual and paradoxical, as was
very neatly stated in (Barcelos 2007, 114f.). Their contradictory nature was also stressed by the
psychologists dealing with everyday consciousness (Ulybina 2001, 111).
        In studying naïve metalinguistics, Western scholars preferred experimental research centered
upon language learning, while in Russia primary interest lay upon culture-related concepts and
metaphoric expressions involving language and its units, primarily, in literary fiction and folklore.
Both lines of research, in fact, revealed similar ways in which language was conceptualized in the
human mind (be it naïve or scientific).
        In Arutyunova’s voluminous collection Language about Language (2000) the authors
analyzed such concepts as word, language, speech, meaning, sense, to speak, voice as parts of the
metalanguage of “natural linguistics”. The analysis, done both from synchronous and historic
perspectives, reflected the ways in which Russian language was conceptualized in folk culture and
speech. It was a typical mainstream theoretical research (and a brilliant one), drawing upon
examples from folk songs or the Bible, Leo Tolstoy or Joseph Brodsky. Not a hint at experimental
studies was made.
        Some years later another collection Everyday Metalinguistic Conscience: Ontological and
epistemological aspects (Golev 2007) introduced several novelties into Russian metalinguistics.
First of all, the collection followed the first conference dedicated exclusively to naïve linguistics
and discussed the major theoretical issues relevant to these studies. Secondly, many of the authors
had a psycholinguistic or linguo-pedagogical background which brought the real-world data into
consideration. Applied linguistics and experimental data were reflected in chapters referring to first
and second language acquisition: Golev (2007) on orthographic prevalence in everyday linguistics
of the native Russian language; Debrenne (2006) on personal theories of grammatic equivalence
and translation in the Russian learners of French; Polinichenko (2008) on the metaphoric treatment
of language as a container in folk linguistics, etc., naïve users semantics in regional dialects, and
many other chapters of more volumes which followed.
        The author of the present paper had both a theoretical (language contrasts) and a practical
background (teaching EFL and ESP) when several years of observation and impromptu interviews
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                               V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 5/16




were systematized thanks to his lecture course in Unofficial Linguistics and a joint research at the
Finnish University of Jyväskylä (Dufva – Lähteenmäki – Kashkin 2000). As for metacognitive
aspects of translation, translator/interpreter training, or using translation as a tool in EFL teaching,
this sphere remains mostly a challenge for translation theorists or practitioners, only the general
approach and some historical aspects have been treated more or less profoundly (Kashkin 2011;
Shatalov 2009).

3. Materials and methods

“Thinking about language” is rarely fully verbalized. Unlike “official” linguistics, naïve users prefer
to keep silence and just act according to their beliefs. Metalinguistic knowledge is generally
deduced from personal learning strategies and actions, through patterns of linguistic choice they
tend to use. Folk linguistics is also “scattered” in separate metalinguistic utterances found in
everyday discourse or generated in experimental environments (questionnaire responses, interviews,
internet blogs and so on). In some cases narrativized personal language careers or written interviews
(How I studied English, How I decided to become a translator, etc.) make personal constructs more
or less explicit and analyzable with contextual, interpretative discourse analysis techniques. This is
done in several research works on “student narratives”, “language learning careers”, “histories” or
“trajectories” by van Lier (1988); Benson (2008); and others (Kalaja – Menezes – Barcelos 2008).
Very often these narratives (as well as oral interviews) would include primary attribution and
cause/effect analysis of linguistic actions made by students themselves when explaining their own
progress, difficulties, success/failure, wonder, etc. In studying translation beliefs, “mistranslations”
become a source equal to “mistakes”, or “deviations” – to use less offensive terminology introduced
by Debrenne (2006). Another valuable source of studying beliefs about translation is critical
reviews written by students at various stages of training. The degree of professional awareness in
such reviews is different, but there is always an imagined touchstone of “ideal translation” or “good
translation” which is present behind their critical remarks and retrievable with discourse analysis
techniques.
        The research discussed in the present paper was based upon observation, teachers’ and
students’ complaints about their progress or “mistakes”, interviews and questionnaires, and later, on
discourse about language and learning derived from students’ essays (written interviews), internet
blogs and live journals1. Students’ essays were written in their first and fourth years of training, thus

1
 Abbreviations (types of sources):
F – fiction and proverbs
M – meta-translation texts (commentary, prefaces, etc.)
Q – questionnaires and interviews
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                              V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 6/16




giving way to possible longitudinal deductions later. Another very important source was found in
internet blog and live journal entries (discussing mainly translation difficulties or quality, or
dedicated to translators’ complaints about their customers and the general public). Both sources
were turned into a corpus of discursive blocks for further contextual and interpretative analysis of
beliefs about translation. The present paper quotes mainly from these two sources, occasionally
addressing other genres of meta-translation discourse:

     -    student everyday discourse about languages and cultures, difficulties of learning and
          translating;
     -    teacher everyday discourse, including talking about their students;
     -    “folk linguistics” in media publications about translation;
     -    “linguistic advertising” (presentation of language courses and translating agencies to target
          groups of the general public);
     -    “folk linguistics” and the “public image” of translation in literary fiction, folklore and
          movies;
     -    forewords to translated work, or prefaces, commentaries and other meta-texts.

         Both oral and written interviews were conducted with a double purpose. The purpose,
declared outwardly to the interviewees, consisted mainly in discussing their achievements and
difficulties of language learning. The inner purpose, known generally only to the interviewer (and
researcher), was to clarify the interviewee’s attitude to language learning, his/her beliefs, personal
theories and techniques of studying languages, etc. With written interviews, to satisfy both the
ethical and the sincerity criteria, the students were asked not to sign their narratives.


4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Reification metaphors in naïve theories of language and translation

Observation results, questionnaire responses and self-reports of language learners revealed two
domains of naïve metalinguistics: intra-cultural and cross-cultural beliefs or mythologemes
(Kashkin 2007). Later each of these spheres within everyday language philosophy was subdivided
into cognitive (ontological) beliefs, or proto-theories, and procedural ones, strategies or proto-


B – blogs and live journals
A – linguistic advertising
N – written interviews, or self-narratives:
N1 – first-year translation students
N4 – fourth-year translation students
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                             V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 7/16




technologies. Cognitive beliefs are often expressed in metaphorical conceptualizations of language
units and processes (word, language, speech, speaking, translation, etc.). Proto-technologies are
typical actions guided by the cognitive beliefs, and very often considered “erroneous” from the
point of view of “official” linguistics. Disparity between expected and actual results from actions
guided by naïve linguistic beliefs might serve as a basis for revision of beliefs towards a more
“scientific” view (ZPD), developed by a translation student.
        The basic cognitive intra-cultural mythologeme is reification of words: words or other
language units are conceptualized and treated like material things. The phenomenon was named
chosisme and applied to human abstract notions in general, be it linguistics or physics by Bachelard
(1983). Other ontological beliefs are a logical consequence of the basic myth: belief in natural
connection of word and thing; belief in mechanical predetermination of words to be used in an
utterance by the context and the situation “in nature”; belief in “fractal” structure of word semantics
when meanings are treated like minor countable “things” within a bigger “thing”, a word (Kashkin
2007).
        Metaphors as primary mechanism of cognition (comparison of “new” to “old”), play a
fundamental role in creating language beliefs and are further displayed in narratives or other types
of discourse (Kramsch 2003). Words are things, “grains of sand”, or “construction bricks”, the text
is a wall of bricks, language is conceived as a big bag full of bricks, i.e. exclusively as lexicon.
Words and messages are compared to transported material goods, known as “conduit metaphor”
(Lakoff –Johnson 1980). A word, like a material object, can be given or taken, or disposed by the
human body in some other manner: «before you give me your word»; «He […] choked down the
word»; «I’d never breathe a word» (F1). Cf. the quint-essence of naïve linguistics in an open
questionnaire response retrieved about ten years ago: «Words are contained in lungs together with
air, while breathing they often fly out spontaneously. They can be visually observed in various
dictionaries» (Q, ESP student). Human words can be heavy or light, dirty or clean, they may be
made of stone, one could hide behind a wall of words (B) etc. The word is also a physical container
of smaller “grains”, its semantics is additive: «meanings packed into one word» (F).
        The most popular metaphors of translation were also connected with physical properties, such
as sound or outward appearance, opposing opacity/light, harshness/harmony in the place of
bad/good: (some translations are) like playing the “Moonlight Sonata” on a tin can (M); an
orchestra of outlandish instruments interpreting a classical symphony (M); clear translation (M);
beautiful translation (Q); awkward translation (Q), etc.
        The basic principles of naïve linguistic philosophy represent language learners’ beliefs as a
system of notions and strategies based upon the reification metaphor. The metaphor applied to
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                            V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 8/16




words of language, as shown by several researchers, is a reflection of a more general principle of
human cognition, or epistemological constant (Schommer – Walker 1995; Mori 1999). Similar
tendencies can be found in cognitive domains of mathematics, physics, history, etc. (Lave 1988;
Schraw 2001). Concepts are interpreted as “mental objects”, and knowledge is presented as a sum
of discrete countable elements, as portions or ‘bricks’: «simple, certain, handed down by authority»
(Schommer – Walker 1995, 424). Knowledge is “accumulated”, like a collection of things, hence
the desire to acquire knowledge in portions, in “construction bricks”. It can be treated as a specific
instance of domain confusion and reification of theoretical objects (Yngve 1996; Sypniewski 2007,
400-1). Language is similarly represented in the naïve mind as a collection of words and separate
meanings. Recent studies have also turned their criticism at official linguistics which has always
abstracted and reified «observable aspects of communicative behavior» and used these reifications
as material units (Jones 2007, 64), thus confusing physical and logical domains.
        Language as a whole is limited to lexicon in the naïve view, «Language is a sack full of
words» (Polinichenko 2008), and personal language learning technology is, therefore, memorization
of words, similar to the ancient metaphor of a wax tablet (Kashkin 2011). Foreign languages are
collections of «strange names» for «usual things» (Q). Beginners in translation studies also display
their personal procedural constructs using linear, or word-for-word translation technique, believing
in the ideal of «the most correct translation» (Did I translate it correctly? What is the correct
translation? etc.).
        Beliefs related to the sphere of language contrasts develop the reification principle. The
semantics of native words looks less complicated, “easier”: there are more meanings in foreign
words but one or two definite meanings in the words of my native language (Q). Naïve semiology
assumes native words to be more “natural”, whereas foreign words look or sound strange. Naïve
contrastive linguistics produces its own axiology: the native language is usually most «beautiful»,
«correct», «clear» (Q), etc.

4.2. Naïve technologies of translation and learning: word-for-word

Belief guides activity, and the reification metaphor leads to “storage” memorization techniques in
language learning: «in a couple of months you will learn about 10,000 words, equal to that
dictionary of yours you have always wanted to learn by heart» (A), as well as to naïve word-for-
word translation: «Before I translate the text, I have to translate the words» (Q, ESP student). If
language is a storage of “bricks” (its reified units), translation from one language to another is
changing bricks “of one color” for bricks “of another color”. The algebra of translation is turned
into simplistic arithmetic, like in the following example (Kashkin 2009): Happy! S prazdnikom!
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                              V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 9/16




«Have a good holiday!» (on a plastic bag). The author of this mistranslation surely knew the phrase
Happy New Year, equal to S prazdnikom Novogo Goda! The naïve mind calculated the result for
every holiday by the following arithmetic action with the words: S prazdnikom Novogo Goda! –
Novogo Goda = S prazdnikom! (which is quite OK in Russian), consequently, Happy New Year –
New Year = Happy! (which looks ridiculous in English). Several professional translators from
different cultures complained about businessmen who refused to pay the fee because “there were
less/more words” (Q), they had counted the words in the source and in the target texts.
        Customers and outsiders usually think that translation is not a specialized professional field,
and can be done by everyone by using a dictionary or translating into one’s native language when
the dictionary is not necessary: Many of my friends, to my regret, think that if you know a language
you can translate very easily <...> It is very difficult to explain to them what are the difficulties of
translation (N4); I would also recommend against paying for a professional translation. In addition
to being ridiculously expensive, there’s just no reason for it, particularly when one is translating
into one’s native language and has a decent knowledge of the original language (B). For a naïve
customer translation is equal to knowing the language, and, consequently, knowing the words: A
common misconception about the translator is that he or she is a living dictionary (B); I was very
naïve to think that a translator/interpreter must know many foreign words to be successful in their
career (N4); Here, everyone think they don’t need a translator, since all in <that country> are
bilingual or trilingual (B).
        Many translators and some students feel certain alienation from the rest of the society: la
traduzione non è un hobby che fa tendenza, è un lavoro, un lavoro del quale il traduttore dovrebbe
vivere <...> A quel punto, non ero più l’attrazione principale della serata, ero proprio E.T.! (B).
Naïve users of language might believe that it is not necessary to have special training in order to
become a translator/interpreter. It is sufficient to know, or just think that you know, a foreign
language (N4). Folk translators sometimes can show success in some translation task, and forward
this as a support of their denial of special training. At the same time, the Internet did open multiple
possibilities for Translation 2.0, one of them being “crowd-sourcing”: Is it cheap labor or a glimpse
of what’s to come? <...> One of the appeals <...> is the speed of translation <...> nearly 100% of
the French (social network) content was translated overnight <...> since this is a site for the
people, why not tailor it according to their needs? For quality assurance, (the network) employs
language experts (B).
        Training translators/interpreters is a domain of language learning where naïve proto-
theoretical knowledge is developed into some sort of “scientifically based” technology. Translation
techniques have always vacillated between the two opposites: verbum e verbo vs. sensum de sensu.
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                               V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 10/16




The first is reflected in the naïve conceptions of word-by-word translation, search for the “unique
correct translation”, in the public image of translation as a simple substitution of words, in the first
awkward approaches to machine translation, etc. The second is considered to be more “scientific”.
        Self-narratives of translators-to-be reflect their transition through the zone of proximal
development. The 1st year students are rarely reflexive, they display their attitude to their future
professional activity in a more or less affectionate way: the translator’s job is prestigious, it is in
high demand, it helps connect people, you can meet many interesting people in many countries
(N1). The public image of an interpreter/translator usually pictures a representative of this
profession as a highly paid individual, pretty girl or woman, who is able to communicate in the
higher layers of society and who travels a lot abroad: I had always thought (before the University)
that I was studying English just for my pleasure, to be able to travel a lot in the future (N4); when I
was about to become a student at the University I believed that the job of a translator/interpreter
meant first of all high salaries, prestigious positions and a possibility to travel the world (N4). The
stereotype is formed and supported by the closest reference group (friends, relatives and parents):
Once, my teacher in primary school, Tatiana, told my mother that her daughter, after graduating
from the University foreign languages department, left for Spain and got married there. My mother
was fascinated by the idea of sending me to conquer the world, and thus I was told to enter the
translation department, although, personally, I had always been dreaming of becoming a doctor
(N4). It is very typical of post-communist Russia, formerly a closed society, where travel abroad or
contacting foreigners was some sort of “forbidden fruit”: I became a translator/interpreter because
I have always wanted to communicate with foreigners (N4).
        Self-narratives of students in their pre-graduation year reflect an ability to contrast the naïve
and the professional view: Before I became a student of the translation department I had believed
that translators/interpreters are people who simply know the language very well <...> Now it does
not look that simple (N4); In my final high school years I had a totally different conception of
translation. It seemed to me that it would be quite enough to substitute the words with their Russian
equivalents (N4); I heard that translators are not very highly paid. And all of us used to dream of a
miraculous life! (N4); I was sort of romantic in picturing my future job of a translator/interpreter;
possible travels, business trips, new encounters and constant self-development <...> I am less
interested in written translation than in interpreting (N4).
        The students, some of whom have already worked for some time in translation, are aware of
the reality: A translator has a specific view upon language <...> It is very difficult to be a
translator, it is not easy, it is a tedious and scrupulous job (N4). It is very difficult to communicate
with people outside the profession: At the moment, I am tired of explaining to my friends that it is
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                           V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 11/16




impossible for every naïve user to translate accurately (N4); My father sometimes asks me to
translate spontaneously some text related to physics or something like that, and asks in surprise:
«But isn’t it English, why is it so difficult for you?!» (N4).

5. Conclusion

The silent beliefs are a kind of Wittgensteinian “tacit knowledge” (Polanyi 1983; Johannessen 1996,
294f.). Although never put into some coherent order by the holders of these beliefs, they represent a
versatile but hidden system of naïve views. This system deserves the name of “everyday language
philosophy”. Naïve theories of language, even if they remain unexpressed, serve as the basis for
naïve learning and translation technologies, personal learning and translation strategies and
techniques.
        Vygotsky (2006, 845, 920) continuously stressed the idea that both naïve and scientific
concepts co-exist and inter-act in the individual mind. The simultaneous mixture of naïve language
mythology and socially accepted scientific knowledge is the dialectic reality where personal
language skills and linguistic knowledge are developed. It is often very different from what teachers
usually presume their students should think. Even in training professional linguists and translators
the starting point is mainly in the naïve domain, thanks to the conceptual influence by the non-
linguistic parents, or friends, or the “public image” of language and translation. Raising
metalinguistic and mutual conceptual awareness of both teachers and students is one of the current
challenges of language education.
        Similar to general beliefs about language and learning, the analysis revealed two sets of
beliefs related, correspondingly, to knowledge or to action: naïve theories and naïve strategies of
translation. Ontological beliefs (what is translation) are directly related to general ontological
beliefs about language and communication and derived from them. Technological beliefs (how to
translate) are related to personal strategies of learning, teaching, and using language. The basic
metaphoric representation of translation in everyday metacognition is word-for-word translation,
analogous to the basic reification metaphor of language (“words are like material things”). Beliefs
about translation in younger students’ are similar to beliefs about translation in public opinion
(public image of translation and translators). Further research (Likert-type questionnaires and
longitudinal study within the zone of proximal development) would reveal the dynamics of beliefs
in developing personal strategies of translation for students of translation departments. The
dynamics of the public image of translation (in mass media or in customers) is also very important
and strongly required by the translators community. The challenge of the naïve but inquisitive mind
may be added to the challenges translation studies and pedagogy face (Malmkjær 2010). The
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                          V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 12/16




answer to this challenge might be a dialogically-based professional philosophy of translation which
every language student and a translation novice needs.


Viacheslav Borisovich Kashkin
Voronezh State University
Department of Translatology and Intercultural Communication
Plekhanovskaya, 2-13
RU – 394018 Voronezh
kashkin2012@yandex.ru
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                         V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 13/16




References

Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (2000) Yazyk o yazyke (Language about language). Moscow. Yazyki russkoy
kultury.

Ashouri, A.F., Fotovatnia, Z. (2010) The Effect of Individual Differences on Learners’ Translation
Belief in EFL Learning. In English Language Teaching. 3/4. 228-36.

Bachelard, G. (1983) The new scientific spirit (1934). Boston. Beacon Press.


Baker, L.R. (1989) Saving Belief: A Critique of Physicalism. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University
Press.

Barcelos, A.M.F. (2007) Reflexões acerca da mudança de crenças sobre ensino e aprendizagem de
línguas. In Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada. 7/2. 109-38.

Benson, P. (2008) Language learning careers as a unit of ‘activity’. Paper presented at the 15th
World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA): Multilingualism: Challenges and Opportunities.
Essen, Germany.

Cappelen, H., Lepore, E. (2007) Language Turned on Itself: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Metalinguistic Discourse. New York. Oxford University Press.

Debrenne, M. (2006) Frantsuzskij jazyk v re evoj praktike russkikh: Mežjazykovaja deviatologija
(The French language in speech activities of Russian students: Interlinguistic deviatology).
Novosibirsk. Novosibirsk State University.

Dennett, D.C. (1993) Three Kinds of Intentional Psychology. In Christensen, S.M., Turner, D.R.
(eds.) Folk psychology and the philosophy of mind. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
121-43.

Dufva, H. (1994) Everyday knowledge of language: a dialogical approach to awareness. In
Finlance. 14. 22–49.

Dufva, H., Lähteenmäki, M., Kashkin, V.B. (2000) Metajazykovoj komponent jazykovogo
soznanija (Metalinguistic component in language consciousness). In Tarasov, E.F. (ed.) Language
Consciousness: Content and Function, XIII International Symposium on Psycholinguistics and
Communication Theory. Moscow. Russian Academy of Sciences. 81-2.

Flavell, J.H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. In American Psychologist. 34/10. 906-11.

Fox, E., Riconscente, M. (2008) Metacognition and self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky.
In Educational Psychology Review. 20/4. 373-89.
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                         V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 14/16




Golev, N.D. (2007) Obydennoje metajazykovoje soznanije kak ontologicheskij i gnoseologicheskij
phenomen (Everyday metalinguistic consciousness as an ontological and epistemological
phenomenon). In Id. (ed.) Obydennoje metajazykovoje soznanije: ontologicheskije i
gnoseologicheskije aspekty (Everyday metalinguistic consciousness: Ontological and
epistemological aspects). Kemerovo-Barnaul. Altai University Publishing House. 7-40.

Harris, R. (1980) The Language-Makers. London. Duckworth.


Johannessen, K.S. (1996) Action research and epistemology. In Concepts and Transformation. 1./2-
3. 292-95.

Jones, P.E. (2007) Chapter 4: Language as Problem and Problematic in the Cultural-Historical and
Activity Theory Tradition. In Alanen, R., Pöyhönen, S. (eds.) Language in Action: Vygotsky and
Leontievian Legacy Today. Cambridge. Cambridge Scholars Publishers. 57-78.

Kalaja, P., Menezes, V., Barcelos, A.M.F. (2008) Narratives of Learning and Teaching EFL.
London. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kashkin, V.B. (2007) Metaliguistic activity and everyday philosophy. In Alanen, R., Pöyhönen, S.
(eds.) Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian legacy today. Cambridge. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing. 170-202.

Kashkin, V.B. (2009) What do language learners know about language? In Proceedings of 2009
International Symposium on ESP and Its Teaching. Wuhan. Hubei People’s Press. 190-200.

Kashkin, V.B. (2011) Language contrasts in naïve beliefs and scientific paradigms. In Haßler, G.
(Hrsg.) Nationale und transnationale Perspektiven der Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft.
Münster. Nodus Publikationen. 281-7.

Kelly, G.A. (1963) A Theory of personality. The psychology of personal constructs. New York. W.W.
Norton and Company Inc.

Kramsch, C. (2003) Metaphor and the subjective construction of beliefs. In Kalaja, P., Barcelos,
A.M.F. (eds.) Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches. Dordrecht. Kluwer. 109-28.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.


Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. New York.
Cambridge University Press.

Liao, P.S. (2006) EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in English Learning.
In RELC Journal. 37/2. 191-215.

van Lier, L. (1988) The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                                          V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 15/16




classroom research. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Malmkjær, K. (2010) The Nature, Place and Role of a Philosophy of Translation in Translation
Studies. In Fawcett, A., Guadarrama García, K.L., Hyde Parker, R. (eds.) Translation: Theory and
Practice in Dialogue. London. Continuum. 201-18.

Mori, Y. (1999) Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners
believe about their learning? In Language Learning. 49/3. 371–415.

Niedzielski, N.A., Preston, D.R. (2000) Folk Linguistics. Berlin-New York. Mouton de Gruyter.


Polanyi, M. (1983) The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA. Peter Smith.


Polinichenko, D.Y. (2008) Naivnaja lingvistika i folk-lingvistika (Naïve Linguistics and Folk-
Linguistics). In Rostova, A.N. (ed.) Obydennoje metajazykovoje soznanije i naivnaja lingvistika
(Everyday metalinguistic consciousness and naïve linguistics). Kemerovo-Barnaul. Altai University.
41-5.

Schommer, M., Walker, K. (1995) Are epistemological beliefs similar across domain? In Journal of
Educational Psychology. 87/3. 424–32.

Schraw, G. (2001) Promoting General Metacognitive Awareness. In Hartman, H.J. (ed.)
Metacognition in Learning and Instruction. Amsterdam. Kluwer. 3-16.

Shatalov, D.G. (2009) Inferiority, equipollence, and superiority in metaphorical conceptualizations
of translation. In Language, Communication and Social Environment. 7. 89-102.

St. Clair, R.N. (2011) Metacognition and the Teaching of Grammatical Concepts. In
http://www.epistemic-forms.com/FacSite/Articles/metacognition-teaching-grammar.html (retrieved
10 January, 2011).

Sypniewski, B. (2007) Domain Confusion. In Reich, P., Sullivan, W.J., Lommel, A.R., Griffen, T.D.
(eds.) The LACUS Forum 33: Variations. Houston. LACUS. 399-404.

Ulybina, E. V. (2001) Psikhologija obydennogo soznanija (Psychology of Everyday
Consciousness). Moscow. Smysl.

Vygotsky, L.S. (2006) Psikhologija razvitija cheloveka (Psychology of human development).
Moscow. Smysl, Eksmo.

Wong, W.-C. (2002) Revitalizing the metaphoric process in commonsense psychology. In
Philosophical Psychology. 15/4. 473-88.
Annali Online Lettere - Ferrara                                               V. B. Kashkin
Voll. 1-2 (2011) 16/16




Yngve, V. (1996) From grammar to science. Philadelphia, PA. John Benjamins.


List of internet resources (translators’ blogs)


http://www.aboutranslation.blogspot.com/


http://www.blogarama.com/


http://blogs.yandex.ru/


http://blogsearch.google.com/


http://www.blogsearchengine.com/


http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/translation/articles/translation-myths.html


http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/


http://www.ljplus.ru/


http://www.spanish-translation-help.com/spanish-myths.html


http://traduttrice2.splinder.com/


http://www.translationandinterpretationblog.com/


http://translationjournal.net/
