Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018: Replication of Sandra Halverson’s survey from 1997 Anna Kuźnik University of Wrocław, Poland A B ST RAC T This paper aims to provide an account of our survey on the semiotic nature of the concept of translation among young Polish native speakers. The methodological strategy adopted is a con- structive replication of Sandra Halverson’s survey conducted in Norway in 1997. We claim, in our main hypothesis (stemming from a theoretical background of prototype semantics, which we used for measuring our object), that the concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, some of which are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral. According to our additional hypothesis, young Polish native speakers have a broad notion of translation (encompassing a wide range of intralingual and intersemiotic translations), even broader than their Norwegian counterparts, more than twenty years ago. Our data has been collected in 2018 using a seven-item questionnaire (seven different text pairs) with a seven-value scale from 103 subjects. While the main hypothesis has been confirmed, the additional hypothesis was rejected, with Polish respondents conceiving the concept of translation more narrowly. The methodological format of a replication produced an ambivalent effect: on the one hand, it yielded positive incentive, and on the other hand, it became our principal hindrance. Keywords: conceptualization of translation, semiotic nature of translation, Polish concept tłu- maczenie, prototype semantics, replication of a survey Pojmovanje koncepta prevajanja na Poljskem leta 2018. Replikacija raziskave Sandre Halverson iz leta 1997 I Z V L EČ E K Namen članka je predstaviti rezultate ankete, ki je preverjala semiotično razumevanje koncepta prevajanja pri mladih rojenih govorcih poljskega jezika. Privzeti metodološki pristop je konstruk- tivna replikacija ankete, ki jo je Sandra Halverson izvedla na Norveškem leta 1997. Na podlagi teor- etičnega ozadja prototipske semantike, ki smo jo uporabili za merjenje, je glavna hipoteza pričujoče raziskave, da koncept prevajanja ni enoten in da vsebuje različne semiotične vrste prevajanja, med katerimi so nekatere osrednje (prototipske), druge pa periferne. Druga hipoteza je, da mladi rojeni govorci poljskega jezika prevod pojmujejo široko in v ta pojem vključujejo tudi različne znotrajj- ezikovne in medznakovne vrste prevajanja, ter da je njihov pogled še širši, kot je bil pogled njihovih norveških kolegov pred več kot dvajsetimi leti. Podatki so bili pridobljeni leta 2018 z anketnim vprašalnikom, na katerega so odgovorili 103 anketiranci. Vprašalnik je obsegal sedem vprašanj in 87Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 se je nanašal na sedem različnih parov besedil. Glavna hipoteza je bila potrjena, druga hipoteza pa je bila zavrnjena, saj so poljski anketiranci koncept prevajanja razumeli ožje. Metodološki format replikacije je imel dvojni učinek: po eni strani je predstavljal pozitivno spodbudo, po drugi pa je postal glavna ovira. Ključne besede: pojmovanje koncepta prevajanja, semiotična narava prevajanja, poljski pojem tłu- maczenie, prototipska semantika, replikacija ankete 1. Introduction: The seminal concept of translation under scrutiny A conceptualization of translation, thus “a preliminary opening to the concept” of translation (Pym 2007, 154), has been already much analysed and much discussed in the field of translation studies (TS). A collective volume entitled Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Dam, Brøgger and Zethsen (2019), building on the theme of the 5th Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies (EST) held in September 2016 at Aarhus University, illustrates this inexhaustible interest. How- ever, we may never forget that our discipline does not ‘own’ this concept. As Zwis- chenberger rightly puts out, “Outside of [TS], the use of the translation concept is not bound to ‘translation proper’ (Jakobson 1959, 232) or to the way in which the concept is used and defined in [TS]” (2017, 388). Studies on the conceptualization of translation are still being designed, piloted and conducted simply because they are needed – needed by our discipline, by neighbour- ing disciplines (Zwishenberger 2019), by ourselves and by others. The concept of translation (its definitions and internal differentiations: classifications and typologies) is the core concept of our discipline, and has in our minds a cognitive, immaterial form, but is expressed and communicated to others in natural languages (or in other semiotic systems) in a fixed, at least for a short while, and material form. Our scientific and academic communication in the field of TS relies on a widely ac- cepted assumption that the closest equivalents of the English concept of translation in other European languages (terms such as traduction, Übersetzung, oversettelse, tłu- maczenie) denote – more or less – the same concept (Pym 2007, 154), and we have no intention to question this issue here. What we intend to explore in this study is how the semiotic nature of translation is conceptualized by translation-naïve Polish youth (our object of study and the popu- lation are described in section 2) using – as an operationalizing device – a theory of prototype (section 3) and a methodological strategy of constructive replication (sec- tion 4). The results are presented in section 6, followed by a discussion (section 7) and concluding remarks (section 8). 88 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 In establishing the limits of the concept of translation we are executing a “boundary work” (Grbić, 2011), so characteristic for academic and scientific endeavours. This study is complementary to our previous studies aimed at analysing contemporary ways of conceptualizing the notion of translation in France and Poland formulated by translation practising, professional communities (Kuźnik 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, submitted [a], submitted [b]). 2. Semiotic nature of translation perceived by translation-naïve Polish youth 2.1 Semiotic nature of translation: definitions and classifications In this study we focus on the semiotic nature of translation understood as a relation- ship between a source text and a target text (both with their inherent semiotic forms and contents). We are convinced that the semiotic approach to translation is one of the most complete approaches to studying different conceptualizations of the concept (Kuźnik 2018, 494–499). Particularly useful for our purposes is Gottlieb’s exhaustive taxonomy of translation (2008, 2018). The author supports his typology with illustrative examples and uses the following basic distinctions: intersemiotic vs. intrasemiotic translation; isosemiotic vs. diasemiotic, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation; conventionalized vs. ad- aptational translation; and verbal vs. nonverbal translation (Gottlieb 2008, 2018). The definitions of text proposed by researchers within the semiotic perspective have always been very broad. Halverson defines a text as an “internally coherent semiotic entity” (2000, 5). For Gottlieb, a text is “any combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention”, and consequently, translation is defined by him as “any process, or product hereof, in which a text is replaced by another text reflecting, or inspired by, the original entity” (Gottlieb 2008, 42; 2018, 47). The semiotic nature of the conceptualization of translation (definitions and classifica- tions) has already been largely studied in TS, starting from Jakobson’s initial tripartite typology (1959) and its thorough revision by Toury (1986), passing through the hands of many other scholars, mostly those interested in interlingual translation (see e.g. Zethsen 2007, García-Izquierdo and Montalt 2013) and intersemiotic translation, generally as- sociated with audiovisual translation (see e.g. Castro, Olaya and Orrego 2008, 59–62). For the aims of the present study, we follow Halverson’s proposal, based on the cri- tique of Jakobson’s classification by Toury (see 4.2. below). 89Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 2.2 Polish youth in 2018: A multimodal, mobile and inclusive experience of life Representatives of the youth living in Poland (which became a member of the Euro- pean Union in 2004) at the end of the first two decades of the twenty-first century may be considered a population which is very familiar with all “ever-increasing commu- nicational output – from cell phone text messages to live multi-media presentations” (Gottlieb 2008, 39) and all types of text transfers included by Gottlieb in his highly comprehensive taxonomy of “multidimensional translations” (Gottlieb 2008, 2018). As Gottlieb states, this typology “provides conceptual tools for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered in today’s media landscape” (Gottlieb 2008, 40, see also Kuźnik 2018). The current “media landscape” – presented in detail and analysed by Gottlieb – provides young Poles with a very rich, diverse and multimodal experience of life in a globalized world. Furthermore, Polish young people use the Internet widely in their everyday lives, and as Salmons rightly points out (2015), the Internet operates using very semiotically complex means. By doing so, the Internet fosters our daily exposure to multimodal forms of communication and our experience of multimodal construction of meaning (Salmons 2015, 523). Alongside new forms of communication and the Internet, young Poles are experi- encing an ever increasing mobility inside (and outside) the country, and in this way they acquire a first-hand knowledge of different geographical (dialectal) and social variations of the same language. The current trend of sharing information on social media also has an important added value: e.g., Facebook’s interface is nowadays avail- able in the Silesian dialect, i.e. a West Slavic lect of the Lechitic group present in the south of Poland and spoken in Upper Silesia and, partly, in Czech Silesia, with a strong influence of the German language. This contributes to the young Poles’ awareness of internal linguistic, cultural and social diversity within the Polish borders. 2.3 Semiotically-oriented hypotheses of our study The three arguments outlined in the previous section (2.2) have made it possible for us to formulate the following two hypotheses: • our main hypothesis is that the Poles’ concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, of which some types are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral; this hypothesis has its theoretical background in prototype semantics discussed in the next section (see section 3); 90 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 • and our additional hypothesis posits that in the Polish context the notion of trans- lation is semiotically expanded far “beyond the one-dimensional transfer of a spo- ken or written message from language A to language B” (Gottlieb 2008, 39), in- cluding many objects of intersemiotic and intralingual translations, compared to the conceptualizations of the same notions by young Norwegians in 1997, mainly because of the difference in time between these two populations (21 years, almost a quarter of a century). Both hypotheses have been operationalized with a conceptual framework and with the methodological tools of cognitive semantics. 3. Linguistic and semantic bases of the study 3.1 Measuring the conceptualization of translation Measuring the conceptualization of translation has always been a challenge for TS scholars. Pym (2007) has distinguished deductive approaches to the definitional task (called by him “formal conceptualizations”, see for example a “stipulative, criterial definition of translation” proposed by Zethsen and Hill-Madsen 2016, 703–705, and Zethsen 2007, 297–300) and inductive ones. In the latter, he placed Halverson’s ‘pro- totype survey’, together with Akrich, Callon and Latour’s work (2006) on “intuitively collected historical terms, related in terms of networks” (Pym 2007, 153–154). Many other studies can be classified within the inductive paradigm: studies on metaphorical expressions used by subjects when referring to translation or translator (see e.g. Pre- sas and Martín de León 2011, 2014; Skibińska and Blumczyński 2009), inquiries on etymology and the meaning of words referring to translation and translator described in lexicographical sources (Skibińska and Blumczyński 2009), or ethnography-orient- ed studies gathering professionals’ opinions on the delimitation and meanings of such terms as “translation”, “interpreting”, “transcreation, “localization”, “reviewing”, etc., as parts of their translation-based businesses in the environment of translation services (Kuźnik 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Dam and Zethsen 2019). It was in the field of cognitive linguistics, namely in cognitive semantics – and in our case thanks to Halverson’s publications (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) – that we encoun- tered an interesting and rigorous method for measuring the concept of translation, i.e. the core concept of our discipline. In this approach, the concept of translation is meant as a semantic category that can be studied and fruitfully defined using the prototype perspective. 91Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 3.2 Categorization theory and prototype semantics approach The theoretical background underlying our study (and that of Halverson) brings us to Lakoff ’s work on categorization (1987), and to the categorization theory which intends to explain how people categorize things. This theory deals, on the one hand, with the distinction between ‘all-or-none’ classical categories (concepts), as they have been understood from the time of Aristotle till the late work by Wittgenstein (1958), and, on the other, with non-classical, prototype categories (concepts), proposed by Wittgenstein (1958) in the field of philosophy of language and by Rosch and her re- search team (see e.g. Rosch 1973, 1978; prototype theory) in the field of psychology (see also Halverson 1998, 12-14). Briefly defined, classical categories “[...] were assumed to be abstract containers, with things either inside or outside the category. Things were assumed to be in the same category if and only if they had certain properties in common. And the properties they had in common were taken as defining the category” (Lakoff 1987, 6, cited in Halverson 1998, 13). Traditionally, concepts have been explained against a checklist of necessary and sufficient conditions. According to a classical categorization, a list of these necessary and sufficient conditions determines if an object belongs to a category or not. In other words, objects belong to the category if they meet all the conditions and meet those conditions only; conversely, objects that lack one condition or that have additional features cannot belong to that category (L’Homme 2020, 24). Wittgenstein (1958) and Rosch (see e.g. 1978) presented several arguments against clas- sical categorization. Wittgenstein (1958) demonstrated that not all category items share a set of common features, and that there may be no common characteristic for all of the items. In the prototype semantics approach, a category may be infinitely extended, may contain ‘better’ examples (more central) and ‘worse’ ones (more peripheral), and thus the task of specifying a fixed boundary for well-defined categories is impossible. Prototype theory and prototype-informed research have shown that “[...] virtually all natural language concepts show signs of having graded membership (not all members are equal), and fuzzy boundaries (where one concept stops and another starts is inde- terminate)” (Halverson 2000, 4, see also Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1987). The prototype semantics approach can be applied satisfactorily to both concrete and abstract concepts: from the most physical concepts (e.g. the colour red) to the most abstract (e.g. the cat- egory of number or game), and has been intensively developed by Polish researchers, among many others (see e.g. Wierzbicka 1985, and Barmiński’s works, e.g. Bartmiński, Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska, and Brzozowska 2016, Bartmiński 2018). TS scholars have adopted both the categorization and prototype theories, directly from cognitive linguists or through Halverson’s works, and satisfactorily integrated 92 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 them in their research (see e.g. Tymoczko 2005, 1083–1086 and the “open” or “clus- ter concept”; Zethsen and Hill-Madsen 2016, 695-697 for their theoretical discussion with Halverson’s “prototype argument”; also Dam and Zethsen 2019, 213–214). 3.3 The Polish words tłumaczenie versus przekład The limited scope of this paper does not allow us to provide an extended contrastive analysis of the terms oversettelse and tłumaczenie, nor on the opposition between tłu- maczenie and przekład in Polish. In what follows, we briefly explain why we prior- itized in our study the word tłumaczenie over the competing word przekład. Skibińska and Blumczyński, using a lexicographical approach, thoroughly analyse the etymology and evolution of the meaning of the Polish words tłumaczyć, tłumaczenie, tłumacz and przekładać, przekład, przekładacz (2009, 31–34). The authors conclude: “[…] the meaning of both tłumaczyć and przekładać as ‘to translate’ has become en- trenched in contemporary Polish usage” (Skibińska and Blumczyński 2009, 34). An- other Polish researcher, Lewicki, describes in detail both lexemes as general language words and as specialized terms. For Lewicki, in the field of Polish TS, the term tłu- maczenie refers to the translation process, and przekład, to the translation product (2017, 13–27), but we do not support his distinction. Another Polish TS scholar, Tomaszkiewicz, argues that “in the Polish tradition these terms [tłumaczenie and przekład] are used in many contexts in an interchangeable way”, without considering their semantics (Tomaszkiewicz 2006, 64)1, while Skibińska and Blumczyński contend: “It seems that the most unmarked term for translation in Polish is tłumaczenie” (Skibińska and Blumczyński 2009, 32). Furthermore, in Polish, the op- position between translation and interpreting does not exist because there is no specific word to refer to oral translation (‘interpreting’). In Polish, written translation is simply called tłumaczenie pisemne and interpreting, tłumaczenie ustne, i.e. oral translation. In our previous studies conducted among representatives of the translation industry (Kuźnik forthcoming [a]), we argue that professionals do not use the term przekład at all, since it is an academic word and refers exclusively to literary translation. Furthermore, the words tłumaczenie (and not przekład), tłumacz, tłumaczyć, and tłu- maczeniowy are generally used in Polish legal and economic regulations dealing with the activity of translators and interpreters, i.e. in the Polish Classification of economic 1 Original quotation in Polish: “W polskiej tradycji terminy te [tłumaczenie i przekład] używane są zamiennie. [...] Faktem jest, że w wielu kontekstach używamy ich zamiennie, nie zastanawiając się nad semantyką tych dwóch pojęć” (Tomaszkiewicz 2006, 64), in this paper translated into English by Kuźnik). 93Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 Activity (Polska Klasyfikacja Działalności gospodarczej, PKD), the Polish Classifi- cation of professions and specializations for the labour market needs (Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy), the Polish Law of 25 November 2004 on the profession of sworn translator and interpreter (Ustawa z dnia 25 listopada 2004 r. o zawodzie tłumacza przysięgłego), the Polish Law of 4 February 1994 on copy- righting and related rights (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych); and finally, in the Polish version of the ISO 1700 norm “Translation services – Requirements for translations services” (Usługi tłumaczeniowe - Wymaga- nia dotyczące świadczenia usług tłumaczeniowych), and before, in the Polish version of the European norm EN 15038, i.e. PN-EN 15038:2006. Therefore we used the term tłumaczenie, and not przekład, in our study. 4. Replication of Halverson’s survey 4.1 Methodological strategy of replication Inspired by Olalla-Soler’s enquiry into the practice of replication in empirical transla- tion and interpreting studies (2020), we decided to run a survey which had originally been designed and conducted in 1997 by Sandra Halverson at the University of Ber- gen (Halverson 2000). To do so, we chose one paper by Halverson (2000) in which she presents her study in detail. The background for this paper is provided in other publications, where she discusses some of the philosophical, theoretical and empirical issues related to translation and interpreting from the viewpoint of cognitive linguis- tics (see e.g. Halverson 1998, 1999, 2002). This paper by Halverson (2000) guided us throughout all the replication process. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only paper containing the methodological details and results of her study. Halverson’s empirical study was based on two theoretical premises aiming to define the concept of translation from a semiotic perspective based on a categorization the- ory and prototype semantics approach towards categories (concepts) proposed in the field of cognitive linguistics. Due to the fact that an inductive strategy gives priority to the data gathered rather than to the prior consistency of theoretical statements, and that the empirical data depends on social, time and place factors, we found it interesting to contrast one set of results, which casts light on conceptualizations of translation from a semiotic point of view, with another set from later research. Broadly speaking, there are three main differences between Halverson’s study and ours: 1. Time: our survey was conducted almost 20 years later (the exact difference at the moment of data collection was 21 years), 94 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 2. Place: our data was collected in Poland, and not in Norway, but still in a European context, 3. Native language: we asked Polish-speaking subjects about their concept of tłu- maczenie, and not of oversettelse, both being considered as the closest equivalent to the English concept of translation in Polish and Norwegian, respectively. This new set of circumstances – time, space and language – were operating in a joint, mixed, interdependent manner, and that is why our replication cannot be considered an exact one (Crandall and Sherman 2016, 93, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 6), but rath- er a constructive one, since it sought “[..] not ‘only’ to provide additional evidence for or against an existing finding but also to [...] extend findings” (Hüffmeier, Mazei, and Schultze 2016, 86, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 6). Due to the fact that three parameters differ from Halverson’s study simultaneously (time, place and language), we were not able to treat them separately and measure a particular impact for each of them. Our survey did not aim to discover a cause-effect chain, but rather to consider all three of them jointly as a set of different data. How- ever, we consider the first parameter, i.e. time, as predominant over the other two. On the one hand, the time lag of 21 years seems long enough to make it possible to register qualitatively significant, discrete changes in society, produced by advances in technology, media and accessibility, since both Poland and Norway are immersed in a – more or less – shared, European and globalized context. Concerning the third difference, i.e. language, apart from the assumption, widely accepted by the transla- tion scholars’ community, of the ‘closest equivalents of the concept of translation in different European languages’ (see section 1), we do not consider the etymology of words a valid indicator of their contemporary meaning and use (Pym 2007, 159–160). The fact of replication puts a study, and in particular, the publications communicating it to the wider scientific audience, subject to a serious test (Neunzig 2017, 49), because only studies reported in a rigorous way are able to generate comparable studies and results. According to a widely accepted definition, replication is “the repetition of the methods that led to a reported finding” (Schmidt 2009, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 3). When performing this replication, we tested the accuracy of all the methodological features of the previous survey. 4.2 Semiotic nature of the concept of translation in Halverson’s survey When trying to determine “which instances of an object may be included in the con- cept [of translation]” (Halverson 1998, 12), Halverson used Toury’s revision (1986) of Jakobson’s definitions of intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation (1959), 95Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 and proposed the following three dimensions: (1) type relationship (i.e. intra- versus intersemiotic dimension), (2) token relationship (i.e. intra- versus intersystemic dimen- sion), and (3) linguality dimension (presence or absence of natural language on at least one side of the translational process) (Halverson 2000, 5; see also Table 2 in this paper). Her main hypothesis is that the concept of translation (translation category in terms of prototype semantics; Norwegian oversettelse) demonstrates prototype effects, i.e. membership gradience and fuzzy, permeable boundaries (Halverson 2000, 4, 7; see also Halverson 1999). Halverson states that “none of [the three above mentioned dimensions] constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the ‘translation’ category, and that they play different roles, i.e. demonstrate varying sali- ence, in informants’ evaluations” (Halverson 2000, 5). As a secondary hypothesis, she posits that the central instances for the translation category are constituted mostly by cases of intersystemic operations and, in particular, between two linguistic systems clearly differentiated by the Norwegian language users. The results obtained offer empirical evidence and support the main hypothesis (trans- lation category shows prototype effects) and secondary hypothesis (central instances of translation are mostly intersystemic, lingual operations). 5. Methodology 5.1 Sample and main methodological characteristics of data collection We collected data using a seven-value scale questionnaire (see the Appendix) from 103 translation-naïve undergraduate students at the very beginning of the academic year 2018- 2019 (end of September and beginning of October 2018) at the University of Wrocław, Institute of Romance Studies (French, Spanish and Italian studies), in the south-western region of Poland. Table 1 shows the main methodological characteristics of our survey (right-hand column), comparing them to those of Halverson’s (middle column). Table 1. Main methodological characteristics of Halverson’s study (Halverson 2000, 7) and our study (in italics: different aspects, specific to our study). S. Halverson’s study Our study Population translation-theoretically naïve, young native language users translation-theoretically naïve, young native language users Language native speakers of Norwegian native speakers of Polish Sample size 103 subjects 103 subjects Social group undergraduate students undergraduate students 96 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 S. Halverson’s study Our study Place English Department at the University of Bergen (Norway) Institute of Romance Studies (French, Spanish, Italian) (Poland) Time during the spring and fall semesters of 1997 at the very beginning of the fall semester of 2018 Training re- ceived no training in translation theory: the students were all considered to be equally theoretically naive no training in translation theory: the students were all considered to be equally theoretically naive some training in practical translation: one third of the subjects were approxi- mately half-way through the introduc- tory course in practical translation no training in practical translation Experience of translation [data not provided] no experience of translation: the students were all considered to be equally practically (professionally) naïve Statistical repre- sentativeness sampling techniques not adopted, representativeness of the group not statistically guaranteed sampling techniques not adopted, representativeness of the group not statistically guaranteed 5.2 Questionnaire adapted to the Polish context Our instrument, a seven-value scale questionnaire (see Appendix), is based on Halver- son’s questionnaire (Halverson 2000, 14–15), which is in turn a slightly adapted version of the Coleman-Kay methodology for studying the prototype effects of the English word “lie” (Coleman and Kay 1981). The seven-value scale corresponds to a degree of cer- tainty on whether a type of translation is perceived by the respondents as a central or peripheral one. On this scale “[...] one through three were various degrees of ‘yes, it is a translation’ [1 = completely certain; 2 = quite certain; 3 = somewhat certain], while five through seven were the corresponding ‘no, it is not a translation’ responses [5 = some- what certain; 6 = quite certain; 7 = completely certain]” (Halverson 2000, 5). 6. Results obtained In this section, we first present the results of our survey in order to check the main hypoth- esis of our study, and then we compare these results to the Halverson’s findings in order to check our additional hypothesis. Tables and figures already contain both sets of results. When performing the quantitative analysis, we calculated descriptive statistics (min- imum, maximum, mean values and standard deviation). Our further statistical deci- sions were based on graphical representations of data obtained in the study. 97Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 6.1 Descriptive quantitative analysis of our study 6.1.1 Means and standard deviation Table 2 shows mean scores and standard deviations for each text pair. In general, the mean values in our survey are distributed among responses pertaining to the affirm- ative attitudes “yes, it is a translation” and the neutral ones “do not know” (minimum mean 1.301; maximum mean 5.135). Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations (s) for each text pair in Halverson’s study (2000, 8, Table 2; for text pair 5, the systemic-level boundary was questioned by Halverson) and in our study (in italics: mean scores and presence of linguality). text pair text A (our study) text B (our study) Halverson’s study (1997, Norway) Our study (2018, Poland) mean score s mean score s 1 intrasystemic visual system (traffic signaliza- tion: traffic light) visual system (traffic signaliza- tion: traffic sign) 3.960 2.634 4.515 2.072 2 intersystemic (systemic-level boundary) numeric mon- etary system of USD currency (specific sum in USD) numeric mon- etary system of PLN currency (same sum in PLN) 3.099 2.027 4.155 2.009 3 intersemiotic (semiotic-lev- el boundary, systemic-level boundary, lin- guality) visual system (traffic sign) language system (verbal content of the traffic sign) 1.752 1.615 2.184 1.872 4 interlingual (systemic-level boundary, lin- guality) language system (sentence in standard Eng- lish) language system (sentence in standard Polish) 1.426 0.864 1.301 1.008 5 interlingual (?) (systemic-level boundary, lin- guality) language/ dialec- tal system (sentence in Sile- sian dialect) language system (sentence in standard Polish) 1.663 1.458 1.689 1.284 6 intralingual (linguality) language system (sentence in standard Polish) language system (reformulated sentence in standard Polish) 3.545 2.138 3.650 2.104 98 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 text pair text A (our study) text B (our study) Halverson’s study (1997, Norway) Our study (2018, Poland) mean score s mean score s 7 intersemiotic (semiotic-lev- el boundary, systemic-level boundary) visual system (painting) aural system (music) 5.040 1.849 5.135 1.837 The neutral response “do not know” begins at point 3.500 and ends at point 4.499 (grey area in Figure 1), and it seems that text pairs 4, 5, and 3 are included in the af- firmative responses, while text pairs 6 and 2 are included in the “do not know” area. Text pair 1 seems to be the only one placed slightly on the negative side (closer to “no, it is not a translation”, with a rather high standard deviation 2.072), and finally text pair 7 is likely to be excluded from the neutral area and put more convincingly on the negative side (with a lower standard deviation 1.837, than text pair 1), but still, not very strongly. No mean scores correspond to categories 6 or 7 on that scale (“no, it is not a translation, and I am quite or completely certain about that”). In summary, we may state that, taken all together, none of the text pairs evaluated by our subjects were clearly rejected as not being translations. Figure 1. Mean values for 7 text pairs in Halverson’s study and our study (for standard deviation, see Table 2). 99Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 The order of the mean values (from the lowest mean value to the highest) can be reg- istered as follows: 4, 5, 3, 6, 2, 1, 7. In addition to the order of the means obtained, the standard deviation of mean scores grows along with the mean scores, i.e. low mean scores present low standard deviation, and high mean scores present high standard deviation. If we consider the results in a more visual way, which highlights its radial, ripple-like structure (Figure 2), we may conclude that text pairs 4, 5, and 3 constitute the most central items.2 Figure 2. Radial structure of the concepts of oversettelse and tłumaczenie. The responses obtained in our survey do not show a normal distribution, as seen in Figure 3. 2 For the visual forms of representing central and peripheral positions of instances in the translation concept, see also Halverson 1998, 15, Figures 2 and 3. 100 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 Figure 3. Histograms with distributions of responses by text pair in our study. 101Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 The responses for the text pairs 4, 5 and 3 are distributed asymmetrically with a strong left-side asymmetrical predominance, while text pairs 1 and 7 present a weak right- side dominance. The distribution of text pairs 6 and 2 tends to be uniform. Because of this non-normal distribution of the data, and mainly due to the fact that, in our study, we deal with dependent samples (the same subjects during the same data col- lection moment responded to the items from 1 to 7), it was not possible to carry out statistical tests such as the one-way ANOVA or Scheffé tests (Scheffé, 1999) that were performed by Halverson (2000, 8). The creation of sub-groups of closest text pairs (so-called “rings” in Halverson’s paper) was carried out, in our case, only on the basis of descriptive analysis. 6.1.2 Pattern of prototype effects: The “three rings” The 103 respondents in our study perceived as central instances (a “first ring”) text pairs 4, 5 (both interlingual translations, with language on both sides of the trans- lational process), and 3 (intersemiotic translation, with language on one side of the translational process). These items were perceived as actual translations (affirmative answers), with different levels of certainty. Text pair 4 (interlingual translation be- tween two well-differentiated linguistic systems, “translation proper”, as in Jakobson’s classification from 1959) was clearly the most central element, but the two remaining types of translations were also included in the tłumaczenie concept (text pair 5: inter- lingual translation between dialect and standard language, and text pair 3: intersemi- otic translation between visual and language systems). Beyond the “central ring”, as a “second ring”, young Polish subjects placed text pair 6 (intralingual, with language on both sides of the translational process) and text pair 2 (intrasystemic translation). These pairs were characterized as indefinite, with no opinion from the respondents, neither affirmative or negative: in other words, a “do not know” response. We may consider the remaining text pairs, i.e. text pairs 1 (intrasystemic translation) and 7 (intersemiotic translation), which both lack language on both sides, as being excluded from the tłumaczenie concept, albeit weakly. They correspond to the “third ring” of the tłumaczenie concept established by our subjects. 102 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 6.2 Comparison with Halverson’s study 6.2.1 Means and standard deviation In general terms, the mean values obtained in our survey are surprisingly very similar to those obtained by Halverson (Table 2, Figures 1 and 2). However, three differences can be observed (Figure 1): differences in mean scores (and standard deviations) for three text pairs: text pair 2 (difference=1.056), text pair 1 (difference=0.555), and text pair 3 (difference=0.432), in descending order. The difference in text pair 2 seems to be the greatest, and we do not have any valid explanation for this. The Polish informants probably encountered some problems in understanding of this text pair, and saw it as an unclear item to evaluate. Furthermore, as Halverson affirms in her paper, this text pair relies on an intersystemic boundary between two different currencies expressed in a numerical form (in our study: 10 and 3.65), followed by a conventionalized currency symbol (in our study: $ for USD and zł. for PLN), but, in our opinion, the users’ perception of this text pair as a non-lin- guistic text can be questioned. It is quite possible that they saw in this text pair some traits of linguality anyway. The order of the mean values (from lowest to highest) is also quite close between our research and Halverson’s study (order: 4, 5, 3, 2, 6, 1, 7), with the exception of text pairs 2 and 6, which are interchanged. This probably corroborates the unclear status of text pair 2. The standard deviation of the mean scores we obtained shows the same tendency that was already identified by Halverson: “there is greatest intragroup certainty about the most central member, and that as average uncertainty grows, so does the range of re- sponses (a finding which is intuitively appealing)” (Halverson 2000, 8). Interestingly, the subjects excluded text pair 7 from the translation concept and displayed a general intragroup unanimity about this exclusion in both studies (s = 1.849, and 1.837, re- spectively; Table 2). 6.2.2 Pattern of prototype effects: The “three rings” If we analyse Halverson’s mean scores according to the three areas of response (Fig- ure 1), among the general affirmative response “yes, it is a translation” (with different degrees of certainty – scores going from 1.000 to 3.499), there are four text pairs: 4, 5, 3, and 2 (and not three text pairs, as in our survey); in the non-defined “do not know” area (going from 3.500 to 4.499), there are two text pairs: 6 and 1; and in the general 103Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 negative “no, it is not a translation” area (with different degrees of certainty – going from 4.500 to 7.000), there is only one text pair: pair 7 (and not two text pairs, as in our survey). That means that, contrary to our hypothesis, young Norwegians had a wider conception of oversettelse at the end of twentieth century than young Poles had of the tłumaczenie concept at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century. However, it should be pointed out that these differences are not very strong: text pairs 1 and 2 really behave as frontier items, because in Halverson’s study they gave different results in two different statistical tests (Halverson 2000, 9, 11). 7. Discussion 7.1 Completion of a constructive replication: Ambivalent effect The methodological strategy of a replication applied in our study had an ambivalent effect: on the one hand, the original survey by Halverson inspired ours in a positive way, but on the other hand it became our main structural constraint, as we had to fol- low, as close as possible, Halverson’s original conceptual assumptions, methodological design, data analysis techniques and forms of data representation. We appreciated all the methodological details reported in Halverson’s paper from 2000, and the fact that her original instrument (questionnaire) had been translated from Nor- wegian into English and reproduced in the appendix of her paper. However, we had no access to her complete dataset with numerical results, and thus could not execute any kind of comparative operations or graphs (e.g. to generate paired boxplots). 7.2 Confirmation of our main hypothesis and further research Returning to the hypotheses, our main hypothesis, claiming that the Polish concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, from which some types are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral, has been confirmed. In terms of prototype semantics, we demonstrated empirically that the tłumaczenie concept shows prototype effects (gradual membership and fuzzy boundaries), as does the oversettelse in Halverson’s survey: the seven text pairs are graded in the tłumaczenie concept, and none of the three dimensions (semiotic-level boundary, systemic-level boundary, presence of linguality) constituted necessary and sufficient conditions for inclusion into the concept. However, the recognition of fuzzy boundaries in our data seems to be less convincing, because the dimension of linguality is even more likely to stand for the necessary and sufficient condition for items to be included in the tłumaczenie concept. Taking as 104 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 evidence our data collected in 2018 in Poland, if we considered text pair 1 as being excluded from this concept (Halverson did not), and if we interpreted simultaneously text pair 2 as featuring some linguistic traits in the language users’ perception, we could thus state that the presence of linguality plays a crucial role of necessary and sufficient condition in the case of the tłumaczenie concept. This tentative conclusion would suggest a stronger linguistically founded nature of the Polish tłumaczenie com- pared with the Norwegian oversettelse. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that further research should be carried out con- cerning the evaluation of differences in register in the Polish language as an intralingual boundary. The interaction between linguality and the system-level boundary merits deeper attention, as Halverson herself discovered a different salience of the involvement of language and of the system-level boundary in objects positioned in the central places and those placed in the peripheral ones (Halverson 2000, 10–12). If we could find better methodological instruments to measure this kind of perception in Polish language users, then the system-level boundary would probably be considered the necessary and suffi- cient condition, together with the linguality dimension. The key issue to be explored in future studies will be the question of what kind of boundary Polish native speakers per- ceive as system level (‘the lowest one’), and whether they need to perceive any boundary at all in order to call some activity tłumaczenie in their surrounding reality. 7.3 Rejection of our additional hypothesis and possible reasons As a second point, in conducting this research we wanted to establish to what extent the results obtained in our study were different from Halverson’s, i.e. to check whether the instances of the tłumaczenie concept already include firmer forms of intersemiotic and intralingual operations. Our additional hypothesis, which supposed a semioti- cally expanded notion of translation in the Polish context, encompassing more ob- jects of intersemiotic and intralingual translations than that perceived by the young Norwegians in 1997, was not confirmed in our data. In fact, the results suggested the opposite. We may conclude that the young Poles’ conception of tłumaczenie at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century is almost the same as the conception of oversettelse by young Norwegians at the end of twentieth century. Moreover, this is quite surprisingly to us, as the semiotic nature of translation, i.e. the pattern of effects for the tłumaczenie concept that has been revealed, is very close to the pattern identi- fied for the oversettelse concept. It is likely that the difference in time between these two populations (21 years, almost a quarter of a century) was not a determinant factor, and other factors not considered would be crucial in this study, such as: 105Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 • The parameter of space, i.e. huge differences in standards of living between the two countries; it is possible that, even if Poland and Norway share a similar Eu- ropean geopolitical context, the advances in technology, multimodal mass-media and accessibility in Poland in 2018 were actually similar to those seen in Norway 21 years ago; in that sense, the Polish youth had finally ‘caught up’ with their coun- terparts living in Norway more than two decades earlier; • The parameter of language, but not in the sense of differences between Polish and Norwegian, rather in the sense of the imported English cognitive structure of the word translation, adopted by young native, non-specialized, Polish and Norwe- gian speakers as a lingua franca word. Although the Polish word tłumaczenie has (probably) Turkish origins (Skibińska and Blumczyński 2009, 32), and the Nor- wegian word oversettelse comes from Latin through Middle Low German (15th century), young Poles and Norwegians are probably both strongly influenced by the English word translation and the cognitive structure underlying it. This expla- nation would be complementary (if not opposite) to the previous one: the mecha- nisms of globalization operate mostly through English (lingua franca), regardless of the possible huge differences in living conditions between European countries. This cross-linguistic and cross-cultural import from the cognitive structure of the English translation and related ‘translation’ concepts” in other, but still local European languages, even in the case of non-direct Latin etymologies, was already suggested by Halverson (2000, 13), and our findings are likely to go in the same direction. Furthermore, we should consider three methodological limitations that may have an impact on the measurement performed and thus would alter our results to some extent: (1) There was an absence of alternative concepts of translation; in both studies, only one concept was taken into account, without measuring other interrelated, neigh- bouring, competing concepts like “paraphrase”, “interpretation”, “rendering” (Halverson 2000, 5), so the limiting impact of the questionnaire (with its specific examples of wordings and images) used in both studies might be considerable. When these competing concepts are taken into account in a research design and in a particular instrument, the image of an underlying cognitive structure be- comes richer and more complex; at least, this was the case of our exploratory study on the cognitive structure of the “translation service” concept (FR service de traduction), in which such terms as “adaptation” (FR adaptation; Kuźnik sub- mitted), “copywriting” and “transcreation” (FR rédaction, transcréation; Kuźnik 2019b) were mentioned in 2015 by the interviewed representatives of five French translation enterprises (SME), and consequently included in our analysis; 106 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 (2) Samples were small and statistically unrepresentative; in both studies, data were gathered in two samples of 103 subjects selected through the procedure of con- venience sampling, quite often used in TS (see for example the studies reported in Risku, Rogl, and Milosevic 2019), and due to the limitations of this sampling procedure, the results obtained cannot be statistically generalized to the whole population of young Norwegians and Poles; (3) Samples were qualitatively and conceptually inadequate; even if we consider stu- dents starting their undergraduate training in English, French, Spanish or Italian studies a social group non-specialized in translation theory or in translation prac- tice, they could have entered the university with some basic (imported?) notion of translation due to their interest in foreign languages. In that case, they could not be seen as translation-naive users of Norwegian and Polish, but rather as trainee translators; they would thus perceive the concept of translation not as part of gen- eral, non-specialized language, but rather as a (specialised) term pertaining to a specialized area of knowledge. 8. Concluding remarks Apart from these limitations and suppositions, one final conclusion seems to be clear: when talking about oversettelse or tłumaczenie, native-speaking European language users all refer not only to examples of interlingual translation (Jakobson’s “translation proper” from 1959) but also – although to a lesser extent – to objects of intralingual transfer between standard language and its dialectal variations (text pair 5) and to objects of intersemiotic transfer between visual and language system (text pair 3). In other words, the semiotic nature of the concept of translation is wide in the sense that it includes intralingual and intersemiotic translations, but at the same time, is narrow because intralingual and intersemiotic translations are peripheral compared to inter- lingual translation, which still remains central. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Agnieszka Libura (Principal Investigator), all the members of the Center for Cognitive Studies of Language and Communication, and all the mem- bers of the Unit of Translation Studies in the Institute of Romance Studies, both bod- ies established in the Faculty of Letters, University of Wrocław, as well as all the par- ticipants of the 6th Translation Process Research Workshop held in Murcia in January 2019, where this study was presented for the first time, for their valuable comments; Dorota Kuźnik for her help in our first steps in the quantitative analysis; and Kamil 107Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 Dyba from the Institute of Mathematics, University of Wrocław, for his contribution to our descriptive quantitative analysis and for all his methodological advices. References Akrich, Madelaine, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour. 2006. Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. Paris: Presses de l’École des Mines. Bartmiński, Jerzy. 2018. Language in the Context of Culture. The Metaphor of “Europe as Home” in This Day and Age. Translated by Adam Głaz. Katowice: Śląsk. Bartmiński, Jerzy, Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska, and Małgorzata Brzozowska. 2016. Leksykon aksjologiczny Słowian i ich sąsiadów. Tom 3 (PRACA). Lublin: Uniw- ersytet im. Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Castro Ortíz, Ana María, Olaya Marulanda, Claudia Lorena, and David Orrego Carmona. 2008. “Charlie and the chocolate factory: adaptación y traducción.” Mutatis Mutandis 1 (1): 58–80. Coleman, Linda, and Paul Kay. 1981. “Prototype Semantics: The English Word lie.” Lan- guage 57 (1): 26–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/414285. Crandall, Christian S., and Jeffrey W. Sherman. 2016. “On the Scientific Superiority of Conceptual Replications for Scientific Progress.” Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology 66: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002. Dam, Helle V., and Karen K. Zethsen. 2019. “Professionals’ views on the concepts of their trade: what is (not) translation?” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Matilde. N. Brøgger, and Karen K. Zethsen, 200–219, London/New York: Routledge. Dam, V. Helle, Brøgger, Matilde N., and Karen K. Zethsen, eds. 2019. Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge. García-Izquierdo, Isabel, and Vicent Montalt. 2013. “Equigeneric and Intergeneric Trans- lation in Patient-Centred Care.” Hermes 51: 39–53. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb. v26i51.97436. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2008. “Multidimensional Translation.” In Understanding Translation, edited by Anne Schjoldager, 39–65. Aarhus: Academica. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2018. “Semiotics and translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Trans- lation Studies and Linguistics, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær, 45–63. Abingdon: Routledge. Grbić, Nadja. 2011. “’Boundary work’ as a concept for studying professionalization pro- cesses in the interpreting field.” In Identity and Status in the Translational Professions, edited by Rakefet Sela-Sheffy and Miriam Shlesinger, 247–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 108 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 Halverson, Sandra. 1998. “Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Concep- tion of the Object of Study.” Meta 43 (4): 494–514. https://doi.org/10.7202/003000ar. Halverson, Sandra. 1999. “Conceptual Work and the ‘Translation’ Concept.” Target 11 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.02hal. Halverson, Sandra. 2000. “Prototype Effects in the ‘Translation’ Category.” In Translation in Context, edited by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Halverson, Sandra. 2002. “Cognitive models, prototype effects and ‘translation’: the role of cognition in translation (meta)theory.” Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.2. Hüffmeier, Joachim, Jens Mazei, and Thomas Schultze. 2016. “Reconceptualizing Repli- cation as a Sequence of Different Studies: A Replication Typology.” Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology 66: 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by Reuben A. Brower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kuźnik, Anna. 2018a. “Użycie terminów ‚przekładać, przekład’ i ‚tłumaczyć, tłumaczenie’ w korespondencji handlowej polskich usługodawców usług tłumaczeniowych z klientami i podwykonawcami.” Oral communication presented at the conference Translation I, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Poland, 27-28th September 2018. Kuźnik, Anna. 2018b. “Cadre théorique sémiotique et brève étude exploratoire dans le secteur des services de traduction.” Des mots aux actes 7: 493–508. 10.15122/ isbn.978-2-406-08745-8.p.0493. Kuźnik, Anna. 2019a. “Les conceptualisations contemporaines de l’activité de traduction élaborées par les responsables d’entreprises de traduction françaises.” Między Ory- ginałem a Przekładem 25 (4): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.12797/MOaP.25.2019.46.02. Kuźnik, Anna. 2019b. “L’organisation des services dans les PME de traduction françaises.” Des mots aux actes 8: 289–307. https://doi.org/10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-09779-2.p.0289. Kuźnik, Anna. 2019c. “Entre la traduction intralinguale et intersémiotique. L’innovation dans les services de traduction vue par les responsables des entreprises de traduction françaises.” Meta 64 (1): 194–214. https://doi.org/10.7202/1065334ar. Kuźnik, Anna. submitted [a]. “Comment les responsables de PME de traduction français- es parlent-elles de leurs services de traduction? Résultats d’une analyse quantitative exploratoire.” Kuźnik, Anna. submitted [b]. “One Thousand and One Names of Polish Translation En- terprises in the Lower Silesia Region. A Cognitive Landscape.” Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 109Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewicki, Roman. 2017. Zagadnienia lingwistyki przekładu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. L’Homme, Marie-Claude. 2020. Lexical Semantics for Terminology. An introduction. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Neunzig, Wilhelm. 2017. “Methodological Background.” In Researching Translation Com- petence by PACTE Group, edited by Amparo Hurtado Albir, 43–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Olalla-Soler, Christian. 2020. “Practices and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies.” Target 32 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/tar- get.18159.ola. Presas Corbella, Marisa and Celia Martín de León. 2011. “Teorías implícitas de traduc- tores principiantes. Una investigación cualitativa en traductología cognitiva.” Sende- bar 22: 87–111. Presas Corbella, Marisa and Celia Martín de León. 2014. “The Role of Implicit Theories in the Non-expert Translation Process.” In Minding Translation / Con la traducción en la mente, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, special issue of MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 1: 273–302. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.9. Pym, Anthony. 2007. “On History in Formal Conceptualizations of Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.2.1. Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milosevic, eds. 2019. Translation Practice in the Field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0. Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In: Cognition and Categorization, ed- ited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salmons, Janet E. 2015. “Conducting Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research On- line.” In The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry, edited by Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson, 522–547. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scheffé, Henry. 1999. The Analysis of Variance. Wiley-InterScience (Wiley Clasics Library). Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replica- tion Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 (2): 90–100. Skibińska, Elżbieta, and Piotr Blumczyński. 2009. “Polish Metaphorical Perceptions of the Translator and Translation.” Target 21 (1): 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1075/ target.21.1.02ski. 110 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 Tomaszkiewicz, Teresa. 2006. Przekład audiowizualny. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Toury, Gideon. 1986. “Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective.” In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 1111–1124. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” Meta 50 (4): 1082–1097. https://doi.org/10.7202/012062ar. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Koroma. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Zethsen, Karen K. 2007. “Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Transla- tion Studies.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 20 (1): 281–308. https://doi. org/10.7202/018506ar. Zethsen, Karen K., and Aage Hill-Madsen. 2016. “Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies – A Theoretical Discussion.” Meta 61 (3): 692–708. https:// doi.org/10.7202/1039225ar. Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2017. “Translation as a metaphoric traveller across disciplines. Wanted: Translaboration!” Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (3): 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.3.07zwi. Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2019 “From inward to outward: the need for translation studies to become outward-going.” The Translator 25 (1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355 6509.2019.1654060. 111Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 Appendix Questionnaire used in our survey (images in text pairs 1 and 3 retrieved on 20 Septem- ber 2018 from Free Stock Photos PEXELS: www.pexels.com) A (m at er ia ł źr ód ło w y) [s ou rc e m at er ia l] B (m at er ia ł do ce lo w y) [t ar ge t m at er ia l] Ta k, to je st tł um ac ze ni e [y es , i t i s a tr an sl at io n] N ie , t o ni e je st tł um ac ze ni e [n o, it is n ot a tr an sl at io n] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Je st em te go zu pe łn ie pe w na / pe w ie n [c om - pl et el y ce rt ai n] Je st em te go d oś ć pe w na / pe w ie n [q ui te ce rt ai n] Je st em te go ty lk o tr oc hę pe w na / pe w ie n [s om e- w ha t ce rt ai n] N ie w ie m [d o no t kn ow ] Je st em te go ty lk o tr oc hę pe w na / pe w ie n [s om e- w ha t ce rt ai n] Je st em te go d oś ć pe w na / pe w ie n [q ui te ce rt ai n] Je st em te go zu pe łn ie pe w na / pe w ie n [c om - pl et el y ce rt ai n] 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. $ 10 3, 65 zł . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. U w ag a, ro bo ty dr og ow e! [W ar ni ng : r oa d w or ks ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. W ha t d ay is it ? Ja ki to d zi eń ? [W ha t d ay is it ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. N ie g od ej ta ki ch gu po t, ch op ie ! [D on ’t sa y su ch no ns en se , m an !] N ie m ów ta ki ch g łu ps tw , cz ło w ie ku ! [D on ’t sa y su ch no ns en se , m an !] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 112 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018 A (m at er ia ł źr ód ło w y) [s ou rc e m at er ia l] B (m at er ia ł do ce lo w y) [t ar ge t m at er ia l] Ta k, to je st tł um ac ze ni e [y es , i t i s a tr an sl at io n] N ie , t o ni e je st tł um ac ze ni e [n o, it is n ot a tr an sl at io n] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Je st em te go zu pe łn ie pe w na / pe w ie n [c om - pl et el y ce rt ai n] Je st em te go d oś ć pe w na / pe w ie n [q ui te ce rt ai n] Je st em te go ty lk o tr oc hę pe w na / pe w ie n [s om e- w ha t ce rt ai n] N ie w ie m [d o no t kn ow ] Je st em te go ty lk o tr oc hę pe w na / pe w ie n [s om e- w ha t ce rt ai n] Je st em te go d oś ć pe w na / pe w ie n [q ui te ce rt ai n] Je st em te go zu pe łn ie pe w na / pe w ie n [c om - pl et el y ce rt ai n] 6. O na za w sz e po w ta rz a w kó łk o to sa m o. [S he a lw ay s re pe at s t he sa m e th in gs o ve r a nd ov er a ga in .] Ba rd zo lu bi si ę po w ta rz ać . [S he li ke s t o re pe at h er se lf. ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. [„ C zt er y Po ry Ro ku ” V iv al di e- go ] [“ Th e Fo ur S ea - so ns ” b y V iv al di ] [o br az y pr ze ds t- aw ia ją ce cz te ry po ry ro ku , na m al ow an e po d w pł yw em słu ch an ia „C zt er - ec h Pó r R ok u” V iv al di eg o] [p ic tu re s r ep - re se nt in g fo ur se as on s p ai nt ed un de r t he in flu - en ce o f l ist en in g to “Th e Fo ur Se as on s” o f V iv al di ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 113Stridon. Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting, Volume 1 Issue 2, pp. 87–114 About the author Anna Kuźnik, PhD, is assistant professor at the Institute of Romance Studies of the Uni- versity of Wrocław (Poland). She is a member of the PACTE research group established at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, of the TREC/Thematic Network on Empir- ical Research in Translation and Cognition, of the CTER/Consortium for Translation Education Research, and of the Centre for Cognitive Research on Language and Com- munication established at the Faculty of Letters of the University of Wrocław. She works as a vocational practice coordinator for French studies and Spanish studies, and is a certified translator and interpreter of French and Spanish, as well as an expert member of TEPIS/Polish Association of Sworn and Specialised Translators. 114 Anna Kuźnik: Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018