A socio-cognitive approach to mistranslation: A case study of Chinese classical poetry

Gang Cheng

doi:10.1515/ip-2025-4005

Article

A socio-cognitive approach to mistranslation: A case study of Chinese classical poetry

Gang Cheng
Gang Cheng, PhD., is a lecturer at the School of International Studies, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China. He was a Fulbright visiting scholar at the University of Notre Dame, and a postdoctoral fellow at the State University of New York at Albany. His main research interests are intercultural pragmatics, pragmatic translation, and literary translation.

Published/Copyright: December 3, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Intercultural Pragmatics Volume 22 Issue 4

Abstract

Using the socio-cognitive approach (SCA), this study examines mistranslations in English translations of Chinese classical poetry. First, this paper redefines the concept of mistranslation and classifies it into three types: formal, semantic, and cultural mistranslations. Next, this study introduces the socio-cognitive framework for mistranslation research, which incorporates social and individual traits in the translation process. Based on this framework, the paper argues that the fundamental cause of mistranslation originates from translators’ egocentrism, which manifests in three key aspects: miscomprehension of prior context, failure to construct common ground, and deviated prioritization of salience. This study helps to expand the intercultural pragmatics research paradigm and offers a new perspective for mistranslation studies.

Keywords: the socio-cognitive approach (SCA); context; common ground; salience; mistranslation; Chinese classical poetry

Corresponding author: Gang Cheng, School of International Studies, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China, E-mail: chengg2014@sina.com

About the author

Gang Cheng

Gang Cheng, PhD., is a lecturer at the School of International Studies, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China. He was a Fulbright visiting scholar at the University of Notre Dame, and a postdoctoral fellow at the State University of New York at Albany. His main research interests are intercultural pragmatics, pragmatic translation, and literary translation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to my postdoctoral supervisor, Professor Istvan Kecskes, for his invaluable guidance on this paper and indispensable support for my research at the State University of New York, Albany, USA. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Istvan Kecskes. I am also deeply grateful to Professor Shaojie Zhang for his insightful suggestions and continued support, and to Professor Alessandro Capone for his constructive advice during the revision process.

Research funding: This paper is part of the research projects “A Corpus-based Socio-Cognitive Comparative Study of English Versions of Li Bai’s Poems” (2022C150) and “Research on Cognitive Effort of Translators in Semantic-Rhetorical Translating Process” (21BYY062). It was funded by the China Scholarship Council.

References

Apter, Ronnie. 1987. Digging for the treasure: Translation after pound. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports : Socio-Philosophical considerations. Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, vol. 8. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-41078-4Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2023. A pragmatic view of the poetic function of language. Semiotica 250. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0012.Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2024a. Poetics and pragmatics. In Alessandro Capone, Roberto Graci, Pietro Perconti (eds), New frontiers in pragmalinguistic studies, Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, vol. 37, Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-65502-9Search in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2024b. Proper names as speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 21(5). 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-5003.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 2009. Context and common ground. In Mey Jacob L (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, Concise encyclopedias of language and linguistics, Book 3. 116119. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Duan, Junhui. 2004. On redefining creative treason corroborated by an unprejudiced interpretation: Pound’s translation of Chinese classical poetry. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University 20(4). 117–121.Search in Google Scholar

Escarpit, Robert. 1978. Sociologie de la literature. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar

Evanoff, Richard. 2000. The concept of ‘third cultures’ in intercultural ethics. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 10. 126–129.Search in Google Scholar

Fang, Mengzhi. 2011. A dictionary of translation studies in China. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole Peter & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar

Han, Shishan. 2005. The complete works of Xu Zhimo. Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman Group UK Limited.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(2). 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2013. On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, vol. 2. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_15Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, M. Lynne & Anu Koskela. 2016. Key terms in semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Search in Google Scholar

Obata, Shigeyoshi. 2023. The works of Li Po: The Chinese poet. Hungerford: Legare Street Press.Search in Google Scholar

Palumbo, Giuseppe. 2016. Key terms in translation studies. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pound, Ezra. 2020. Cathay: A critical edition. New York: Fordham University Press.10.1515/9780823281398Search in Google Scholar

Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt/Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Vienna: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Douglas. 2003. Performative linguistics: Speaking and translating as doing things with words. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203222850Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Douglas. 2006. Introducing performative pragmatics. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Dougals. 2017. Critical translation studies. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315387864Search in Google Scholar

Wen, Xu & Hongce Wang. 2024. Rethinking sociocognitive linguistics. Foreign Language Research 1. 84–91.Search in Google Scholar

Xie, Tianzhen. 2015. A new vision of translation studies. Fuzhou: Fujian Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Yuanchong. 1984. The art of translation. Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Yuanchong. 2014. Selected poems by Li Bai. Beijing: China Translation & Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Zeng, Jianping. 2015. On intentional mistranslation. Chinese Science & Technology Translators’ Journal 28(3). 43–47.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Honghui. 2015. A study of misunderstanding from the socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Modern Foreign Languages 38(4). 450–459.Search in Google Scholar

Zhou, Honghui & Dongchun Chen. 2019. Understanding misunderstandings from socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 7(5). 194–201. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20190705.13.Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, Yige. 2007. Decoding Lin Shu’s and Pound’s misinterpretation and mistranslation with the help of deconstructionist theory. Journal of Shanghai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences edition) 36(6). 126–130.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2025-12-03

Published in Print: 2025-09-25

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2025-4005

Keywords for this article

the socio-cognitive approach (SCA); context; common ground; salience; mistranslation; Chinese classical poetry