Geospace translation strategies and their cognitive construal

The study situates translation within geospace, arguing that translation activities inherently interact with both material and fictional spaces. Prior research has explored (a) how material geospace shapes translation phenomena and (b) how geospace is represented and transformed in translation. However, existing work has largely overlooked how translators mediate between their own material geospace (embodied experiences and identities) and the fictional geospace of source texts. This paper addresses that gap by asking: What strategies do translators use to negotiate and wash the geospatial conceptual systems of source and target cultures, and what cognitive mapping paths underlie these strategies? Using conceptual blending theory (CBT), the paper aims to summarize geospace translation strategies—retention, reconstruction, substitution—and to construe the translator’s cognitive paths that produce them, thereby clarifying the regularities of space mediation in geospace translation.

The paper reviews two main strands: (1) studies of translation phenomena influenced by material geospace (e.g., geographic distribution and factors shaping translators and their work: He and Hou, 2020a, 2020b; Liu and Guo, 2023); and (2) studies of geospace within translation, including strategies for geospatial elements such as dialect and landscape (Berezowski, 1997; Reiss, 2000; Shan, 2017; Ren and Yan, 2017; Zhou, 2022; Italiano, 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Wang, 2019), and explorations of spatial conversion mechanisms (Wang, 2014; Upton, 2014; Zhou, 2021; He and Sun, 2022). These works establish a foundation for Geo-translation studies (He and Xu; Sun and He, 2020) but do not explicate the interaction between a translator’s material geospace and the fictional geospace they render, nor do they identify the regularities of mediation across spaces. CBT-based translation studies (e.g., Mandelblit, 1997; Wang, 2001; Yu, 2007; Jin and Lin, 2016; He, 2021; Wu and Yang, 2021; Wang, 2020) demonstrate dynamic cross-space mappings but have not systematically modeled geospace translation strategies and their underlying mapping paths.

The paper conducts a qualitative, theory-driven analysis grounded in conceptual blending theory (CBT). It proposes a cognitive mechanism comprising four mental spaces: space of the source text (ST), space of the translator, a generic space (shared physiological, perceptual, and structural abstractions), and the space of the target text (TT). Geospatial frames (structures, forms, relations, perceptions, emotions) are projected along different mapping paths to produce a blended TT space with emergent structure (reterritorialization). The study operationalizes three geospace translation strategies as outcomes of distinct mapping paths: (1) Retention: mirror mappings from ST to TT when the translator’s and ST’s frames align; (2) Reconstruction: double-domain mappings blending ST frames with translator’s cultural-geographical frames (e.g., measurement systems) when ST geospace is absent in TL conceptual system; (3) Substitution: single-domain mappings from the translator’s space when ST and TL conceptual systems contradict, replacing ST geospatial focus, scale, or perspective with TL-congruent counterparts. The mechanism is exemplified through six textual case studies drawn from five regional literary works and their translations (Examples 1–6), illustrating retention (Faulkner/Li; Cao Wenxuan/Wang), reconstruction (Cao Naiqian/Balcom; Lu Xun/Lyell), and substitution (Mo Yan/Goldblatt, focus and perspective).

• Three strategy types correspond to distinct cognitive mapping paths: • Retention: Mirror mappings from ST when geospatial frames are shared across SL and TL conceptual systems; TT preserves structures and relations, enabling comparable geographical reality and imagination (e.g., Faulkner’s train journey retained by Li; Cao Wenxuan’s hurricane scene retained by Wang). • Reconstruction: Double-domain mappings from ST and translator when ST geospace is absent in TL conceptual system; translators blend ST frames with TL-congruent abstractions (e.g., metric/imperial units) to recreate spatial size and related features, aligning with TT readers’ habitual distance perception (e.g., Cao Naiqian’s West Gully → “West River” with adjusted lengths by Balcom; Lu Xun’s grave-river distance adjusted by Lyell). • Substitution: Single-domain mappings from the translator when SL and TL conceptual systems contradict; translators replace ST focus/perspective with TL-preferred cognitive orders and spatial practices (e.g., Goldblatt shifts focus from river to boat and from walker’s horizontal view to planner’s bird’s-eye view in Mo Yan), which can foreground themes (e.g., policy enforcement, urban modernity) preferred by TT readership.
• The blended TT geospace yields an emergent structure—reterritorialization—allowing TT readers to activate embodied cognition and background knowledge to reconstruct ST geographical reality and imagination within TL conceptual system.
• Effects by strategy: • Retention supports intact geographical exploration and aesthetic experience aligned with ST. • Reconstruction enables cross-cultural accessibility while preserving regional qualities and author’s sentiment through size/form adjustments. • Substitution increases readability and cultural resonance for TT readers but may dilute or distort the author’s topophilia and environmental attitudes, creating potential communication barriers.

The findings address the central question of how translators mediate between ST geospace and TL conceptual systems by demonstrating that strategy choice is governed by specific CBT mapping paths. Retention ensures high fidelity when shared frames exist; reconstruction leverages shared abstractions in the generic space to integrate ST regional forms with TL cognitive habits; substitution prioritizes TT readers’ embodied cognition when systems contradict, potentially reframing the author’s geospatial attitudes. This clarifies the regularities of space mediation: translators negotiate and wash ST geospace through mappings that align with their own embodied cognition and the TL’s geographical conceptual system. The significance lies in articulating a cognitive mechanism that predicts how geospatial forms and meanings are preserved, adapted, or replaced, explaining reader experience outcomes (e.g., ease of visualization via familiar units; focus and perspective shifts that emphasize private over public spaces). It also highlights trade-offs: while substitution can enhance accessibility and align with TT cultural expectations, it risks attenuating the author’s local sentiment and intended geospatial imagination.

The paper contributes a CBT-based mechanism for geospace translation, showing that geospatial frames drift and recombine across four mental spaces (ST, translator, generic, TT) to produce reterritorialized TT geospace. It systematizes three strategies—retention (mirror mappings from ST), reconstruction (double-domain mappings from ST and translator), and substitution (single-domain mappings from translator)—and links them to specific mapping paths. The goal of geospace translation is not to impose new cultural-geographical traits on ST geospace but to represent the author’s geographical reality and imagination within TL, enabling appreciation of local sentiment, artistic style, and geographical identity. The framework clarifies translator mediation and reader cognition outcomes, offering a basis for analyzing and guiding translations of regional literature where embodied cognition and geospatial conceptual systems diverge.