Cognitive Linguistics has dealt with translation very generally: (1) at the level of cultural and conceptual metaphor common to various languages; (2) basic word-to word equivalence; (3) one-off studies that apply premises of Cognitive Linguistics to isolated case studies in translation. Even in such studies, the focus has generally been on literary As outlined by Evans and Green (2006: 27), Cognitive Linguistics has two key commitments: (i) the Cognitive Commitment; (ii) the Generalization Commitment. The Cognitive Commitment states that principles of linguistic structure should reflect what is known about human cognition from other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, etc. Evidently, principles of linguistic structure should be applicable not just to a specific language, but to language in general. Translation is a process of mediation between languages and cultures, which involves various types of cognitive process. It would thus seem to be a fertile testing ground for this commitment. and Bible translation. However, little has been said about specialized language texts when this is precisely the most frequent kind of translation that the majority of translators deal with on a daily basis. The Generalization Commitment is also relevant here since it involves the search for principles of language structure that hold across all aspects of language. Again, translation could presumably be used to demonstrate hypotheses in this area, which would be difficult to verify by other means. Translation adequacy or goodness-of-fit between a translation and the original text is based on the partial or total correspondence to a shared meaning representation as well as on intertextual correspondences at a wide variety of levels. Translation is evidence of how languages resemble each other in significant ways. The term, translation, can refer to either the translation process itself or the text resulting from that process. The analysis and study of the translation process might very well reveal new insights about language processing, how languages and their correspondences are mapped in the brain, and the nature of lexical representations. This would support the Cognitive Commitment. For example, as shall be seen, terminological correspondences in different languages are based on the same or similar types of metaphorical extension. This would seem to point to the fact that the same cognitive processes are used to create specialized language designations in different languages. Likewise, the study of translations or translated texts as products of the translation process is in consonance with the Generalization Commitment since similarities between languages can be extracted from and verified in texts which are considered to be equivalent to each other at one or various levels. Given the general goals of Cognitive Linguistics (CL), one would logically assume that of the linguistic frameworks currently in the limelight, CL would have the most to say about translation. This is for the following reasons:  Both Cognitive Linguistics and translation focus on conceptual meaning.  Cognitive Linguistics has adopted a usage-based perspective in which generalizations are based on the analysis of authentic usage data generally provided by computerized corpora.  Translation is possible because both the source-language text and the target-language text have macro- and microtextual correspondences based on shared conceptual meaning. This presupposes that language is the lexicalization of entities, activities, attributes, and relations, and also that texts are the activation of selected but related parts of this general conceptual network. In a parallel way,