Metaphor and Translation
Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269
Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach
¨ Christina Schaffner*
School of Languages and European Studies, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK Received 5 June 2003; received in revised form 12 September 2003; accepted 8 October 2003
Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed within the discipline of Translation Studies, predominantly with respect to translatability and transfer methods. It has been argued that metaphors can become a translation problem, since transferring them from one language and culture to another one may be hampered by linguistic and cultural differences. A number of translation procedures for dealing with this problem have been suggested, e.g., substitution (metaphor into different metaphor), paraphrase (metaphor into sense), or deletion. Such procedures have been commented on both in normative models of translation (how to translate metaphors) and in descriptive models (how metaphors have been dealt with in actual translations). After a short overview of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies, this paper discusses some implications of a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice. Illustrations from authentic source and target texts (English and German, political discourse) show how translators handled metaphorical expressions, and what effects this had for the text itself, for text reception by the addressees, and for subsequent discursive developments. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Conceptual metaphor; English; French; German; Metaphorical expression; Translation Studies
1. Introduction Metaphor, as a typical feature of communication, presents a challenge for translation too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of Translation Studies. In the literature on translation, the two main issues have been, firstly, the
Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach
¨ Christina Schaffner*
School of Languages and European Studies, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK Received 5 June 2003; received in revised form 12 September 2003; accepted 8 October 2003
Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed within the discipline of Translation Studies, predominantly with respect to translatability and transfer methods. It has been argued that metaphors can become a translation problem, since transferring them from one language and culture to another one may be hampered by linguistic and cultural differences. A number of translation procedures for dealing with this problem have been suggested, e.g., substitution (metaphor into different metaphor), paraphrase (metaphor into sense), or deletion. Such procedures have been commented on both in normative models of translation (how to translate metaphors) and in descriptive models (how metaphors have been dealt with in actual translations). After a short overview of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies, this paper discusses some implications of a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice. Illustrations from authentic source and target texts (English and German, political discourse) show how translators handled metaphorical expressions, and what effects this had for the text itself, for text reception by the addressees, and for subsequent discursive developments. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Conceptual metaphor; English; French; German; Metaphorical expression; Translation Studies
1. Introduction Metaphor, as a typical feature of communication, presents a challenge for translation too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of Translation Studies. In the literature on translation, the two main issues have been, firstly, the
References: Al-Harrasi, Abdulla, 2000. Metaphor in (Arabic-into-English) translation, with specific reference to metaphorical concepts and expressions in political discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aston University, Birmingham. Arrojo, Rosemary, 1998. The revision of the traditional gap between theory and practice and the empowerment of translation in postmodern times. The Translator 4, 25–48. Catford, John C., 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford University Press, London. Chesterman, Andrew, 1998. Causes, translations, effects. Target 10, 201–230. Chesterman, Andrew, 2000. A causal model for Translation Studies. In: Olohan, M. (Ed.), Intercultural Faultlines. St. Jerome, Manchester, pp. 15–27. Chilton, Paul, 1996. Security Metaphors. Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. Peter Lang, New York. Chilton, Paul, Ilyin, Mikhail, 1993. Metaphor in political discourse: the case of the ‘common European house’. Discourse & Society 4, 7–31. Cristofoli, Mirella, Dyrberg, Gunhild, Stage, Lilian, 1998. Metaphor, meaning and translation. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 20, 165–179. Dagut, Menachem, 1976. Can ‘metaphor’ be translated? Babel 22, 21–33. Danks, Joseph H., et al. (Eds.), 1997. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Delisle, Jean, Woodsworth, Judith (Eds.), 1995. Translators through History. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Gentzler, Edwin, 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. Routledge, London. Gibbs, Raymond, Lima, Paula Lenz Costa, and Francozo, Edson, this issue. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Glucksberg, Sam, 2001. Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford University Press, New York. Goatly, Andrew, 1997. The Language of Metaphors. Routledge, London. Hermans, Theo, 1998. Translation and normativity. Current Issues in Language and Society 5, 50–71. Holmes, James, 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Rodopi, Amsterdam. ¨ ¨ Holz-Manttari, Justa, 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki. ¨ House, Juliane, 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Narr, Tubingen. ¨ ¨ ¨ Kjar, Uwe, 1988. ‘‘Der Schrank seufzt’’. Metaphern im Bereich des Verbs und ihre Ubersetzung. Goteborger ¨ Germanistische Forschungen 30, Goteborg. For example, cases such as the following, quoted from a speech by the current German chancellor Gerhard ¨ Schroder (9 November 1999), can contribute to testing the Invariance Hypothesis (Lakoff, 1990) from a ¨ translation perspective: ‘[. . .] haben jene Entwicklung ermoglicht.—[. . .] made possible the course of events.’ Here, the conceptual metaphor is DEVELOPMENT IS MOVEMENT ALONG A PATH; the target domain is explicit in the ST, whereas the source domain is explicit in the TT. 10 In this respect, there is room for cooperation between process-oriented Translation Studies and experimental psycholinguistics in the study of how translators deal with metaphors, i.e., to see how sensitive they actually are to deeper conceptual metaphors that underlie linguistic expressions (see also footnote 3). 9 ¨ C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 1269 ¨ ¨ Koller, Werner, 1992. Einfuhrung in die Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Quelle & Meyer, Heidelberg. ¨ Kovecses, Zoltan, 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. ¨ ¨ Kurth, Ernst-Norbert, 1995. Metaphernubersetzung. Dargestellt an grotesken Metaphern im Fruhwerk Charles ¨ Dickens in der Wiedergabe deutscher Ubersetzungen. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. ¨ ¨ Kussmaul, Paul, 2000. Kreatives Ubersetzen. Stauffenburg, Tubingen. Lakoff, George, 1990. The invariance hypothesis. Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1, 39–74. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ¨ ¨ ¨ Neubert, Albrecht, 1985. Text and Translation (Ubersetzungswissenschaftliche Beitrage 8). Enzyklopadie, Leipzig. Newmark, Peter, 1981. Approaches to Translation. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Nord, Christiane, 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome, Manchester. Robinson, Douglas, 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. St. Jerome, Manchester. ¨ Schaffner, Christina, 1996. Building a European house? Or at two speeds into a dead end? Metaphors in the ¨ debate on the united Europe. In: Musolff, A., Schaffner, C., Townson, M. (Eds.), Conceiving of Europe— Diversity in Unity. Aldershot, Dartmouth, pp. 31–59. ¨ Schaffner, Christina, 1997a. Metaphor and interdisciplinary analysis. Journal of Area Studies 11, 57–72. ¨ ¨ Schaffner, Christina, 1997b. Translation Studies. In: Verschueren, J., Ostman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., Bulcaen, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1–17. ¨ Schaffner, Christina, 1998. Metaphern. In: Snell-Hornby, M., et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Translation. Stauffenburg, ¨ Tubingen, pp. 280–285. ´ ¨ Schaffner, Christina, 2002. Third Ways and New Centres—Ideological unity or difference? In: Caldaza Perez, M. (Ed.), Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology–Ideologies in Translation Studies. St. Jerome, Manchester, pp. 23–41. ¨ Snell-Hornby, Mary, Pochhacker, Franz, Kaindl, Klaus (Eds.), 1992. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Stienstra, Nelly, 1993. YHWH is the Husband of His People. Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation. Kok Pharos, Kampen. ¨ ¨ ¨ Stolze, Radegundis, 1994. Ubersetzungstheorien. Eine Einfuhrung. Narr, Tubingen. ¨¨ ¨ Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jaaskelainen, Riita (Eds.), 2000. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Toury, Gideon, 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. van den Broeck, Raymond, 1981. The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation. Poetics Today 2, 73–87. Vannerem, Mia, Snell-Hornby, Mary, 1986. Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘‘scenes-and frames-semantics’’ in der ¨ ¨ Ubersetzung. In: Snell-Hornby, M. (Ed.), Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Francke, ¨ Tubingen, pp. 184–205. Venuti, Lawrence, 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility. Routledge, London. Venuti, Lawrence, 1996. Translation as a social practice: or, the violence of translation. In: Gaddis Rose, M. (Ed.), Translation Horizons: Beyond the Boundaries of Translation Spectrum. State University of New York at Binghamton, Center for Research in Translation, pp. 195–213. Vermeer, Hans J., 1996. A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For and Against). TEXTconTEXT, Heidelberg. Yu, Ning, 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. ¨ Christina Schaffner is a reader in Translation Studies and German in the School of Languages and European Studies at Aston University (Birmingham, UK). Her main research interests are Translation Studies, political discourse, text linguistics, and metaphor. Her publications include Language and Peace (co-edited with Anita Wenden, 1995), Conceiving of Europe—Diversity in Unity? (co-edited with Andreas Musolff and Michael Townson, 1996), Translation and Quality (1997), Translation and Norms (1999), Translation in the Global Village (2000), Developing Translation Competence (co-edited with Beverly Adab, 2000).