1887
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article brings together the extensive literature on figurative language and translation into a single framework to serve translators in a directly practical way in their practice/training. It encourages a view of figurativeness as the norm rather than the exception and figurative language as a flexible meaning-making resource rather than an obstacle to contend with. All language is characterized as figurative because of the indeterminacy of language and the partial nature of meaning making; all translation is viewed as non-literal because of the lack of exact correspondences between languages and the need to use near equivalents. Two approaches are recommended: (1) recreating the ‘semantic space’ of the source rather than mechanically matching its lexicogrammar; (2) viewing metonymy and metaphor as ‘master tropes’ and translating other tropes in terms of relatedness. The challenges of translating metonymy and metaphor in discourse at the level of the whole text are also explored.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22011.den
2023-10-05
2024-07-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alonge, A.
    (2006) The Italian metaphor database. InC. Nicoletta, C. Khalid, G. Aldo, M. Bente, M. Joseph, O. Jan & T. Daniel (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’06) (pp. 455–460). Genoa: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    (1992) In other words. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (Ed.) (1998) Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bender, J., & Wellbery, D. E.
    (1990) The ends of rhetoric: History, theory, practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503621848
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503621848 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biernacka, E.
    (2013) A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. PhD. dissertation. Milton Keyes: The Open University.
  7. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2013) Translating (by means of) metonymy. InA. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation (pp. 199–226). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302943.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.199 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 101, 232–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke, K.
    (1969) A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520341715
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520341715 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, L.
    (2008) Metaphor and talk. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Catford, J. C.
    (1965) A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Denroche, C.
    (2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2018) Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. 10.1075/msw.16011.den
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16011.den [Google Scholar]
  15. (2019) Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World, 9(2), 177–198. 10.1075/msw.18024.der
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.18024.der [Google Scholar]
  16. Dickins, J.
    (2005) Two models for metaphor translation. Target, 17(2), 227–273. 10.1075/target.17.2.03dic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.2.03dic [Google Scholar]
  17. Dirven, R., & Pörings, R.
    (Eds.) (2002) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Speaking and thinking with metonymy. InK. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.04gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.04gib [Google Scholar]
  21. Goatly, A.
    (2007) Washing the brain – Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halverson, S. L.
    (2003) A cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197–241. 10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  24. (2007) A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 211, 105–121. 10.1075/bjl.21.08hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.21.08hal [Google Scholar]
  25. Hatim, B.
    (1998) Discourse analysis and translation. InM. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 67–71). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hervey, S., & Higgins, I.
    (1992) Thinking French translation: A course in translation method: French to English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. House, J.
    (2013) Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. Target, 25(1), 46–60. 10.1075/target.25.1.05hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.05hou [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakobson, R.
    (1956) Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. InR. Jakobson & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language (pp. 55–82). The Hague: Mouton & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Klaudy, K.
    (2001) The asymmetry hypothesis. Testing the asymmetric relationship between explications and implicitations. Paper presented at theThird International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark. 30 August – 1 September 2001.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2020) An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 112–130. 10.1075/rcl.00053.kov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00053.kov [Google Scholar]
  34. Kress, G.
    (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Krings, H.
    (1986) Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. InJ. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 263–276). Tübigen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2003) Afterword to 2003 edition. InG. Lakoff & M. Johnson (Ed.), Metaphors we live by (pp. 243–276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Langacker, R. W.
    (1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 101, 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  41. Larson, M. L.
    (1998) Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lederer, M.
    (1976) Synecdoque et traduction [Synecdoche and translation]. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241, 13–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lodge, D.
    (1977) The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Muñoz Martín, R., & Rojo López, A.
    (2018) Meaning. InS. Harding & O. C. Cortés (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and culture (pp. 61–78). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315670898‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670898-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Munday, J.
    (2001) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Newmark, P.
    (1988) Approaches to translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nida, E.
    (1964) Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 10.1163/9789004495746
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004495746 [Google Scholar]
  49. Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P.
    (1957) The measurement of meaning. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Otal Campo, J. L., Ferrando, I. N., & Bellés Fortuño, B.
    (Eds.) (2005) Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Panther, K., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
    (Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pym, A.
    (2010) Exploring translation theories. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Quine, W. V. O.
    (1960) Word and object. New York: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rabassa, G.
    (1989) No two snowflakes are alike: Translation as metaphor. InJ. Biguenet & R. Schulte (Eds.), The craft of translation (pp. 1–12). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (Eds.) (2013) Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302943
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  58. Samaniego Fernández, E.
    (2011) Translation studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor. InF. Gonzálvez-García, M. S. Peña-Cervel & L. Pérez-Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor (pp. 262–279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.56.12sam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.56.12sam [Google Scholar]
  59. (2013) The impact of Cognitive Linguistics on descriptive translation studies: Novel metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper translation as a case in point. InA. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation (pp. 159–198). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302943.159
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.159 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schäffner, C.
    (2004) Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1253–1269. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schäffner, C., & Shuttleworth, M.
    (2013) Metaphor in translation: Possibilities for process research. Target, 25(1), 93–106. 10.1075/target.25.1.08shu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.08shu [Google Scholar]
  62. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Shuttleworth, M.
    (2017) Studying scientific metaphor in translation: An inquiry into cross-lingual translation practices. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315678085
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678085 [Google Scholar]
  64. Steen, G.
    (2014) Translating metaphor: What’s the problem?InD. R. Miller & E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre figure: Translating figurative language (pp. 11–24). Quaderni del CeSLiC.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Toury, G.
    (1995) Descriptive translation studies and – beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  66. van den Broeck, R.
    (1981) The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation. Poetics Today, 2(4), 73–87. 10.2307/1772487
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1772487 [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1977) Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, J.
    (1958/1995) Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation [orig.Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais]. Translated and ed. byJ. C. Sager & M. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  69. Washbourne, K.
    (2022) Contagious magic: Metonymic shifts in Spanish-English poetry translation. Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 61, 181–206.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.22011.den
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error