1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article offers a model of translation which frames semantic relations between source- and target-text elements in terms of metonymy, and translation in terms of metonymic processing. Translators/interpreters constantly use approximations rather than exact one-to-one correspondences in their work, as meaning making is by nature partial and built-in matches between language systems do not exist. Approximation is identified as a recurrent theme in Translation Studies, while Metonymy Studies is seen as providing a toolkit for describing in detail the approximate semantic relations between source- and target-text elements. Models from Metonymy Studies are applied to two translation case studies and a translation revision case study. An original typology of metonymic relations is proposed based on whether or not source and target are encoded linguistically as vehicle and topic respectively. It is concluded that the semantic relations between source- and target-text elements in translation are distinctive in two respects: (1) they are characterized by facetization and zone activation rather than metonymization; (2) they are examples of Topic metonymy (both source and target concepts are encoded) and Code-switching metonymy (the source and target concepts are encoded in different languages).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.18024.der
2019-11-05
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.18024.der
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InF. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, R.
    (1991) Translating and translation: Theory and practice. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellos, D.
    (2011) Is that a fish in your ear?London: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Benczes, R.
    (2015) Cognitive linguistics is fun: An interview with Günter Radden. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 479–506. 10.1075/rcl.13.2.09ben
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.09ben [Google Scholar]
  5. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2007) Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 28, 7–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, S.
    (2004) Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InL. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed.) (pp.290–305). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.199
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.199 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014) Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 10, 232–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Catford, J.
    (1965) A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Denroche, C.
    (2011) The fundamental role of metonymy in conceptualization and communication. InD. Hornsby (Ed.), Interfaces in language 2 (pp.191–206). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2018) Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metaphor and metonymy in discourse. Metaphor in the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. 10.1075/msw.16011.den
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16011.den [Google Scholar]
  14. Fougner Rydning, A.
    (2012) CTMM as a method to study conceptual metaphtonymies in translation. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaeli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp.293–326). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, R.
    (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]
  16. Halverson, S.
    (2007) A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 105–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hatim, B., & Munday, J.
    (2004) Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203501887
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203501887 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hervey, S., & Higgins, I.
    (1992) Thinking translation: A course in translation method, French-English. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jakobson, R.
    (1959/2012) On linguistic aspects of translation. InL. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp.126–131). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kress, G.
    (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Krings, H.
    (1986) Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). InJ. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp.263–276). Tübigen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, R.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK. Panther, 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]
  27. Larson, M.
    (1998) Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lederer, M.
    (1976) Synecdoque et traduction. Études de linguistique appliquée, 24, 13–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lodge, D.
    (1977) The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Munday, J.
    (2012) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Nida, E.
    (1964) Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2003) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. InK. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.03pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.03pan [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
  36. Paradis, C.
    (2004) Where does metonymy stop? Sense, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pym, A.
    (2010) Exploring translation theories. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Quine, W.
    (1960) Word and object. New York: John Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Radden, G.
    (2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. InJ. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.11–28). Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) Event metonymies. Paper presented at theThird International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Leipzig, Germany. 25–27 September, 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018) Molly married money: reflections on conceptual metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.161–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.06rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.06rad [Google Scholar]
  43. Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (Eds.) (2013) Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Diez Velasco, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  45. Somers, H.
    (2003) Translation memory systems. InH. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (pp.31–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.35.06som
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.35.06som [Google Scholar]
  46. Toury, G.
    (1995) Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. Sager & M. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, W.
    (2016) Variation in metonymy, cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110455830
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110455830 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.18024.der
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contiguity; facetization; indeterminacy; metonymic processing; metonymic shift; metonymization; metonymy; translation; zone activation

Most Cited

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