1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Agency in metaphor and translation
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Cognitive approaches to metaphor translation, particularly those rooted in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), can be seen as overlooking the translator’s agency as they tend to emphasise the conceptual structures of metaphor in thought. As a result, very little is known about the role translators’ agency plays in their communicative decision-making. This article develops a socio-cognitive approach to metaphor translation by integrating Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) with the socio-cognitive approach (SCA) to intercultural pragmatics. It proposes a descriptive taxonomy of six variations of deliberate metaphor use in translation (DMUiT). Furthermore, it incorporates SCA’s account of how individual and social traits interact in intercultural communication to explain how translators’ decision-making in metaphor translation is driven by the interplay of their intention and attention. Detailed analysis of non-literary and literary translations of deliberate metaphors demonstrates that this socio-cognitive framework highlights translators’ prior experience, salience, and egocentrism in intercultural communication, hence bringing us closer to translators’ agency. This article concludes by outlining a research paradigm of approaching translators’ agency in metaphor translation from a comprehension-oriented and a production-oriented perspective, with the help of experimental, sociological, and corpus methods.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won
2026-01-29
2026-02-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/msw.25012.won/msw.25012.won.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aiden, E. L.
    (2019, March). Untangling the genome. Scientific American, (), –. 10.1038/scientificamerican0319‑50
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0319-50 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2019, April). DNA上的生命之环 [Loops of life on DNA] (L. Chen, Trans.). 环球科学 [Global Science], (), –. (Original work published 2019)
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2019, May). 環圈讓基因不糾結 [Loops keep the genome tangle-free] (Z. Deng, Trans.). 科學人 [Science People], . (Original work published 2019) https://www.scitw.cc/posts/9162
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu, C.
    (2008) 三体 [Three-Body]. Chongqing Publishing Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2015) The three-body problem (K. Liu, Trans.). Head of Zeus. (Original work published 2008)
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Long, A. S.
    (2021, January). Too big for the universe. Scientific American, (), –. 10.1038/scientificamerican0121‑26
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0121-26 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2021, February). 宇宙难以容纳的星系摇篮 [Galaxy cradles that the universe cannot contain] (F. Xu, Trans.). 环球科学 [Global Science], (), –. (Original work published 2021)
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhao, H.
    (2011) 桦树的眼睛 [Birch’s eyes]. Zhejiang Juvenile and Children’s Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2018) 1923: A fantasy. InM. Song & T. Huters (Eds.), The reincarnated giant: An anthology of twenty-first-century Chinese science fiction (pp.–). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 2011)
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bandura, A.
    (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, , –. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bolognesi, M.
    (2022) Metaphors in intercultural communication. InI. Kecskes (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intercultural pragmatics (pp.–). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108884303.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303.010 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bourdieu, P.
    (1977) Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1972) 10.1017/CBO9780511812507
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cameron, L.
    (2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chesterman, A.
    (2009) The name and nature of translator studies. Hermes, , –. 10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96844
     https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96844 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dagut, M.
    (1976) Can “metaphor” be translated?. Babel, (), –. 10.1075/babel.22.1.05dag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.22.1.05dag [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidson, D.
    (1980) Essays on actions and events. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Deignan, A.
    (2011) Deliberateness is not unique to metaphor: A response to Gibbs. Metaphor and the Social World, (), –. 10.1075/msw.1.1.05dei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.1.05dei [Google Scholar]
  22. de Saussure, F.
    (1966) Course in general linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds., W. Baskin, Trans). McGraw-Hill Book Company. (Original work published 1916)
     [Google Scholar]
  23. de Vries, C., Reijnierse, W. G., & Willems, R. M.
    (2018) Eye movements reveal readers’ sensitivity to deliberate metaphors during narrative reading. Scientific Study of Literature, (), –. 10.1075/ssol.18008.vri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18008.vri [Google Scholar]
  24. Diriker, E.
    (2011) Agency in conference interpreting: Still a myth?. Gramma, , –. 10.26262/gramma.v19i0.6321
     https://doi.org/10.26262/gramma.v19i0.6321 [Google Scholar]
  25. Freeman, L. C.
    (Ed.) (2008) Social network analysis. SAGE. 10.4135/9781446263464
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446263464 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1999) Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164054
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164054 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2023) Pragmatic complexity in metaphor interpretation. Cognition, , –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105455
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105455 [Google Scholar]
  28. Giddens, A.
    (1979) Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑16161‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Giora, R.
    (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goatly, A.
    (1997) The language of metaphors. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203210000
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harvey, K.
    (1995) A descriptive framework for compensation. The Translator, (), –. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798950
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798950 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugh, M.
    (2008) Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/IP.2008.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. House, J.
    (2020) Translation, interpreting, and intercultural communication. InJ. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003036210‑13
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003036210-13 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kecskes, I.
    (2004) Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/iprg.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2010) The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, (), –. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  36. (2013) Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2016) Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. InK. Allan, A. Capone & I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F.
    (2009) Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, (), –. 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  39. Kinnunen, T., & Koskinen, K.
    (Eds.) (2010) Translators’ agency. Tampere University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2014) Conceptual metaphor theory and the nature of difficulties in metaphor translation. InD. R. Miller & E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre figure/Translating figurative language (pp.–). Bononia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphor we live by. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Latour, B.
    (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Meylaerts, R.
    (2008) Translators and (their) norms: Toward a sociological construction of the individual. InA. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (Eds.), Beyond descriptive translation studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.75.08mey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.75.08mey [Google Scholar]
  45. Nacey, S., & Skogmo, S. F.
    (2021) Learner translation of metaphor: Smooth sailing?. Metaphor and the Social World, (), –. 10.1075/msw.00016.nac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00016.nac [Google Scholar]
  46. Newmark, P.
    (1980) The translation of metaphor. Babel, (), –. 10.1075/babel.26.2.05new
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.26.2.05new [Google Scholar]
  47. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2022) Introducing interpreting studies (3rd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003186472
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003186472 [Google Scholar]
  48. Prandi, M.
    (2017) Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315208763
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208763 [Google Scholar]
  49. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J.
    (2018) DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0026‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2020) The role of co-text in the analysis of potentially deliberate metaphor. InC. D. Biase-Dyson & M. Egg (Eds.), Drawing attention to metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.5.02rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.5.02rei [Google Scholar]
  51. Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y., Andone, C., & Steen, G. J.
    (2019) Figurative analogies and how they are resisted in British public bill committee debates. Metaphor and the Social World, (), –. 10.1075/msw.17027.lav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.17027.lav [Google Scholar]
  52. Rizzato, I.
    (2021) Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and pragmatic strategies for their translation. Frontiers in Psychology, , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662276
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662276 [Google Scholar]
  53. Robinson, D.
    (1991) The translator’s turn. Johns Hopkins University Press. 10.56021/9780801840463
     https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801840463 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rojo López, A. M., & Muñoz Martín, R.
    (Eds.) (2025) Research methods in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. John Benjamins. 10.1075/rmal.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.10 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schäffner, C.
    (2004) Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2008) Functionalist approaches. InM. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed., pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Schieffelin, B. B.
    (1990) The give and take of everyday life: Language socialisation of Kaluli children. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  59. Seth, A. K., Dienes, Z., Cleeremans, A., Overgaard, M., & Pessoa, L.
    (2008) Measuring consciousness: Relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  60. Steen, G.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1080/10926480802426753
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2013) Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, (), –. 10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.179
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.179 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2014) Translating metaphor: What’s the problem?. InD. R. Miller & E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre figure/Translating figurative language (pp.–). Bononia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (2015) Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2016) Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.6.06ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6.06ste [Google Scholar]
  65. (2017) Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2023) Slowing metaphor down: Elaborating deliberate metaphor theory. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.26 [Google Scholar]
  67. Steiner, G.
    (1975) After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Sullivan, K., & Bandín, E.
    (2014) Censoring metaphors in translation: Shakespeare’s Hamlet under Franco. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0016 [Google Scholar]
  69. Toury, G.
    (2012) Descriptive translation studies — and beyond: Revised edition. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  70. van Dijk, T. A.
    (2008) Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wackers, D. Y. M., Plug, H. J., & Steen, G. J.
    (2021) “For crying out loud, don’t call me a warrior”: Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  72. Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., & Althaus, N.
    (2023) Attention to the source domain of conventional metaphorical expressions: Evidence from an eye tracking study. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  73. Wong, S.
    (2023) Metaphor translation in science fiction: Some implications of the genre. Linguaculture, (), –. 10.47743/lincu‑2023‑2‑0339
     https://doi.org/10.47743/lincu-2023-2-0339 [Google Scholar]
  74. (2024) Deliberate metaphor (use) in translation and interpreting: Is there such a thing?. Metaphor and the Social World, (), –. 10.1075/msw.24016.won
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.24016.won [Google Scholar]
  75. Wong, S., & Xu, Q.
    (2025) Mapping metaphor research in translation and interpreting studies: A bibliometric analysis from 1964 to 2023. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/psicl‑2024‑0092
     https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2024-0092 [Google Scholar]
  76. Xu, C., Zhang, C., & Wu, Y.
    (2016) Enlarging the scope of metaphor studies. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0018 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won
Loading
Agency in metaphor and translation
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.25012.won
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.25012.won
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: intention ; metaphor translation ; agency ; intercultural pragmatics ; cognitive translation and interpreting studies ; Deliberate Metaphor Theory

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