A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors

8/6/2019 A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors

1/16

A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors*

by Ali R. Al-Hasnawi, Ph.D.Ibri College, Sultanate of Oman

Abstract

Translation of 'metaphor' has been treated as part of the

more general problem of 'untranslatability.' This trend

builds on the fact that metaphors in general are associatedwith 'indirectness,' which in turn contributes to the difficulty

of translation. Different theories and approaches have beenproposed with regard to metaphor translation, each of

which has tackled this problem from a different point of

view. In this paper, I favor of a cognitive framework formetaphor translation which builds on the 'Cognitive

Translation Hypothesis' (Henceforth CTH) proposed byMandelblit (1995). Using authentic examples from English

and Arabic along with their translation, this article

discusses translation of metaphors with reference to twocognitive schemes of the real world and cultural experience

mapping, namely: 'similar mapping conditions' and'different mapping conditions' according to the cognitive

approach. The core of this framework builds on the

hypothesis that the more two cultures conceptualizeexperience in a similar way, the more the first strategy,

'similar mapping conditions,' applies and the easier the taskof translation will be. Otherwise, the second strategy will

apply and the task will be more difficult.

1. Introduction

egardless of its popularity and mechanism of operation,

metaphor as a linguistic device exists in all human languages.The word 'metaphor' comes from Greek metapherein, meaning

'to transfer' or to 'carry over.' Reference to this universal

linguistic phenomenon can be found in the writings of Greekphilosophers and rhetoricians, as well as of contemporary

linguists (cf. Richards, 1965; Leech, 1969; Dagut, 1976; andMaalej, 2002). The earliest definition of metaphorquoted from

Aristotle's The Poetics by Richard (1965: 89) is "a shift carryingover a word from its normal use to a new one." Under this quite


2/16

broad definition, all other instances of semantic extension such

as allegory, synecdoche, metonymy, etc. might be categorized asbeing metaphoric. Whichever term is used for labeling these

expressions, they all exhibit some kind of semantic and logical

violation to the referential components of their lexicalconstituents. Hence they are studied as instances of figurative(as opposite to literal) language, where words gain extra features

over their referential ones. Therefore, the meaning of any of

these lexical constituents cannot be predicted from theirreferential meaning. Unfortunately, the translator has to suffer

twice when he approaches these metaphoric expressions. First,s/he has to work out their figurative meaning intralingually (i.e.

in the language in which a metaphor is recorded). Second, s/he

has to find out equivalent meanings and similar functions of

these expressions in the TL.

Studies of metaphor have been largely dedicated to issues such

as the meaning, forms, components, typology, and the role ofmetaphors as speech ornaments and meaning-enhancing

analogies. These studies shy away from the exploration of thecontinuous connection of metaphors as mental or picturesque

representations of the real world and the language used to

realize these pictures in words. Despite the large amount ofliterature available on the literary aspects of this linguistic

phenomenon, very little research has been done on the cogno-

cultural translation of metaphors. This paper intends to show howmetaphors reflect cognitive and cultural human experiencesencoded by language as a means of recording human experience

and how culture models and constrains this cognition. In

particular this paper is an argument in favor of a cognitiveapproach in the translation of metaphors, especially between

culturally distinct languages, e.g. English and Arabic. The studyof the metaphoric expressions of a given culture would,

hopefully, give us a chance to see how the members of that

culture structure or map their experience of the world and record

it into their native language. Since one of the basic assumptionsis that culture influences metaphor in an important way, thefollowing section attempts to clarify how metaphor is a cultural

object. For cognitive conceptualization of metaphor, the present

research draws on Mandelblit's (1995) "Cognitive TranslationHypothesis," which is the subject of Section 3.


3/16

2. Cultural Conceptualization of Metaphor

One of the oldest definitions of culture, which is used by theEncyclopedia Britannica (1983, vol. 4:657) is "that complex

whole, which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,customs, and other capabilities and habits acquired by the man

as a member of society."

The following section will illustrate how the metaphoric choicesavailable to a user are filtered by the value and belief systems

prevailing in the cultural community the text is translated into.Following Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 12), "a culture may be

thought of as providing, among other things, a pool of availablemetaphors for making sense of reality"; "to live by a metaphor isto have your reality structured by that metaphor and to base

your perceptions and actions upon that structuring ofreality"(ibid). This is related to the fact that people of a given

culture use language to reflect their attitudes towards the worldin general and the life of the community they live in particular.

This in turn gives rise to the reason for our argument in favor of

a cognitive approach in translating metaphors, which takes intoaccount cultural beliefs and values especially between culturally

distinct languages, e.g. English and Arabic. To put it differently,

since different cultures classify the world's complexities indifferent ways, translations from one language to another are

often very difficult. This difficulty would increase a lot whentranslating between two distant cultures where all traditions,

symbols, life conditions and methods of experiencerepresentation are different. For example, if you say "a man has

a 'big head' in English, it means 'he is arrogant,' whereas in

Italian 'he is clever.'

This also explains the ease of translating some universal

metaphors denoting similar ideas in different cultures. Metaphorsrelated to the parts of human body are examples of the case.Consider the following English metaphors of the human body:

1. a. 'To give someone a hand,' meaning 'help someone.'2. a. 'To keep an eye on something,' meaning 'watch or pay

attention to something.'


4/16

The Arabic translation of the above metaphoric expressions

means the same and reads as follows, respectively:

1. b. yamuddu yada ?almusaa'adah

2. b. yaDa'u 'ayynahu 'alaa

But the question is how many of these instances can be foundamong human languages? Unfortunately, very few exist. In this

regard, Chitoran (1973: 69-70) states that

"the differences in environment, climate, culturaldevelopment, etc., among various communities may

be extremely significant, but basically, humansocieties are linked by a common biological history.

The objective reality in which they live is definitelynot identical but it is by and large similar."

However, the universe we are living in is made up of things, and

we are constantly confronted with them, obliged to communicateabout them, and to define ourselves in relation to them. This is a

characteristic of all human societies, and due to this fact various

language systems are not easily translatable. Therefore, becausedifferent cultures conceptualize the world in different ways,

metaphors are characterized as being culture-specific. This is inline with Dagut's (1976: 32) argument that there is no simplistic

general rule for the translation of metaphor, but thetranslatability of any given SL metaphor depends on (1) theparticular cultural experiences and semantic associations

exploited by it, and (2) the extent to which these can, or cannot,be reproduced non-anomalously into the TL, depending on the

degree of overlap in each particular case.

As he goes further, Dagut (ibid. 28) says that "what determinesthe translatability of a SL metaphor is not its 'boldness' or

'originality,' but rather the extent to which the cultural

experience and semantic associations on which it draws areshared by speakers of the particular TL." We would like to go

even further to state that the inherent difficulty of metaphortranslation is not the absence of an equivalent lexical item in the

TL, but rather the diversity of cultural conceptualization of evenidentical objects or worlds in both communities whose languages

are involved in translation. Snell-Hornby ( 1995: 41) expresses

the same idea as he states that "the extent to which a text is


5/16

translatable varies with the degree to which it is embedded in its

own specific culture, also with the distance that separates thecultural background of source text and target audience in terms

of time and place."

3. Metaphor and Cognitive Equivalence in Translation

Katan (1999) suggests that a cognitive approach to the study of

culture can be seen in terms of the form of things that peoplehave in mind, their models for perceiving, relating to, and

interpreting them. This view of culture suggests that, whentranslating a text to a SL of any other culture, one needs to be

aware not only of the patterns of thinking, and acting in one'sown culture, but also of the TL's cultural models of reality. Nida(1964) described the 'best' translation as the one capable of

evoking in the TL reader the same response as the SL text doesto the SL reader. Although we find this a rather unreachable

objective, we still believe that some of it can be achievedprovided that the following two conditions are satisfied: First, the

translator must understand the way in which receptive readers

perceive the world and structure their experience. Second, hemust also try his best to find a way to accommodate his text to

the experience of the target-language reader, and to the way it is

recoded in the TL. Our argument in favor of a cognitive approachto the translation of metaphors derives from the notion of

'cognitive equivalence,'where metaphors can be translated fromone language to another with a minimum degree of loss. For this

reason, I think that metaphors must be looked at as cognitiveconstructs rather than mere linguistic entities or rhetorical

phenomena. In other words, metaphors represent instances of

how people conceptualize their experience and how they recordit. Hence, it is believed that the cognitive approach will work for

this purpose.

In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is often given a cognitivefunction in which human beings draw upon the experience of

each other or non-human surroundings or even other concepts orimages. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) define metaphor as a means

to understand one domain of experience (the target domain) interms of another, a familiar one (source domain). This usually

takes the form of analogy or comparison between two existent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics/oCognitive%20linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics/oCognitive%20linguistics


6/16

entities or one existent entity and another one assumed to exist.

To say that someone is a 'lion,' for example, reveals that a linkhas been established between that individual (tenor) and the

'lion' (vehicle) as a symbol of bravery or strength. Therefore,

metaphors are 'conceptual' phenomena in which the sourcedomain is mapped onto the target domain. To put it differently,the structural components of the source conceptual schema are

transferred to the target domain. Here one should deter the

crucial role of culture in this process of symbolization andconceptualization. In the Arab world, for instance, an 'owl' is

often conceptualized as a sign of bad omen. Surprisingly, it is asymbol of wisdom in the Western culture.

In the cognitive study of metaphor an emphasis is made on the

psychological as well as on the sociocultural and linguistic aspectsof metaphor. Furthermore, metaphors are associated with

'indirectness' (Green, 1989: 124; and Maleej, 1990); this is

possibly why they are common as a special mode of expressionin politics and public speeches where direct expressions are

censured. To those who studied metaphor within the scope ofcognitive linguistics (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; and Goatly,

1997), metaphor is 'pervasive in everyday life, not just in

language but in thought and action,' and that our 'ordinaryconceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature'

(Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 3).

For the translation of metaphor, I would like to incorporate

Mandelblit's (1995) 'Cognitive Translation Hypothesis,' but this

time for a different purpose and in a different framework.Mandelblit's proposed two schemes of cognitive mapping

conditions (i.e. Similar Mapping Condition (SMC) and DifferentMapping Condition (DMC)). While Mandelblit intended to show

that 'the difference in reaction time is due to a conceptual shift

that the translator is required to make between the conceptualmapping systems of the source and target languages' (p. 493),

we are more interested in the outcome of his research than in itsmethodology and objectives. He found out that metaphorical

expressions take more time and are more difficult to translate if

they exploit a cognitive domain different from that of the targetlanguage equivalent expression. According to the hypothesis, the

reason for this delay, difficulty and uncertainty in the translationof different domain metaphors is the search for another

conceptual mapping (i.e. another cognitive domain). That is to


7/16

say the fact that metaphors almost always exploit such different

cognitive domains implies the search for a cognitive equivalencefor SL metaphors in the TL. In other words, the translator is

called upon to play the role of a proxy agent doing the act of

conceptual mapping on behalf of the TL reader. If he can touchupon a similar TL cognitive domain, then his task will be fulfilledquite successfully and easily. If not, he has to look for the

cognitive domain that fits in the TL as the SL one does. The

result of the first action is often an equivalent TL metaphor orunder the worst conditionsa TL simile. The result of the second

action, however, is open to many possibilities, of which renderingthe SL metaphor into a TL one is the least likely. Thus a

metaphor might be rendered into a simile, a paraphrase, a

footnote, an explanation oras a last resortit can be omitted.

Therefore, I believe that attempts of literal rendering or mere

linguistic meaning transference of the metaphoric expressions

from one language to another are deemed to result in anoticeably bad product, especially when these expressions draw

on culture-specific methods of thinking rather than on shared oruniversal notions or schemata.

Referring to cultural aspects and drawing on the general

guidelines of the cognitive framework (i.e. the cognitiveequivalent hypothesis) for metaphor translation, we utilized three

sets of authentic English and Arabic examples of metaphors. Thefirst set comprises metaphors of similar mapping conditions

reflecting shared ideas which are expressed by identical

metaphors in both languages, and other instances of metaphorswhich are realized by different lexical items in the TL. The third

contains metaphors of different mapping conditions, and whichlack equivalents in the TL.

3.1. a. Metaphors of similar mapping conditions

This category represents metaphors expressing a small numberof ideas shared by the two languages and hence expressed,

roughly speaking, by similar expressions. Anthropologists calltheses shared ideas 'cultural universals.' Comprising many

diverse sub-cultures, a universal culture can be thought of as aconstellation of common core attitudes and values reflected by

practices common to most of the sub-cultures. Similarities in


8/16

mapping conditions across diverse cultures could be labeled as

'pancultural metaphorical expression,' which derives from'panhuman sharedness of basic experience' Emanatian (1995:

165). Consider the following almost similar English and Arabic

metaphors; most of them are proverbs reflecting the wisdom ofmany sub-cultures. Having a didactic function, these metaphorsfigure human philosophical insights, logic, wisdom, and

instructions in ways which reinforce universal conventional

images and attitudes, and therefore both reflect and reproducethose conventions. In other words these metaphors are a

reflection of human experience; they can contribute to exposingthe way such conventions are embedded in language.

3. SL/ History repeats itself.

TL/ ?ttaariikhu yu'iidu nafsahLit. The history repeats itself

4. SL/ Necessity is the mother of invention.TL/ ?alHaajah um ?al?ikhtiraa'

Lit. The need is the mother of invention.

5. SL/ Actions speak louder than words.

TL/ ?al?af'aal ?ablagh min ?alaqwaalLit. Actions more rhetorical- than sayings

6. SL/ Birds of a feather flock together.TL/ ?aTuyyuru 'alaa ?ashkaalihaa taqa'Lit. Birds shapes- their on fall

7. SL/ A drowning man will clutch at a straw.TL/ ?alghareeq yata'alaq fii qashah

Lit. A drowning clutches in a straw

8. SL/ This is a mouth-watering opportunity.

TL/ ?innaha lafurSah tusiilu ?allu'aab

Lit. This opportunity causes saliva come out (of my mouth).9. SL/ You make my blood boil.TL/ ? innaka taj'alu ?adama yaghlii fii 'uruuqii

Lit. You make blood boils in my veins

10. SL/ This issue is the cornerstone.

TL/ haathihi ?almas?alatu hiyya Hajaru ?azzawiyyatuLit. This issue it the cornerstone


9/16

11. SL/ To throw dust in the eyes.TL/ tharu ?aramaadi fii ?al'uun

Lit. Spread off ash in the eyes

12. SL/ A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.TL/ 'uSfuurun fii ?alyadi khayrun min 'asharah 'ala ?ashajarah

Lit. One bird in hand is better than ten on the tree.

13. SL/ A cat has nine lives.

TL/ qiTTah bisab' ?arwaaHLit. a cat with seven lives

14. SL/ Time is money.

TL/ ?alwaqru min thahabLit. The time from gold.

15. SL/Cleanliness is next to godliness.

TL/ ?annaDafatu min ?alliymanLit. Cleanliness from faith (in Allah)

Although examples 3-11 above represent metaphors expressing

a small number of ideas shared by the two languages, henceexpressed, roughly speaking, by similar expressions, examples

(12), (13), (14), and (15) above reflect values, and beliefs

peculiar to each particular culture (i.e. English and Arabic).Notice how users of each language conceptualize the concept ofnumber in (12) and (13) to reflect the same idea. English

employs 'two' whereas Arabic is only satisfied with 'ten.'

However, in (13), English uses number 'nine' while Arabicemploys 'seven.' Notice also, in example (14), the variation in

'value' conceptualization in each language; English refers to'money' (i.e. the monetary value) while in Arabic, 'time' is likened

to 'gold' in superiority (i.e. superiority value). Further, religious

affiliations affect the lexical choice to express the same idea in

each language, as it is the case in (15). However, examples,such as (4) above, embody a conceptual metaphor, where the SL(i.e. English) concept or experience is borrowed and loan-

translated into Arabic.

3.1. b. Metaphors having similar mapping conditions but lexically


10/16

realized differently

As stated above, beliefs and religion are aspects of culture thatplay a very significant role in translation. As is shown in the

following examples, although the English examples and theirArabic counterpart metaphors are related to the same conceptual

domain, the religion or ethical system in the TL has led to major

differences in lexical choice.

16. SL/ A fox is not taken twice in the same snare.

TL/ laa yuldaghu ?alm?uminu min ?aljuHri marraryin

Lit. No believer (in Allah) stung from a hole twice

17. SL/ Every cloud has a silver lining.

TL/ ?inna ma-'al- 'usri yusraaLit. Verily, with every difficulty there is relief.

18. SL/Many hands make light work.

TL/ yadu ?allahi ma' aljamaa'ahLit. Hand of Allah with the group

In the three examples above, the only plausible justification for

this variation in the use of metaphoric expressions is the fact thatthe users of each language map the particular conceptual domain

of their own world differently. That is to say, the Arabic

translation is quite consonant with those of Islamic beliefsbecause the equivalent Arabic translation is either a saying from

Prophet Mohammed's sayings as in example (16), or a versefrom the Holy Qur'an as it is the case in (17), which is the sixth

verse ofAl InshiraaH. This verse roughly means 'whateverdifficulties or troubles are encountered by me, Allah always

provides a solution or a relief if we only follow His Path.'

3.2. Metaphors of different mapping conditions

Examples of this category generate when working on culture-

bound SL metaphors that are mapped into a domain differentfrom that of the TL. Since 'languages are the best mirror of

human cultures,' and 'it is through the vocabulary of humanlanguages that we can discover and identify the culture-specific

conceptual configurations characteristic of different peoples of

the world' Wierzbicka (1992: 22), different cultures conceptualize


11/16

experiences in varying ways. Therefore, following Dagut

(1972:32), 'the translatability of any given SL metaphor dependson (1) the particular cultural experience and semantic

associations exploited by it, and (2) the extent to which these

can, or not, be reproduced non-anomalously in TL, depending onthe degree of overlap in each particular case.' This is typically thecase when working on metaphors mapped in the religious and

political domains. Such metaphors are called root metaphors

underlying people's views or attachments and shaping theirunderstanding of a situation. Religion is considered the most

common root metaphor since birth, marriage, death and otherlife experiences can convey different meanings to different people

depending on their religious beliefs. Below are examples of Arabic

religious (mostly Qur'anic) conceptual metaphors the image of

each of which cannot be reproduced in the TL. Therefore, thetranslator has no choice other than replacing the SL image with aTL image that does not clash with the target culture. This can

only be done by resorting to the strategy of different cognitive

mapping in search for cognitive equivalence. As mentionedbefore, the product of this process might be a TL simile,

paraphrase, explanatory remark, or even a footnote. The readeris invited to see how inadequate the translation is due to the

absence of identical cognitive mapping of the SL expressions in

the TL on behalf of the translator. The Holy Qur'an constitutes arich source of such metaphors which pose a serious problem

even to the most experienced professional translators. To shedmore light on this subtle aspect of Arabic metaphor, let us

consider some authentic exemplary metaphors cited from theHoly Qur'an along with their English translation by Ali (1989):

19. SL/ ?uHilla lakum laylataS-Siyaamir-rafathu ?ilaa nisaa?ikum

Hunna libaasul-lakum wa ?antum libaasul-lahunn [Surat AlBagarah, verse 187]

TL: On the night of the fasts, you are allowed to approach your

wives. They are your garments and you are their garment. [Surat

Al Bagarah, verse 187]

20. SL/ nisaa?ukum Harthun lakum fa?tuu Harthakum ?annaa

shi?tum

[Surat Al Bagarah, verse 223]TL/ Your wives are as a tilth for you, so approach your tilth how

you will.[Surat Al Bagarah, verse 223]


12/16

21. SL/ qaalat ?annaa yakuunu lii ghulaamun walam yamsasnii

basharun walam ?aku baghiyyaa [Surat Maryam, verse 20]

TL/ She said: "How shall I have a son, given that no man hastouched me, and I am not unchaste?" [Surat Maryam, verse 20]

22. SL/ ?almaalu walbanuuna ziinatu ?alHayaati ?adunyaa

[Surat Al Kahf, verse 46]TL/ Wealth and children are the adornment of the life of this

world.[Surat Al Kahf, verse 46]

23. SL/ walaa yaghtab ba'Dukum ba'Daa. 'ayuHibbu ?an ya?kula

laHma ?akhiihi maytan [Surat Al Hujuraat, verse 12]TL/ Nor speak ill of each other behind their backs. Would any ofyou like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? [Surat Al Hujuraat,

verse 12]

As can be seen, the literal English translations for the aboveverses do not work as equivalents for the Arabic euphemistic

areas of sex and related matters; that is because the question of

sexual intercourse is always delicate to handle in the Arabicculture. Witness the Qur'anic euphemisms and their English

counterparts in (19), (20), and (21) above. In (20), 'sexual

intercourse' in the SL is compared to a husband's tilth, where ahusband sows the seed in order to reap the harvest; he chooseshis own time and mode of cultivation. He does not sow out of

season nor cultivate in a manner which will exhaust the soil.

However, this image cannot be reproduced in the TL. Likewise,'sexual intercourse' is euphemistically referred to as

'approaching' in (19) and 'touching' in (21), but this translation isinadequate due to the absence of identical cognitive mapping of

the SL expressions in the TL on behalf of the translator. In a

similar way, in the Arabic SL text in (22), the back-biting is

likened to eating the flesh of a dead brother in terms ofabomination; however, the English translation does not seem toreproduce plausible counterpart metaphors when the general

meaning of the Arabic words is given.

It is apparent that the attempts to maintain these metaphors inEnglish translation have communicatively failed. To solve this

problem, the translator of these verses provides footnotes to


13/16

explain the meanings of these Arabic metaphors. However, a

better policy in such cases, according to El-Hassan and Al-Said(1989), is to provide a brief explanation in the main body of the

text provided that it does not unduly interrupt the flow of the

text.

4. Conclusions

Since metaphor is shaped by the socio-cultural beliefs andattitudes of a specific culture, our translation of this linguistic

phenomenon is based on the 'cognitive equivalence,' wheremetaphors must be looked at as cognitive constructs

representing instances of how people conceptualize theirexperiences, attitudes and practices, and record them. Thenoperationally, we have drawn a distinction between the individual

linguistic culture having its own set of metaphors related to arange of ideas, conventions, and beliefs, and a proposed

'universal culture' comprising many individual cultures (i.e. sub-cultures) sharing a set of metaphors reflecting the core values

and practices common to most of the individual cultures.

Since metaphors are related to different cultural domains, thisimplies that the translator has to do the job of conceptual

mapping on behalf of the TL reader; he has to look for a TLsimilar cognitive equivalence in the target culture. The more theSL and TL cultures in question conceptualize experience in a

similar way, the easier the task of translation will be. But sincehuman real-world experiences are not always similar, and

metaphors record these experiences, the task of the translator

becomes more difficult when translating these metaphors acrosslanguages related to different cultures. The difficulty of metaphor

rendition lies not in the assumption that languages cannotprovide equivalent expressions for their metaphors, but in the

fact that they lack counterpart metaphors related to the sameconceptual domain or area. Therefore, in search for cognitiveequivalence to replace the SL image with a TL image that does

not clash with the target culture, we have differentiated betweenthree cognitive mapping conditions to the translation of

metaphors: (1) metaphors of similar mapping conditions, (2)metaphors having similar mapping conditions but lexically

implemented differently, and (3) metaphors of different mapping


14/16

conditions. The difference between these three can be

represented as a cline or continuum, with the set of metaphors ofsimilar mapping conditions at one end, and those of different

mapping conditions at the other end of the continuum, and those

of similar mapping conditions but lexically realized differently asan intermediate set in between the polar opposites. Examples ofthe first category generate when working on cultural universal SL

metaphors derived from shared human experience (Emanatian

199); the second set is related to the same conceptual domain inthe SL and the TL, but the ethical system in the TL or the SL has

led to major differences in lexical choice; whereas the third setincludes the culture-bound SL metaphors that are mapped into a

domain different from that of the TL.

It can be concluded that translators, whose task is to produce aTL text that bears a close resemblance to the SL text, should be

aware of cognitive and cultural issues when translating from

Arabic into English or vice-versa. Therefore, it is not enough fortranslators to be bilingual, but they should be bicultural as well.

Because translators suffer twice when approaching somemetaphors which are cultur-bound and due to their figurative

meaning intralingualy, it is recommended that translators be

trained in coping with metaphor translation not only in foreign-language programs, but also in their native language.

Sometimes, even native speakers are not always able to

comprehend the figurative meaning of messages in their ownlanguage (Al-Ali 2004).

References:

Al-Ali, M. (2004). Familiar words in unfamiliar contexts.

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 12 (2), 134-144.

Ali, A. (1989). The Holy Qur'an. Riyadh: Royal Society K.S.A. of

Qur'an.

Buchowski, M (1996). Metaphor, metonymy, and cross-culturaltranslation. Semiotica 110 (3-4), 301- 14

Chitoran, D. (1973) Elements of English Structural Semantics.EDP: Bucureti.


15/16

Dagut, M. (1976). Can metaphor be translated? Babel:

International Journal of Translation,XXII(1), 21-33.

El-Hassan S. and Al-Said, M. (1989). Lexical issues in translating

the Qur'an into English: Obstacles and suggested solutions.International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, 6 (2), 45-57.

Emanatian, M. (1995). Metaphor and the Expression of Emotion:

The Value of Cross- Cultural Perspectives. Metaphor andSymbolic Activity, 10 (3), 163-182.

Goatly, A. (1997). The language of Metaphors. London: Rutledge.

Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language

Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesPublishers.

Leech,G. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London:Harlow.

Katan, D. (1999). Translating Cultures: An Introduction for

Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. ST Jerome Publishing:Manchester.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mac Cormac, E. (1985).A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Mass:The MIT Press.

Mandelblit, N. (1995). The cognitive view of metaphor and itsimplications for translation theory. Translation and Meaning, Part

3 (483-495). Maastricht: Universitaire Press.

Maalej, Z. (1990). Metaphor in Political and Economic Text.Unpublished DRA Thesis. University of Manouba. Tunisia

Maalej, Z. (2002). Translating Metaphor between Unrelated

Cultures: A Cognitive Perspective. [M].http://simsim.rug.ac.be/zmaalej/transmeta.

Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford:
http://simsim.rug.ac.be/zmaalej/transmetahttp://simsim.rug.ac.be/zmaalej/transmeta


16/16

Pergamon.

Nida, E. (1964). Towards a Science of Translation. Leiden: E. J.Brill.

Richards. I. A. (1965). The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York:

OUP.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies: An Integrated

Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture and Cognition.Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations.

New York/Oxford: OUP.

Encyclopedia Britannica (1983), vol. 4, p. 657.

* The first draft of this paper was read at 1st International Conference organized byIDEA at Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, 24-26 April 2006. It will also appear inpaper form in Sept.2007 issue ofTranslation Watch Quarterly, a publication of TSI.

A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors

Documents

Transcript of A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors