Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.173–198

Translating figurative language

ORCID logo | University of Westminster
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.
Keywords: translation, interpreting, figurative language, metaphor, metonymy, translation shift, indeterminacy, construal, semantic space, master tropes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.All language is figurative
  • 3.Figurative language is essential and unavoidable
  • 4.Metonymy and metaphor as master tropes
  • 5.Translating figurative language and semantic space
  • 6.All translation is figurative
  • 7.Translating metaphor in discourse
    • 7.1Metaphor clusters
    • 7.2Metaphor chains
    • 7.3Extended metaphor
  • 8.Translating metonymy in discourse
    • 8.1Metonymy clusters
    • 8.2Metonymy chains
    • 8.3Extended metonymy
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22011.den
References (69)
References
Alonge, A. (2006). The Italian metaphor database. In C. 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
Baker, M. (1992). In other words. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bender, J., & Wellbery, D. E. (1990). The ends of rhetoric: History, theory, practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biernacka, E. (2013). A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. PhD. dissertation. Milton Keyes: The Open University.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2013). Translating (by means of) metonymy. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation (pp. 199–226). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 10 1, 232–247.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018). Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8 (1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickins, J. (2005). Two models for metaphor translation. Target, 17 (2), 227–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain – Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L. (2003). A cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15 (2), 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 21 1, 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B. (1998). Discourse analysis and translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 67–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking French translation: A course in translation method: French to English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1956). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language (pp. 55–82). The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, K. (2001). The asymmetry hypothesis. Testing the asymmetric relationship between explications and implicitations. Paper presented at the Third International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark. 30 August – 1 September 2001.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (2), 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (1), 112–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. 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
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Afterword to 2003 edition. In G. Lakoff & M. Johnson (Ed.), Metaphors we live by (pp. 243–276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10 1, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, M. L. (1998). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lederer, M. (1976). Synecdoque et traduction [Synecdoche and translation]. Études de linguistique appliquée, 24 1, 13–41.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lodge, D. (1977). The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R., & Rojo López, A. (2018). Meaning. In S. Harding & O. C. Cortés (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and culture (pp. 61–78). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
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
Panther, K., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rabassa, G. (1989). No two snowflakes are alike: Translation as metaphor. In J. Biguenet & R. Schulte (Eds.), The craft of translation (pp. 1–12). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 (3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samaniego Fernández, E. (2011). Translation studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor. In F. 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The impact of Cognitive Linguistics on descriptive translation studies: Novel metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper translation as a case in point. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation (pp. 159–198). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (7), 1253–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, C., & Shuttleworth, M. (2013). Metaphor in translation: Possibilities for process research. Target, 25 (1), 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth, M. (2017). Studying scientific metaphor in translation: An inquiry into cross-lingual translation practices. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. (2014). Translating metaphor: What’s the problem? In D. R. Miller & E. Monti (Eds.), Tradurre figure: Translating figurative language (pp. 11–24). Quaderni del CeSLiC.Google Scholar
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and – beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Broeck, R. (1981). The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation. Poetics Today, 2 (4), 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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. by J. C. Sager & M. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washbourne, K. (2022). Contagious magic: Metonymic shifts in Spanish-English poetry translation. Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 6 1, 181–206.Google Scholar