Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in
translation
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).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Approximate correspondences between source text and target text in the Translation Studies literature
- 2.1Translation shift
- 2.2Equivalence
- 2.3Expansion and reduction
- 2.4Indeterminacy
- 2.5Summary
- 3.The partial nature of meaning making
- 3.1Within a language
- 3.2Between languages
- 4.Cognitive metonymy theory
- 4.1A typology of metonymic relations
- 4.2Employing cognitive metonymy theory to investigate translation
- 5.Two case studies
- 5.1First case study
- 5.2Second case study
- 6.Metonymy in translation revision and editing
- 7.Closing remarks
-
References
References (48)
References
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bell, R. (1991). Translating and translation: Theory and practice. Harlow: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellos, D. (2011). Is that a fish in your ear? London: Penguin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blum-Kulka, S. (2004). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 290–305). London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 101, 232–247.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Catford, J. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Denroche, C. (2011). The fundamental role of metonymy in conceptualization and communication. In D. Hornsby (Ed.), Interfaces in language 2 (pp. 191–206). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fougner Rydning, A. (2012). CTMM as a method to study conceptual metaphtonymies in translation. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaeli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 293–326). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking translation: A course in translation method, French-English. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R. (1959/2012). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 126–131). London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(1), 37–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263–276). Tübigen: Gunter Narr.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lederer, M. (1976). Synecdoque et traduction. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241, 13–41.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lodge, D. (1977). The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Munday, J. (2012). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Sense, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. New York: John Wiley.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G. (2008). Event metonymies. Paper presented at the Third International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Leipzig, Germany. 25–27 September, 2008.
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Diez Velasco, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Somers, H. (2003). Translation memory systems. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (pp. 31–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. Sager & M. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy, cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.