Cover not available
Article published In:
Food and terminology: Expressing sensory experience in several languages
Edited by Rita Temmerman and Danièle Dubois
[Terminology 23:1] 2017
► pp. 113–131

Wine-tasting metaphors and their translation

A cognitive approach

| Centre de recherche TRADITAL (Traduction, interprétation, didactique et traitement automatique des langues) (ULB) | Centre de recherche CIRTI (Centre interdisciplinaire de recherches en traduction et en interprétation) (ULG) |
In winespeak, metaphors are a real challenge for the translator. Indeed, many metaphoric expressions cannot be found in dictionaries and their true meaning is not defined. The only basis for their translation seems to be the conceptual basis they are built upon. Indeed, wine tasting metaphors are linguistic realisations of conceptual metaphors, with mappings from well-known domains used to understand and communicate the intangible experience of taste. Various conceptual metaphors appear in the same tasting note, creating a complex blend, or conceptual integration pattern. So the translation procedures generally put forward in translation studies, based on the linguistic conception of metaphor, appear inappropriate. The cognitive translation hypothesis offers a good basis to compare source and target text wine-tasting metaphors.
Keywords: winespeak, conceptual metaphor, conceptual integration, translation procedures, cognitive translation hypothesis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The taste of wine
  • 3.Winespeak: A figurative and unclear specialised language
  • 4.Conceptual metaphors
  • 5.Translating on a conceptual basis
  • 6.Research questions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
  • References of examples
Published online: 10 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.23.1.05dem
References (57)
References
Al-Hasnawi, Ali R. 2007. “A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphors.” Translation Journal 11 (3). [URL]. Accessed 26 May 2017.Google Scholar
Amoraritei, Loredana 2002. “La métaphore en oenologie”. Metaphorik 31:4–16. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Bordas, Eric 2003. Les chemins de la métaphore, Etudes littéraires. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Caballero, Rosario, and Ernesto Suarez-Toste. 2008. “Translating the Senses: Teaching the Metaphors in Winespeak.” In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, ed. by Frank Boers and Seth Lindstromberg, 241–260. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, Patrick, and Dominique Maingeneau (eds). 2002. Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Coutier, Martine 1994. “Tropes et termes: le vocabulaire de la dégustation du vin.” Meta 39 (4): 662–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Dictionnaire de la langue du vin. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Dagut, Menachem B. 1976. “Can ‘Metaphor’ be Translated.” Babel 22 (1): 21–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 “More about the Translatability of Metaphor.” Babel 33 (2): 77–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Sylvie, and Henry Tyne. 2014. “Corpus d’apprenants et acquisition des langues.” Recherches en Didactique des Langues et Cultures : les Cahiers de l’acedle, L’association des chercheurs et enseignants en didactique des langues étrangères 11 (1): 137–168. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics – An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles,Mark Turner and . 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Foulon, Dominique (ed). 1996. Dictionnaire Moët-Hachette du vin international. Paris: Hachette pratique.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. The Poetics of Mind, Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1993. “Process and Products in Making Sense of Tropes.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 251–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle 2008 “Combining Contrastive and Interlanguage Analysis to Apprehend Transfer: Detection, Explanation, Evaluation.” In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, ed. by Gilquin Gaëtanelle, Szilvia Pass, and Maria Belen Diez-Bedmar, 3–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gozalez-Rey, Isabel 2004. “Le ‘double’ principe d’idiomaticité en traduction littéraire.” Revista de Filología 321: 227–244.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August 2010. “Relevance: A Key to Quality Assessment in Translation.” In Meaning in Translation, Vol. 191, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, 267–282. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan 2002. Metaphor, A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lederer, Marianne 2006. La traduction d’aujourd’hui – Le modèle interprétatif. Caen: Cahiers Champollion.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne 2009. Wine and Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili 1995. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and its Implications for Translation Theory.” In Translation and Meaning Part 3, ed. by Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomasczyk, 483–495. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht.Google Scholar
McElhanon, Kenneth A. 2006. “From Simple Metaphor to Conceptual Blending: The Mapping of Analogical Concepts and the Praxis of Translation.” Journal of Translation 2 (1): 31–81.Google Scholar
Negro, Isabel 2012. “Wine Discourse in the French Language.” Revista Electronica de Linguistica Aplicada 111: 1–12. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter 1983. The Translation of Metaphor, Series A Paper Nr. 104. Trier: Linguistic Agency of Trier.Google Scholar
1988. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
2001. “Translation and Culture.” In Translation and Meaning, Part 5, ed. by Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 327–334. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew 1993. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita 2013. “Touchdowns in Winespeak: Ontologies and Construals in Use and Meaning-making.” In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Linguistic Approaches to Food and Wine, ed. by Margarita Goded-Rambaud and Alfredo Poves Luelmo, 1–12. Madrid: Universitad National de Education a Distancia [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Peynaud, Emile 1987. The Taste of Wine. London: Macdonald & Co Ltd. Trans. Michael Schuster (original title: Le Goût du Vin. Bordas, 1983).Google Scholar
Reiss, Stephen 2013. Juice Jargon, 5th ed. Aspen: B & C Publishing.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina 2004. “Metaphor and Translation: Some Implications of a Cognitive Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 1253–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Gordon M. 2012. Neurogastronomy, How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why It Matters. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary 1988. Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suares-Toste, Ernesto 2007. “Metaphor inside the Wine Cellar: On the Ubiquity of Personification Schemas in Winespeak.” Metaphorik.de 121: 53–63 [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, Elzbieta 1993. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita 2010. “Why Special Language Translators need Insight into the Mechanisms of Metaphorical Models and Figurative Denominations.” In Meaning in Translation, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk and Marcel Thelen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Gmbh.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond, Revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van den Broeck, Raymond 1981. “The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor Translation.” Poetics Today 2 (4): 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. “The Generative Model of the Translation Process.” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, Proceedings of the First James Holms Symposium on Translation Studies, ed. by Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, 105–114. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vandaele, Sylvie,Leslie Lubin and . 2005. “Approche cognitive de la traduction dans les langues de spécialité: vers une systématisation de la description de la conceptualisation métaphorique.” Meta 5021: 415–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandaele, Sylvie 2006. “La conceptualisation métaphorique en biomédecine: indices de conceptualisation et réseaux lexicaux.” Glottopol 81: 73–94 [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
Worf, Benjamin 1941. “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language.” In Language, Thought and Reality, Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, ed. by Leslie Spier, 75–93. Menasha, Wisconsin: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.Google Scholar
References of examples
Decanter. 2005. Volume 30 (10).
. 2014. Volume 39 (7).
. 2015. Bordeaux 20151.
Hachette (ed.). 2003a. Le Guide Hachette des vins 2004. Paris: Hachette Pratique.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2003b. The Hachette Guide to French Wines 2004. London: Mitchell Beazley.Google Scholar
La Revue du Vin de France. 2009. Hors·Série Crus et Cave. 17H ( novembre).
. 2013. 574 (Sept).
MacNeil. 2001. The Wine Bible. New York: Workman Publishing.Google Scholar
Parker, Robert 1999. Parker’s Wine Buyer’s Guide. New York: Fireside.Google Scholar
Parker, Robert, and Pierre-Antoine Rovani. 2002. Parker’s Wine Buyer’s Guide, 6th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
. 2008. Guide Parker des vins de France, 2e éd. Paris: Solar.Google Scholar
The Wine Cellar Insider. [URL]. Accessed 15 May 2017.
Wine Spectator. 2014. July 31.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.