Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed within the subject of Translation Studies. preponderantly with regard to translatability and transportation methods. It has been argued that metaphors can go a interlingual rendition job. since reassigning them from one linguistic communication and civilization to another 1 may be hampered by lingual and cultural differences.
A figure of interlingual rendition processs for covering with this job have been suggested. e. g. . permutation ( metaphor into different metaphor ) . paraphrasis ( metaphor into sense ) . or omission. Such processs have been commented on both in normative theoretical accounts of interlingual rendition ( how to interpret metaphors ) and in descriptive theoretical accounts ( how metaphors have been dealt with in existent interlingual renditions ) . After a short overview of how metaphor has been dealt with in the subject of Translation Studies. this paper discusses some deductions of a cognitive attack to metaphors for interlingual rendition theory and pattern.
Illustrations from reliable beginning and mark texts ( English and German. political discourse ) demo how transcribers handled metaphorical looks. and what effects this had for the text itself. for text response by the addressees. and for subsequent dianoetic developments. # 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Conceptual metaphor ; English ; French ; German ; Metaphorical look ; Translation Studies 1. Introduction Metaphor. as a typical characteristic of communicating. presents a challenge for interlingual rendition excessively. both for the practising transcriber and for its intervention in the subject of Translation Studies.
In the literature on interlingual rendition. the two chief issues have been. ? rstly. the translatability of metaphors. and secondly. the amplification of possible interlingual rendition * Tel. : ? 44-121-359-3611?4224 ; facsimile: ? 44-121-359-6153. ? E-mail reference: c. [ electronic mail protected ]Ac. uk ( C. Schaffner ) . 0378-2166/ $ – see front affair # 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. pragma. 2003. 10. 012 1254? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 processs.
In most instances. the debate is based on a traditional apprehension of metaphor as a? gure of address. as a lingual look which is substituted for another look ( with a actual significance ) . and whose chief map is the stylistic embroidery of the text. It is merely late that a cognitive attack to metaphor has been applied to Translation Studies. In this article. I want to exemplify on the footing of some illustrations from the linguistic communication brace. English and German. what a cognitive attack could offer to the description of metaphors in interlingual rendition. The treatment returns chiefly from the position of the subject of Translation Studies.
In taking this attack. it is besides possible to research how the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural position of interlingual rendition can lend to metaphor theory. 2. The intervention of metaphor as a interlingual rendition job Translation and construing as activities have existed for many centuries. and there is a long tradition of idea and an tremendous organic structure of sentiment about interlingual rendition ( californium. Delisle and Woodsworth. 1995 ; Robinson. 1997 ) . But it was non until the 2nd half of this century that Translation Studies developed into a subject in its ain right ( californium. Holmes. 1988 ; Snell-Hornby et Al. . 1992 ) .
Although at? rst conceived as a subdiscipline of applied linguistics. it has taken on constructs and methods of other subjects. notably text linguistics. communicating surveies. sociolinguistics. psycholinguistics. pragmatics. comparative literature. and late. cultural surveies. Alternatively of a uni? ed theory. we have a multiplicity of attacks. each of which focuses on speci? hundred facets of interlingual rendition. looks at the merchandise or the procedure of interlingual rendition from a speci? hundred angle. and uses speci? c? nomenclature and research methods ( californium. Chesterman. 2000 ; Gentzler. 1993 ; Schaffner. 1997b ; Stolze. 1994 ) .
The phenomenon of metaphor has on a regular basis been of concern to interlingual rendition bookmans who have argued about jobs of reassigning metaphors from one linguistic communication and civilization to another. The statements brought frontward demand to be seen within the context of a heterogenous subject. i. e. . with regard to the speci? hundred theoretical account of interlingual rendition within which the bookmans approached their subject. I will hence get down by giving a brief overview of the most outstanding attacks to interlingual rendition and supply a short history of how metaphor has been dealt with in the subject of Translation Studies.
Linguistics-based attacks de? ne interlingual rendition as transferring significances. as replacing beginning linguistic communication ( SL ) marks by tantamount mark linguistic communication ( TL ) marks ( e. g. . Catford. 1965 ) . The beginning text ( ST ) is to be reproduced in the TL every bit closely as possible. both in content and in signifier. Since the purpose of a interlingual rendition theory has frequently been seen as finding appropriate interlingual rendition methods. linguistic communication systems ( as langues ) have been studied in order to? nd the smallest tantamount units ( at the lexical and grammatical degrees ) which can be substituted for each other in an existent text ( as word ) .
Textlinguistic attacks de? ne interlingual rendition as beginning text induced mark text ( TT ) production ( Neubert. 1985 ) . The text itself is treated as the unit of interlingual rendition. and it is stressed that a text is ever a text in a state of affairs and in a civilization. Therefore. consideration needs to be given to situational factors. genre or text-typological conventions. addressees’ cognition and outlooks. and text maps.
The cardinal impression of equality is now? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 1255 applied to the textual degree. and de? ned as communicative equality. i. e. . a relationship between the mark text and the beginning text in which TT and ST are of equal value in the several communicative state of affairss in their civilizations.
Functionalist attacks de? ne interlingual rendition as a purposeful activity ( californium. Nord. 1997 ) . as? ? transcultural interaction ( Holz-Manttari. 1984 ) . as production of a TT which is appropriate for its speci? ed intent ( its skopos ) for mark addressees in mark fortunes ( californium. Vermeer’s ‘skopos theory’ . e. g. . Vermeer. 1996 ) . The existent signifier of the TT. its textual– lingual makeup. is hence dependent on its intended intent. and non ( entirely ) on the construction of the ST.
The yardstick for measuring the quality of the mark text is. therefore. its rightness for its intent. and non the equality to the beginning text. More modern lingual attacks acknowledge that interlingual rendition is non a simple permutation procedure. but instead the consequence of a complex text-processing activity. However. they argue that interlingual renditions need to be set apart from other sorts of derived texts. and that the label ‘translation’ should merely be applied to those instances where an equality relation obtains between ST and TT ( House. 1997 ; Koller. 1992 ) .
Equality is likely the most controversial impression in Translation Studies. Some interlingual rendition bookmans reject this impression outright. reasoning that by retaining ‘equivalence’ in the vocabulary. interlingual rendition bookmans sidestep the issue that ‘‘it is difference. non sameness or transparence or equality. which is inscribed in the operations of translation’’ ( Hermans. 1998: 61 ) . This position is besides expressed in current attacks that are inspired by postmodern theories and Cultural Studies. which argue that texts do non hold any per se stable significance that could be repeated elsewhere ( e. g. . Arrojo. 1998 ; Venuti. 1995 ) .
For Venuti. the mark text should be ‘‘the site where a different civilization emerges. where a reader gets a glance of a cultural other’’ ( Venuti. 1995: 306 ) . In the class of its development. the focal point of Translation Studies has. therefore. shifted markedly from lingual towards contextual and cultural factors which affect interlingual rendition. Major inspiration for the development of the subject has besides come from research conducted within the model of Descriptive Translation Studies ( DTS ) . taking at the description of interpreting and interlingual renditions ‘‘as they manifest themselves in the universe of our experience’’ ( Holmes. 1988: 71 ) .
Research here includes analyzing the socio-historical conditions in which interlingual renditions are produced and received. placing regularities in translators’ behavior and associating such regularities to interlingual rendition norms which operate both in the societal event and the cognitive act of interlingual rendition ( californium. Toury. 1995 ) . DTS and postmodern theories therefore de? ne interlingual rendition as norm-governed behavior ( Toury. 1995 ) and/or a cultural political pattern ( Venuti. 1996: 197 ) . The contrast between normative theoretical accounts ( what a Terrestrial time should look like ) and descriptive theoretical accounts ( what TTs really do look like ) is besides apparent in the treatments about metaphor interlingual rendition.
Metaphor has traditionally been described as an single lingual phenomenon ( a metaphorical look ) which can go a interlingual rendition job. Most bookmans use the same footings as those applied in semantic theories ( californium. Goatly. 1997 ) . i. e. . footings like ‘image’ or ‘vehicle’ for the conventional referent. ‘object’ or ‘topic’ for the existent unconventional referent. and ‘sense’ . ‘ground’ . or ‘tenor’ for the similarities and/or analogies involved.
Newmark ( 1981 ) explains these footings on the footing of the illustration rooting out the mistakes as follows: the object. that is. the point which is described by the metaphor. is faults. The image. that is. the point in footings of which the object is described. 1256? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 is rooting up weeds. The metaphor. that is. the word ( s ) used in the image. is rooting out. and the sense. which shows in what peculiar aspects the object and the image are similar. is ( a ) eliminate ; and ( B ) do so with enormous personal attempt.
He argues that in interpreting this? metaphor. a verb such as eliminer in French. or entfernen in German. would non make. ‘‘unless the phrase was of fringy importance in the text’’ ( Newmark. 1981: 85 ) . These statements re? ect the two chief concerns in Translation Studies. the translatability of metaphors. and processs to reassign them from a beginning linguistic communication into a mark linguistic communication. In equivalence-based attacks. the implicit in premise is that a metaphor. one time identi? erectile dysfunction. should ideally be transferred integral from SL to TL. However. cultural differences between SL and TL have frequently been mentioned as forestalling such an integral transportation.
For Dagut ( 1976: 22 ) . a metaphor is an ‘‘individual? ash of inventive insight’’ . a originative merchandise of go againsting the lingual system. and as such. extremely civilization speci? c. Its chief map is to floor its readers by making an aesthetic impact. In Dagut’s position. the consequence of daze is to be retained in a interlingual rendition. and if lingual and cultural factors hinder this consequence. so he maintains that the metaphor can non be translated.
For illustration. he uses Hebrew metaphors translated into English. and shows. for illustration. how Hebraic metaphors are closely connected to Biblical narratives and therefore civilization speci? degree Celsius ( as in the instance of the verb signifier ne’ekad—‘bound’ . i. e. . metaphorically. ‘bound like Isaac for the sacri? ce’ ) . Most writers agree that the image in the ST can non ever be retained in the TT ( e. g. . because the image that is attached to the metaphor is unknown in the TL. or the associations triggered by the SL metaphor get lost in the TL ) . and later several interlingual rendition processs have been suggested as alternate solutions to the ideal of reproducing the metaphor integral.
For illustration. new wave den Broeck ( 1981: 77 ) lists the undermentioned possibilities. 1. Translation ‘sensu stricto’ ( i. e. . transportation of both SL tenor and SL vehicle into TL ) . 2. Substitution ( i. e. . replacing of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with more or less the same tenor ) . 3. Paraphrase ( i. e. . rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical look in the TL ) . Van den Broeck provides these manners of metaphor interlingual rendition as a probationary strategy. i. e. . as theoretical possibilities. By associating them to classs of metaphor ( lexicalized. conventional. and private metaphors ) and to their usage and maps in texts. he presents some hypotheses about translatability.
In the tradition of DTS. new wave den Broeck sees the undertaking of a interlingual rendition theory non in ordering how metaphors should be translated. but in depicting and explicating identified solutions. He hence argues that elaborate descriptive surveies of how metaphors are really translated would be required to prove the suggested manners and his hypotheses. In contrast to van den Broeck’s descriptive model. Newmark’s interlingual rendition processs are presented in a normative manner. with the purpose of supplying rules. restricted regulations. and guidelines for interpreting and transcriber preparation.
He distinguishes between? ve? types of metaphors: dead. platitude. stock. recent. and original. In his treatment of stock metaphors. he proposes seven interlingual rendition processs. which have often been taken up in the literature. These processs are arranged in order of penchant ( Newmark. 1981: ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 1257 87–91 ) . Newmark’s focal point is on the lingual systems. and his statements can be linked to the permutation theory of metaphor ( californium. Goatly. 1997: 116f ) . ( All illustrations given here for illustration are Newmark’s ain illustrations ) .
1. Reproducing the same image in the TL. e. g. . aureate hair—goldenes Haar. 2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does non collide with the? TL civilization. e. g. . other fish to fry—d’autres chew the fat a fouetter. ? 3. Translating metaphor by simile. retaining the image. e. g. . Ces zones cryptuaire ou s’ ? ? elabore la beaute. —The crypt-like countries where beauty is manufactured. Harmonizing to Newmark. this process can modify the daze of the metaphor.
4. Translating metaphor ( or simile ) by simile plus sense ( or on occasion a metaphor plus? sense ) . e. g. . tout un vocabulaire molieresque—a whole repertory of medical empiricism ` such as Moliere might hold used. Newmark suggests the usage of this via media solution in order to avoid comprehension jobs ; nevertheless. it consequences in a loss of the intended consequence.
5. Converting metaphor to sense. e. g. . sein Brot verdienen—to earn one’s life. This process is recommended when the TL image is excessively wide in sense or non appropriate to the registry. However. affectional facets may acquire lost. 6. Omission. if the metaphor is excess. 7. Using the same metaphor combined with sense. in order to implement the image.
Toury ( 1995: 81ff ) points out that these interlingual rendition processs start from the metaphor as identified in the ST. and that the identified metaphor ( the metaphorical look ) is treated as a unit of interlingual rendition. He argues that from the position of the TT. two extra instances can be identified: the usage of a metaphor in the TT for a non-metaphorical look in the ST ( non-metaphor into metaphor ) . and the add-on of a metaphor in the TT without any lingual motive in the ST ( zero into metaphor ) . This position deals with metaphor non as a interlingual rendition job ( of the ST ) . but as a interlingual rendition solution.
In his descriptive survey of? the interlingual rendition of verb metaphors ( for the linguistic communication brace Swedish and German ) . Kjar ( 1988 ) included such an reverse analysis every bit good. but did non travel much beyond a presentation of statistical findings. Kurth’s ( 1995 ) findings. excessively. are derived from a descriptive analysis of existent interlingual renditions. Based on the interaction theory of metaphor ( californium. Goatly. 1997: 117ff ) and on scenes and frames semantics as applied to interlingual rendition ( Vannerem and Snell-Hornby. 1986 ) . he illustrates how several metaphors interact in the building of a macro-scene.
In German interlingual renditions of plants by Charles Dickens. he shows which TL frames have been chosen for a SL scene ( e. g. . ‘humanizing’ objects by anthropomorphical metaphors ) and what the effects are for the consequence of the text ( e. g. . weakening of an image ) . 3. Metaphors from the cognitive linguistics position: effects for Translation Studies The cognitive attack to metaphor. mostly initiated by Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By ( 1980 ) . can lend new penetrations into interlingual rendition every bit good.
This attack. nevertheless. is merely bit by bit taking root within Translation Studies ( e. g. . Al? Harrasi. 2000 ; Cristofoli et Al. . 1998 ; Schaffner. 1997a. 1998 ; Stienstra. 1993 ) . The chief 1258? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 statement of the cognitive attack is that metaphors are non merely cosmetic elements. but instead. basic resources for idea procedures in human society. Metaphors are a agencies of understanding one sphere of experience ( a mark sphere ) in footings of another ( a beginning sphere ) .
The beginning sphere is mapped onto the mark sphere. whereby the structural constituents of the base scheme are transferred to the mark sphere ( ontological correspondences ) . therefore besides leting for knowledge-based illations and deductions ( epistemological correspondences ) . Such theoretical accounts are mostly encoded and understood in lingual footings. In cognitive linguistics. the term ‘metaphor’ is used to mention to this conceptual function ( e. g. . ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER ) . 1 and the term ‘metaphorical expression’ is used to mention to an single lingual look that is based on a conceptualisation and therefore sanctioned by a function ( e. g. . ‘I gave blowhole to my anger’ ) .
Establishing the conceptualisation on which a peculiar metaphorical look is based is relevant to interlingual rendition. excessively. Such a position provides a different reply to the inquiry of the translatability of metaphors. Translatability is no longer a inquiry of the single metaphorical look. as identi? erectile dysfunction in the ST. but it becomes linked to the degree of conceptual systems in beginning and mark civilization.
In what follows. some deductions of such a cognitive attack to metaphors for interlingual rendition theory and pattern are illustrated. On the footing of reliable beginning and mark texts. I describe how transcribers have handled metaphorical looks. This description is linked to a consideration of the effects of such interlingual rendition solutions on the text and its response by the addressees. The illustrations come from political texts. and the linguistic communications involved are chiefly English and German. The focal point of this paper is the description and account of identi? ed interlingual rendition solutions.
It is therefore related to DTS. but. in contrast to van den Broeck. for illustration. I do non feign to prove pre-established interlingual rendition strategies or hypotheses. My get downing point is reliable TT constructions for metaphorical looks in STs. That is. the description is preponderantly product-oriented. 2 with the account being linked to text. discourse. and civilization. In my decision. I point out some ways in which the subject of Translation Studies can lend to metaphor theory. 4. Metaphor and text In the undermentioned two illustrations. we have an indistinguishable metaphorical look in the?
German ST. Brucke ( span ) . but it has been handled otherwise in the TTs ( both extracts come from addresss by the former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl ) : 1 In this metaphor. ontological correspondences are. for case. ‘the container is the body’ . ‘the heat of fluid is the anger’ ; epistemological correspondences are so. for case. ‘when the fluid is heated past a certain bound. force per unit area increases to the point at which the container explodes’ ( beginning ) and ‘when choler additions past a? certain bound. force per unit area increases to the point at which the individual loses control’ ( californium. Kovecses. 1986: 17f ) .
2 A process-oriented analysis. i. e. . an analysis of the existent cognitive procedures in the translator’s head during the interlingual rendition act. would add valuable penetrations every bit good. Furthermore. such a position would besides prove the cogency of Lakoff and Johnson’s ( 1980 ) theory. For illustration. one could prove whether transcribers. as text receiving systems and translators. really do entree conceptual metaphors when building readings of metaphorical looks ( californium. Glucksberg. 2001 ) . and how this might act upon the decision-making for the TT construction.
Research into interlingual rendition procedures ( e. g. . most late Danks et al. . 1997 ; Kussmaul. 2000 ; Tirkkonen-Condit? ? ? and Jaaskelainen. 2000 ) has non yet been conducted chiefly with metaphors in head. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 1259? ? Wir wollen dice Brucke uber den Atlantik auf Allen Gebieten—Politik und Wirtschaft. Wissenschaft und Kultur—festigen und ausbauen.
We aim to beef up and widen the transatlantic span in all domains. in political relations and commercialism. scientific discipline and civilization. 3? So sind dice amerikanischen Soldaten ein wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke? uber den Atlantik geworden. ( literally: . . . an of import constituent of the translatlantic span ) .
The American forces in Germany are therefore an of import constituent of transatlantic friendly relationship. ( accent are mine ) How ( if at all ) can traditional interlingual rendition processs account for these different solutions? Using Newmark’s interlingual rendition processs. we could state that in the? rst instance. the process is metaphor for metaphor ( i. e. . reproduction of the image ) . whereas in the 2nd instance the metaphor has been deleted. These texts would be illustrations of what Newmark calls ‘authoritative texts’ . and in his guidelines to transcribers he states that in such texts. metaphors should be preserved.
As a 2nd standard to steer the translator’s determination. Newmark suggests the importance of the metaphor in the text. The? rst infusion comes from Kohl’s address on having the Honorary Freedom of the City of London ( 18 February 1998 ) . the 2nd one from his address at the ceremonial at Tempelhof Airport to mark the Berlin Airlift on the juncture of the visit of President Clinton ( 14 May? 1998 ) . The Berlin Airlift is known in German as Luftbrucke ( literally: ‘bridge in the air’ ) . In the London address. the fiftieth day of remembrance of the Airlift is shortly mentioned. but it is non the? existent subject of the address.
In the Tempelhof address. nevertheless. the Luftbrucke is the existent subject. and it is used often in the short text. therefore lending to the construction of the text. Based on these considerations. Newmark’s recommendation presumptively would be: metaphor into same metaphor in the? rst instance. but metaphor into sense in the 2nd instance. If we describe this reliable illustration on the footing of a cognitive attack. ? metaphorical looks such as Brucke are considered ‘‘in the visible radiation of the metaphorical construct of which they are manifestations. and non as single parlances to be? tted into the mark text every bit good as they can’’ ( Stienstra. 1993: 217 ) .
In this instance. one and the same historical event was conceptualized in different ways by different civilizations. utilizing different metaphors. The beginning sphere of the English ‘airlift’ is a TRANSPORT sphere. concentrating on the medium ( air ) . the action. and affecting a way ( from–to ) . In the German? Luftbrucke. the beginning sphere is an Architectural STRUCTURE. concentrating on the? medium and the structural object. As said above. the day of remembrance of the Luftbrucke is the existent subject of Kohl’s Tempelhof address ; but is the span so the dominant metaphor in the text as a whole? In other words: what is the underlying conceptual metaphor by which?
the metaphorical look Freundschaftsbrucke is sanctioned? A closer analysis of the text above shows that the debate is structured around the cardinal thought of American–German friendly relationship. In the? rst? ve paragraphs. Kohl gives an? history of the historical event itself and of its political signi? cance. Luftbrucke occurs six 3 Translators are usually non identified by name in the instance of interlingual renditions being produced for the German authorities. 1260? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 times in these? rst paragraphs. each clip translated as Airlift. since each clip it is used as a proper name.
Kohl so links the historical facet to the development of American– German friendly relationship over the last 50 old ages. both at a personal degree and at the governmental? degree. And it is here that he speaks of the Freundschaftsbrucke ( working the span image as a rhetorical agency for the argumentative map of a political address ) : [ . . . ] in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten haben rund 7 Millionen amerikanische Soldaten bei United Nationss in Deutschland Dienst getan. Gemeinsam Massachusetts Institute of Technology ihren Familien waren Es etwa 15 Millionen Amerikaner. decease fernab ihrer Heimat. ihren Beitrag zur?
Erhaltung von Frieden und Freiheit leisteten [ . . . ] . Im taglichen Kontakt Massachusetts Institute of Technology ihren? ? deutschen Nachbarn haben sie viele personliche Beziehungen geknupft. Diese wurden? [ . . . ] eines der Fundamente der engen Freundschaft zwischen unseren Volkern. Es? ? ? Sind ja nicht zuletzt dice alltaglichen Erfahrungen und Eindrucke. dice personlichen und menschlichen Begegnungen. dice in diesen Jahrzehnten die deutsch-amerikanischen? Beziehungen Massachusetts Institute of Technology Leben erfullt haben. So sind dice amerikanischen Soldaten ein? ? wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke uber den Atlantik geworden.
4 What we can see from such an analysis is that Kohl’s address is structured around a metaphorical apprehension of friendly relationship: Germany and the USA are friends. Sing the province metaphorically as a individual seeking friendly relationship involves a metaphorical construct of intimacy. Thus. all mentions in Kohl’s address to Kontakte. Beziehungen. Begegnungen ( contacts. a heavy web of personal ties. personal brushs ) can be described as metaphorical looks that are sanctioned by the conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS ( see besides Gibbs’ remarks on primary metaphors ( Gibbs et al. . this issue ) ) .
One of the agencies which allows friends who live far apart to see close personal contact. is a span. A span links two end points. here the USA and Germany ( ontological correspondence ) . therefore supplying an chance for common contact ( epistemological correspondence ) . ? From such a conceptual position. we can state that rendering Freundschaftsbrucke as transatlantic friendly relationship does non truly represent a instance of metaphor omission. The conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS are present in both ST and TT.
It is these conceptual metaphors that are relevant for the construction of the text and its overall map as a political address. At the macro-level. the conceptual metaphors are indistinguishable in ST and TT. although at the micro-level a speci? c? metaphorical look in the ST ( Freundschaftsbrucke ) has non been rendered in precisely the same manner in the TT. However. transatlantic friendly relationship in the TT can every bit be characterized as a metaphorical look which is justi? erectile dysfunction by the same conceptual metaphors.
4 The reliable English interlingual rendition of this transition reads as follows: Over the past decennaries some seven million American military mans have been stationed in Germany. Together with their households. that makes approximately 15 million Americans who. in this state far from place. hold helped. [ . . . ] to safeguard peace and autonomy. In their daily contacts with Germans the American community here has built up a dense web of personal ties cardinal to the close friendly relationship between our two states.
It is non least this wealth of personal brushs. these mundane feelings and experiences which make German–American dealingss a meaningful portion of day-to-day life. The American forces in Germany are therefore an of import constituent of transatlantic friendly relationship. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 1261 If we take a cognitive attack. a? rst facet of metaphors in interlingual rendition can hence be described as follows: non all single manifestations of a conceptual metaphor in a beginning text are accounted for in the mark text by utilizing the same metaphorical look.
This statement is in line with one of Stienstra’s ( 1993 ) ? ndings. On the footing of several Bible interlingual renditions into English and Dutch. she illustrates that the conceptual metaphor YHWH IS THE HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE. which is a cardinal metaphor of the Old Testament. was preserved at the macro-level. even if speci? hundred textual manifestations were changed or non accounted for in each single instance. There is another illustration in Kohl’s Tempelhof address which provides penetrations into strategic utilizations of metaphors and their intervention in interlingual rendition.
In lucubrating on German– American partnership in the universe of today and tomorrow. Kohl says: ? Unser Ziel. Herr Prasident. ist Es. den Bau des Hauses Europa zu vollenden. Dabei wollen wir. da? unsere amerikanischen Freunde in diesem Haus auf Dauer ihre feste Wohnung haben. ( literally: [ . . . ] We want our American friends to hold a lasting flat in this house. Our end is to finish the building of the European house—with a lasting right of abode for our American friends—and enable the household of European states to populate together side by side in enduring peace.
( italics are mine ) From a cognitive position. we can state that the metaphorical looks Haus Europa. Haus. and feste Wohnung are all sanctioned by the underlying conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE. which is an illustration of an ontological metaphor ( Lakoff and Johnson. 1980 ) .
Whereas in the ST. the structural elements have been lexicalized. the TT has made the deductions of the beginning sphere explicit ; that is. an flat ensures a right of abode. and these are epistemological correspondences. Both ST and TT remain within the conceptual metaphor of a house. while the extra information in the TT ( ‘‘and enable the household of European states to populate together side by side in enduring peace’’ ) can be seen as lucubrating on this metaphor. therefore besides supplying a conceptual nexus to the metaphor INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS which structures Kohl’s address.
Identifying metaphors and depicting mark text pro? lupus erythematosuss is a legitimate research purpose for a interlingual rendition bookman. An extra inquiry concerns the causes and effects of peculiar interlingual renditions ( californium. Chesterman. 1998 ) . I will exemplify this? rst. by mention to the Haus Europa once more. and so by noticing on the effects of a speci? hundred interlingual rendition solution ( fester Kern—hard nucleus ) .
Such an analysis needs to set the text into its historical context. accounting for its map. its addressees. etc. Metaphor is. therefore. no longer a interlingual rendition phenomenon of one peculiar text. but becomes an intertextual phenomenon. 5. Metaphor as an intertextual phenomenon The metaphorical look Haus Europa? gured conspicuously in the discourse of Helmut Kohl in the 1990s. speci? cally with mention to issues of European integrating. Actually. the metaphor of the common European house was introduced into political discourse in the mid-1980s by the so leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev.
As a 1262? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 ( 2004 ) 1253–1269 rhenium? ection of the ‘new political thinking’ in the Communist Party under Gorbachev. the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was to stand for the thought of all European provinces. East and West of the ‘Iron Curtain’ . life and working together in peaceable coexistence. The base scheme for Gorbachev’s metaphor was a multi-story flat block with several entrywaies. in which several households live. each in their ain? Ats ( i. e. . the archetypal house in bigger Russian towns ) .
In his ain discourse. Gorbachev barely elaborated on the structural elements of a house. but most often stressed the regulations and norms for populating together in this common house. The regulations of the house have to vouch that every household can populate their ain lives. without intervention from their neighbors. so that the common house is protected and kept in order ( californium. Chilton. 1996 ; ? Schaffner. 1996 ) . The Russian metaphorical look dom was rendered as house in English5 and as Haus in German political discourse in describing on Gorbachev’s new political thoughts and purposes. which were non readily welcomed in Western European states.
But more frequently than being rejected outright. the metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was taken up and conceptually challenged. In British political discourse ( particularly in the 2nd half of the 1980s ) . the structural facets dominated in the debate. determined by characteristics of the archetypal English house. That is. there are mentions to detached and semi-detached houses. to fencings. and to inquiries such as who is to populate in which room or on which? oor.