MTI Thesis Translating Metaphors from the Cognitive Perspective --A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global Marketingi摘 要在人类生活中，隐喻不仅普遍存在于日常交流中，更在经济、技术、法律等专业领域中得到广泛的应用。
隐喻常被视为属于语言层面的一种修辞手段，而忽视了其作为人们思维方式的体现。
认知语言学脱离了传统修辞学的桎梏，提出了从认知的角度研究隐喻。
这不仅为研究隐喻提供了新的视角，也为探索隐喻翻译开辟了一条新的思路。
本文基于教科书《全球营销》第九版的翻译实践，从认知隐喻的角度出发探讨隐喻的翻译方法。
教材原著的写作风格轻松幽默，妥当地翻译原文中的隐喻，避免给目标语读者带来理解障碍尤为重要。
首先，本文从传统隐喻理论和认知隐喻理论出发，回顾了有关隐喻的观点, 讨论了认知语言学家对隐喻的分类情况。
接着，文章探讨了认知隐喻的工作机制，发现认知隐喻学家提出的映射机制可以帮助译者很好的理解隐喻。
在基于源语和目标语之间的 “相似的映射条件” 和 “不同的映射条件” 隐喻映射的基础上，本文总结出两种类型的隐喻翻译策略：保留和替换。
关键词：认知隐喻，映射，翻译，市场营销 认知隐喻，映射，翻译，全球营销Abstract MTI ThesisiiAbstractIn everyday life, metaphors not only exist in daily communication but also are appliedwidely in the professional fields, including economy, technology, law and etc. Metaphors are always viewed as a kind of rhetorical device, which is confined to the language field. People tend to ignore that metaphors can also reflect the way of thinking. Free of the traditional rhetoric’s constraints, cognitive linguistics put forward to study the metaphor from the cognitive perspective. This not only provides a new angle to study metaphors but also works out a new way to do research on metaphor translation.Based on the translation practice on the textbook, Global Marketing (9th Edition), this report explores the metaphor translation from the cognitive perspective. As the textbook is written with great humor and ease, it is vital to deal with the metaphor translation properly so as to facilitate target readers’ understanding. Firstly, this report reviews the traditional and cognitive views on metaphors respectively and discusses the classification of metaphors based on the cognitive linguists’ views. Then, this report explores the working mechanism of cognitive metaphors and finds out the mapping system of cognitive metaphors can facilitate translators’ understanding of metaphors. Based on the “similar mapping conditions” and “different mapping conditions”, this report summarizes two translation strategies, which are retaining and replacing.Key words: c ognitive metaphor, mapping, translation, global marketingMTI Thesis Translating Metaphors from the Cognitive Perspective --A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global MarketingTable of Contents摘要 (i)Abstract (ii)Chapter One Introduction (1)1.1 Research Background (1)1.2 Research Significance (1)1.3 Structure of the Report (2)Chapter Two Task Description (3)2.1 Background of the Translation Task (3)2.2 Characteristics of the Source Text (4)Chapter Three Literature Review (5)3.1 Traditional Views of Metaphors (5)3.2 Cognitive Views of Metaphors (6)3.2.1 Image-schema Metaphors (8)3.2.2 One-shot Image Metaphors (9)3.3 Metaphor Translation in Translation Theories (10)3.3.1 Metaphor Translation in Traditional Translation Theories (10)3.3.2 Translating Metaphors under the Guidance of Cognitive Linguistics (12)Chapter Four Case Analysis (14)4.1 Cognitive Processes of Metaphor Translation (14)4.2 Image-schema Metaphor Translation (15)4.2.1 Retaining image-schema metaphors in TL (15)4.2.2 Replacing image-schema metaphors in TL (18)4.3 One-shot Image Metaphor Translation (20)4.3.1 Retaining one-shot image metaphors in TL (20)4.3.2 Replacing one-shot image metaphors in TL (22)Chapter Five Conclusion (25)5.1 Major Findings (25)5.2 Limitations (26)Acknowledgements (27)References (28)iiiAbstract MTI Thesis Appendix I (30)ivList of Figures3.1 Working mechanism of the cognitive metaphor theory (7)4.1 Translation processes raised by Nida and Taber (12)4.2 OUT schema 1 raised by Johnson (14)4.3 OUT schema 2 raised by Johnson (14)vChapter OneIntroduction1.1 Research Background“Four decades ago, the phrase global marketing, did not exist. Nowadays, companies go global to survive as competitors will enter home markets with lower costs, more experience, and better products” said by Keegan and Green (2017, p. 4). Apple Inc, Procter & Gamble, General Motor, Toyota, Philips, Lenovo, Huawei, and many other transnational companies are playing more and more important roles in the global market as well as in people’s daily life. The Chinese government also launches new policies to encourage domestic enterprises to go globally. It is important to introduce the latest business knowledge into China and know how the market is operated globally.Launching a higher standard on textbook translation is critical for it is one of the major resources of knowledge input. Global Marketing provides a critical awareness of the principal concepts, frameworks, and techniques of international marketing and have achieved success worldwide. The first edition of this textbook was published in September 1996 and achieved immediate success. Now, it comes to the newest version, the ninth edition, which was published in 2016 and marked its 20th anniversary as well. This textbook was translated into a variety of languages and regarded as a classical reading.1.2 Research SignificanceThe original textbook was written with great humor and ease and used various metaphors to facilitate readers understanding of abstract, shapeless concepts through transferring them into familiar, concrete, tangible concepts which are directly grounded in people’s experience. This highlights the importance of translating the metaphors in the textbook. However, the translation work of this textbook is far more behind. There is no available Chinses version of the textbook, Global Marketing (9th Edition), in the market.1Chapter One Introduction MTI ThesisThe only available translated copies of this textbook are the 4th edition and the 6th edition, whose original English version was published in 2005 and 2010 respectively. To keep pace with the swift development of the economy and volatile marketing environment, the 9th edition has been updated and added various new marketing cases and strategies. Therefore, there is a need to translate the latest one, 9th edition, so as to bring the newest marketing knowledge into China.1.3 Structure of the ReportThis report discusses the metaphor translation from the cognitive perspective and includes five chapters. The first chapter gives an introduction to the background and significance of the research. Chapter two is composed of the background of the translation task and the characteristics of the source text. Chapter three is made up of the literature review on the traditional and cognitive views on the metaphors as well as translation theories on the metaphors. Chapter four discusses the translation processes on cognitive metaphors and applies the processes into the case analysis. Specific examples are extracted from the translation materials to explore the metaphor translation through the cognitive perspective. Chapter five summarizes the major findings and points out the limitations of this report.2MTI Thesis Translating Metaphors from the Cognitive Perspective --A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global MarketingChapter TwoTask Description2.1 Background of the Translation TaskGlobal Marketing was written by Prof. Keegan and Prof. Green in English. This textbook has been adopted at scores of universities and translated into different languages, such as Japanese, Arabic, Korean, Chinese, Spanish and Italian. The 9th edition, building on the worldwide success of the previous editions, is the latest version and marks its 20th anniversary as well.Currently, the latest and only available Chinese copy of this textbook in the market is the 6th edition, while its English version was published as early as 2006. To supply up-to-date insights into the complex shifts in the global market, the 9th edition has updated and revised almost fifty percentage of the chapters, such as opening vignettes, end-of-chapter cases, all the data in the tables. It is clear to see the translation work is far more behind. Meanwhile, as textbook translation is one of the major resources of knowledge input, there is a need to translate the latest version so as to keep pace with the swift changes around the world.Besides, the previous Chinese version is obscure and contains heavy translationese to some extent. What’s worse, it also has obvious translation mistakes, e.g. “unparalleled expansion into global markets” was translated into “在全球市场上实行不对称的扩张”. A proper translation can be “在全球市场上进行大规模的扩张”. Thus, the translation of this classic textbook should be treated seriously so to facilitate target readers’ understanding on the advanced global marketing knowledge .3Chapter Two Task Description MTI Thesis 2.2 Characteristics of the Source TextThe source text takes an environmental and strategic approach by outlining the major dimensions of the global business environment. It is authoritative in content yet relaxed and assured in style and tone. The textbook contains scores of real-life examples as well as metaphorical expressions to illustrate vividly the dynamic, integrated nature of the global market.Metaphors are reflected in this textbook by a wide variety of expressions : “low quality”, “ top managers”, “turn sour on global sales”, “horn of plenty”, “shove cars into consumer’s throat” and etc. People may get used to some of these words and won’t regard them as metaphorical expressions. That’s because “people’s conventional ways of talking about things pre-suppose a metaphor people are hardly ever conscious of” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 5). For example, “low quality” and “top managers” are based on people’s physical experience and then associate abstract ideas that do not really have a location with a particular place in the space (1980, p. 14). In this way, certain abstract ideas are linked to others, which can facilitate the understanding on abstract concepts. However, different languages and culture may conceptualize things metaphorically in different ways. These require translators should deal with metaphors cautiously and properly as well as try the best to retain the humorous tone of the original English copy.4MTI Thesis Translating Metaphors from the Cognitive Perspective --A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global MarketingChapter ThreeLiterature Review3.1 Traditional Views of MetaphorsAlthough the studies on metaphors have been centuries, it is the traditional views ofmetaphors that dominate the study on metaphors before the presence of other academic schools are known. Traditional views regard metaphors as “the characteristic of language alone” and “a property of words rather than thought or action” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p. 8). Traditional views are mainly composed of three major theories, which are “comparison theory” (raised by Aristotle), “substitution theory” (Quintilian), and “interaction theory” (Richards).The study on metaphors is first raised by Aristotle, a great philosopher in Greeks, who defines metaphor as “metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on grounds of analogy” (Aristotle, 1954, pp. 6-9). Aristotle points out that metaphor is based on analogy. He also speaks highly of using metaphors and mentions “greatest thing, by far, was to be a master of metaphor” (Aristotle, 1954，p. 2). The biggest contribution that Aristotle makes is that he demonstrates the nature of metaphor is the transference of meaning. But he restricts metaphorical transference is taken place at the level of words rather than sentences (Ricoeur, 1977).Quintilian, a Roman rhetorician, proposes the theory of substitution firstly in the first century and reveals that metaphor is essentially a sort of rhetoric, which “substitutes another word for one word” (Quintilian, 1907). He appraises metaphors as “the commonest and most beautiful of tropes... For if it is correctly and appropriately applied, it is quite impossible for its effect to be commonplace, mean or unpleasing. It adds to the copiousness of language by the interchange of words and by borrowing and finally succeeds in the supremely difficult task of providing a name for everything” (Quintilian,1907, pp. 4-7). Both Aristotle and Quintilian considers metaphor is ornamental and5decorative in nature and was a deviation of normal language in its structure and form (Shu, 2000, p. 3).I.A. Richards is acknowledged to be the originator of the interaction theory. In the 1930s, Richards (1936) explains the principle of metaphor in his book, The philosophy of rhetoric, as “when we use a metaphor we have two thoughts of different things active together and supported by a single word, or phrase, whose meaning is a resultant of their interaction.” Interaction theory of metaphor is further developed by Max Black, who explains “the working of metaphor as an interplay between its focus and its frame” (Black, 1962). Black also argues that the frame of the metaphor “imposes extensions of meaning upon the focal word” (1962). To clarify how the two thoughts interacts together, Black regards “the two components of a metaphor as systems, rather than isolated words or phrases” and systems contains “the general knowledge and beliefs about their subject matter” (“associated commonplaces”) (Black, 1962). Then a filter metaphor is used by Black to explain “how the associated commonplaces of the subsidiary subject (indicated by the focus of the metaphor) organize the principal subject (indicated by the frame of the metaphor)” (1962).3.2 Cognitive Views of MetaphorsGeorge Lakoff and Mark Johnson reinterprets metaphors from a new perspective and found the conceptual metaphor theory (CMT). Their publication of Metaphors We Live By sets a milestone of studying metaphors from the cognitive perspective, distinguishing them from the traditional rhetorical and semantic metaphor studies. Firstly, they think metaphors are widely applied in the ordinary language rather than restricted into the literary texts. Secondly, they regard metaphors as a matter of thought and action. Metaphors should not be viewed as language alone.Lakoff and Johnson interprets metaphor in details as “we have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (1980, p. 8). In terms of the essence of metaphor, Lakoff and--A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global Marketing Johnson point out “metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” and “a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system” (1980, p. 5). Kovecses also claims: “when one conceptual domain is understood in terms of another conceptual domain, we have a conceptual metaphor” (2002, p. 48).The working mechanism of cognitive metaphor theory is the mapping across domains (Figure 3.1). Source domain is “the conceptual domain from which people draw metaphorical expressions” (Kovecses, 2002, p. 6). Target domain is “what people try to understand” (Kovecses, 2002, p. 6). This cognitive system can facilitate people’s understanding of abstract, shapeless concepts through transferring them into familiar, concrete, tangible concepts which are directly grounded people’s experience (Kovecses, 2002, p. 48).Figure 3.1: Working mechanism of the cognitive metaphor theoryTo illustrate the working mechanism of cognitive metaphor theory, this report cites one example from Johnson’s the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. A love relationship can be described by a cognitive metaphor as “our relationship has hit a dead-end street”. Here love (target domain) is being conceptualized as a journey (source domain), implying that this love relationship is stalled and the lovers have to break up or find a way to figure out the problems. Meanwhile, Lakoff also pointed out “metaphorical mappings may vary in universality; some seem to be universal, others are widespread, and some seem to be culture-specific” (1993). This will add difficulties to convert the metaphors from source language (SL) to the target language (TL).Kovecses classifies the cognitive metaphors into image-schema metaphors and one-shot image metaphors. Ye Zinan also points out many scholars have the same classification as well (2013, p. 34). Based on this classification, this report will make ananalysis of cognitive metaphors from image-schema metaphors and one-shot image metaphors.3.2.1 Image-schema MetaphorsJohnson defines image schema as “the pervasive act of metaphorically extending a schema from the physical to the nonphysical”, “a means of structuring particular experiences schematically, so as to give order and connectedness to our perceptions and conceptions” and “image schema (schemata) are those recurring structures of, or in, our perceptual interactions, bodily experiences, and cognitive operations” (Johnson, 1987, pp. 34-79). Kovecses says “images that have extremely general schematic structure are called image-schemas. Image-schemas of various sorts, such as the container or force schemas, structure many abstract concepts metaphorically (2000, p. 40). Meanwhile, Johnson also explains that schemata were not diagrams on a page nor particular images. To experience the connected and unfiled world, there must be a repeatable pattern, schemata.To illustrate the image-schema metaphors, this report cited three examples from the books of Lakoff and Johnson as well as of Kovecses:Example 1: I'm feeling up. My spirits rose. I'm feeling down. My spirits sank (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 15).Analysis: Example 1 coveys the UP-DOWN schema. This is based on people’s physical experience on spatial orientation. Dropping posture is always associated with sadness and depression. While, erect posture manifests a positive emotional state (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 15).Example 2: He's in love. He's coming out of the coma (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.32).Analysis: Example 2 is the CONTAINER (IN-OUT) schemas. The states of love and coma are conceptualized as containers. The physical basis is that people get so used to projecting their own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Even where there is no physical bounding surface, people can still “make off--A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global Marketing territory so that it has an inside and a bounding surface” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, pp. 29-30).Example 3: the heart of the problem; the head of the department (Kovecses, 2000, p.16).Analysis: Example 3 utilizes the human body as the source domain to illustrate the abstract target domain metaphorically. The physical basis is that “both heart and head are rather important organs for the human being. They are used to describe the key part of the problem and the importance of the department respectively”(Kovecses, 2000, p. 16).Scholars have various classifications on image schemas, owing to the different emphasis on the definition. Johnson lists twenty-seven image schemas, namely “container, iteration, near-far, scale, balance, enablement, attraction, cycle, blockage, process, path, center, object, part-whole, merging, counterforce, contact, compulsion, mass-count, restraint removal, link, surface, splitting, full-empty, matching, superimposition, and collection” (Johnson, 1987). Talmy proposes four key schematic systems, which are “the configurational system, the perspectival system, attentional system, and the force-dynamic system” (Talmy, 2000). Croft and Cruse mention seven kinds of image schema metaphors: “container, scale, whole, force, match, space and exist” (Croft & Cruse,2004).3.2.2 One-shot Image MetaphorsKovecses points out that there is also a group of one-shot image metaphors. These are metaphors that “images that are not based on recurrent experience with a generic structure but capture a specific experience”, “we bring into correspondence two rich images for a temporary purpose on a particular occasion”, and “involve the superimposition of one rich image onto another rich image” (2002, pp. 40-251). Lakoff claims that this kind of image metaphor maps “only one image onto other image” and “conventional mental images onto other conventional mental images by virtue of their internal structure” (1987, p. 219). In terms of the conventional images, they are acquired largely unconsciously and automatically over the years by members of a cultural community (Lakoff, 1987, p. 220).Both Lakoff and Kovecses used the example of “my wife….whose waist is an hourglass” to interpret it. This example has two detailed images: one is the body of awoman and one for an hourglass. The image of an hourglass (source domain) is used to map the body of a woman (target domain). Kovecses explains this example in detail in his book, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, that“what is especially noteworthy is that the words themselves do not say anything about which part of the hourglass should be mapped onto which part of the woman’s body. Yet, readers can know exactly which part maps onto which on the basis of the common shape” (2002, p. 51). This makes image metaphors are conceptual as well, rather than simply linguistic.3.3 Metaphor Translation in Translation Theories3.3.1 Metaphor Translation in Traditional Translation TheoriesVarious theories and approaches have been proposed with regard to metaphor translation. Metaphor translation in traditional translation theories are based on the traditional understanding of metaphor as “a figure of speech, as a linguistic expression which is substituted for another expression (with a literal meaning), and whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of the text”(Schäffner, 2003). The main function of metaphors in traditional translation theories is the stylistic embellishment of the text.Kloepfer, Reiss, Mason and many other scholars view metaphor translation is no different than translation in general. Kloepfer claimed “all the metaphors: their famous “boldness” is no problem for the translation, on the contrary, the bolder and more creative the metaphor, the easier it is to repeat in other languages”(Snell-Hornby, 1995, p. 57). Reiss includes Kloepfer’s statement in her discussion of metaphor and points out that a novel metaphor, which has been created by the author, should be translated “wortwörtlich” ‘literally’ (Reiss, 1971, pp. 43–44). “There cannot be a theory of the translation of metaphor; there can only be a theory of translation” said by Mason (1982, p. 149).However, Nida and Dagut hold the opposite opinion that metaphors are untranslatable. Nida identifies there are vacancies and gaps between culturally defined metaphors and says “even for an obvious metaphor,e.g. Adam’s apple, it is clear that some adjustment in lexical form is inevitable, especially in regions where apples are unknown and no one has--A Report of E-C Translation of the Textbook Global Marketing ever heard of Adam. In Uduk, for example, this anatomical feature becomes ‘the thing that wants beer”(1964, p. 219). Dagut views metaphors as “individual flash of imaginative insight” and their main function were to shock readers with creating an aesthetic impact (1976, p. 22). For Dagut, metaphor is highly culture specific and the translation of metaphor should also retain this effect of shock. If this effect is damaged due to the cultural factors, Dagut views metaphors can not be translated and there is no “a single generalization about the translation of metaphor” (Dagut ,1976).Newmark (1981) claims that metaphors are translatable, but poses a considerable degree of inequivalence. With offering principles, rules and guidelines, Newmark divides metaphors into six types: dead, cliché, stock, adapted, recent and original, and represents seven metaphor translation procedures in a prescriptive way (Newmark, 2001). Van Den Broeck mentions “translatability keeps an inverse proportion with the quantity of information manifested by the metaphor and the degree to which this information is structured in a text. The less the quantity of information conveyed by a metaphor and the less complex the structural relations into which it enters in. a text, the more translatable this metaphor will be, and vice versa”(1981, p. 84). To reproduce the metaphors, Van Den Broeck uses a descriptive framework and lists three solutions: “translation sensu stricto”, “substitution” and “paraphrase”(1982, p.77).Chinese scholars have also done tremendous research on metaphor translation in various perspectives. Wei Mengfen (2011) investigates metaphors from the cultural insights and explores the effect of culture on metaphors’ translation. From the pragmatic perspective, Chen Xirong (2003) points out metaphors have the features of calculability and uncertainty in the context of culture and situation, enlightening the translation on metaphors. Based on the seven standards and four categories of textuality raised by Beaugrande and Dressler, Chen Lijiang (2003) puts forward to several methods to solve the problems while translating metaphors. After doing a thorough research on the ways of how translators handle the cultural obstacles in the metaphor translation, Li Yunxing (2001, p. 123) summarizes five models: the go-ahead model, the block model, the annotation model, the integration model as well as the adaption model.3.3.2 Translating Metaphors under the Guidance of Cognitive LinguisticsAs mentioned above, the essence of cognitive metaphor is “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” and “a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 4). The working mechanism of cognitive metaphor theory is the mapping across domains. Source domain is the cognitive domain from which people draw metaphorical expressions. Target domain is the what people try to understand. As mapping is an essential part of cognitive metaphors, there is a need to explore the metaphor translation from a cognitive linguistic perspective.Cognitive approaches have been applied to translating metaphors recently and are mainly raised by Schäffner, Mandelblit, Al-Hasnawi, and Kovecses. Schäffner (2003, p. 1267) carries out corpus studies on the cognitive metaphors in political discourse and showed how translator should handle metaphorical expressions: “(1) a conceptual metaphor is identical in ST and TT at the macro-level without each individual manifestation having been accounted for at the micro-level; (2) structural components of the base conceptual schema in the ST are replaced in the TT by expressions that make entailments explicit; (3) a metaphor is more elaborate in the TT; (4) ST and TT employ different metaphorical expressions which can be combined under a more abstract conceptual metaphor; (5) the expression in the TT reflects a different aspect of the conceptual metaphor”.Mandelblit raises the “cognitive translation hypothesis” and two schemas of cognitive mapping conditions in 1995. One of the schemas is the “similar mapping condition” (SMC) and the other one is the “different mapping condition”(DMC). He also points out that “the difference in reaction time is due to a conceptual shift that the translator is required to make between the conceptual mapping systems of the source and target languages” (Mandelblit, 1995, p. 493). Thus, metaphorical expressions will take more time and are more difficult to translate if the exploited cognitive domain is different from the target language equivalent expression. Under the “similar mapping condition”, Mandelblit points out that “translators are able to get an equivalent TL metaphor or—under the worst conditions—a TL simile” (1995, p. 493). Under the “different mapping condition”, it is。
![[语言学,角度]从认知语言学角度探讨隐喻的翻译](https://img.taocdn.com/s1/m/5814efdb52ea551810a687e5.png)
