The Reconstruction of Metaphorical Mapping as an Instrument of the Pre-translation Analysis of Poetry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.2763Keywords:
conceptual metaphor, metaphorical mapping, poetry, translation, pre-translation analysisAbstract
Although it can help avoid far too literal translations of metaphorical expressions, the reconstruction of metaphorical mapping is still an unclaimed instrument of pre-translation analysis. This research aims at a pre-translation analysis of a book of poems, Babylon in a Jar (1998) by Andrew Hudgins, which has not been previously translated into Russian. The method for linguistic metaphor identification created by G. Steen is applied for the first time in this study as an instrument of pre-translation analysis. Firstly, key conceptual metaphors of the book are identified: death is departure, life is a journey, plants are people, and emotional intimacy is physical closeness. Secondly, the relationship between source and target domains is analysed. For example, the source domain for the metaphor people are plants is a daffodil, a tree, or a chinaberry. In Western cultures, a chinaberry symbolizes the tree of knowledge and in A. Hudgins’ poem, this idea is mapped onto knowledge about sinful human nature. Thirdly, translation strategies are outlined. In the translated version, another plant is introduced to preserve the original cross-domain mapping because the chinaberry tree is not familiar to Russian readers. Based on conceptual metaphor theory, this research seeks to integrate the reconstruction of metaphorical mapping into a pre-translation analysis, which allows for the preservation of the spirit of the original version. These insights advance interdisciplinary research on poetry interpretation and the practice of translation.
References
Arnolʹd, I. V. (1978). Znachenie silʹnoĭ pozitsii dlia interpretatsii khudozhestvennogo teksta. Inostrannye iazyki v shkole / Foreigh Languages at School, 1978(4), 6–13.
Burmakova, E. A., & Marugina, N. I. (2014). Cognitive approach to metaphor translation in literary discourse. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.180
Cheetham, D. (2016). Literary translation and conceptual metaphors: From movement to performance. Translation Studies, 9(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2016.1180543 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2016.1180543
Christiansen, J. L. (2015). The dark Koran: A semantic analysis of the Koranic darknesses (ẓulumāt) and their metaphorical usage. Arabica, 62(2–3), 185–233. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341352
Dobric, N. (2011). The cognitive approach to translating metaphors revisited: The case of pure, clear and clean vs. čist and jasan. AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 36(2), 99–116.
Donoghue, D. (2014). The motive for metaphor. In D. Donoghue, Metaphor (pp. 182–210). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674419483.c6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674419483
Fauset, J. R. (2013). The chinaberry tree: A novel of American life. Dover Publications.
Guldin, R. (2016). Translation as metaphor. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753638-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753638
Jaberi, S., Ho-Abdullah, I., & Vengadasamy, R. (2016). Mystical love metaphors: A cognitive analysis of Sohrab Sepehri’s poetry. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(1), 143–156.
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Goldberg, A. (1989). Master metaphor list. University of California at Berkeley.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
Lupton, M. J. (1984). Bad blood in Jersey: Jessie Fauset’s The chinaberry tree. CLA Journal, 27(4), 383–392.
Massey, G., & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2017). Translating conceptual metaphor: The processes of managing interlingual asymmetry. Research in Language, 15(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0011
Nida, E. A. (1969). Science of translation. Language, 45(3), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/411434 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/411434
Ostanina-Olszewska, J., & Despot, K. S. (2017). When soul is lost in translation: Metaphorical conceptions of soul in Dostoyevsky’s original Bratʹia Karamazovy (The Brothers Karamazov) and its translations into Polish, Croatian and English. Cognitive Studies | Études cognitives, 2017(17), Article 1319. https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.1319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.1319
Said Ghazala, H. (2012). Translating the metaphor: A cognitive stylistic conceptualization (English – Arabic). World Journal of English Language, 2(4), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v2n4p57 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v2n4p57
Steen, G. (2009). From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 197–226). Mouton de Gruyter.
Stevens, W. (1951). The necessary angel: Essays on reality and the imagination. Vintage Books.
Wassell, B. E., & Llewelyn, S. R. (2014). “Fishers of humans,” the contemporary theory of metaphor, and conceptual blending theory. Journal of Biblical Literature, 133(3), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2014.0030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2014.0030
West, D. (2007). A. Richards’ theory of metaphor: Between protocognitivism and poststructuralism. In L. Jeffries, D. McIntyre, & D. Bousfield (Eds.), Stylistics and social cognition (pp. 1–18). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401200646_002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401200646_002
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Anna Aksenova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
