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.
Bell, R. (1991). Translating and translation: Theory and practice. Harlow: Longman.
Bellos, D. (2011). Is that a fish in your ear? London: Penguin.
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.
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.
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
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. 

Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 101, 232–247.
Catford, J. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.
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.
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 

Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking translation: A course in translation method, French-English. London: Routledge.
Jakobson, R. (1959/2012). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 126–131). London: Routledge.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. 

Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(1), 37–77. 

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
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.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. 

Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 

Langacker, R. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lederer, M. (1976). Synecdoque et traduction. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241, 13–41.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. 

Lodge, D. (1977). The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.
Munday, J. (2012). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. 

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. 

Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Sense, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. 

Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 

Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London: Routledge.
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. New York: John Wiley.
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.
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. 

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. 

Somers, H. (2003). Translation memory systems. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (pp. 31–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

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.
Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy, cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 

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.