Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 9:2 (2019) ► pp.177–198

Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation

| University of Westminster

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).

Keywords: metonymy, translation, facetization, zone activation, metonymization, contiguity, indeterminacy, metonymic processing, metonymic shift
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
Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.18024.der
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.Google Scholar
Bell, R.
(1991) Translating and translation: Theory and practice. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bellos, D.
(2011) Is that a fish in your ear? London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Benczes, R.
(2015) Cognitive linguistics is fun: An interview with Günter Radden. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 479–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(2007) Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2017) Metonymy and word formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 101, 232–247.Google Scholar
Catford, J.
(1965) A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018) Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metaphor and metonymy in discourse. Metaphor in the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(1999) Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S.
(2007) A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B., & Munday, J.
(2004) Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I.
(1992) Thinking translation: A course in translation method, French-English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1959/2012) On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 126–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G.
(2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, M.
(1998) Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lederer, M.
(1976) Synecdoque et traduction. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241, 13–41.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lodge, D.
(1977) The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Munday, J.
(2012) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nida, E.
(1964) Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
(2004) Where does metonymy stop? Sense, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A.
(2010) Exploring translation theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W.
(1960) Word and object. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2008) Event metonymies. Paper presented at the Third International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Leipzig, Germany. 25–27 September, 2008.
(2018) Molly married money: reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
(Eds.) (2013) Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somers, H.
(2003) Translation memory systems. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (pp. 31–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G.
(1995) Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zhang, W.
(2016) Variation in metonymy, cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Denroche, Charles
2021. The Three Grammars and the sign. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Denroche, Charles
2023. Translating figurative language. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:1 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 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.