Cover not available
Part of
Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation
Edited by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley and Aurélie Picton
[Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice 18] 2017
► pp. 181–211

Chapter 8
Terminological metaphors and the nomadism of specialised terms

Some observations on intralinguistic and interlinguistic variation

| Università di Genova
The aim of this chapter is to describe various forms and functions of metaphors in specialized texts and discourses. Far from being simple catachresis, metaphorical terms show an extraordinary vitality: they reveal their heuristic potential as “metaphorical swarms” (Prandi 2012) originating from shared conceptual metaphors, or as creative conflict metaphors (Brown 2003; Gibbs 2008), that have given birth to new scientific theories (Hesse 1988). We can find examples of consistent metaphorical concepts which have given rise to a group of metaphorical terms, such as the analogy between blood circulation and running water systems (Oliveira 2009), or conflict-based creative metaphors, as in Darwin’s natural selection. Such metaphors lend to the framing and spreading of scientific knowledge (Prandi & Rossi 2012). In this contribution, we will first analyze three metaphorical English terms created with the modifier junk, and we will afterwards examine the way they were translated into French and Italian. In doing so, we will highlight different processes involved in the interlinguistic transfer of metaphorical terms (Humbley 2006a).
Keywords: metaphor, translation, cognitive metaphor, scientific metaphor, variation
Article outline
  • 1.Metaphors, models and ideologies in scientific and technical fields
  • 2.On the nomadism and variation of metaphorical paradigms: The case of junk
    • 2.1The semantic field of junk and the creation of a metaphorical paradigm in English
    • 2.2Junk DNA or a scientific theory-constitutive metaphor
    • 2.3 Junk food: A first migration of the term, from scientific to ideological metaphor
    • 2.4 Junk bond: A second migration or confirming a semantic mutation
    • 2.5 Coda: The emerging concept of junk science
  • 3.The heteronyms of the paradigm: junk in French and Italian
    • 3.1 Junk in French
    • 3.2The paradigm junk in Italian
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.18.08ros
References (63)
References
Agin, Dan. 2007. Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations and Other Hucksters Betray Us. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. 1934. La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Bardini, Thierry. 2004. “Variations sur l’insignifiant génétique : les métaphores du (non-) code.” Intermédialités 2004 (3): 163–186.Google Scholar
. 2011. Junkware. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beccaria, Gian-Luigi. 2006. Per difesa e per amore. La lingua italiana oggi. Milano: Garzanti.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1993 [1979]. “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor for?” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 481–532. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Sydney. 1998. “Refuge of Spandrel.” Current Biology 8 (19): R669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Thomas L. 2003. Making Truth. Metaphor in Science. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Cortès, Colette (ed). 2006. La métaphore. Du discours général aux discours spécialisés. Paris: Cahiers du C.I.E.L.Google Scholar
Depecker, Loïc. 2001. L’invention de la langue, le choix des mots nouveaux. Paris: Colin/Larousse.Google Scholar
Détrie, Catherine. 2001. Du sens dans le processus métaphorique. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Durand, Gilbert. 1963. Les structures anthropologiques de l’imaginaire : introduction à l’archétypologie générale. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Dury, Pascaline, François Maniez, Nathalie Arli, and Claire Rougemont (eds). 2009. La métaphore dans les langues de spécialité. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
Gaudin, François. 1996. “Terminologie: l’ombre du concept.” Meta XLI (4): 604–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Socioterminologie. Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Germain, Pierre-Luc, Emanuele Ratti, and Federico Boem. 2014. “Junk or Functional DNA? ENCODE and the Function Controversy.” Biology & Philosophy 29 (6): 807–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond (ed). 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giovanardi, Claudio, Riccardo Gualdo, and Alessandra Coco. 2008. Inglese-Italiano 1 a 1. Lecce: Manni.Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the Brain. Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Ryan T. 2007. A word about “junk DNA”. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2011. The Evolution of the Genome. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gualdo, Riccardo. 2009. Linguaggi specialistici. [URL]Google Scholar
Hallyn, Fernand (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and Analogy in the Sciences. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1988. “The Cognitive Claims of Metaphor.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Holton, Gerald. 1982. L’invention scientifique. Themata et interprétation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Humbley, John. 2006a. “Metaphor and Secondary Term Formation.” In La métaphore. Du discours général aux discours spécialisés, ed. by Colette Cortès, 197–210. Paris: Cahiers du C.I.E.L.Google Scholar
. 2006b. “La traduction des métaphores dans les langues de spécialité: le cas des virus informatiques.” Lynx 52: 49–62.Google Scholar
Koolhaas, Rem, 2011. Junkspace. Paris: Payot et Rivages.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laplanche, Jean, and Jean-Baptiste Pontalis. 1981. Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Le Roux, Ronan. 2013. “Lévi-Strauss, Lacan et les mathématiciens.” Les dossiers de HEL 3. [URL]Google Scholar
Mermin, David. 1981. “E pluribus boojum”. Physics Today april 1981: 45–53.Google Scholar
Montuschi, Eleonora. 1993. Le metafore scientifiche. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Morange, Michel. 2002. “Introduction.” In Travaux scientifiques de François Jacob, ed. by Nadine Peyrieras, and Michel Morange, 7–66. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Moss, Michael. 2014. Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Ohno, Susumu. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1972. “So Much ‘Junkʼ DNA in our Genome.” In Evolution of Genetic Systems, ed. by Harold H. Smith, 366–370. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Isabelle. 2005. “La métaphore terminologique sous un angle cognitif.” Meta 50 (4). [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Nature et fonction de la métaphore en sciences. L’exemple de la cardiologie. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew (ed). 1993 [1979]. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Julie. 2012. La variation terminologique : un modèle à trois composantes. Thèse de doctorat, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Pepper, S.C. 1942. World Hypothesis: A Study in Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele. 2010. “Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation”. Mutatis Mutandis 3 (2): 304–332.Google Scholar
. 2012. “A Plea for Living Metaphors: Conflictual Metaphors and Metaphorical Swarms.” Metaphor and Symbol 27 (2): 148–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, Michele, and Micaela Rossi. 2012. “Les métaphores dans la création de terminologies.” In Terminologie : textes, discours et accès aux savoirs spécialisés , 7–19. Brest: Ed. du GLAT.
Quemada, Bernard. 1978. “Technique et langage.” In Histoire des techniques, ed. by Bertrand Gille, 1146–1240. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Rastier, François. 1987. La sémantique interprétative. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Raus, Rachele. 2013. La terminologie multilingue. Bruxelles: De Boeck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Resche, Catherine. 2002. “La métaphore en langue spécialisée, entre médiation et contradiction : étude d’une mutation métaphorique en anglais économique.” Asp 35–36: 103–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Réflexions à partir d’une métaphore banalisée en économie : la ‘Main Invisibleʼ d’Adam Smith. Leçons et perspectives.” In Travaux 20.25, ed. by Marie-Hélène Fries, 57–76. Bordeaux: Université Victor-Ségalen.Google Scholar
Rossi, Micaela. 2009. “L’emploi de la métaphore comme ressource pour la néologie terminologique : le cas du langage de la dégustation du vin.” In La métaphore en langues de spécialité, ed. by Pascaline Dury, François Maniez, Nathalie Arlin, and Claire Rougemont, 199–227. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Pour une description du processus de création des métaphores dans le langage du vin – étude comparative français-italien.” In Unité et diversité dans le discours sur le vin en Europe, ed. by Laurent Gautier, and Eva Lavric (InnTrans). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2015b. In rure alieno. Métaphores et termes nomades dans les langues spécialisées. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlanger, Judith. 1995. Les métaphores de l’organisme. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Silaški, Nadežda. 2011. “Animal Metaphors in some Business-related Terms in English.” Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Istočnom Sarajevu 13 (1): 565–576.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew F. 2006. Encyclopedia of Junk Food and Fast Food. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Stengers, Isabelle, and Judith Schlanger. 1991. Les concepts scientifiques : invention et pouvoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Taggart, Robert J. 1987. “The Growth of the ‘Junkʼ Bond Market and its Role in Financing Takeovers.” In Mergers and Acquisitions, ed. by Alan J. Auerbach, 5–24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 2007. “Les métaphores dans les sciences de la vie et le situé socioculturel.” Cahiers du RIFAL 26: 72–83.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Stars, problem children, dogs and cash cows: Evocative terminology in multilingual business communication.” SYNAPS 25: 17–29.Google Scholar
Vandaele, Sylvie. 2007. “Quelques repères épistémologiques pour une approche cognitive de la traduction spécialisée – Application à la biomédecine.” Meta 52 (1): 129–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Jiang, Na & Xiangqing Wei
2020. Multidimensionality, dynamicity, and complexity. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 26:2 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Micaela
2019. Métaphores et discours experts : conflit et cohérence à l’épreuve du transfert interlinguistique. Langue française N° 204:4 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Spirchagov, Svyatoslav Y.
2019. Metaphors in banking. Neophilology :18 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology [Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 23], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.