Metaphor in translation: Possibilities for process research

Christina Schäffner and Mark Shuttleworth

This paper explores potential benefits of closer interaction between metaphor studies and translation process research. It presents some developments within translation studies that make use of conceptual metaphor theory and illustrates some process research methods for investigating metaphors. The paper considers a number of methodological recommendations and argues that the need to take full account of insights from metaphor studies and associated disciplines is of greatest importance. Another significant potential innovation is the use of a multilingual approach in respect of both product- and process-oriented studies in order to increase both the amount and the generality of data available for analysis. Thirdly, it is important to extend the current source-text (ST) oriented approach. The paper concludes by suggesting some options for triangulating data gathered through a combination of methods.

Table of contents

There are many methodological approaches that could profitably be implemented as part of a comprehensive study of metaphor in translation (MiT) within the paradigms of process research. While a number of these are derived from tendencies already existing elsewhere in translation studies, some are innovative and as yet virtually untried. In addition, some quite clearly also possess a wider potential application within the discipline.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.


Al-Harrasi, Abdulla
2001Metaphor in (Arabic-into-English) Translation with Specific Reference to Metaphorical Concepts and Expressions in Political Discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aston University.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts. Towards an Integration of Product and Process-Based Translation Research.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Anglone, 109–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.[ p. 105 ]DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne
1999 “Identifying and Describing Metaphor in Spoken Discourse.” In Researching and Applying Metaphor, ed. by Lynne Cameron and Graham Low, 105–132. New York: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, Alice, Danuta Gabrys, and Agniezska Solska
1997 “Teaching English Metaphors Using Cross-Linguistic Awareness-Raising Activities.” English Language Teaching Journal 51: 352–360.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ– London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2008Translationsprozessforschung. Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, Kristian T. H. Jensen, and Inger M. Mees
2007 “Comparing Modalities: Idioms as a Case in Point.” In Interpreting Studies and Beyond. A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 217–249. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan
2005Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
2000Kreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2003 “Der Professionalität auf der Spur.” In Traducta Navis. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Christiane Nord, ed. by Britta Nord and Peter A. Schmitt, 131–149. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martikainen, Kati
1999What Happens to Metaphorical Expressions Relating to ‘Comprehension’ in the Processes and Products of Translation? A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. A Pro Gradu thesis, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. University of Savonlinna.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki
(eds) 2004Translation Universals. Do They Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2004Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London–New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
2004 “Metaphor and Translation: Some Implications of a Cognitive Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1253–1269.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark
2011 “Translational Behaviour at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge: A Multilingual Investigation into Popular Science Metaphor in Translation.” Translator 17 (2): 301–23. [Special Issue: Science in Translation.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C.
2008 “Metaphor Comprehension in Translation: Methodological Issues in a Pilot Study.” In Looking at Eyes. Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 53–77. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 36.]Google Scholar
2011 “Cognitive Effort in Metaphor Translation: An Eye-Tracking Study.” In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 197–214. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2001 “Metaphors in Translation Processes and Products.” Quaderns. Revista de traducció 6: 11–15.Google Scholar
2002 “Metaphoric Expressions in Translation Processes.” Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 101–116.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1995 “Interdisciplinarity.” Discourse and Society 6 (4): 459–460.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar