Rafał Wojtczak

Translating literal and figurative

expressions. A Translog study of
processing time and translation quality.

Praca licencjacka napisana

w Instytucie Filologii Angielskiej
Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza
pod kierunkiem dr Bogusławy Whyatt

Poznań, 2009
 OŚWIADCZENIE
Ja, niżej podpisany/a

student/ka Wydziału Neofilologii

Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
oświadczam,
że przedkładaną pracę dyplomową

pt.

napisałem/am samodzielnie.

Oznacza to, że przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsultacjami, nie

korzystałem/am z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałem/am
opracowania rozprawy lub jej istotnych części innym osobom, ani nie
odpisywałem/am tej rozprawy lub jej istotnych części od innych osób.

Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, że gdyby powyższe oświadczenie

okazało się nieprawdziwe, decyzja o wydaniu mi dyplomu zostanie cofnięta.

(miejscowość, data) (czytelny podpis)

2
 Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................3

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 1: FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE................................................................ 7

1.1. DEFINING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE..................................................................................7

1.1.1. Tropes ............................................................................................................ 8
1.1.2. Classical definitions of figurative language..................................................8
1.1.3. Further debate on the literal / nonliteral divide..........................................10
1.2. PROCESSING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE............................................................................ 11
1.2.1. The standard pragmatic model ....................................................................11
1.2.2. The direct access model............................................................................... 13
1.2.3. The graded salience hypothesis................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 2: TRANSLATING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE................................ 16

2.1. TRANSLATION – MAJOR ISSUES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE ...............................................16

2.1.1. Equivalence.................................................................................................. 17
2.1.2. Untranslatability.......................................................................................... 18
2.2. TRANSLATING METAPHORS..........................................................................................19
2.2.1. Cultural conceptualisation of metaphor...................................................... 19
2.2.2. Procedures for translating metaphors..........................................................21
2.2.3. Metaphor in the Cognitive Translation Hypothesis.....................................24

3
CHAPTER 3: THE EXPERIMENT; PROCESSING FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE
IN TRANSLATION ......................................................................................................27

3.1. THE AIM OF THE EXPERIMENT..................................................................................... 27

3.2. HYPOTHESES.......................................................................................................... 28
3.3. THE SUBJECTS OF THE EXPERIMENT..............................................................................29
3.4. RESEARCH METHODS ...............................................................................................29
3.5. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS...................................................................................... 31
3.5.1. Quality of TL text production....................................................................... 31
3.5.2. Time of production........................................................................................33

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 36

REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................ 41

4
 List of tables

TABLE 1. TRANSLATION OF THE METAPHOR: “HE WAS ALL BARK AND

NO BITE”.......................................................................................................................31

TABLE 2. TRANSLATION OF SMC METAPHORS .............................................. 32

TABLE 3. TRANSLATION OF A DMC METAPHOR: "JASON WAS THE TOP

DOG"..............................................................................................................................33

TABLE 4. DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF TRANSLATION............................34

TABLE 5. DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF SMC AND DMC METAPHORS

TRANSLATION............................................................................................................ 35

5
 Introduction

Although the notion of figurative language has recently become extremely popular as
the topic of interest in divergent disciplines of studies, it is still a relatively undis-
covered area in translation research. This thesis attempts to shed some light on the in -
tricacies of nonliteral language translation.
The work is divided into three chapters. The first Chapter introduces the notion
of figurative language, provides its definition and characteristics, as well as discusses
cognitive processes involved in its comprehension.
The second chapter focuses on the intricacies of figurative language translation.
It presents both theoretical and practical approaches to the translation of metaphor, as
the most problematic trope of figurative language.
The third chapter describes an experiment conducted in order to verify assump-
tions about figurative language translation formulated on the basis of the theoretical
framework provided in the first and second chapter. The study, conducted with the use
of a computer programme (Translog), has been designed to compare literal and figurat-
ive translation.
The thesis aims at contributing both theoretical and empirical findings concern-
ing the processing time of figurative expressions in the process of translation. The res-
ults might become useful for all engaged in the challenging task of translation research.

6
 Chapter 1: Figurative language

Figurative language has recently gained an astounding popularity among scholars form
divergent disciplines. It has proven to be a highly controversial issue, provoking a
heated discussion over its definition, properties and the processes involved in its com-
prehension. This chapter aims at providing a historical perspective of this debate by giv-
ing an account of scholarly research into the literal/nonliteral divide and presenting
three models of figurative language processing. It serves as the background for the re-
maining part of the thesis, where the translation of figurative language is discussed.

1.1. Defining figurative language

Although figurative language is associated predominantly with poetics and imagery, its
pervasiveness in everyday conversation is evident. People use figurative expressions to
convey meaning that is different from what they literally say. They speak figuratively in
order to express their inner thoughts and emotions, which are impossible to explain by
means of literal language, for reasons of politeness, to avoid responsibility for the im -
port of the conveyed message or to sound less direct (Gibbs). Nonliteral expressions are
also used extensively in informal discourse to show irony, make allusions, jokes and
comments. “The use of such language is not rare or limited to poetic situations but
rather is a ubiquitous characteristic of speech” (Katz 1998: 3). It has been estimated
that by the time most individuals reach retirement age, they will have uttered approxim-
ately 15,000,000 expressions that can be classified as figurative (Pollio et al. 1977, as
cited in Johnson – Malgady 1979: 249).

7
1.1.1. Tropes

The creativity of figurative language is profuse and the attempt to systematise various
kinds of nonliteral expressions seems to be a laborious task. However, a vast number of
language scholars have been engaged in its categorisation. As a result, the general term
trope has been developed and soon complemented with a variety of subterms that have
been applied to designate divergent figures of speech (Johnson – Malgady 1979: 249).
There are different ways of classifying the rhetorical devices, yet the most prominent
and ubiquitous tropes that emerged from the psycholinguistic studies are metaphor,
idiom, hyperbole, irony, indirect request, rhetorical question, simile, and understatement
(Roberts – Kreuz 1994: 160).
The abundance of figurative language in everyday communication is apparent.
However, the question of what should be labelled literal and figurative still provokes
rancorous debate among language scholars (Cieślicka, 2004: 11). Different approaches
have been adopted and various distinctions have been presented; yet there is no clear
differentiation between the figurative and literal uses of language.

1.1.2. Classical definitions of figurative language

Traditional views regarding figurative language tend to juxtapose it with literal lan -
guage and marginalise its importance, treating nonliteral meaning as deviant. (Cieślicka
2004: 12) The literal has been perceived as an “indispensable sacred rock that forms the
bulk of our language and thought”, whereas the nonliteral has been perceived as “exag-
geration” and “embellishment” (Lakoff 1986: 292). In order to define the concept of fig-
urative meaning, the notion of literal should first be explained, since these two have
been viewed as starkly distinguished counterparts.
According to the classical definitions proposed by Katz (1977) and Searle (1979)
literal meaning is “linguistic, i.e. nonfigurative, coded (conventional), fully composi-
tional, context-invariant, explicit, and truth conditional” (Ariel 2002: 361). The notion
of compositionality implies that the literal meaning of a given expression is determined
by grammatical properties and lexical meanings assigned to each element of which this
expression is composed (Gibbs 1994: 60). Thus, the meaning of a whole sentence is in-

8
ferred from its components. Moreover, literal meaning is viewed as entirely context-free
and, therefore, invariant in all contexts. This concept is illustrated by the “anonymous
letter situation” proposed by Katz (1980: 14). Literal meaning should be absolutely con-
text-free as in a hypothetical case where an ideal speaker of a language receives an an -
onymous letter containing just one sentence in that language without any further explan-
ation. The understanding of such a sentence relies solely on the speaker's competence in
the given language, as no contextual information is provided. Hence, literal meaning is
perceived as tantamount to “semantic meaning” or “grammatical meaning” as opposed
to “pragmatic” or “contextual meaning” (Katz 1980: 14). Another feature of literal lan -
guage described in classical definitions is its truth conditionality. “Under this view, the
literal meaning of a sentence is the set of conditions that are both necessary and suffi-
cient to establish the truth of that sentence” (Gibbs 1994: 61). In order to define the lit-
eral meaning of the sentence “John killed Bill” all the conditions under which the utter-
ance is true should be known. In that case the sentence is true if and only if John
murdered Bill (Gibbs 1994: 61). The literal meaning is also uncancellable, which means
that the speaker is entirely committed to the content of the message conveyed. It can be
eliminated only in a particular context, when it seems extremely implausible. This is
when figurative language comes into play.
The notion of figurative language is viewed by traditionalists as the exact oppos -
ite of literal language and its strongly distinguished complement. Thus, nonliteral mean-
ing is seen as “extralinguistic, i.e., figurative, indirect, inferred, non-compositional, con-
text-dependent, and cancellable” (Ariel 2002: 361). It is no longer based on the meaning
of particular elements that compose an utterance, as is the case with literal meaning. In -
stead, the meaning is inferred from the combination of the literal meaning of an utter -
ance and some additional cognitive processes that have to be made in order to under -
stand a figurative expression (Ariel 2002: 362). This view was derived from a theory of
“conversational implicature” proposed by Grice (1975). It states that “much of the in-
formation conveyed in conversation is implied rather than asserted” (Cieślicka 2004:
34). Grice's “Cooperative Principle” captures norms, known also as maxims, which
govern conversations between people. Figurative language is thought to violate those
maxims, and thus, it requires additional mental processes to be understood. (Cieślicka
2004: 34). Furthermore, nonliteral meaning depends heavily on the context. It is con -
sidered to be pragmatic and contextual, rather than semantic. Accordingly, figurative

9
meaning is related to the speaker and the utterance, instead of the sentence itself (Ariel
2002: 362). In contrast to the literal, the figurative meaning “cannot be explicated in
terms of truth conditions” (Gibbs 1994: 61). Finally, unlike the literal, figurative expres -
sions can be eliminated due to the fact that the speaker is not entirely committed to their
content. Nonliteral language may be therefore referred to as cancellable (Ariel 2002:
363).
Classical definitions of literal and figurative language stress their polarity and
tend to neglect the significance of figurative meaning. Hence, the notion of nonliteral
language is rarely defined as such; its characteristics need to be inferred from the oppos -
ition to the literal meaning. Despite the fact that the traditional literal/nonliteral dicho-
tomy has been severely criticised and although its authors are at variance with certain
aspects of the definitions, the classical literal versus figurative divide has remained a
relevant point of reference and a solid base from which other theories stem.

1.1.3. Further debate on the literal / nonliteral divide

The incongruous views of the language scholars who created first definitions of figurat-
ive and literal language, as well as new research conducted in this field of study, have
resulted in new theories and concepts of the figurative versus literal dichotomy. The old
view has undergone a thorough critique and its fundamental assumptions have been
questioned.
According to Ariel (2002: 364), the characteristics of figurative and literal mean-
ings captured by classical definitions turned out to be purely theoretical, since the re -
quirements imposed to differentiate between these two opposites proved to be im-
possible to satisfy. For instance, it has become clear that literal meaning may sometimes
require contextual support, whereas figurative language can occasionally be convention-
al. Likewise, it has been demonstrated that in certain cases literal meaning needs to be
inferred. The boundaries between the figurative and the literal became blurred and the
mutual opposition, once clear-cut and evident, became less apparent. Classical paramet-
ers allowing one to categorise a meaning as literal, such as truth-conditionality, context-
independence and full compositionality have been relaxed in order to maintain the liter -
al versus nonliteral dichotomy.

10
 A new model of literal meaning proposed by Dascal (1987, as cited in Ariel
2002: 372) instead of relaxing or rejecting one of the parameters, asserts that “not all the
criteria have to be met simultaneously for a meaning to count as literal” (Ariel 2002:
372). The model, known as “moderate literalism”, shifts from providing a strict defini -
tion of literal language, as it proposes a set of relevant, but unnecessary conditions that
have to be fulfilled in order to call a meaning literal.
This new concept, as well as other transformations proposed by various lan-
guage scholars, and the relaxation of classical parameters, undermined the validity of
differentiation between figurative and literal meanings, which led to new theories re -
garding the production and comprehension of figurative language (Cieślicka 2004: 13).

1.2. Processing figurative language

Despite the fact that the traditional divide between figurative and literal language was
perceived by some scholars as obsolete, there was a strong counter-tendency that en-
dorsed the distinction. It was based on Dascal's (1987, as cited in Cieślicka 2004: 13)
observation that language users are able to distinguish metaphorical and literal expres -
sions. Later findings supported this claim. “Though literal and nonliteral meanings are
rather complex and elusive concepts, speakers seem to have strong intuitions about the
difference between them. The study of their interpretation has never been deterred by
their elusiveness” (Giora 1999: 919). The ability to differentiate between literal and
nonliteral phrases has ignited a debate concerning the comprehension of figurative lan-
guage. The question whether literal and figurative utterances are processed similarly has
accompanied and complemented the dispute on the literal versus nonliteral dichotomy.

1.2.1. The standard pragmatic model

The classical definitions of figurative language proposed by Grice (1975) and Searle
(1979) stressed its non-compositionality, and posited that the violation of the Gricean
maxims requires additional cognitive processes for idiomatic expressions to be under-

11
stood. These first attempts to capture the comprehension of figurative language have be-
come known as “the standard pragmatic model”.
The model views the comprehension of nonliteral expression as an indirect pro-
cess, which occurs in three stages; thus it is also known as “the three-stage view”. In the
first stage an utterance is subjected to the literal interpretation. A mental representation
of this interpretation is created and examined against the context in the second stage to
verify its plausibility. If no pragmatic principles are violated and the context renders this
interpretation appropriate and plausible, it is accepted as the intended meaning.
However, if the interpretation is contextually incompatible, it is rejected and the final
stage is triggered, where nonliteral meaning is attributed (Janus – Brever 1985: 474).
The metaphorical meaning is extracted from the literal interpretation using any piece of
contextual information that is available (Blasko 1999: 1676).
The view is based on the Gricean maxims which state that the participants of a
conversation are expected to be “informative, truthful, relevant, and clear in what they
say” (Gibbs 2002: 459). If an utterance violates any of these rules, the speaker should
derive a conversational implicature in order to infer the intended meaning of the mes-
sage (Gibbs 2002: 459). This is the process that takes place in the second and the third
stages of the model. For instance, in a situation where a student comes late into class
and the teacher comments on this: “You are just in time!” (Gibbs 2002: 462) the student
processes the utterance in the following way. At first, the literal meaning is computed
(the first stage). The student verifies this interpretation against the context and, as it is
clear that he is late, the literal meaning of the teacher's comment seems implausible. It
violates the truthfulness and relevance maxim (the second stage). The student assumes,
on the basis of the context, that the teacher intended his comment to be ironic. As a res -
ult, the indirect, nonliteral interpretation is assigned to the utterance (the third stage).
The standard pragmatic model gives priority to literal meaning over figurative
meaning, assuming that the activation of the former is obligatory, whereas the pro-
cessing of the latter is optional. “Comprehenders always compute the literal meaning of
a word or a sentence first. By contrast, nonliteral meaning is activated only if there is a
mismatch of literal meaning with context” (Giora 1999: 920). This prediction leads to
the assumption that the comprehension of figurative expressions takes longer than the
understanding of literal phrases, as it is much more difficult and requires the triggering
of additional cognitive processes (Blasko 1999: 1677). In more general terms, the tradi-

12
tional view of language comprehension assumes that the understanding of literal mean-
ing requires the activation of semantic information, whereas nonliteral meaning requires
access of pragmatic information, which is always much more difficult and demanding
(Gibbs 2002: 459).

1.2.2. The direct access model

The assumptions made by the standard pragmatic model have been contested by numer-
ous psycholinguists and cognitive psychologists who have conducted a number of tests
and experiments to demonstrate the fallacy of the three-stage view. Various reading-time
and phrase classification studies have shown that people are able to comprehend figurat-
ive expressions with the same ease and as quickly as their literal equivalents. In certain
strongly biased contexts, idiomatic meaning is tapped even more quickly than the liter -
al, which rebuts the prediction that the comprehension of the figurative language always
requires the activation of the literal meaning first and that additional processing effort
needs to be made. These findings led to an alternative view of nonliteral language pro-
cessing, dubbed “the direct access view” (Gibbs 2002: 459).
The model, espoused by Gibbs (1984), posits that listeners/readers can compre -
hend the intended meaning directly without having to analyse the complete literal mean-
ing of the message before accessing pragmatic knowledge (Gibbs 2002: 460). This view
asserts that the first stage of the standard pragmatic model can be omitted, at least to a
certain extent, when the context is strong and clear enough. “[C]ontextual information
interacts with lexical processes very early on” (Giora 2002: 489), which allows the lan-
guage users to tap only the desired, contextually compatible meaning of the utterance
(Giora 2002: 489).
According to the direct access view, the processing of the exemplary utterance
would proceed as follows. Since the context in which the situation occurred is obvious
to the student, as he may assume that the teacher could reprimand him for being late, he
automatically rejects the literal interpretation of the message and decodes its ironic
meaning. The processing of the literal meaning is never activated, as the context pre-
cludes the plausibility of this interpretation.

13
 In contrast to the standard pragmatic model, the direct access view no longer re-
quires the literal interpretation to take place, nor does it treat the processing of the non -
literal as optional and inferior to the literal. On the contrary, it suggests that comprehen -
sion of the figurative takes as much time and computational effort at understanding the
literal.

1.2.3. The graded salience hypothesis

The standard pragmatic model stresses the priority of literal meaning, whereas the direct
access view corroborates the precedence of nonliteral interpretation. A plethora of suc -
ceeding studies has shown both these models of language comprehension, however, to
be erroneous. It has been demonstrated, for instance, that in some cases non-literal ex -
pressions can be processed metaphorically initially, which contradicts the assumptions
of the standard pragmatic model. In the same vein, the direct access view has been con -
tested, as “some instances of literal language have been found to be processed nonliter-
ally initially in literally biasing contexts” (Giora 2002: 490).
Contemporary theories of language comprehension tend to shift from the literal/
nonliteral prominence, seeking new notions of meaning that can be activated initially.
One of the most acclaimed models of language processing is the graded salience hypo-
thesis proposed by Giora (1997, 1999), which gives priority to salient meanings. “To be
salient, meanings of words, phrases, or sentences (e.g. the conventional interpretations
of idioms or proverbs) have to be coded in the mental lexicon and, in addition, enjoy
prominence due to their conventionality, frequency, familiarity, or prototypicality”
(Giora 2002: 490). Meanings that are not stored in the mental lexicon are defined as
non-salient, whereas coded meanings used less frequently as less-salient. Thus, for in-
stance, people who use the Internet extensively, would perceive the nonliteral meaning
of the word surf as salient and its literal interpretation as less-salient (Giora 2002: 491).
The graded salience hypothesis posits the initial activation of the salient meaning, “re-
gardless of either literality or contextual fit” (Giora 2002: 490). The meaning of a word
which is more popular within a given community, or the meaning the reader/listener is
more acquainted with will be tapped. Context has a limited role in the activation of
meanings, as it never impedes the tapping of highly salient meanings (Giora 1999: 921).

14
 According to the graded salience hypothesis, processing the exemplary utter-
ance “You're just in time!” would activate its salient, literal meaning initially. Although
the situation biases the meaning towards the ironic, the literal meaning, as the more sali-
ent, is tapped. Only after the rejection of the literal as the intended meaning, can the
ironical sense of the sentence be derived. The comprehension of irony takes longer as it
entails the activation of sequential processes (Giora 1999: 924).
The attempt to unravel the comprehension routes followed by figurative expres-
sions has resulted in numerous, often contradictory, theories. The standard pragmatic
model posits the prominence of literal meaning, treating the figurative as optional and
more time-consuming. The direct access view, on the other hand, assumes that the com-
prehension of idiomatic language should take as much time and effort as the literal in-
terpretation. The graded salience hypothesis considers the problem from yet another
angle by giving prominence to salient meanings, instead of focusing on the literal/non -
literal dichotomy. All in all, it seems the debate over the processing of idiomatic expres -
sions is not yet over and the issue of figurative language comprehension is still open.
Although initially neglected and pushed to the periphery of scientific interes t,
the notion of figurative language has recently gained astounding popularity among
philosophers, literary theoreticians, linguists and cognitivists. The rancorous debate on
the definition of figurative language and its properties, various endeavours to categorise
it and numerous attempts to untangle its processing are of great significance not only
from the linguistic point of view. Studies on figurative language are also relevant to
second language acquisition theories and to the field of translation studies (TS).
“Explaining the mechanisms underlying the acquisition and processing of figur-
ative expressions by second language learners can help lighten the burden put on teach-
ers and learners with regard to developing figurative proficiency in the second lan-
guage” (Cieślicka 2004: 15). Explaining the intricacies of figurative language compre-
hension may also facilitate the onerous task of translation. Differences in the under-
standing of literal and nonliteral expressions greatly affect the time and quality of their
translation. Thus, understanding the mechanisms of figurative language comprehension
becomes essential for applying successful strategies in the process of translation.
Chapter two will focus on translating figurative language.

15
 Chapter 2: Translating figurative language

Figurative language has transpired to be an intricate notion in terms of the cognitive

processes involved in its comprehension. The task of translating metaphorical expres-
sions proves to be equally complex and problematic. This chapter focuses on the rendi-
tion of figurative language, placing metaphor in the centre of interest. Apart from ex-
plaining the concepts of translation equivalence and untranslatability, this part of the
thesis presents cultural conditionality of metaphors, provides practical procedures of
their rendition and discusses the problem from a cognitive angle.

2.1. Translation – major issues in theory and practice

The practice of translation is “as old as the tower of Babel” (Gentzler, 1993: 1, as
quoted in Olivera – Sacristán 2001: 73), since its existence is inseparably connected
with the diversity of languages and the need to convey and understand messages across
cultures and communities. “[I]n the process of translating, no matter the text, we try to
communicate and transfer what was originally addressed in one language to one target
audience into another language and a totally different audience” (Korzeniowska 1998:
68). The task of translation may seem to be natural and effortless for a person with the
ability to speak two languages. However, in practice, it transpires to be a highly de -
manding and arduous activity.
Despite its long tradition and history, it was not until the second half of the pre -
vious century that Translation Studies began to emerge as an independent branch of
knowledge. Having their origins in the field of applied linguistics, the studies were ini-

16
tially treated as its sub-discipline. With the course of time, however, it adopted theories
and concepts from other areas of study, such as linguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmat-
ics, cultural and cognitive studies. The interdisciplinary character of Translation Studies,
as well as its underestimated academic status, have led to a plethora of approaches re -
garding various aspects of translation, instead of one translation theory (Schäffner 2004:
1254). What is more, even the translators themselves tend to disregard the notion of
translation theory, claiming that “translation is a matter of sound judgement and practic-
al skills” (Korzeniowska – Kuhiwczak 1994: 23), not a set of prescribed rules. Although
there is no unified theory of translation which would be appealing to the majority of lan-
guage scholars, each of the divergent views seems to acknowledge similar problems
which include the notion of equivalence and untranslatability.

2.1.1. Equivalence

One of the issues raised by almost every translation theory is the concept of equival-
ence, which seems to be one of the most crucial, yet controversial notions. Equivalence
is the “matter of entities between texts” (Hatim – Masón, 1990: 35, as quoted in Olivera
2001: 75) or “the relation between the S[ource] L[anguage] text and the T[arget] L[an-
guage] text” (Schäffner 2001: 7). In other words, translation equivalence is the question
what should be translated; the language or the meaning. The problem has accompanied
the study of translation since its beginnings, as translators have always sought “equival-
ences between the linguistic units” on the one hand, and “equivalent ways of expressing
meaning” on the other (Korzeniowska – Kuhiwczak 1994: 50). The pursuit of proper
equivalence in translation has been probably best summarised by Maurice Pegnier
(1977: 203). To quote,

One might say, without being paradoxical, that the more one translates the
message, the less one translates one language into another. On the other
hand, the more one attempts to translate (covert) lexical and grammatical
structures of one language into those of another language, the less one
translates the message (as quoted in: Korzeniowska – Kuhiwczak 1994:
50).

17
It seems that total equivalence in translation is a non-existent, ideal situation, which is
unattainable even for the most skilful and widely renowned interpreters. It is perceived
as the ultimate, yet unobtainable goal of each translation activity (Korzeniowska 1998:
11).
The debate on the prominence of word-for-word or sense-for-sense translation is
especially relevant in the context of rendering figurative language, as it transpires to be
an extremely demanding task. Metaphorical expressions are used purposely to evoke
specific emotions and images, therefore their form, not only the meaning, is of great sig-
nificance. Consequently, translation of figurative language requires that extraordinary
attention should be paid to its form. Rendering figurative language entails not only a
thorough scrutiny of the meaning and the figures of speech used in the source text, “but
also an examination of the poetic forms, if they exist, and the figurative devices avail-
able in the receptor language” (Samuel – Frank 2009).

2.1.2. Untranslatability

The intricacies of figurative language translation, especially problems with finding the
balance between the meaning and the form of the translated metaphorical expressions,
are a part of a wider concept present in numerous translation theories, namely, the no-
tion of untranslatability.
As translation scholars became aware that total equivalence is impossible, some
of them have proclaimed “the dogma of untranslatability”, asserting that certain expres-
sions simply cannot be translated into another language (Korzeniowska 1998: 68). Cat-
ford (1965, as quoted in Bassnet 2003: 39) differentiates between two types of untrans-
latability, dubbing them linguistic and cultural. The linguistic untranslatability “ occurs
when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item” (Bassnet
2003: 39). Thus, for instance, the German sentence “Um wieviel Uhr darf man Sie mor-
gen wecken?” is linguistically untranslatable, as it contains a structure which cannot be
found in the English language. It can be translated into English as “What time would
you like to be woken tomorrow?” only by applying syntactic rules and structures which
are available in English. The cultural untranslatability is a more complex notion, as it
occurs “due to the absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the SL

18
text” (Bassnet 2003: 39). For example, the Polish word pogodny in the expression “Ona
jest zawsze taka pogodna” or the English word fuss, as in the sentence “Whenever any-
body comes Jane makes such a fuss”, are culturally untranslatable, since no equivalents
can be found in the lexicon of the target languages. Although there is a number of ex-
pressions in English that are of similar meaning to the word pogodny, there is no such
that would mean exactly the same. Similarly, no equivalent of the English word fuss
can be found in the Polish lexicon. (Korzeniowska – Kuhiwczak 1994: 167).
Although the idea of untranslatabilty seems to be a highly appealing concept, as
it offers an easy explanation for numerous translation failures, there is also a contradict-
ory belief which asserts that “everything is translatable. The question is whether it can
be translated well” (Manheim, as quoted in Korzeniowska 1998: 71). The issue of un-
translatabilty becomes even more relevant, when figurative language translation is con-
cerned. Rendering nonliteral expressions, metaphors and idioms in particular, is con-
sidered to be one of the most daunting problems in translation practice.

2.2. Translating metaphors

Among various figures of nonliteral language, it is metaphor that has become the central
point of interest for numerous language scholars from divergent disciplines. Although
rendering other tropes of figurative language has proven to be equally demanding, trans-
lation studies have focused on metaphor as the most problematic figure. Metaphor, seen
as “a linguistic expression which is substituted for another expression (with a literal
meaning), and whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of the text” (Schäffn-
er 2004: 1254), has transpired to be extremely difficult to translate.

2.2.1. Cultural conceptualisation of metaphor

The problem of untranslatability and the intricacies encountered when translating meta -
phors are inherently connected to the cultural differences between languages. Metaphors
seem to be based on certain common associations shared by a given community. Cus-
toms, values and beliefs that prevail in the cultural group tend to shape and filter “the

19
metaphoric choices” taken by the members belonging to the community. "[A] culture
may be thought of as providing, among other things, a pool of available metaphors for
making sense of reality" (Lakoff – Johnson 1980: 12 as quoted in Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali –
Al-Hasnawi 2007: 231).
“Another language also means another cultural background and another value
system of other listeners or readers” (Dobrzyńska 1995: 596). Thus, dissimilarities
between the communities result in the differences in metaphor comprehension. Since
“the interpretation of metaphors is strongly culturally conditioned” (Dobrzyńska 1995:
598) problems and misunderstandings arise in situations when the cultures might clash,
as it is the case in translation. The metaphorical meaning is “inscribed into the given lin-
guistic system”, therefore transferring the image into another language frequently leads
to its misinterpretation (Dobrzyńska 1995: 599).
Dagut (1976: 28, as quoted in Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al Hasnawi 2007) claims that
"what determines the translatability of a SL metaphor is not its 'boldness' or 'originality,'
but rather the extent to which the cultural experience and semantic associations on
which it draws are shared by speakers of the particular TL”. If the associations are com-
mon or similar, the metaphor is easier to translate. However, if the cultural experience
and the associations do not overlap, it takes time and effort to successfully transfer the
image in the way it could be comprehended by the members of the target language com -
munity. The direct translation of metaphors and idioms in such cases would lead to ob-
vious translational mistakes. For instance, the English expression “a man has a big
head” means that he is arrogant, whereas in Italian the metaphor is associated with quite
the opposite qualities, namely, with wisdom; thus the sentence, translated literally,
would mean that the man is clever (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 231). Like-
wise, the Polish proverb “W każdej beczce miodu musi się znaleźć łyżka dziegciu” [In
every barrel of honey there is always a spoonful of birch-tar] has no equivalent in Eng-
lish that would be of the same meaning and contain the words honey and birch-tar.1 The
literal translation of the proverb would generate total misunderstanding by the English
readers. In order to transfer the meaning, another English proverb with similar meaning
has to be found. “There is no garden without its weeds” seems to be an appropriate
translation (Korzeniowska – Kuhiwczak 1994: 159).

All the translations from Polish sources are mine, RW.

1

20
 Clearly, the fact that metaphors seem to be culture-specific requires from the
translator a thorough examination of the associations which exist in both the source and
target language communities. Translating metaphors is a demanding task, requiring ex -
perience, creativity and open-mindedness.

2.2.2. Procedures for translating metaphors

Although translators are aware of the fact that total equivalence does not exist and meta -
phors frequently cannot be transferred ideally from the source language into the target
language, as cultural differences seriously impede the process, translation scholars have
been involved in inventing methods and translation procedures that can be applied when
rendering metaphors.
Van den Broeck (1981: 77, as quoted in Schäffner 2004: 1256) suggests three
techniques of metaphor translation. The first method is translating the metaphor “sensu
stricto”, that is rendering both the source language tenor and vehicle into the target lan-
guage.2 The second possibility, namely substitution, occurs when the source language
vehicle is replaced by a different target language vehicle with similar meaning. The
third method of metaphor translation is paraphrasing the source language idiomatic ex-
pression by means of a literal phrase in the target language. The three possibilities listed
by Van den Broeck are presented as a theoretical framework, which is a part of a de -
scriptive approach to the problem of metaphor translation (Schäffner 2004: 1256).
In opposition to the descriptive approach, Peter Newmark (19801) has proposed
seven procedures for translating metaphor, which can be treated as a prescription for
translators who have encountered problems with rendering nonliteral language. The pro-
cedures are applicable to two groups of metaphors: one-word metaphors such as a
sunny girl and complex metaphors, ranging from collocations and idioms, through pro-
verbs, to complete poems and allegories (Newmark 19801: 85).
Reproduction of the same image in the target language is the first method identi -
fied by Newmark. The procedure is applicable, only if “the image has comparable fre-
quency and currency in the appropriate register” (Newmark 19801: 88). It is used pre-

2
The term vehicle refers to a metaphorical image ascribed to a subject, conventionally dubbed the tenor
(Abrams 1999: 97).

21
dominantly for one-word metaphors, such as ray of hope, which can be translated into
French as rayon d'espair (Newmark 19801: 88) or into Polish as promień nadziei. In
case of complex metaphors or idioms, the procedure is no longer as efficient, since it
depends on the cultural differences, although in certain examples the transfer is pos-
sible. For instance, the English sentence “His life hangs on a thread” would be rendered
into German as “Sein Leben hängt an einem Faden” (Newmark 1981: 88).
Another technique used for metaphor translation is replacing the image in the
source language with a standard target language image, which is acceptable and used by
the members of the target language culture. Examples of complex metaphors that have
been replaced by target language equivalents would include such translations of the
English proverb “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” as the German “man muss mit
den Wölfen heulen” [when among wolves, howl as the wolves do] (Newmark 1981: 89)
or the Polish “jeśli wejdziesz między wrony, musisz krakać jak i one” [when among
crows, caw like the crows do].3
Using a simile as a means of metaphor translation is the third procedure listed by
Newmark. As a simile is “more restrained and 'scientific' than a metaphor”, it can be ap -
plied in order to reduce “the shock of a metaphor” (Newmark 1981: 89). Although the
trope has changed, the original image has been retained, as in the English translation of
an Italian sentence “La fenice è Dorabella”, which reads as “Dorabella is like a Phoenix
of Arabia” (Newmark 1981: 89).
Translators may also use “similes plus sense” method when translating meta-
phors. It is perceived by Newmark (1981: 90) as a “compromise procedure”, which on
the one hand enables the target audience to comprehend the conveyed message, but on
the other results in the loss of “the equivalent effect”. The procedure involves replacing
the metaphor with a simile accompanied with a brief explanation, which would ensure
that no misunderstandings take place. Thus, instead of translating the metaphor “C'est
un renard” as “He's a fox”, the translator may apply a simile plus sense method which
would provide the reader with an insight into the features possessed by the animal. The
translation would be as follows: “He is as sharp and cunning as a fox”. This technique
seems to be especially useful when expressions easily comprehendible by the source
language culture transpire to be unknown in the culture of the target language, as in the
case of the French “tout un vocabulaire moliéresque”. According to the procedure, the

All the translations from German sources are mine, RW.

3

22
expression may be translated as “a whole repertoire of medical quackery such as
Molière might have used” (Newmark 1981: 90).
Another procedure distinguished by Newmark as far as translation of metaphor
is concerned is “conversion of metaphor to sense”. It is “recommended in situations
when the TL image is too broad in sense or not appropriate to the register” (Schäffner
2004: 1257). Although the emotive effect of the metaphor would be reduced, this pro-
cedure is used frequently in cases as the German metaphor “sein Brot verdienen” [to
earn one's bread], which has been translated by “earn one's living” due to the lack of
other appropriate English equivalents (Newmark 1981: 91).
Furthermore, the translator is allowed to delete a metaphor if it is redundant in
their opinion. The decision has to be made tentatively and various factors need to be
taken into consideration. A metaphor can be omitted, “together with its sense compon-
ent”, when the function of the text has been analysed and the authoritative or expressive
function is not prevalent. “A deletion of metaphor can be justified empirically only on
the ground that the metaphor's function is being fulfilled elsewhere in the text.” (New-
mark 1981: 91).
The last procedure proposed by Newmark (1981: 91) suggests transferring the
same metaphor into the target language combined with sense. In certain cases, the trans -
lator may feel the urge to add additional explanation of the metaphor used by the author
of the text to ensure its comprehension. This method may be applied also to enforce the
image. For instance, the biblical metaphor “The tongue is a fire” can be accompanied by
an interpretation of the symbol: “A fire ruins things; what we say also ruins things”
(Beekman – Callow 1974 as quoted in Newmark 1981: 91). The procedure is especially
convenient when the metaphor is repeated extensively throughout the text.
All of the above methods of metaphor translation may serve as practical
guidelines for both inexperienced and professional translators who are encountering
problems with transferring figurative language. However, translators and interpreters
must bare in mind that the list of procedures is merely an instruction and should be used
tentatively in practice.

23
2.2.3. Metaphor in the Cognitive Translation Hypothesis

Descriptive and prescriptive studies on metaphor perceived as a problem in translation

have been recently complemented with a cognitive approach. To view metaphor as a
“cognitive construct” (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 233), rather than a lin-
guistic device used as a stylistic ornamentation of the text was a concept initially pro -
posed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980).
Cognitive approach to metaphor has been adopted due to the assumption that
metaphors are culturally conditioned and, thus, they “represent instances of how people
conceptualize their experience and how they record it” (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-
Hasnawi 2007: 233). People in order to express themselves tend to exploit various im-
ages and concepts present in their culture which can serve as objects of simile or points
of reference. For instance, an argument between people is frequently compared to war.
The conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR is prevalent in everyday speech. There is a
number of expressions reflecting this metaphor. People can win or lose arguments and
the sides in a disagreement are perceived as opponents who defend their positions and
attack each other. It is common to say that somebody's claims were indefensible or that
someone attacked every weak point in the argument (Lakoff – Johnson 2003: 5). Lakoff
and Johnson (2003: 117) describe metaphor as a means “to understand one domain of
experience in terms of another”. Argument would serve here as the source domain and
war as the target domain. The source domain is mapped onto the target domain. In other
words, “the structural components of the source conceptual schema are transferred to
the target domain” (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 233). Similarly, comparing
someone to an owl reveals that an association has been established between the indi-
vidual (tenor) and the owl (vehicle) as a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. It has to be
taken under consideration, however, that this kind of metaphor, while perfectly accept-
able in the western culture, would be certainly misunderstood by people from the Arab
world, where the owl is a symbol of misfortune (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007:
233).
This misunderstanding stems from the fact that metaphors may exploit different
domains, depending on the language in which they are formulated. In order to transfer
the metaphor across cultures and languages, the translator needs to search for “a cognit-

24
ive equivalence”, a property ascribed to metaphors in the Cognitive Translation Hypo -
thesis (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 234).
The Cognitive Translation Hypothesis has been proposed by Mandelblit (1995),
who studied reaction time of translators engaged in the task of rendering metaphors. It
has been observed that it takes longer to translate metaphors that exploit a cognitive do -
main which is different from the one used by the equivalent target language expressions.
Mandelblit (1995), basing on the assumption that “the difference in reaction time is due
to a conceptual shift that the translator is required to make between the conceptual map -
ping systems of the source and target languages” (Mandelblit 1995: 493, as quoted in
Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 233), has distinguished two patterns of cognitive
mapping conditions: Similar Mapping Conditions and Different Mapping Conditions.
In the case of Similar Mapping Conditions, the role of the translator is obvious
and simple, as the TL cognitive domain is similar or identical to the domain used by the
SL. The translator needs to find the equivalent expression in the TL. If the mapping
conditions are similar, the task can be accomplished effortlessly. For instance, an Eng-
lish metaphor time stood still, may be transferred into Polish literally, without much
consideration as czas zatrzymał się w miejscu, since both metaphors exploit similar cog-
nitive domains, namely, the abstract notion of time has been given the ability to stand
still. Similarly, the metaphor to buy into an idea, which means to easily believe in a cer-
tain concept, is based on the association between the act of believing and the act of buy -
ing, which is present in both languages. Thus, it can be translated literally into Polish, as
kupować pomysł.
While the task of translating metaphors of Similar Mapping Conditions seems to
pose no difficulties to the translator, the rendition of metaphors of Different Mapping
Conditions transpires to be extraordinarily intricate. “[T]he translator is called upon to
play the role of a proxy agent doing the act of conceptual mapping on behalf of the TL
reader” (Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 234). If a SL metaphor exploits a differ-
ent cognitive domain than the one used by the TL expression, the translator needs to
seek an equivalent metaphor which would evoke similar associations. For instance, the
English expression be all bark and no bite has no analogous metaphor in the Polish lan-
guage. Its meaning has been mapped onto a different target domain. In order to success-
fully translate the phrase, the cognitive equivalence has to be found. If someone is all
bark and no bite, they are not as unpleasant as they may seem and their words are louder

25
than actions. In Polish, there is an expression that may be of similar meaning, namely,
byc mocnym w gębie. Due to the fact that the cognitive domain in the target language is
different, as there are no equivalent expressions in Polish containing words bark or bite,
the translator needs more time to find acceptable TL metaphors.
In the cognitive approach, metaphors are viewed not only as stylistic figures, but
rather as conceptual constructs. Due to the cognitive function ascribed to metaphors and
the cognitive equivalence they possess, it is possible to translate them across cultures
(Al-Zoubi – Al-Ali – Al-Hasnawi 2007: 233).
In conclusion, it has been shown that figurative language has proven to be ex-
ceptionally intricate when it comes to its translation. Finding translation equivalence
between the source and the target language is extremely demanding, while rendering
metaphorical expressions. The task of nonliteral language translation requires experi-
ence, patience and creativity on the part of the translator. The theoretical deliberations
are to be empirically verified in the following chapter.

26
Chapter 3: The experiment; processing figurative language in
translation

This chapter describes an experiment that has been conducted in order to verify predic-
tions formulated on the basis of the theoretical framework provided in the first and
second chapter of the thesis. This part describes the aim of the study, theoretical as -
sumptions that are to be corroborated, the participants of the experiment and the re-
search a methods applied. Finally, the results of the experiment are discussed and some
conclusions are drawn.

3.1. The aim of the experiment

The chief aim of the experiment is to investigate the differences between literal and fig-
urative language processing in translation. Two aspects of translation are being ex-
amined: its quality and duration. The experiment focuses on the figurative language ren-
dering, contrasting the results with the translation of literal expressions.
As far as the quality of translation is concerned, it has been investigated whether
nonliteral language is more demanding and whether it poses more difficulties than the
literal language. The analysis focused on how metaphorical expressions are transferred
into the target language, what procedures of figurative language translation are applied,
and what problems and errors may result from the onerous task of figurative language
translation.

27
Accordingly, the time in which the metaphorical expressions had been translated has
been juxtaposed with the time of literal language rendering. It has been analysed wheth-
er it takes longer to translate figurative phrases than literal expressions.
All in all, the experiment has been designed to examine how the translation of figurative
language differs from the literal language rendering in terms of the quality of production
and the time in which the task has been accomplished.

3.2. Hypotheses

The experiment has been conducted to verify two chief assumptions formulated on the
basis of the theoretical framework presented in the first and second chapter. The predic-
tions stem from both, the models of figurative language comprehension discussed in
chapter one, as well as from the studies on metaphor translation.
Firstly, it has been hypothesized that figurative language is much more demand -
ing and challenging to translate than literal language. It poses various difficulties which
frequently result in numerous mistranslations or omissions. Hence, the translation of a
text abundant in metaphorical expressions may differ from its original to a greater ex-
tent than the rendition of a literal piece of writing. Additionally, incorporating Mandelb -
ilt's Cognitive Translation Hypothesis (1995), it has been predicted that the translation
of metaphors exploiting similar cognitive domains would be less problematic and would
result in better quality than the rendition of figurative expressions of different mapping
conditions.
Secondly, it has been hypothesized that figurative language translation is much
more time consuming and takes significantly longer than rendering literal language. Ac -
cordingly, it has been assumed that metaphors of similar mapping conditions are less
time-consuming when it comes to translation than those exploiting different cognitive
domain.
The data gathered in the experiment have been scrutinised in order to corrobor -
ate these assumptions.

28
3.3. The subjects of the experiment

The experiment has been performed on a group of ten participants aged between
twenty-two and twenty-five, four males and six females. All of them are students of the
third year of English Philology at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. For all the
subjects of the experiment Polish is the native language and English is the first foreign
language. The participants have relatively similar command of English, which can be
described as proficient. Moreover, all of them have some previous experience in transla-
tion. They have completed a one-year course of translation during their studies at the
university. The course gave them the opportunity to acquaint themselves with certain
techniques and methods of translation, as well as to become aware of potential problems
and obstacles they may encounter in the process of translation.

3.4. Research Methods

The research has been conducted in three stages: a questionnaire study, a Translog study
and a retrospective interview similar to Think Aloud Protocols (TAPs). 4
At the beginning, the participants were asked to fill in a simple questionnaire
about their language background and previous experience in translation. The subjects
answered questions concerning their age, languages they speak, the level of proficiency
in English and the kind of translational activities they had been engaged in. The ques-
tionnaire was designed to ensure the homogeneity of the group taking part in the experi -
ment.
The second stage, which was also the major part of the experiment, has been
performed using Translog, a computer programme which records all keyboard activity
(Hansen 2003: 27). The software logs all the keystrokes, including deletions and addi-
tions, and cursor movements made by the translator. It records the exact time at which
the production of each keystroke has been made, which is extremely useful in the as-
sessment of the writing processes involved in translation. What is more, Translog allows
to replay the typing activities at any time.

4
Think Aloud Protocols (TAPs) involve “verbalisation of thought processes during a translation exercise”
(Halverson 2009: 214).

29
 The participants were asked to translate a short text comprising of about two
hundred and fifty words. The text, in a form of a short story entitled “The Secret of the
Trap Door”, had been excerpted from a handbook Understanding Idioms and Other
English Expressions Grades 4-6 by Timothy Rasinski and Kathleen Knoblock (2008). 5
The book is orientated towards American students to enrich their vocabulary and flu-
ency in reading. Therefore, each text is abundant in metaphorical expressions. “The
Secret of the Trap Door” includes fifteen metaphors ranging from fixed expressions
present in everyday speech, like to catch one's breath, to rare idioms, such as to be all
bark and no bite. The participants were asked to translate the story into Polish. They
had free access to the Internet, online dictionaries, as well as traditional printed English-
English and English-Polish dictionaries. The aim was to create a natural environment
for translation. In order to create similar experimental conditions the subjects were
asked to translate the text in the same room, with the same aids available. What is im -
portant, no time constraint was imposed on this task. After the translation, each target
text has been saved as a log file.
The third, and final, stage of the research, consisted of a short interview conduc -
ted on an individual basis. The replay function of Translog was used where the parti-
cipants were able to watch and comment on their actions. This part of the experiment re-
sembled Think Aloud Protocols (TAP), however done in a retrospective manner. The
subjects indicated what problems in the process of translation they had encountered and
meaning of which words and expressions they had searched in the available sources.
They also explained what they had been doing during the pauses. Their utterances were
noted down.
The research, based on the online Translog study, was enriched by the retro-
spective TAP and the questionnaire in order to cross-examine the results. By bringing
the triangulation of these methods into the research, the Translog files have been supple -
mented with a useful commentary, which is immensely helpful in interpreting the results
of the translation experiment.

The text is provided in Appendix A, p.41

5

30
3.5. Discussion of the results

The discussion of the results of the experiment is divided into two sections. The first
section deals with the quality of translation. In the second section the time of language
processing is being discussed.

3.5.1. Quality of TL text production

After the experiment had been completed, the translated texts were saved in a form of
log files and closely scrutinised, using the Translog software. Firstly, the quality of
translation has been evaluated.
The comparison of the target language texts has shown that no significant differ-
ences between the versions have been observed. The only discrepancies are visible in
the translation of metaphorical expressions. This observation seems to confirm the hy-
pothesis that figurative language is more demanding to render than literal language. The
participants were rather unanimous, as far as the literal language is concerned. The only
variations have appeared in the rendition of metaphors, which may result from the fact
that nonliteral expressions are more problematic and more prone to the subjective inter-
pretation of the translator. Table 1 reflects this wide range of choices made by the trans-
lators:

Table 1. Translation of the metaphor “He was all bark and no bite”.

Parti- Translation
cipant
1 Był totalnie przerażony
2 Tylko dużo gadał
3 Zgrywał chojraka
4 Jest mocny tylko w gębie
5 Nieustraszony okazał się być potulny jak baranek
6 Pokazał, że tak naprawdę potrafi tylko gadać
7 Mocny w gębie, ale nie w zębie
8 Okazał się tchórzem
9 Udawał odważnego
10 Tylko udawał nieustraszonego

As can be seen from the table, the differences in the treatment of the metaphor
are apparent. The example confirms the prediction that the translation of figurative lan -

31
guage would differ from the original to a greater extent than the rendition of literal lan -
guage. Furthermore, these findings were supported in the retrospective interviews,
where the participants had to indicate expressions that were most problematic to trans-
late. The metaphor He was all bark and no bite has been chosen as the most challenging
to transfer. Interestingly enough, no literal phrase has been indicated as posing diffi-
culties in translation.
Before the experiment, it has been assumed that the translation of metaphors of
similar mapping conditions (SMC) would be less problematic than the translation of
metaphors exploiting different cognitive domains (DMC) As it can be seen from Table
2, where three examples of metaphors of SMC have been grouped, the translations are
almost indistinguishable. In all of the renditions, the SL image has been reproduced in
the TL language without changes. The metaphors are acceptable and widely used in
everyday speech in the TL. Therefore, the translation sounds natural. What is more, the
proper register has been retained and the expressions have remained figurative. Thus,
the examples seem to verify the hypothesis that the translation of SMC metaphors poses
no problem and is usually of a good quality. In fact, it resembles the translation of literal
language.

Table 2. Translation of SMC metaphors

Parti- Keep your paws off that Time stood still for a moment They bought into it
cipant
1 Trzymaj łapy z daleka od tego Czas zatrzymał się w miejscu Nabierali się
2 Zabieraj łapy Czas zatrzymał się Kupowali to
3 Won z łapami Czas jakby stanął Kupowali to
4 Trzymaj łapy z daleka Czas się na chwilę zatrzyamał To kupili
5 Trzymaj swoje łapska z dala Czas zatrzymał się na moment Wierzyli
6 Precz z łapami Czas się zatrzymał Kupowali to
7 Trzymaj łapy z dalea od tego Czas zatrzymał się na moment Kupili to
8 Zabieraj łapy Czas jakby się zatrzymał Kupowali to
9 Zabieraj łapy Czas stanął na chwilę Kupowali to
10 Trzymaj łapy z dala Czas zatrzymał się Kupowali to

These observations need to be complemented with the evaluation of DMC meta -

pors translation. According to the hypothesis, translating metaphors which exploit dif-
ferent cognitive domain is more demanding and frequently results in production of poor
quality. Corresponding to Table 1 and Table 3 (below), where two examples of such
metaphors have been presented, it is clearly visible that the TL equivalents differ in
terms of register and the translation techniques. In the majority of cases, SL metaphors

32
have been transferred into the TL as literal expressions. The metaphorical effect has
been lost. In the second example, the metaphor being the top dog has been translated
mostly as “being the boss” or “the leader”. Only in two cases, the translators have
sought an equivalent Polish metaphor which has similar meaning to the English expres-
sion. The metaphor being all bark and no bite has transpired to be the most trouble-
some expression in the whole task. The translators had difficulties in finding a proper
Polish equivalent, the majority of them decided to describe the metaphor using nonliter -
al language

Table 3. Translation of a DMC metaphor: "Jason was the top dog"

Parti- Translation
cipant
1 Jason był kierownikiem
2 Jason był największą szychą
3 Jason był szefem
4 Jason wiódł prym
5 Jason był szefem
6 Jason był hersztem
7 Jason był niekwestionowanym liderem
8 Jason był najlepszy
9 Jason był przywódcą
10 Jason był szefem

All in all, the results concerning the quality of translation have confirmed the hypo -
theses formulated on the basis of the theory presented in the first two chapters. It has
been corroborated that figurative language translation is more problematic than literal
language rendering. Similarly, the DMC metaphors have proven to be more challenging
in rendition than SMC metaphors.

3.5.2. Time of production

After the evaluation of the translation quality, the duration of time in which the transla-
tions had been produced, was studied. The speed with which the translators worked on
the task varied from 104.12 to 37.98 text production keystrokes per minute. The dura -
tion of time spent on translating the text ranged from 12.21 to 44.28 minutes.
The analysis of the log files has displayed an interesting pattern present in each
translation. The Translog software has recorded significantly long pauses in the text pro-

33
duction which occurred immediately before the metaphorical expressions present in the
story. The retrospective TAPs have revealed that, in the vast majority of cases, these
pauses were caused by the need to check the meaning of the phrase in the available
sources. What is even more interesting, no such pauses were recorded in other parts of
the text, where no figurative expressions were present, which is a clear indication of the
fact that figurative language translation is more time-consuming than literal language
rendering. It seems as if the metaphorical expressions were obstacles, which impeded
the process of translation. This finding may be supported by Table 4, where the average
speed of the whole text production is contrasted with the average speed of an exemplary
metaphorical expression translation:

Table 4. Difference in the speed of translation.

Parti- Text prod keys/min – the whole task Text prod keys/min – metaphor “He was
cipant all bark and no bites”
1 45.26 5.37
2 104.12 5.25
3 39.91 2.98
4 59.23 5.6
5 28.14 3.75
6 89.89 11.89
7 62.36 12
8 62.52 5.49
9 37.98 3.12
10 40.34 5.09
Average 56.98 6,06

The figures in Table 4 evidently confirm the prediction that figurative expressions are
more time-consuming than literal language. The average speed of translating the meta-
phor “He was all bark and no bites” is over nine times slower than the speed of the
whole text production. The analysis of the log files also displays that figurative expres-
sions entailed a number of text deletions and changes, which resulted in slowing down
the translation process.
Another prediction formulated on the basis of the Cognitive Translation Hypo -
thesis, posited that the translation of metaphors exploiting similar mapping conditions
would be less time-consuming than the rendition of expressions of different mapping
conditions. Again, the assumption has been confirmed. According to the results, the
translators spent less time on SMC metaphors than on DMC expressions. This finding is
clearly illustrated by the figures presented in Table 5:

34
 Table 5. Difference in the speed of SMC and DMC metaphors translation.

Parti- Text prod keys/min – SMC metaphor “Keep your Text prod keys/min – metaphor DMC “He
cipant paws off” was all bark and no bites”
1 59,7 5.37
2 75 5.25
3 50 2.98
4 75 5.6
5 42,85 3.75
6 100 11.89
7 75 12.08
8 37,5 5.49
9 33,33 3.12
10 37,5 5.09
Average 58,59 6,06

The difference in the speed of translation between the SMC and DMC metaphors is
evident. The average speed of the DMC metaphor translation is almost 9 times slower
than the average speed of the SMC metaphor rendering.
The results concerning the time of text translation have confirmed all of the pre -
dictions formulated on the basis of the Cognitive Translation Hypothesis. The outcomes
of the experiment accord with the assumption that figurative language translation takes
longer than literal language rendering, as well with the prediction that the translation of
SMC metaphors is less time consuming than the rendition of DMC metaphors.
It seems that the results of the experiment have confirmed all of the hypotheses
concerning both the quality and time of figurative and literal language processing in
translation.

35
 Conclusion

Figurative language, although abundant in literary works and poetry, as well as in every-
day conversations, has been neglected by the theoreticians of translation. Discovering
the mechanisms that govern the processes of figurative language translation may im-
prove the quality of rendition and accelerate its production.
It was the chief aim of the thesis to show the differences in the translation of fig -
urative and literal language. Hypotheses, formulated on the basis of the theoretical
background presented in the first two chapters of this dissertation, have been confirmed
by the empirical research described in chapter three. It has been proven that figurative
expressions pose more difficulties and take more time to translate than literal phrases.
The theoretical background of the research, including the dissimilarities in the
treatment of expressions exploiting Similar and Different Mapping Conditions, as well
as the procedures and techniques applied in the process of translation, may become use -
ful in further studies on figurative language translation. The empirical findings reported
and analysed in chapter three point to the need to implement aspects of figurative lan-
guage translation as a part of translator training education in order to ensure the quality
of translation, which will meet professional standards.

36
 References

Abrams, M.C. 1999. A glossary of literary terms. (7th edition). Boston: Heinle and
Heinle.
Alves, Fabio (ed.). 2003. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented re-
search. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Al-Zoubi, Mohammad Q. – Mohammed N. Al-Ali – Ali R. Al-Hasnawi. 2007. “Cogno-
cultural issues in translating metaphors”, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
14, 3: 230-239.
Ariel, Mira. 2002. “The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning” , Journal of
Pragmatics 34: 361-402.
Baker, Mona – Gabriela Saldanha (eds.). 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies. (2nd edition). Abingdon: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan. 2003. Translation Studies. (3rd edition). London: Routlege.
Blasko, Dawn G. 1999. “Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about meta-
phor?”, Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1675-1683.
Beekman, John – John Callow. 1974. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan Publishing House.
Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.
London: Oxford University Press.
Cieślicka, Anna. 2004. On processing figurative language: towards a model of idiom
comprehension in foreign language learners. Poznań: Motivex.
Cole, Peter – Jerry L. Morgan. 1975. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New
York: Academic Press.

37
Dagut, Menachem. 1976. “Can metaphor be translated?”, Babel: International Journal
of Translation XXII, 1: 21-33.
Dascal, Marcelo. 1987. “Defending literal meaning”, Cognitive Science 11: 259–281.
Dobrzyńska, Teresa. 1995. “Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning”, Journal of
Pragmatics 24: 595-604.
Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. Contemporary Translation Theory. London: Routlege.
Gerver, David – H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds.). 1977. Language, Interpretation and Com-
munication. New York: Plenum Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. Figurative language. (http://cognet.mit.edu/library/) (date of ac-
cess 15 Jan. 2009).
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1984. “Literal meaning and psychological theory”, Cognitive
Science 8: 275–304.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1994. The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language and
understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 2002. “A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is
said and implicated”, Journal of Pragmatics 34: 457–486.
Giora, Rachel. 1997. “Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded sali -
ence hypothesis”, Cognitive Linguistics 7: 183–206.
Giora, Rachel. 1999. “On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurat -
ive language”, Journal of Pragmatics 31: 919-929.
Giora, Rachel. 2002. “Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?”, Journal of
Pragmatics 34: 487-506.
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”, in: Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (eds.),
41-58.
Halverson, Sandra. 2009. “Psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches”, in: Mona Baker
– Gabriela Saldanha (eds.), 211-216.
Hansen, Gyde. 2003. “Theoretical and methodological reflections on research into
translation processes”, in : Fabio Alves (ed.), 25-42.
Hatim, Basil – Ian Masón. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Janus, Raizi A. – Thomas G. Bever. 1985. “Processing of Metaphoric Language: An In-
vestigation of the Three-Stage Model of Metaphor Comprehension”, Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 14, 5: 473-487.

38
Johnson, Michael G. – Robert G. Malgady. 1979. “Some Cognitive Aspects of Figurat-
ive Language: Association and Metaphor”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
8, 3: 249-265.
Katz, Albert N. 1998. “A Review”, in: Albert N. Katz – Cristina Cacciari – Raymond W.
Gibbs, Jr. – Mark Turner, 3-43.
Katz, Albert N. – Cristina Cacciari – Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. – Mark Turner. 1998. Fig-
urative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, Jerrold J. 1980. Propositional structure and illocutionary force: A study of the
contribution of sentence meaning to speech acts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Katz, Jerrold J. 1977. Propositional structure and illocutionary force: A study of the
contribution of sentence meaning to speech acts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Korzeniowska, Aniela – Piotr Kuhiwczak. 1994. Successful Polish-English translation:
Tricks of the trade. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN
Korzeniowska, Aniela. 1998. Explorations in Polish-English mistranslations problems.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Lakoff, George – Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago : University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1986. “The meanings of literal”, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1, 4:
291-296.
Lakoff, George – Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. London: University of
Chicago Press.
Mandelblit, Nili. 1995. “The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for trans -
lation theory”, in: Marcel Thelen – Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.).
483-495.
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Olivera, Pedro A. Fuertes – Marisol Velasco Sacristán. 2001. “The Translatability of
Metaphor in LSP: Application of a Decision-Making Model”, Revista Alicantina
de Estudios Ingleses 14: 73-91.
Pergnier, Maurice. 1975. “Language-Meaning and Message-Meaning: Towards a Socio-
linguistic Approach to Translation”, in: Gerver, David – H. Wallace Sinaiko
(eds.). 199-204.

39
Pollio, Howard R. – Jack M. Barlow – Harold J. Fine – Marilyn R. Pollio. 1977. The
Poetics of Growth: Figurative Language in Psychotherapy and Education. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Roberts, Richard M. – Roger J. Kreuz. 1994. “Why do people use figurative
language?”, Psychological Science 5, 3: 159-163.
Samuel, Peter – David Frank. 2009. Translating poetry and figurative language. (http://
www.montraykreyol.org/spip.php?article2438) (date of access: 15 May 2009)
Schäffner, Christina – Uwe Wisemann. 2001. Annotated texts for translation: English –
German: Functionalist Approaches Illustrated. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schäffner, Christina. 2004. “Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive
approach”, Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1253–1269.
Searle, John, 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thelen, Marcel – Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). 1995. Translation and
meaning: Part 3: proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 2nd Maastricht-
Łódź Duo colloquium on 'Translation and meaning', held in Maastricht, the
Netherlands, 19-22 April 1995. Maastricht: Maastricht Universitaire Press.
Van den Broeck, Raymond. 1981. “The limits of translatability exemplified by meta -
phor translation”, Poetics Today 2: 73–87.

40
 Appendix A

The Secret of The Trap Door

Of the five members of the Olive Street Detectives Club, Jason was the top dog.
So, when Marissa discovered a secret trap door in the ground in the field right behind
the neighbourhood, she made a beeline straight to Jason's. “Let's go open it!” she said,
all pumped up.
“Don't be such an eager beaver,” Jason answered. “We'll round up everyone for a
meeting to chew on the best way to investigate.”
Although the other kids thought Jason was fearless, deep down he was a
scaredy-cat. He just puffed himself up in front of the others and they bought into it. Un -
til now, they hadn't ever actually found anything.
When the whole group assembled at the wooden door in the field, Daniel started
tugging at the door. “Hey! Keep your paws off that!” barked Jason. However, it was too
late. The door popped open. Time stood still for a moment, and when the kids caught
their breath, Daniel said, “it's like a tunnel,” and disappeared into the hole in the ground.
Meg turned to Jason, “What should we do?” But Jason was a statue, too stunned
to reply. The group's fearless leader revealed that he was all bark and no bite.
No one spoke for a moment or two. Then, from somewhere deep in ground came
Daniel's hollow voice. “Hey, guys,” it echoed up to them. “Someone lives down here!”
“Or something. . . . ” whispered Marissa.

41