In the following account, I will survey the early contributions to the translation of metaphor, dealing with Nida’s model of negotiating equivalence (1964; 2001; 2003) and Mason’s zero- theory for the translation of metaphor (1982). As explained before, Nida’s model is influenced by his ethnolinguistic approach which represents the main framework for his scholarly contributions to TS as a whole, and it is based on considering cultural metaphors untranslatable, generally speaking, and adapting their content to the target culture. The distinctive feature in Nida’s argument about the lack of equivalence between source culture metaphors and target culture metaphors is that it does not dismiss the possibility of translating metaphor out of hand, as it is based on negotiating a kind of equivalence which is in harmony with the cognitive content of the target culture. Nida’s model was criticized by Dagut for his “brief discussion of ‘metaphor’ and ‘figurative meaning’” (1976: 21) in a “comprehensive 264-page work” (ibid.). However this should not undermine the former’s contribution for its remarkable objectivity in approaching the topic from the perspective of Dynamic Equivalence.
In his discussion of the translatability of metaphor, Nida made a distinction between “active figurative extensions” (2003: 93) which take the form of live figurative metaphors, and inactive figurative extensions, i.e. idiomatic expressions, which behave like lexical, semantic units whose meaning cannot be explained by virtue of their lexical constituents (Nida 2003: 95; Nida and Taber 1969: 106-107). This differentiation between ‘living’ and ‘dead’ metaphors provided the foundation for most modern accounts of the definition, classification and translation methods of metaphorical language, in general. In discussing the translation methods of these two categories, Nida made use of the notion of Dynamic
019
Equivalence, suggesting three kinds of semantic adjustment, i.e. adaptations, for the translation of figurative meanings. For Nida, inactive figurative expressions tend to be translated in three different ways all of which are considered dynamic equivalents. The purpose behind opting for Dynamic Equivalence in the translation of idiomatic expressions is to produce a translation which is natural in the target culture, i.e. adapted to it. Accordingly, an adapted translation of idioms can be produced by rendering the idiom to a non-idiom or a different idiom that preserves the meaning of the ST idiom, and rendering a non-idiom to an idiom. According to Nida and Taber, the same translation methods apply to live figurative extensions, as explained in the following passage:
“As in the case of idioms there are three situations in which figurative expressions (...) are involved in the transfer process: (a) shifts from figurative to nonfigurative usage… (b) shifts from one type of figurative expression, (c) nonfigurative expressions changed to figurative ones (...)” (1969: 107)
The other technique that was introduced by Nida for dealing with the translation of idioms is that of ‘borrowing’ or Formal Equivalence. The criterion for employing the method of borrowing in the translation of an idiom is the availability or unavailability of a TL idiomatic equivalent which preserves the communicative content of the SL idiom, in which case Nida argued that the translator might decide to keep the ST idiom intact and import it into the target culture without any changes in its structure or content. Nida proposed two techniques which could help the text recipients understand the ST’s message in case the translator opts for a formal equivalent: the first is to add a classifier in order to give a hint about the semantic content of the borrowed idiom; and the second is to add a marginal note “if the feature in question merits an explanation” (2003: 165).
Nida and Taber referred to the use of the first technique as ‘contextual conditioning’ defining it as “the placing in the context of information which is needed to make the meaning clear to a receptor.” (1969: 199) Take, for example, the translation of the Biblical metaphor ‘killing the fatted calf’. If we want to preserve the cultural connotations of the Biblical
001
reference while translating it from English into a language that does not share the same cultural experience, we might condition it contextually by adding a classifier which explicates the idiomatic implications of the metaphor. For example, we might say something like ‘to celebrate by killing the fatted calf’. The word ‘celebrate’ is introduced into the
context to add a communicative value to the metaphor’s content. In the case of Arabic there is no need for adding a classifier when translating this expression as Arabic language users are familiar with its cognitive content and experiential background which is also mentioned in the Qur’an in a similar context. The following passage clarifies the uses of the techniques of borrowing and contextual conditioning:
“In many instances translators conclude that no equivalent exists in the receptor language and that the only practical solution is to borrow a word from the source language. The heavy communication load imposed by such borrowings can sometimes be reduced by the use of ‘classifiers’ (...) to make these meaningless foreign words somewhat more intelligible, and thus reduce their communication load.” (Nida 2003: 137)
Nida’s account of adopting Dynamic Equivalence in a TT-oriented approach and Formal Equivalence in a ST-oriented approach to translating cultural metaphors reflects the relativity of his contribution to the translation of metaphor. It is a relativity that does not fall under an absolute argument of translatability or untranslatability, which makes it fit for the description of a ‘model of negotiating equivalence’. Nida’s model was embraced by Beekman and Callow (1974) in their account of translating Biblical metaphor. They suggested translating Biblical metaphor by means of cultural substitution, descriptive modification, or borrowing, which are the same procedures introduced by Nida but given different technical terms. The model of negotiating equivalence was also adopted by Schäffner in her approach to translating culturally-oriented metaphors. In an article entitled “Metaphor and Translation: some implications of a cognitive approach”, Schäffner (2004) dealt with metaphor-related problems of translation from a bicultural perspective which aims at producing a compromised equivalence. In order to create correspondence between ST metaphors and TT metaphors, she
000
proposed reproducing the ST metaphor in a way which fits the cultural and linguistic implications of the TL. At the same time, the translator is required to show sensitivity to SL cultural property by making use of certain procedures like ‘footnoting’ and paraphrasing, as explained in the following passage:
“Cultural differences between the SL and the TL and between the source culture and the target culture have often been mentioned as problems for the translation of metaphors. For example, it has been argued that if a metaphor activates different associations in the two cultures, one should avoid a literal translation and opt either for a corresponding TL metaphor or for a paraphrase. If, however, the culture- specificity of the ST is to be stressed, then it would be better to reproduce the SL metaphor and add an explanation, either in a footnote or by means of annotations.” (Schäffner 2004: 1264)
The second argument which I would like to discuss under the early contributions to metaphor translation is Mason’s account of the translation of cultural metaphors. Mason (1982) called for adopting Dynamic Equivalence in translating the cultural content of a text, metaphoric or not. The difference between this approach and Nida’s approach is that Mason did not view metaphor as a distinct linguistic aspect which merits special treatment in translation. Rather, it is present in all language and its translation is subject to the same factors which influence the translation of any ST content. Mason’s contribution was based on viewing metaphor as a prevalent feature in all language uses without distinguishing between the metaphoric and non-metaphoric components of language. The only distinction one can make vis-à-vis the metaphoric nature of language is between the common uses and novel uses of metaphor. According to Mason, it is the second kind of metaphors, i.e. novel metaphors, that creates obstacles during the translation process. This implies that the obstacles which are associated with the translation of metaphor are not related to the complex nature of metaphor. Rather, they are related to the uses of metaphor and the translators’ familiarity with its empirical content and functions, as explained in the following excerpt:
“All language is metaphorical in its origin, and it is (...) the fact that metaphors are typically made of old words, words already in common use, that creates problems for the translator dealing with original metaphors, (...) which shows that the
002
problems involved in translating a metaphor are a function of the problems involved in translating in general and not of the problems with metaphor.” (Mason 1982: 141)
Based on the previous argument of metaphor pervasiveness in all the uses of language, and the lack of association between the intrinsic features of metaphor, on the one hand, and its method of translation, on the other hand, Mason claimed the futility of investigating the translatability or untranslatability of metaphor as a special case. Accordingly, the translation of metaphor should not be dealt with as an independent topic in its own right but rather within the framework of Translation Studies, as a whole, hence the description of this approach as the ‘zero-theory of metaphor translation’. Mason provided an example of the use
of novel metaphor as the main source of problem in the translation process. The example was Ker Wilson's translation of Alice in Wonderland where the character of the White Rabbit was qualified as a Kangaroo, which is closer to the Australian physical environment (Mason 1982: 147). For Mason, the translator’s adaptation of the metaphor was quite successful; however, this technique which was employed by the translator to deal with the ST metaphor applies also to the ST’s cultural content as a whole regardless of its metaphoricity or non- metaphoricity. Mason concluded that translating metaphor should be considered from a functional perspective based on the cultural and contextual components of the text and regardless of the kind of metaphor one is dealing with:
“Each occurrence of a metaphor for translation must therefore be treated in isolation; each of its components must be dealt with in the light of its cultural connotations before a translation of the whole can take place, and account must also be taken of the textual context in which the metaphor is used. There cannot be a theory of the translation of metaphor; there can only be a theory of translation, and that theory has to allow room for the notion of the purpose of translating each new text.” (1982: 149)
Despite being limited in scope Mason’s account on metaphor translation marks a departure from earlier contributions in that it distances itself from the dogmatic branding of metaphor as translatable/untranslatable and describes the issue in a wider context of
003
functionality where every single metaphor is treated as an integrated part of a cultural and textual setting. The point in common between Nida’s model and Mason’s account is that both focused on the role of cultural factors in determining the degree of metaphor translatability. However they differ in that Nida’s account provided a general description of the options
available to translators in dealing with metaphoric language, whereas Mason maintained that the translation of metaphor should not be discussed as a special issue in the field of TS and that, throughout the process of translation, every metaphor should be treated as an individual case which has its own cultural and contextual dynamics that determine the degree and method of its translatability.