Quesos elaborados con proteínas del suero y cambios

Recent studies of metaphor tend to consider metaphor as genre-related (Caballero 2013a, 2003b; Deignan et al., 2013; Porto and Romano 2013; Semino 2008, 2011; Wee 2005). Deignan et al., (2013), for instance, argue that using a framework based on what they consider as established notions which are ‘genre’ and ‘register’ “enable researchers to determine commonalities and differences, and ultimately establish more accurately how these co-occur with particular patterns of metaphor use” (2013:51).

In the same line, Wee (2005) claims that the notion of genre allows accounting for differences and similarities where, he maintains, the metaphor is a form of what he calls “recontextualization” and that recontextualization is constrained by the genre or what he calls “activity type” (2005:219).

29

Wee (2005) proposes that metaphor is a recontextualization because it transfers meaning from one context (source domain) to another (target domain). This section scrutinises the role of metaphor in popular science articles from this point of view.

Within this perspective, the two categories of theory constitutive metaphors and pedagogical metaphors discussed in the previous sections are seen rather as functions than as categories. While Boyd (1993) considers that the status of metaphor as theory- constitutive or pedagogical is inherent to the linguistic expression independently from its context, Knudsen (2003) argues that a metaphor can be theory-constitutive or pedagogical or both according to the context and to the genre where it is used. Rather than being a category, it is a function a metaphor fulfils in context or in a particular genre (Semino 2008). Knudsen (2003) categorises metaphors according to the genre where they are used. She compares how metaphors are used in biology in two different genres: specialised articles and popular science articles. Knudsen’s main argument is that metaphors used in research articles designate established scientific context and are, hence, no longer seen as metaphoric by scientists who use them when they address other scientists. She terms this kind of metaphor ‘close metaphor’ because its meaning is established and is not open to interpretation or explanation. These ‘close metaphors’ are theory-constitutive- metaphors in Boyd terminology. When these same metaphors are used in popular science articles, authors tend to explain them to the reader who may not be aware of their established meaning as concepts of the scientific field. They are hence, ‘opened’. This ‘opening’ is done either by signalling them typographically as metaphors ‘the use of the metaphor between inverted commas for instance) or by providing an explanation, often using another metaphor. The following two examples are both taken from Knudsen (2003) to illustrate the use of the ‘translation’ metaphor in a research article published in Science and a popular science article published in Scientific American magazine. The first example is from a research article; the second example is from a popular science article.

If similar mispairing occurred during translation, messenger RNA containing 7-methylguanine would code as if contained adenine in place of the methylated base (Wilhelm and Ludlum, 1966: 1043 quoted in Knudsen, 2003:1254, emphasis is the author’s)

In this example, the linguistic metaphors ‘translation’, ‘messenger’ and ‘code’ feature in the research article without any signalling or explanation. In terms of Knudsen, they are ‘closed metaphors’.

30

The genetic code is not the message itself but the “dictionary” used by the cell to translate from the four-letter language of nucleic acid to the 20-letter language of protein. The machinery of the cell can translate in one direction only: from nucleic acid to protein but not from protein to nucleic acid. (Nirenberg, 1963, 56 quoted in Knudsen 2003, 1256, emphasis is her, quotes in original)

In this example, the linguistic metaphor ‘code’ is explained by another metaphor “the dictionary” (ibid.). This metaphor is typologically signalled using inverted commas (which is one of the metaphor signals listed in Goatly’s as will be seen in Section 3.3. Furthermore, the linguistic metaphor ‘translation’ is also explained by making the source language and the target language explicit. The cell translates from the language of nucleic acid, which is a four-letter language, into a language of protein which is a 20-letter language. The linguistic metaphor ‘translation’ is extended and used to provide more information: the machine translation of the cell is unidirectional as it can only transform the nucleic acid into a protein and not the other way around (from a protein into a nucleic acid). It should also be noted that the metaphor expression “translate” is no longer signalled after its first use. Knudsen (2003) argues that once a metaphor is explained in a popular science article, it tends to “close” again as it is not signalled or explained again as the text unfolds (ibid.). Knudsen (2003) provides a useful distinction between the use of metaphor in both scientific articles and popular science ones. Accordingly, she argues that the same metaphor fulfils a different function when used in different genres. Regarding the statistical differences in the use of metaphor between the two genres of research articles and popular science articles, she finds that 90% of metaphors used in both genres are theory-constitutive metaphors. She concludes that none of the metaphors used in popular science articles is original, and they have all been recycled from specialised articles. If this is the case for biology texts, it does not seem to be the case for Astronomy and Astrophysics texts as will be shown later in Chapter 7.

Knudsen’s findings are partially supported by the findings of Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan (2006). The two researchers conducted a comparative study of the use of metaphors in research articles and popular science articles in the field of economics. Relying on Henderson’s (1986) typology of metaphors in economic texts, the two researchers classified the metaphors according to their genre specificity into two categories: “generic” or “genre specific”. A metaphor is regarded as ‘generic’ when it belongs to the common stock of the language. This category encompasses conventional

31

metaphors, the meaning of which is listed in a general dictionary of the English language. The ‘genre specific’ metaphors, they go on to argue, serves three functions: “filling lexical gaps”, “illustration” and “modelling”. Illustrating metaphors have a primarily decorative or illustrative purpose while modelling metaphors are used to “extend economic thought” (Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan 2006: 96). In order to classify a metaphor as filling lexical gaps or catachresis metaphor, illustrating or modelling metaphor, the linguistic metaphor is searched in a specialised dictionary. If the metaphor is found in the specialised dictionary, then it is categorised as either filling a lexical gap or a modelling metaphor. If the linguistic metaphor is not found in a specialised dictionary and is not found in a general- language dictionary, it is classified as an illustrating metaphor.

The modelling function in Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan (2006) appears to correspond to what Boyd’s calls “pre-theoretical metaphors”. According to Boyd (ibid.), pre-theoretical metaphors are those which are used to describe a new scientific theory. After the theory is tested, the metaphor, he claims, can be validated and then become a theory-constitutive metaphor. If not, the metaphor would be abandoned or may stay in use for pedagogical purposes and becomes an exegetical metaphor. Pre-theoretical metaphors and constitutive metaphors differ from term coinage because they do not only create a term for a theory, they are often part of the conceptualisation of the theory (Oliveira, 2009). In addition, metaphor-driven models are an important part in communicating scientific content to differ audiences as highlighted by Happel (2002:34). In other terms, the theory would not have existed outside the metaphor. As Happel (1995).

Before discussing the findings of Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan (2006), it may be useful to point out that there are a plethora of different terms used to refer to the different functions of metaphor in scientific writings. Some of the different terms overlap as summed up in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Metaphor categories/functions used in the different reviewed studies

Author(s) Metaphor category/function

Boyd (1993) Theory constitutive Pedagogical or exegetical Pre-theoretical metaphors

32

Knudsen (2003) Closed metaphors Opened

metaphors/closed metaphor Sckorynscka and Deignan (2006) Metaphors for filling terminological gaps (catachresis metaphors) Illustrating metaphors Modelling metaphors generic metaphors Cameron (2002, 2003) Educational metaphor

Knudsen claims that metaphors in research articles fulfil a cognitive role and are hence theory-constitutive or in her terms ‘closed metaphors’. When the same metaphor is used in popular science texts, it is either signalled or explained, which she terms ‘opened metaphors’. In this case, a metaphor fulfils pedagogical purposes. Once a metaphor is explained, it is ‘closed’ again, meaning that it is reused without explanation or signalling. For Knudsen, any metaphor that occurs in a popular science text is necessarily linked to a theory-constitutive metaphor already established in the field. Consequently, these metaphors are not taken as a novel but rather as a recycled form of metaphors already used in research articles. The study of Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan (2006) invalidates this last assumption about the novelty of pedagogical metaphors. The co-authors acknowledge that popular science texts use pedagogical metaphors that are often novel and not necessarily linked to theory-constitutive ones. In Skorczynska Sznajder and Deignan (2006): ‘modelling metaphors’ and ‘metaphors used to fill in terminological gaps’ or what can be called ‘catachresis metaphors’ are used in the sense of theory-constitutive metaphor. Modelling metaphors cannot be distinguished from catachresis metaphors because they are two faces of the same coin: they refer to both, the concept or the scientific model, and, at the same time, provide the ‘linguistic expression’ or ‘term’ to refer to the concept also called the denominative function (See Oliveira, 2009)

This review shows that there is often an amalgamation between metaphor functions and metaphor categories. More importantly, metaphor functions seem not to be mutually exclusive: Knudsen (2003) and Semino (2008) argue that the same metaphor can fulfil different functions.

33

Since this study aims to investigate metaphors in popular science texts of Astronomy and Astrophysics, we adopted the notion of metaphor functions from a genre perspective. Following Skorsynska and Deignan’s study (2006), it is agreed that metaphors belonging to the common stock of language are not genre specific. They are labelled ‘generic metaphors’ in the current study. This label indicates more a category than a function. Generic metaphors are identified, as will be seen later in Chapter 6, using a general English- language dictionary. These metaphors (excluded from the study in Skorsynska and Deignan, 2006) might feature in popular science texts for different reasons: for instance, to appeal to the reader’s attention as pointed out by Scarpa (2002).

The two other genre-specific metaphor functions in Skorsynska and Deignan (2006)— namely, the function of “filling a lexical gap” and the function of “modelling” (theory- constitutive in Boyd’s terms)—are grouped here under the same label “terminological metaphors” because, as explained above, these two functions are two sides of the same coin.

The third metaphor type/function is “pedagogical”. The pedagogical metaphor function in the current study encompasses a wider range of functional variety than the “illustrating metaphor” in Skorsynska and Deignan (2006). In addition to their illustrating role, pedagogical metaphors provide an explanation and can also, as Cameron and Low (2004) point out, serve to summarise opinions or to convince and to argue. As said earlier, metaphor functions are not mutually exclusive, and it is accepted that the same metaphor has the potential to fulfil one or more of these functions.

The distinction established, in this study, between the three functions (generic, pedagogical and terminological) is valid, as far as it allows us to shed light on conceptual metaphors used in English popular science articles on A&A characterised by the complex and often abstract nature of their concepts. This task is thought to be accomplished mainly by pedagogical metaphors that are dominant in the A&A bilingual corpus as will be seen later in Chapter 7. From a translation perspective, pedagogical metaphors can be highly challenging, particularly if they are embedded in specific cultural domains that are not shared between the readership of the source English texts and the readership of the target Arabic texts.

34

This section has reviewed different functions of metaphors from a genre perspective. It has also hinted at the importance of metaphor signalling which according to Knudsen (2003) is a means to reopen “closed metaphors” when they are recontextualized in popular science articles. The next section provides more details on metaphor signalling and explains why it is a relevant parameter in the present study.