Translation as Metaphor

Rainer Guldin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317621690
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

In today's ever-changing climate of disintegration and recombination, translation has become one of the essential metaphors, if not the metaphor, of our globalized world. Translation and Metaphor is an attempt to draw a comprehensive map of these new overlapping theoretical territories and the many cross-disciplinary movements they imply. In five chapters, this book examines:

· The main metaphor theories developed in the West.

· The way the notion of metaphor relates to the concept of translation.

· Different theoretical perspectives on metaphors of translation in translation studies.

· The main metaphors developed to describe translation in the West and in the East.

· Spatial metaphors within translation studies, cultural studies and postcolonial theory.

· The use of the metaphor of translation across psychoanalysis, anthropology and ethnography, postcolonial theory, history and literature, sociology, media and communication theory, and medicine and genetics.

Comprehensive analysis of key metaphor theories, revealing examples from a wide range of sources and a look towards future directions make this is a must-have book for students, researchers and translators working in the areas of translation and translation theory.

1

Metaphor and its Relationship to Translation

If metaphor … is about the matching of the like and the unlike, the bringing together of the alien and the domestic, then it seems similarly true that translation is a primarily metaphorical operation in its bringing together of difference and that all metaphor is fundamentally a translational operation.

Michael Cronin

This chapter deals with the notion of metaphor and the way it relates to the concept of translation within the Western tradition. The first seven sections of the chapter focus on a reconstruction of the main metaphor theories developed in the West. Given the scope and aim of this book, I will discuss only a few authors, mainly from the Anglophone world, in order to highlight the radical redefinition of the traditional understanding of metaphor.

The development of Western metaphor theory begins with Aristotle and classical rhetoric, passes through semiotics and semantics, and reaches hermeneutics, philosophy, scientific discourse and cognitive linguistics. This progression through the disciplines leads from a restricted to an enlarged understanding of metaphor. According to Ricœur (2003: 1), who defined the development from the point of view of the linguistic unit taken into consideration, it is an itinerary conveying from word, to sentence, to discourse. At the one end, classical rhetoric defines metaphor as a single-word figure of speech, a trope of resemblance operating through displacement. At the other, cognitive linguistics claims that everyday speech, scientific discourse and the very way we think and act are fundamentally metaphorical in nature. These different conceptions will play an important role in the following chapters. They influenced the changing attitudes towards the notion of metaphor and the use of translation metaphors within the field of translation studies (Chapters 2 and 3), as well as the various metaphorical uses of translation within other disciplinary areas (Chapters 3, 4 and 5).

Sections 8 and 9 consider the close relationship between metaphor and translation and the theoretical parallels in the development of metaphor theory and translation theory in the West. This connection is pivotal for the present book. It highlights the fact that a sustained study of metaphors for translation and of translation metaphors can be profitable for the fields of both translation studies and metaphor studies.

1 Transference and Analogy: Aristotle’s Definition of Metaphor

Aristotle formulated the first substantial discussion of metaphor in the Western tradition. Although he discussed metaphor in only a few short paragraphs of his Poetics (2007) and Rhetoric (2011), his comments proved extremely influential.

In Section 3, Part XXI of his Poetics, Aristotle draws a distinction between current or ordinary words that are in general use and strange, alien words that are in use in other countries. He positions metaphorical words between strange and ornamental words, suggesting their common exceptional character. The enumeration (Ricœur 2003: 19) that follows – newly coined, lengthened, contracted and altered words – reinforces the closeness of metaphor to that which is uncommon and outlandish. If proper words are the general rule, metaphors represent an interesting deviation.

Aristotle distinguishes between four different kinds of metaphor. One can create metaphors either by transference or analogy. There are three different forms of transference: from genus to species (from the general to the particular), from species to genus (from the particular to the general) and from species to species (by similarity). In Aristotle’s terminology, a species is a subgroup of a genus. Human beings (species) are rational animals (genus). In this sense, the first and second forms of metaphor are also subspecies of synecdoche. The fourth form of metaphor works by analogy or proportion. In this case, the second term is to the first as the fourth is to the third. Old age, for instance, is analogous to the evening because it is to life as the evening is to the day. In Book III, Part 10 of Rhetoric, Aristotle defines proportional metaphors that work by analogy and similarity as the most useful and effective kind. In Part 4 of the same book, he compares proportional metaphors to similes. Similes and metaphors can express the same idea. Metaphors, however, are shorter and because of this more effective and attractive.

In Part XXII, Aristotle discusses the uses of metaphors. Stylistic perfection is achieved when diction is clear without being mean. If one uses only current and proper words, the result will be clarity, but also meanness. In order to rise above the commonplace, one has to add a proper amount of words differing from the normal idiom: “Now this cannot be done by any arrangement of ordinary words, but by the use of metaphor it can … A certain infusion … of these elements is necessary to style; for the strange (or rare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other kinds above mentioned, will raise it above the commonplace and mean, while the use of proper words will make it perspicuous … By deviating in exceptional cases from the normal idiom, the language will gain distinction” (Poetics XXII). Metaphors are essential to creating a style that is both lucid and lofty. However, they have to be applied in moderation to avoid the obscurity of jargon and riddles. Aristotle also discusses the use of metaphors when no suitable words are available. When we give names to nameless things, “we must draw them not from remote but from kindred and similar things, so that the kinship is clearly perceived as soon as the words are said” (Rhetoric III, 2). Appropriateness is an essential feature of good metaphors.

Aristotle concludes his discussion of metaphor with a remark stressing its singularity: “But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor. This alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances” (Poetics XXII). Metaphors not only deviate from everyday speech; their very use cannot be taught. Only exceptionally gifted individuals can devise apt metaphors.

In Rhetoric, Aristotle introduces a few more important points with regard to the form of metaphor and the effects that can be achieved by its proper use. The idea of moderation that governs his idea of stylistic perfection resurfaces in the notion of a beautiful metaphor. Metaphors should not be too grand and theatrical, too far-fetched and obscure, because they will then be ridiculous or difficult to grasp. Metaphors must be fitting. They must be appropriate to the thing to which they are referring both from a perceptual and semantic point of view. “The materials of metaphor must be beautiful to the ear, the understanding, to the eye or some other physical sense” (Rhetoric III, 2).

Good oratorical prose combines regular and metaphorical terms creating “a style that is distinguished without being obtrusive”. Metaphor “gives style clearness, charm and distinction as nothing else can” (Rhetoric III, 2). Metaphors are also particularly apt at drawing and sustaining the interest of the listener because they enable the listener to get hold of new ideas: “Now strange words simply puzzle us; ordinary words convey only what we know already; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh” (Rhetoric III, 10). Good metaphors convey information as soon as they are perceived. They are startling, vivid and generally suggestive of activity and swiftness: “Liveliness is specially conveyed by metaphor, and by the further power of surprising the hearer; because the hearer expected something different, his acquisition of the new idea impresses him all the more” (Rhetoric III, 11). Before turning to the different stages of a critical redefinition of metaphor, I will briefly sum up Aristotle’s point of view and its influence on classical rhetoric.

2 Substitution: Metaphor in Classical Rhetoric

Aristotle’s definition of metaphor originated at the crossroads of two disciplines, rhetoric and poetics, with distinct goals, namely persuasion and mimesis, respectively. For Aristotle, rhetoric covered three distinct areas: argumentation, style and composition. In the course of history, this broader understanding of rhetoric and its tasks shrank to a theory of style and subsequently to a theory of tropes and a taxonomy of figures of speech. Because of this, rhetoric lost its original connection to dialectics and through this to philosophy. The use of metaphors within other disciplines was no longer regarded as a viable theoretical option.

For his definition of metaphor, Aristotle used the single word as the only unit of reference (Ricœur 2003: 8–48). This view carried over into classical rhetoric. There was, however, a price to pay for such a limitative interpretation: one lost sight of the fact that metaphor operates at all levels of language, from word to sentence, text and discourse.

Although Aristotle clearly focuses on the proportional metaphor that works by analogy, he defines four different kinds of metaphor in Poetics. The subsequent tradition of classical rhetoric restricts itself to the fourth kind, based on resemblance. The first three kinds of metaphors are categorical transgressions, that is, they violate order by jumbling classification. Ricœur (ibid.: 22–6) proposes to interpret these three traditionally neglected types of metaphor as a possible anticipation of a different theory less interested in simple deviation and closer to the modern understanding of metaphor. In fact, transgression is of interest only insofar as it opens up the possibility of redefinition. From this point of view, metaphors appear as a strategy that can be used to destroy in order to invent.

To describe metaphor, Aristotle used the metaphor of displacement. The Greek phora means change with respect to location, movement from one place to another. Metaphor is a borrowed meaning as opposed to an ordinary meaning. It takes the place of the proper or absent word. Aristotle’s use of a metaphor to describe metaphor points to a particularly relevant aspect. If the word for metaphor is itself metaphorical, it becomes impossible to talk about metaphor non-metaphorically. I will come back to this point in this and the following chapters.

Aristotle defines metaphor in terms of deviation. Metaphor is a transposition of an alien (allotrios) name and because of this is opposed to current (kurion) terms. This specific point of view resurfaces in the classification system of classical rhetoric, which focused on the way tropes distinguished themselves from everyday speech. This theoretical decision became relevant for the ensuing tradition in two respects. First, the opposition between metaphors and ordinary words led to that of the figurative and the proper – a distinction that cannot be found in Aristotle’s work. Second, to describe metaphor, Aristotle uses the term borrowing without explicitly linking it to the idea of substitution. In Poetics and Rhetoric, however, the two terms mostly appear together, especially in the examples. This connection had huge consequences for the ensuing tradition, which developed a substitution theory of metaphor. “If the metaphorical term … is really a substituted term,” writes Ricœur, “it carries no new information … and if there is no information, then metaphor has only an ornamental, decorative value” (ibid.: 21).

An example of the view that will dominate Western thought for centuries to come is Quintilian’s (AD 35–100) definition of metaphor in his twelve-volume textbook on rhetoric Institutio Oratoria written around AD 90. Together with Cicero (106–43 BC), Quintilian was one of the most influential figures of classical rhetoric. Chapter VI of book VIII of the Institutio Oratoria deals with tropes, which he defines as an artistic alteration of a word or phrase from its proper meaning to another.

Quintilian begins with metaphor, the most common of tropes. As he points out, taking up Aristotle’s notion of transference, the Latin translation of the Greek metaphorá, μεταφορά – from metaphérein, μεταϕέρω, to transfer – is translatio, which means both translation and metaphor – a switch from language to language and a switch from proper to figurative (Hermans 2004: 118). I will return to this terminological convergence of metaphor and translation in Section 9, the last section of this chapter.

Metaphor is a shorter form of simile, which has the power to make somebody’s style elegant and attractive. It can move the feelings, give special distinction to things and place them vividly before the eye. When correctly and appropriately used, metaphor will have a pleasing effect. Excessive use leads to obscurity and weariness in the audience. Metaphors should not be mean, harsh, gross or far-fetched. Above all, they must be appropriate to their subject, neither too big nor too small.

Metaphors are used to produce a decorative effect or to clarify meaning. Metaphor is a borrowing that operates through the interchange of words. A noun or a verb is transferred from the place to which it belongs to another vacant place where there is no literal term available – a necessary metaphor – or because the transferred term is more impressive than that which it displaces. There are also purely ornamental metaphors.

Quintilian defines four classes of metaphors, which all operate through substitution: one can substitute a living thing for another, an inanimate thing for another inanimate, an inanimate for an animate and finally an animate for an inanimate. Metaphors can produce an effect of sublimity by bringing inanimate things to life. These four kinds are subdivided into a number of species: for example, transference from rational to rational, irrational to irrational and the reverse, or from the whole to the parts and the parts to the whole.

To sum up: in the wake of Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric, classical rhetoric defined metaphor in spatial terms as a form of displacement and transportation. It classified metaphor as a word-focused figure of speech and described it in terms of deviation. This led to the formation of a substitution theory that ultimately relegated the role of metaphor to that of mere ornament. The basis of such a conception was the clear-cut opposition between literal and figurative, proper and improper. I will come back to this opposition at the end of this chapter.

3 Tenor and Vehicle: I. A. Richards’s Redefinition of Metaphor

The traditional view of metaphor as a poetically and rhetorically creative but secondary ornamental form of representation was radically questioned in the course of the twentieth century. In The Philosophy of Rhetoric, first published in 1936, I. A. Richards developed a ground-breaking new theory of metaphor that initiated a paradigmatic shift within the field.

Richards (1893–1979), who was an important English literary critic and rhetorician, studied philosophy at Cambridge University. His works Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism, published in the late 1920s, played a decisive role in the formation of New Criticism, a movement of literary criticism that dominated the Anglo-American field for several decades. New Criticism emphasized the self-contained and self-referential nature of literary works. Richards’s name is also associated with the notion of “close reading”, an interpretative practice based on the careful and sustained interpretation of brief text-passages.

The theoretical foundation of Richards’s redefinition of metaphor (Ricœur 2003: 88–96) is a wider and anti-taxonomical redefinition of rhetoric as a discourse with a philosophical character. It is no longer the word that carries the meaning but the context. In this sense, words do not possess a proper stable meaning of their own. This paves the way for a re-evaluation and a radically new conception of metaphor and its role.

In Lecture V of The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Richards begins his discussion of the traditional view of metaphor with a direct reference to a key passage from Aristotle’s Poetics which I have already mentioned. Aristotle identifies the command of metaphor as the greatest thing by far, the mark of true genius. He adds, however, that to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances, which cannot be taught. This conception is based on three interconnected assumptions, which have ever since hampered the study of metaphor (Richards 1965: 89). The first assumption is that an eye for resemblances is a unique gift that only a few possess, and the second is that this exceptional ability cannot be imparted to others. “But we all live, and speak, only through our eye for resemblances … Though some may have better eyes than others, the differences between them are in degree only and may be remedied … in some measure … by the right kinds of teaching and study” (ibid.: 89–90). The third, and “worst”, assumption stresses the exceptional character of metaphorical use in language. Metaphors represent “a deviation from its normal mode of working” (ibid.: 90). Richards advocates a radically enlarged view of metaphor. Metaphors are not simply an ornament or addition to language, requiring a special kind of skill, but one of its constitutive forms. Rather than being limited to specific areas of language, metaphor is an omnipresent principle we cannot do without “even in the rigid language of the settled sciences” (ibid.: 92). One makes use of metaphors even when one openly professes not to be relying on them.

Like Aristotle, Richards conceives of metaphors in terms of analogy, similarity and transference. Metaphor is a comparison accomplished by carrying over a word from its normal context into a different one, where it is put to a new use. Metaphors, however – and this is a radically new idea – consist of two halves, which interact with each other. When we use a metaphor, two different thoughts of two different things relying on a single word or phrase interact. The meaning of these co-present thoughts is the result of their interaction. There are many different modes of interaction dependent on the different contexts of the meaning of a word. Another important addition, anticipating cognitive metaphor theory, is Richards’s notion that metaphors are not only a displacement of words, but “an intercourse of thoughts, a transaction between contexts. Thought is metaphoric, and proceeds by comparison, and the metaphors of langua...