Metaphor Translation in Linguistics

Introduction

After presenting the pure theoretical linguistic and cognitive aspects of metaphor definition, creation and interpretation we are now approaching the way metaphor dealt with in Translation Studies. The chapter will give a synopsis of relevant research conducted to date, comment on critical issues, clarify some current research, and suggest future directions. Traditionally, the debate about metaphor translation does not go beyond the scope of both translatability and untranslatability. Two contradicting opinions have emerged as a result. The first states that metaphor is a translatable linguistic device and does not constitute any difficulty for translators. The second suggests that due to the complicated nature of metaphor formation, they can be problematic for translators. However, there is another opinion which is different from the two points of view mentioned hitherto which is a kind of compromise between them (Mason, 1982). The noticeable variations in the views above can be attributed to different reasons, ranging from the contrast of the linguistic systems used to investigate metaphor translation to the more complicated nature of cultural aspects peculiar to the languages concerned. Moreover, one possible justification is that the diverse approaches adopted by different scholars (descriptive/prescriptive) also have had an effect on the outcome of metaphor translation investigations (Schäffner, 2004). The two major research approaches used to examine metaphor in Translation Studies are the linguistic and the cognitive approaches. The discussion will be commenced with the linguistic approach.

Linguistic approach for metaphor translation

As one of the proponents of the ‘untranslatable’ camp, Nida (1964, p.219) provides a number of procedures to translate metaphors. He claims that the best method of translating a metaphor is to translate it into a simile. The rationale for resorting to such a procedure is that words such as “like” and “as” can be a hint that the words used in the sentence cannot be taken literally. Nida (1964 p,220) has suggested that in some cases a simile could be a real equivalent of a metaphor. Although, a simile can replace a metaphor in the target text, the motivation of the author of the source language in using a metaphor rather than a simile will become questionable. Nida suggests that translators can opt for metaphor to non-metaphor procedure when the inherent features of the source language are absent in the target. He (ibid, p. 220) also criticises the idea of welcoming an addition to the target text through metaphor to metaphor procedure and has blamed the translators for loss if they resort to the technique of metaphor to non-metaphor translation . However, such little flexibility which he advocates may not be easily accepted, specifically in case of authoritative texts where the translator’s intervention should be very limited and thoughtful. Evidently, the approach selected by Nida is of prescriptive in nature, which assumes that particular procedures could be the best options for metaphor translation. Dagut (1976) discusses many aspects which influenced the study of the metaphor translation in the subsequent years. He claims that metaphor is a semantic novelty and so it has no equivalent in the target language. Dagut (1976, 25) describes the treatment of metaphor by previous scholars as insufficient. He also calls to redefine metaphor so that it will receive a treatment that distinguishes it from other figures of speech such as idioms. He also suggests that the degree of translatability of metaphors may lie between the two extreme views of metaphor translation. Dagut (ibid, p.26) expresses his rejection of the idea suggested by Kloepfer (1967) and Reiss (1971) that metaphors are easily translatable however original or bold they could be and called for a rigorous experiment to test such claims. Dagut (ibid, p.32) concludes his article by stating that there is no existence for a simplistic formula for translating metaphors but the translation of any metaphor depends on the cultural density and semantic load and the readiness of the target language to reproduce such metaphors. Dagut’s major contribution is the raising of the cross-culture issue as an important element which can affect the translation of metaphors. The view of Dagut would have been more convincing if he had defined what the concept of novelty is.

Newmark is one of the early translation theorists who showed special interest in metaphors and translation. The introductory sentence of the tenth chapter of his Text Book of Translation states “Whilst the central problem of translation is the overall choice of a translation method for a text, the most important particular problem is the translation of the metaphors” (Newmark 1988, 104). Before providing his translation procedures list, Newmark divides metaphors into categories of dead, cliché, stock or standard, adapted, recent and original metaphores. Although Newmark’s classification was the reference for several studies, however, it is noticeable that the distinction between these types is sketchy and not clear-cut. Newmark (1988) defines dead metaphor as that type of metaphor in which the image is used unconsciously. This type of metaphor refers to the universal concepts such as time, space or ecological issues. Similarly, Longman dictionary (1970) defines the word cliché as a word or a phrase which has been used so much that either it is not effective or does not have any particular meaning any longer. Although, there is striking similarity between two types, Newmark suggests different translation procedures for each type(1981). Deignan suggests the following criterion for distinguishing between conventionalised and dead metaphors: ‘where a literal sense of a word is perceived as morefundamental than an established metaphorical sense, the second sense is regarded as a conventionalized metaphor’, whereas when there is no such apparent relationship between the basicness and dependency, the metaphor is considered to be a dead metaphor (2005, 42). If we apply this to the expression ‘Adam’s apple’, we will find that the literal meaning of the word ‘apple’ is a type of round hard fruit, whereas the metaphorical sense in this context is a lump at the front of man’s throat that sticks out slightly and moves when he eats (online Macmillan English-English dictionary). The literal sense is more basic than the established metaphorical sense, therefore, the metaphorical established sense is related to the conventionalised metaphors. On the other hand, the word ‘flock’ in the sentence (‘the people flocked to watch the match’) is dead metaphor as there is no evident relationship of basicness and dependency between the literal and metaphorical senses.

The procedures Newmark suggested are (1981, 88-91):

1. Reproduce the same image in the target language (henceforth TL).

2. Replace the SL image with a standard TL one.

3. Replacing metaphor by simile.

4. Rendering metaphor by simile plus sense.

5. Shifting metaphor into sense.

6. Deletion of metaphor.

7. To keep the same metaphor incorporated with sense.

Although this is one of the first attempts to theorize metaphor translation in a systematic manner, three flaws can be noticed in Newmark’s approach. First of all, the prescriptive nature of the list has to be taken into consideration. The procedures are all set as ready-made solutions for already known linguistic problems, the issue which contradicts the basic dynamism nature of any language. Furthermore, the call for addition and omission without considering the different nature of texts and the requirements for various translation situations is not helpful for translators. Additionally, Newmark does not conclude his procedures based on a real authentic data as the examples which he could have used artificially. Khadija (2017) argues that the detailed description of metaphor translation by Newmark seems unnecessary elaboration for Van den Broeck’s classification. She proceeds that the dead, clichés and standard metaphors can be categorised as conventionalised metaphors since their meanings are available in language dictionaries. Unlike the typology and translation procedures suggested by Newmark (1981), van den Broeck (1981) provides a shortened vision for the types of metaphor and the translation procedures associated with the same (1981). He categorizes metaphors into three types which are lexicalized, conventional and private metaphors. The translation modes suggested by van de Broeck are (1981, 77):

1. Translation ‘sensu stricto’ where the translator transfers both the SL tenor and vehicle into the TL.

2. Substitution through keeping the same tenor of the SL in the TL and replacing the vehicle.

3. Paraphrase. To transfer the metaphor of the SL into non-metaphorical unit in the TL.

According to Wang (2013, p.530) the term ‘tenor’ and ‘vehicle’ have been introduced by Richards in his view of the metaphor. The term ‘tenor’ denotes the person, object or thing which the metaphor describes whereas ‘vehicle’ refers to the metaphorical word or phrase itself. However Ritchie (2013, p.10) raises the issue of the terminology in the study of metaphor that different terms have been used to name the same concept such as the words ‘tenor’ and ‘target’ for the term ‘topic’. van de Broeck argues that there is no need for special theory of translating metaphor as the rules of translation in general can be also applied to the translation of the metaphors (ibid, 1981,p.84). However, this may contradict a previous assumption that the extent of metaphor translatability may depend on the text type the metaphor occurs in. In my view, the issue of the theory of metaphor translation should be revisited. Due to the vast role metaphor plays in the linguistic discourse and extensive the literature which has been devoted to investigate the different aspects related to it (metaphor creation, identification, interpretation, understanding and effect), one can argue that translation studies discipline has not taken advantage from such enormous effort devoted to study these linguistic phenomena. Mason (1982) states that the translation of metaphor does not differ from any other kind of translation and the problems of translating metaphors are the same as those involved in translation in general. Mason (ibid, 149) argues that we must treat every metaphor differently, investigating its categories with regard to its cultural connotation before starting the translation process, as well as paying attention to the textual context in which metaphor is used. She also claims that (ibid, p.149) “there cannot be a theory of the translation of metaphor; there can only be a theory of translation”. Mason also calls for a literal translation of cultural metaphors supported by a footnote explaining the SL metaphor and its culture-bound elements. One of the potential consequences with such an approach is that explaning every cultural item or obscure metaphor with a footnote may lead to modulate the nature of the source text. This modulation or shift in the nature of the text may go against the source language author’s intent of the final shape of the text. Some authors do not prefer to have footnotes in the texts they produce. Besides, it seems unreasonable that a translator determines a method to render each metaphor separately without a sort of theory determining when and how the translator should intervene or not to handle a particular problem. This is not a call for a prescriptive approach to handle metaphors, but to set general rules determines what translators may encounter when dealing with such linguistic or cognitive phenomena. In her call to abandon a translation theory of metaphor Mason defies a basic fact that every translator practicing a sort of theory in their work. When translators decide to retain, paraphrase or delete the metaphor, they are actually taking their decisions based on particular facts concerning particular situations. This actually recognises the fact that the translators could be formulating the principles or the theoretical bases on which future direction of their work could be conceived Williams (2013, p.20) suggests that one of the goals of translation theory is prediction, i.e., translation theory should be able to inform what translators may face and how they should react to translational aspects of different texts. In fact, this will include what issues metaphors bring forth when these are transferred from one language and culture into another.

Fung and Kiu (1987) provide a slightly different view on the previous metaphor translation studies. The data used by Fung and Kiu in investigating the translation of metaphor is the translation of Chinese novel Hongloumeng into English and the translation of Hamlet into Chinese. Such careful selection of data can reflect more insights about the transfer of metaphors between two different languages and cultures. Fung and Kiu’s view of metaphor is not just a figure of speech but also a way of perception (1987, 84). They think that the mere recognition of the cultural overlap between the SL and the TL suggested by Dagut (1976) is not enough to determine the translatability of metaphor. However, they contend that although there are major forces which can affect the translator’s decision in dealing with metaphor, these are subsumed under culture and language (ibid, p.100). Fung and Kiu conclude that the majority of metaphors have been maintained in the translations from the Chinese target texts, in the same time many other images have been substituted, whereas omission was the considerable procedure in translating Chinese metaphor into English. The authors (ibid, p.104) claim that Chinese audience are more familiar and receptive to Western culture than the English audience for the Chinese. However, such expositions are unsatisfactory as they are not soundly scientific enough. It is a possibility that the translation techniques adopted by Chinese translators are more effective in making Chinese cultural elements more eligible within a target culture. A recommendation has been made by the authors that translation criticism should focus more on what translators seem to be trying to do rather than defining the deficiencies which are outcomes of the differences between the languages involved (ibid, p.101). We can infer from the explorations of the linguistic approaches for metaphor translation that these are unified in looking for metaphors as an individual unit which remains scattered in the text and translators should come up with their exact equivalents in the target language. Stienstra (1993, 126 Cited in Al-Harrsi 2001,71) summarises this view by saying:

Translation theorists have restricted their attention to individual metaphors, discussing the possibility or impossibility, the desirability or undesirability of a literal rendering, weighing the cultural obstacles, suggesting alternative ways of translation, even drawing conclusions with respect to the possibility or impossibility of translating metaphors.

In the following section we will find out how the shift from looking to metaphor from a linguistic angle into a cognitive one has contributed to find novel interpretations for the question of metaphor translation between languages and cultures.

Metaphor translation from conceptual perspective

The common perspective of some of the approaches above is perceiving metaphor as a linguistic device that is used in the text for ornamental purposes. They are a response for older definitions that consider metaphor as a matter of language rather than thought. The contemporary theory of metaphor claims that the locus of metaphor is thought and not language. This new understanding of the metaphor creation has an implication on the study of metaphor in translation. Tebbit (2016, 404) argues that: The process of metaphorical mapping actually takes place at the conceptual level. This means that metaphor theorists–and, as could be argued , translators facing metaphor translation–cannot take into account only the linguistic level, for a purely linguistic approach would fail to account for the conceptual level where the metaphorical mapping actually takes place. In this section, we will discuss how the cognitive metaphor has changed the course of metaphor investigation in Translation Studies. For this purpose we need to recap the cognitive view with an example extracted from the research data. In front of the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Obama (2012) said, “…….the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law”. Contrary to the Aristotelian view of metaphor that metaphors lie in the double, strange and unusual type category of words (based on his dichotomy of words into simple or double, current or strange, common or unusual (cited in Gentzler, 2000, p. 941), no wordsare special or strange in the example above. The lexical items used are familiar and are not beyond the normal usage. Nevertheless, Obama has cognitively linked the reach to security and prosperity with the experience of travelling through a path using everyday language lexemes. Therefore, the mapping process conducted by Obama enabled us to understand some facts about security using the journey and container domains (to achieve security and prosperity, nations should travel through a path within the international law boundaries). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) call such conceptual links as conceptual metaphors.

Since the publishing of Lakoff and Johnson’s book Metaphor We Live By (1980), a noticeable shift of perception has occurred on metaphor studies in general and its translational aspects in particular. This development comes as a part of a new relationship between linguistic and translation studies (Rojo 2013). The relationship is not of dislike and tension, but a mutual exchange of the findings in both fields. Steen (2011, 585) suggests “There is no doubt that conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) has revolutionized the study of metaphor in language”. Gibbs (2008) contends that metaphor is not just an ornamental aspect of language. Maalej (2011) argues that with the advent of the conceptual theory of metaphor, the status of metaphor dramatically changed from a figure of speech into a figure of thought and action. In their theory, Lakoff and Johnson suggested that metaphors, contrary to the idea that was prevalent throughout the years, are actually a matter of thought as well are not just related to language alone. Metaphors are responsible for our thinking, they govern our cognition and they are present in our speech. Ghazala (2012, 66) explains that metaphor is no longer a rhetorical device to add aesthetic elements to the text or to enhance the power of the content meaning associated with the text; this perception is a history. Translation studies, as an interdisciplinary field of knowledge (Bassnett 2012; Schäffner and Shuttleworth 2013) should seize the advances in other disciplines. Therefore, the advances in conceptual metaphor theory may help translation researchers to investigate metaphor as a cognitive device rather than a linguistic one. However, Pym (2013, 5) warns that interdisciplinary is a healthy issue, but junior researchers should be more vigilant to some issues like the peculiarities of different disciplines, to recognize how views vary within the same discipline and the limits between these disciplines. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is not only a means of elaborating the writer/speaker ideological, cultural concepts, meanings and perception of the world, it also controls our perception about it. According to cognitive metaphor theory, metaphors allow speakers to describe and simplify abstract ideas (target domains) by taking advantage of familiar concrete experiences (source domains). Torlakova (2014) has stated that metaphors can be used creatively to simplify complicated and difficult issues. Schäffner and Shuttleworth (2013) explained that metaphors are not isolated figurative expressions in a text, but a ‘mapping process’. The mapping process occurs between one domain of experience and another — a kind of mental connection made between two unrelated concepts or areas of experience that allows one to think and talk about one of these concepts or areas in terms usually reserved for the other (Lakoff and Johnson. 1980). Consequently, this dramatic change in the view of metaphor necessitates a review of the way translation studies tackle the issue of metaphor. The previous studies of translating metaphors which had been based on adopting linguistic theories (Newmark 1981; Mason 1982) will be not of great help for translators to identify and tackle the cognitive problems triggered by conceptual metaphors.

Mandelblit’s (1995) Cognitive Translation Hypothesis (CTH) is one of the earliest works to use the cognitive approach of metaphor translation as a main theoretical premise. The main hypothesis set for this view is that as long as the source of metaphor is not language but thought and metaphors are conceptual entities formed by mapping processes, rather than linguistic symbols, hence, the translation of metaphor will not be a mere replacement of words in different languages but also a shift or a transfer of conceptualization. As a result, the difficulties of translating metaphors could be considered to be the results of cognitive mapping deficiency of correlations between the languages in question (ibid, 486). The model suggested by Mandelblit consists of Similar Mapping Conditions (SMC) and Different Mapping Conditions (DMC). To start with the first, the concerned languages utilize the same or similar mapping conditions whereas the DMC metaphors do not conform in the level of mappings. For instance, the English political metaphor (the sausage-making factory) used to describe politicians and lawmakers in the USA (Robinson et al., 2014,p.181) will not sound natural in Arab politics as sausage is not popular in that region of the world. To measure the difficulty of metaphor translation, Mandelblit resorts to time as a parameter (Mandelblit1995, p.487). He explained that translators consume longer time spans if the source language metaphor mapping patterns do not exist or conform to the target language ones. However, this procedure is a process-oriented and many factors could reflect the causes of this delay such as the familiarity with the metaphor or even the searching for better alternatives. He concludes that (ibid, p.493) translation takes longer time when languages use different conventional metaphors to mention the same topic. This can be attributed to the conceptual shift translators performing in the previous case. In general, the study provides a good explanation for what translators may encounter when translating metaphors. Although the work of Mandelblit introduces valuable insights on conceptual metaphor processing, the study suffers from some over-generalisations. For instance, Mandelblit (ibid, p.488) argues that the universality of some concepts such as temporal experience, may eradicate cultural factors which influence the translation of metaphors. Such claim needs to be verified as different aspects regarding the chronological duration of time in English, for instance, may have implications on the way metaphors are mapped between different concepts. A notable example in this case is the 9/11, where it is not just a point in time but whenever this date is mentioned, the speaker means a series of events could have taken place during that specific date. Whatever the state of universality of any concept, there are still some idiosyncratic features peculiar for each society which enormously shape the metaphorical basis of any concept (Gibbs,1997;Kövecses,2002). A noteworthy example mentioned by Khairullin (1993, p.244) is the point of reference for time in English and Russian languages. The example is:

He was barefoot, and still in his pajamas and a bathrobe, though it was late afternoon

According to Khairullin, while Russians look forward to future events to refer to a prolonged time interval, the English version favours to refer to the same period by using a part of the day which is over (ibid, p. 244). Apparently, such a variation in the way of linking events with time is a cultural aspect. In Arabic, for instance, some people refer to the duties they have to do using the adjective وراء (wara) (behind) as in Arabic phrase (ورائي عمل اريد إنجازه) (warai aml areed injazah) (behind me a work I want to fulfil). Although the duties in question are to be performed in future and thus are ahead in time, speakers use the adjective behind to refer to them. This indicates the fact that the conceptual metaphor ‘TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT’ cannot be approached similarly in different cultures. As a potential consequence for politics, politicians’ plans and actions will be speed up or slow down based on the perception of conceptual metaphor mentioned. This also can enhance or impair the TIME IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY conceptual metaphor. Since some cultures will consider time passed as a loss, others perceive time as an abundant resource. Al-Harrasi (2001) conducted one of the innovative studies regarding the translation of Arabic metaphors in political discourse. The major aim of Al-Harrasi’s study (ibid, p.95) is to investigate the importance of the concept image schema in metaphor translations and the interaction between translation, culture and ideology and the relevance of this interaction for translation. The study investigates the possibility of applying new procedures to translate the political metaphors from Arabic into English. The corpus which has been used consists of the translated speeches of Sultan Qaboos of Oman and of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Al-Harrasi also investigates the interplay between rich images and image schemas and their reflections on translation. The procedures suggested by Al-Harrasi are (2001, pp. 277-288):

Instantiating the same conceptual metaphor. This can be achieved through:

Same image schematic representation

Concretizing an image schematic metaphor

Instantiating in the TT only a functional aspect of the image schema

Same schema and rich image domains

Same rich image metaphor but alerting the reader to the mapping

Using different rich image that realises the same image schema which had been realised by the rich image in the source text

From the rich image metaphor to image schematic representation

Same mapping but different perspective

Adding a new instantiation in the target text

Using different conceptual metaphor

Deletion of the expression of the metaphor.

Apart from the originality of the same translation procedures, other valuable contributions provided in the study are: (1) The procedures suggested are almost entirely by-products of the conceptual theory of metaphor. (2) Some procedures came as corrective procedures for previous translation techniques existing in the metaphor translation literature. For instance, Newmark suggested the transferring of rich image metaphor to image schematic representation (1.7) as shifting of the metaphor to sense (metaphor into non-metaphor). However, Al-Harrasi claims that Newmark’s suggestion of translating metaphor into sense is not accurate. Al-Harrasi (2001, p.285) explains his point by the translation of the Arabic expression كاد يطمرها غباره kada yatmuruha ghubaruh (whose dust was about to bury it) in reference to one of Omani cities which suffered the negligence for a long time (the era of stagnation). He considers the selection of the word ‘stagnation’ as a realisation of an image of the schematic picture of the lack of mobility and not as a literal sense. (3) The study also investigates the influence exerted by image schemata on our perception of rich images and how translators can handle such links. Al-Harrasi concludes that changes occurring in translating metaphors are not changes among metaphors themselves but between rich images which are structured by image schemata (ibid, p.313). The study could have been more comprehensive if the researcher had included the variation of cognitive backgrounds and their impact on the types of metaphors produced and how translators mirrored such issues in the target text. Schäffner (2004) explores some implications of cognitive theory on the translation of metaphors. The data used was authentic English and German texts. She has tried to investigate how translators deal with metaphorical expressions and what effect their decisions can have on the text, the attitude of the audience and how the text developed later. The validity of the traditional translation procedures suggested before may need to be reconsidered. This is due to the fact that the cognitive view of metaphor is different from that used by traditional metaphor translation theorists (ibid, p.1267). Mohammed et al, (2007, p.238) suggest that the difficulty of translating metaphor is not a result of the lack of equivalents in the target language, “but in the fact that they lack counterpart metaphors related to the same conceptual domain or area’’ (ibid, p.238). A noticeable weakness in this argument is that sometimes both the absence of a lexeme and the concept itself can occur in a text. An example of such issue is the concept of بركة (Baraka) in Arabic language which refers to the development and increase of something as money or age. Neither the word nor the concept is available in the targeted language and culture. Mohammed et al (ibid) suggested three cognitive mapping processes: (1) Metaphors with similar mapping conditions which could be realized similarly. An example of this is ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ ‘الحاجة أم الاختراع’ alhagutu aum aleghtra ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ (ibid. p.235). (2) Metaphors with similar mapping conditions but lexically they are realized differently. An example of this category is ‘a fox is not taken twice in the same snare’ ‘لا يلدغ المؤمن من الجحر مرتين’ la uldaghu almuamun min juhrun marteen(no believer stung from the hole twice) (ibid. p.236) and (3) metaphors with different mapping conditions, as could be seen in the Arabic proverb أبطأ من مهدي الشيعة abtau min Mahdi Alsheea (slower than Shia’s Mehdi). In this case, the concept of slowness has been mapped into a religious concept which is Mehdi Imam. One of Shia’s beliefs is that an Imam will appear at an undefined time to rule the world and justice and equality will prevail after the corruption and unfairness. However, due to the long period of waiting and the non-appearance of the Imam, this metaphorical expression becomes a referent to denote slowness in Arabic. The first group can be resorted to when equal metaphors in terms of lexical and cultural aspects are available in the target language and culture, while the second alternative is possible if the lexical systems impose restrictions on exploiting the same source language lexeme in the target language. The third group is concerned with culture-bound metaphors where the mapping conditions are different with no equivalent in the target language. To test the model’s credibility, researchers applied the model on selective types of data such as proverbs and religious texts. The major challenge for such selection of the data may contradict with the main tenet of the conceptual theory of metaphor that metaphors are pervasive in our everyday language.

Sharifian (2007) explores the impact of exploiting the translated political metaphors in new contexts. He draws his argument upon the metaphors used by American and Iranian politicians regarding the possession of nuclear technology. According to Sharifin (ibid, p.421), George W. Bush used the “House cleaning” metaphor in his speech about Iranian government’s nuclear technology. He states, “These people need to keep their house clean” (ibid, p.421). The purposes of such statement might be to locate America at a positive position while to situate Iran at an imperfect one or as Sharifian mentions that George W. Bush is seeking socially accepting act (ibid, p.422). The Arabic translation of this metaphor is "يجب على هؤلاء إبقاء منزلهم نظيفاً" ‘ yajubu ala hawla ebgaa manzelhum nadifn’ “they should keep their house clean”. However, in the Middle Eastern culture it is not tactful behaviour to tell someone to clean his/her house. George W. Bush selected the inappropriate metaphor to ask Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Literally, he told the Iranians to remove dirt from their house. This sort of language, I assume, will only lead them to cling to the nuclear program. Because of this, the use of the conceptual metaphor NUCLEAR ENERGY IS DIRT led to counterproductive outcomes in this political situation. Maalej (2008) uses Mandelblit’s model (1995) of similar and different mapping conditions to measure the translatability of ontological and structural metaphors from Tunisian Arabic into English. He concludes that ontological conceptual metaphors can be more readily translated literally than the conceptual structural metaphors from Tunisian Arabic into English. Maalej (ibid, p.65) suggests three procedures for rendering metaphors. Firstly, translators should unpack the linguistic metaphor in its original language and culture. Secondly, they should compare whether a metaphor can show a similar mapping condition or different mapping condition. The third step is to repackage the metaphor in the target language and target culture. His model has been applied to a Tunisian novel titled كلام الليل (klaam l-lill) (Night’s talk) by Taoufik Aljibaly (ibid, p.68). However, this work suffers from some methodological limitations: for example, the language of the novel is so close to the spoken dialect of Tunisian Arabic that the procedures cannot be generalized on metaphors with standard Arabic. Furthermore, the study fails to acknowledge the details of the translation of the novel. Maalej (ibid, p.69) also suggests that if the literal translation worked in transferring the metaphors, then, English and Tunisian Arabic languages conceptualise experience similarly.

Samaniego Fernández (2011, p.267) claims that cognitive studies on metaphor translation are recent and few compared with the linguistic ones. According to her, the main aim of previous studies was to find the best equivalence of the source language metaphor in the target text. She also mentions that a great deal of studies about metaphor translation had been seeking a set of ready-made translation techniques based on the degree of resemblance between source and target text metaphor. Regarding the cognitive approach of metaphor translation, Eva contended that this approach tries to set rules for metaphor translation based on the degree of the target text metaphor’s similarity to the source text metaphor. She also advocates avoiding the prescriptive approaches in translating metaphor and focuses instead on the gains the transfer process may cause (ibid, 2011, p.275). Despite the fact that Kövecses is not a translation scholar but a prominent metaphor studies theorist, some of his latest insights about metaphor translation could be of great assistance. He tries to investigate the nature of systematic difficulties which the translators face in translating metaphors(2014). Kövecses (ibid, p.37) suggests that the difficulties translators face can be assigned to four main reasons:

1. As metaphors are created in a distinctive context, their translation cannot be direct or simple in another and dissimilar context (target language).

2. Figurative meaning can be expressed in various ways in different languages. This flexibility may put translators in a state of hesitation regarding the selection of the best option in this context (ibid, p.33).

3. If there is no metaphorical or metonymic expression in the target language for the source language at the first place then the selection of the literal expression which can be utilised to equate the metaphorical expression becomes another difficulty.

4. To translate metaphor effectively, three matching conditions have to be met by the translators. They are the scope of the source domain, the set of specific mappings and the knowledge belonging to the source domain which can be transferred into the target language. He considered this obstacle the major one for the translation process (ibid, p.37).

Kövecses concludes by summarising the major difficulties translators encounter in translating metaphors. They are the restrictions imposed by the context and the difficulty of meeting the three matching conditions above in each of the translations. Although, the conclusions made about metaphor translation are of a prescriptive nature, nevertheless, the author attempts to address significant issues in terms of metaphor variations between languages. These issues could be considered as the dimensions of variation, the conceptual aspects of metaphor involved in variation and the reasons for this variation. Liang and Liu (2015) suggest three translation techniques to handle UP and DOWN, LOCOMOTION and WAR metaphors in stock news reports from Chinese into English. The researchers argue that as the understanding of economic operations and activities can be hindered by the abstract nature of the concepts used, business language could use conceptual metaphors to demystify the obscure and very technical activities (ibid, p.119). The suggested procedures for translating business metaphors are about maintaining the original conceptual metaphor, substituting original conceptual metaphor and deleting of the conceptual metaphor (ibid, p.118). The question raised by this study is whether it is possible for translators to delete a conceptual metaphor even if it is an essential component in shaping the stock news reports. Shuttleworth (2014) investigates the techniques translators resort to in handling the metaphorical expressions that contain rich and non-rich images. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, Shuttleworth explains that such study may reveal some insights regarding the ways translators handle metaphors in different languages. These metaphors are varied in their degree of richness and specificity; additionally, such study will suggest more clues about the richness concept itself if a link has been found between the degree of richness and the decision taken by translators to handle metaphors (ibid, p.38). Shuttleworth concludes that there is a tendency in the data investigated to move from rich images into non-rich images, so this will lead to a partial loss of specificity and vividness of the source language metaphors. Shuttleworth (ibid, p.48) suggests nine procedures to translate rich or non-rich images. They range from a change of mapping into a straight translation without any shift in mapping.

Van Poucke and Belikova (2016) study the translation of metaphorical expressions of Dutch, English and Finish languages in journalistic texts and the translation procedures used to transfer them into Russian. They try to investigate the use of foreignization technique in rendering metaphors into Russian. One of the hypotheses which had been set was that authors of the source language texts share similar critical view of Russia, therefore, some of their metaphors will be unwelcomed in the target language. Consequently, translators will alter some images to be less intense in the target language. Researchers in this work have adopted a slightly different approach in identifying metaphors. They searched for metaphors independently in the source and target texts. The principle objective of opting for this approach is to form a broader picture of the metaphors in both the original and the translated texts, and to facilitate the process of assigning metaphors to the six Toury (1995) metaphor translation categories (ibid, 354). They conclude that the foreignization technique has been used to retain images created about Russia in the Western World. Specifically, the images contain a tone of criticism for the Russian state, society and leaders, whereas other metaphors have been substituted or paraphrased. Van Poucke and Belikova (ibid, p.363) state that such an approach has achieved two main goals. First, it has introduced a discourse that is not available for the Russian readers in the local news outlets. Second, it has presented the stylistic features adopted by Western media to discuss Russian affairs. One can infer that what researchers above is looking for is the role played by metaphor translation in revealing the ideological dimensions of the source language news text. In fact, conceptual metaphors can be of a great help in learning about a community’s interpretation of the world and hence its ideology (Deginan 2005).

Due to the space limitation, the survey of literature does not convey the whole research conducted about metaphors in translation issues. To make the review of the literature more systematic, I divided the issue of metaphors in translation into two sections. The first one exposed the views of the linguistic approaches whereas the second section has been devoted to present the cognitive views of metaphor translation. In the following section, I will narrow down the discussion of the main issues of translating metaphors in political texts.

Translating political metaphors

In general two main issues come to the surface when discussing metaphor translation. The first one is the translatability of metaphor second the translation procedures used to translate metaphors. However, only little studies identified in succinct and precise manner the issues which translators may face in dealing with political metaphors or which could be the motivations for selecting one particular strategy rather than another when rendering metaphors in political texts. In this section, we will survey part of the literature in attempt to determine these factors. Chilton and Ilyn (1993) explained the role of the variation of the cultural models in interpreting metaphor differently. The authors use the “Common European House” metaphor as an evidence to denote how dissimilarity in understanding the concept of house may affect people’s perception of the intended meaning of the metaphor. The Soviet president M. Gorbachev used the Russian word “dome” to refer to the house. Chilton and Ilyn (1993, 114) explain that “the prototypical/stereotypical reference of dome is a building containing a large number of individual apartments; the building may have more than one entrance.” However, houses are not conceptualised similarly in English, French and German cultures for instance. Consequently the associative cognitive elements evoked by this metaphor in terms of the size, the layout, the fence …etc. will not be the equivalent of the original “dome”. Therefore, Schäffner (2004) states that the metaphor was cognitively challenged and even rejected in Western Europe. In her analysis of the metaphor “Kerneuropa / core Europe” which appeared in a German Parliamentary document, Schäffner (1996b), explains how the entailments of the translated political metaphor may be a source of row in the TL and its culture. The metaphor (core Europe) denotes to a smaller union of some European countries which constitute an initial step for a larger European Union.

She (1996b, 6) commented that “The choice of 'hard core' in the translation that was done by the translators in Bonn, significantly shifted the tone of the document .... The inescapable connotations of this term in English are hard core pornography or hard core terrorism. 'Hard core' is associated with people and things that are immoral and incorrigible.” Hence, neither the linguistic element nor cultural aspects cause the translation resistance; but it is the entailment the s metaphor invokes in the TL. Bulut (2012, 914) studies the translation of metaphor in interpreter-mediated political interviews between Turkish and English languages. He thinks “Political metaphors pose constraints in translation especially in situations such as translation of political texts where a lexical choice goes through conscious or sub-conscious ideological transfer.” Bulut concluded the study by suggesting that translators bear the responsibility of causing translation conflict if contextual and ideological sensitivities have not been taken into account when rendering political metaphors. Al-Harahsheh (2013) studies the translation of Khalid Mashal’s (a leader of Palestinian Hamas movement) figures of speeches. Metaphors were among the figures he examined. He argues that Arab politicians rely heavily on metaphorical expressions to trigger the necessary impact on their audience. In the case of Mashal, he relies on religious metaphors to communicate political messages. For instance (2013, 109) Mashal used the metaphor طبخة حصى (tabkhat hasa) (Pebbles cooking) to talk about peace negotiations led by American governments. Mashal accuses the Americans that they are bluffing the Palestinians and they are not serious about peace. The origin of this metaphor is historical one. In short, it is about an old poor woman who was cooking pebbles in water to divert the hunger of her children until they sleep. Al-Harahsheh argues that Newmark’s model could be appropriate to overcome such metaphors. However, he concludes that the sources of difficulty in translating Mashal’s metaphors are of cultural and ideological origin.

In her article “Foreign metaphors and Arabic translation” Bazzi(2014) investigates the ideological motivations for the metaphorical selections when translating political news about the Middle-East region. She concludes that the metaphors used to cover the events in the region are of two types. They are cultural and ideological metaphors. She argues that each type of these metaphors have to be approached differently. Fatemeh et al. (2014, 117) conducted a study to examine the “emotive metaphoric conceptualizations and their dominant patterns in Persian and English”. Using the cognitive approach of metaphor, he studied the happiness and sadness metaphors in the language mentioned. They compared two English translations of a best seller Persian novel. Fatemeh et al. (2014) concluded that “A cultural word makes hard task the translation of metaphorical expressions from one language to another language”. Although the authors adopted the cognitive view as the theoretical frame work of the study, nonetheless, their approach in investigating the translations of metaphorical expressions has been a prescriptive one. The authors failed as well in providing the readers greater hints about the cultural, social and political circumstances under which the translations had place in. I believe making judgments about the translations and the translators based on a narrow linguistic view will never do justice for the translation stakeholders (translators, audience, translation companies…etc.). Pedersen(2017) studies the translation of metaphor in subtitling mode. The material used for investigation was the subtitling of the sitcom “Yes, Prime Minister” into Swedish. The series revolves around “the struggle between the politicians’ desire to reform society and the civil servants’ desire to retain the status quo” (Pedersen 2017, 421-22). Pedersen argues that the study of metaphor translation in subtitling is still unexplored area of research. Factors such the interplay between dialogue, image and subtitles, time and space constraints makes the translation of metaphors a challenging task. Pedersen concludes that subtitlers are less prone to the deletion of metaphors, on the contrary, they are aware that different types of metaphors need different treatments. He also suggests that translating metaphor in subtitling is not different from what happens in other modes of translation.

A conclusion can be drawn that two basic factors constitute translation difficulties of political metaphors. They are the cultural models in particular society and ideological motivations. Some metaphors are characterising of being culture specific in terms that they are socio-cultural by-products of human interactions within their societies. Therefore, translators need to take into consideration the specificity nature of metaphors. overlooking the sensitivity of culture and ideology when translating metaphors may lead to “may lead to considerable risks” as Sharifian suggests (2009, 429). The conclusion above is not novel or new; it is the prevailing opinion about the relation between culture and translation. In the following section I will try to shift this argument into opposite direction. In other words I will argue that culture can be a translation solution rather than translation problem.

Metaphor translation and culture

Throughout the discussion above of metaphor translation we noticed that there is a tendency to link the difficulty of translating metaphors to cultural factors or to describe culture as a translation resistant. It will be useful at the outset of the current section to present my own interpretation for popularity of this argument. As plants continually absorb elements from the land, to ensure their development, in the same way people continually absorb various elements from their close environments that influence their growing and ways of thinking. The planet we inhabit consists of various objects (sand, water, snow, hot weather, trees…etc.) and we are constantly confronted with them and obliged to communicate about them; therefore to define ourselves in relation to them. House (2018, 46) calls this sort of interaction with our surroundings as the anthropological culture. Language systems are intrinsic part of our culture. Snell-Hornby (1988:83) thinks that language is not seen as “an isolated phenomenon suspended in a vacuum but as an integral part of a culture”. Therefore, the development of language systems was a natural consequence of what occurred in the human societies.

Early views in Translation Studies about metaphor translation pay considerable attention to the specificity angle of culture. Newmark (1980, 12) understands of culture centres around peculiarity idea. He thinks of it as “the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression”. This opinion is still resonant for some in our present time. Ke-Yu He (2017, 126) argues that: The people with different means of thinking have different cultures. The metaphorical language used by people must be fully saturated with the culture which could be peculiar to it. So, because of the influence of cultural factors, the translation of metaphors becomes the most important particular problem. Although this argument holds some weight, nevertheless, we cannot utilise cultural differences in the favour of more communicative translation. Our differences can be the sources of the strength of the communication rather than any flaw of it.

I assume that the visible two reasons for considering culture as a metaphor translation hinder are the attempt to be faithful to the original text, and the lack of equivalence of the cultural elements in the TL. I argue that faithfulness does not necessarily mean adherence to the SL syntactic or semantic elements (Alshniet 15). Furthermore, cultural elements forming metaphors can be alternatives to translation methods which the translators use to make target texts more communicative. In the current work I will elaborate about the second point. To probe this hypothesis we need first to identify the major opinions suggested about the relation of culture to metaphor translation. Fung (1987, 88) states that cultural disparity can result in untranslatability of metaphors between languages. He exemplified his argument with Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “In the most high and Palmy state of Rome (1.1.116).” Fung (ibid.) explains that the cultural associations of Palmy state of Rome has not equivalent in Chinese. Fung (ibid.100) does not agree with Dagut’s view that the translatability of metaphor depends on the overlap between the cultures in question. Fung asserts that not only the absence of the experience in the target culture could mitigate the possibility of translating metaphors into the target language but also the values and qualities associated with objects and events which are embraced by a people of community canhave a great share as well.

Al-Harrsi (2001, 11) argues in his discussion of the role of culture in translating metaphor that the cultural gap between languages can hamper the translation of metaphors. The variation in language, religion and world view between the source and target cultures leads to produce culture-bound metaphors in the languages concerned. In a similar vein Sun(2011) believes that cross-cultural differences as an obstacle for translation. Tcaciuc (2013, 40) confirms that the linguistic and cultural diversity of the European Union organisation may has implications for translating metaphors. This is due to the fact that “there will be situations when one culture perceives things differently than another” Deignan et al.(1997)take a similar opinion of Al-Harrasi when they acknowledge that rendering metaphors into a foreign language requires to think in the first language to render it properly in the second language. Expressions such as bring something (a fact, situation) home to someone and drive a message/idea home were difficult to render into second language. However, there are not any specific cultural connotations in the expressions mentioned. They concluded that such procedure requires high intellectual capabilities by the speaker (ibid. 355). Al-Zoubi et al. (2007)build their model “Cognitive Equivalence Hypothesis” of translating metaphor based on the parameter of culture. The more cultures are similar the easier is the metaphor translator task. Schäffner (2004) argues that the cultural differences between the SL and TL can result in different metaphors. She insisted that the new metaphorical alternatives are not mistranslations or errors but a reflection of the original metaphors in the new culture. Schäffner (ibid.1258) assumes that “Translatability is no longer a question of the individual metaphorical expression, as identified in the ST, but it becomes linked to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture”. In his study of the translation of the metaphors appeared in “Metaphors We Live By” book Monti (2009) acknowledges that the translation of conceptual metaphors across cultures is more accessible on the conceptual level than on the linguistic one. The linguistic level of metaphors is still more challenging for translators. However, there are two main limitations of this study. Firstly, it has been conducted only on the languages which share, to a great extent, similar cultural backgrounds (French, Italian and Spanish). Secondly, one of the main criticisms levelled against Lakoff’s book is the usage of unrealistic linguistic examples to verify his theory. Therefore, the reliability of his results could be weakened as he used the same unrealistic examples. Hamdi(2015) has studied the conceptual metaphors in English, Arabic and Spanish. She informs that these three languages share or express happiness metaphorically in a similar way. However, she notices that culture plays a significant role in causing the variation between theses languages when expressing happiness metaphorically.

A significant study conducted by Kövecses (2005) was devoted to study similarity and variation of conceptual metaphors with considering of culture. He allocated a chapter to discuss how identical conceptual metaphors may vary in English and Hungarian. The conclusion reached by Kövecses (ibid. 163) in this regards was that the same conceptual metaphors may exist in two different languages but their linguistic expressions may be affected by the “cultural–ideological traits” and assumptions peculiar to the cultures could also be involved.

As it can be noticed from the survey above that the relation between culture and metaphor is indispensable one. However, and to some extent, early studies of metaphor translation described this relation as of tense nature. They argue that cultural variation may restrict the movement of metaphors between languages. However, in the current research I consider cultural variation as a great resource which could assist translators to transfer metaphors into different languages and cultures. Using cultural knowledge to communicate an abstract concept metaphorically will result in what I call cultural linguistic metaphors in the target language. Therefore, linguistic metaphors are not challenging as has been stated by Minot (2009). For example, in his speech at the UN General Assembly, president George W. Bush (2002) talks about the dare consequences of “breaking treaties” by some member states and he urges the member states to establish “a system of security defended by all”. In the target language, the translator has translated the first extract as “نكثالمعاهدات” “treaties have been undone” whereas the second part was “لنظام أمن يدافع عن حياضه الجميع” “For a security system where all people defend its basins”. As it can be seen, the translator opts for cultural elements to communicate the original meaning. The selection of the cultural experiences of “undoing yarn items” to denote the idea of wasting time and resources and “defending water basins” to indicate the importance of security manifests how culture can give privilege for translators. The translator managed to decode the abstract concepts using very specific cultural items. Detailed discussion will be provided for the mechanism of translating these metaphorical blends in chapter five. As I have already mentioned above, it is a widely held view in the study of metaphors in translation studies that culture may constitute a challenge for translators, however, regarding example, it is evident that some cultural options may provide sound alternatives for translators. Linguistic metaphors can be utilised to establish new connections between SL metaphors and TL ones. This will not be achieved easily. To do so, translators need to liberate themselves from the restrictions of the linguistic wording and look to the conceptual patterns behind metaphors. In other words, the ST metaphor should not be the ultimate goal that translators seek to reflect, but to take into consideration the TL and its norms where the metaphor will take place. This will lead us to discuss this sort of call in Translation Studies, which is descriptive translation model. In the following section, I will shed some light upon this theory and its relation to the translation of metaphor.

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) and metaphor translation

In the previous section we noticed that the cultural elements of metaphors have been considered as translation resistant. I argue that DTS could provide an answer for the issue of translating metaphorical cultural elements. The section will start with DTS main principles and then would reflect upon the manner through which the theory was established. I will conclude the discussion with explaining in what way this theory could enhance the study of metaphor translation. The theory has been presented in the literature as a replacement of the linguistic paradigm of translation in which the model or typical equivalence is the ultimate goal for translators (Lamis 2013). Al-Harrasi (2001, 24) summarises the new approach as “The descriptive translation model, which in short, has moved the discussion in Translation Studies from the notion of source-based equivalence which was stressed in the linguistic approaches to seeing translation as a fact of the target culture.” Bassnett (2012, 7) explains that DTS has expanded the study of translation to involve the translation history, the shifting of translation norms and how the TL audience and TLC receive the translation. However, Hermans (2012) asserts that DTS promotes not only the emphasis of the importance of the descriptive side in studying translation but also stresses that translation should be studied as an independent branch of knowledge. Although, the credit of establishing the basis of translation descriptive approach to the translation goes to Evan Zohar, Hermans (2012,1) acknowledges that John McFarlane (1953) has pronounced similar ideas at his time. McFarlane has expressed his objection for the judgmental approach for translation evaluation, calling for a “diagnostic rather than hortatory” view of evaluation of translation (McFarlane 1953, 92-3 cited in Hermans 2012, 1). These calls had gone unnoticed until 1980s when the new approach was presented in a work named The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. This book was a full-fledged work allocated to present the descriptive approach to the public. As the name would suggest Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), is a descriptive, target-text oriented translation approach which seeks to determine in what way translators could conduct translation tasks rather than what should have been done. Shuttleworth (2017, 41) states that the meaning of the DTS refers to the non-prescriptive approach to investigate a broad range of topics “firmly oriented towards the target rather than the source” Shuttleworth adds that DTS tends to analyse examples of authentic translations.

Even-Zohar lays the foundations of the theory. He seeks to study the position and functions of literary translation in the target language. The aim was to make the study of translations more systematic, aiming to provide more reliable generalisations not only about individual texts but to find out what is the standard or the most common practices (norms) translators perform on a group of texts. Although the early stages of the DTS were designed to study the locus of literature in particular literary canon, the work of the later scholars in the field used the theory to study different aspects of translation as we will see below. Later on, Gideon Toury (1980-2012) departed from the point that “a translation is to be taken as any target-language utterance presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever ground” (Cited in House 2018, 38). For him “The descriptive approach should accept the fact that all translations are equivalent to their source as axiomatic, so that research can then discover the modes of the equivalence” (Windle & Pym 2011, 11). This means abandoning the linguistic approaches that consider the source text as the yardstick for evaluating the quality of the translation. Toury (1985, 25) explicitly states that translations should be looked at as “facts of one system only: the target system.” This hypothesis is not new or an original in translation theory, however Toury (2012, Xiii) states that what Translation Studies needs is “but a systematic branch proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research techniques made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies itself.” This shift in paradigm has significant consequences on the study of translation. One of these is the questioning of the equivalence concept itself. Equivalence is the major concern for translation theorists. However, its perception based on the DTS will be not the same as before.

House (2018, 38) summarises the working mechanisms or the way scholars embark upon translation text analysis in three major points:

1. To put the target language text in the TL socio-cultural system and determine its suitability and impact.

2. Analysing both the ST and the TT to determine the shifts in the translation.

3. Determining a kind of generalisation in this particular translation product. These generalisations can be extended to similar texts and could be utilised to formulate larger similar corpora. This will lead to identification of the sort of norms exist in the translations in a greater confident manner.

Having established what is DTS and its main principles, we will discuss now how this theory can be of help for translators approaching metaphors.

In her study of the translating political metaphors Schäffner (2004, 1256) suggests “In equivalence-based approaches, the underlying assumption is that a metaphor, once identified, should ideally be transferred intact from SL to TL.” Unlike the linguistic approaches, descriptive methods call for the translators to select their translation procedures or strategies based on the degree of acceptability of metaphor in the target language. That means translators should be completely aware of the norms in the target language. The norms do not only refer to what is acceptable and otherwise in the TL and its culture but also may refer to the ways in which people life, eat, dress…etc., or as Bassnett (2012) calls it the socio cultural context of the language. Shuttleworth (2013) has stated that DTS translation conceives the process of translation as a decision-making procedure which, could, lead to either a loss or a gain. There is no correct or wrong translation, but various degrees of appropriateness exist. Shuttleworth (2013, 66) also adds “Mistranslations and mistakes are not of significant interest to the discipline.” Taking what Schäffner (2004), Shuttleworth (2014) suggestions and the general mechanisms of DTS explained by House (2018) on board will enable translators to work freely and expel the idea that exact metaphorical counterparts or equivalents should be retained in the TL. Furthermore, the idea of norms and acceptability is appealing if taken in consideration as well. Translators should not link the acceptability principle to be merely the degree of appropriateness of the metaphor in the TL and its culture. If translations become target language facts, the concern not to work out the exact SL equivalent in fact will only be paradoxical. The new metaphor should meet the expectations of the TL audience, not the vice versa. Using the Equipped with the principles of DTS approach, metaphor translation analysts can explain for translation decisions taken by translators as creative or novel efforts rather than mishandling or losing the original metaphors of the source text.

Conclusion

In designing the current chapter, I aimed to convey several points. The first aim wasto explore how the study of metaphor has developed from the early linguistic views into the most recent cognitive perspectives (sections 4.2 and 4.3). To achieve this end, I revised the two opinions which metaphor translation scholars adopted to investigate metaphor translation, namely the linguistic and cognitive approaches. Unlike the linguistic approach, the major concern was not to create the metaphorical counterpart in the TL, but to find the underlying structure that motivates the creation of the linguistic metaphor. The cognitive approach has presented a significant advancement to the study of metaphor as well which is the finding of the link between different metaphorical expressions in the text. The second aim was to probe the issue of political metaphor translation. Although metaphor occupies a high status in Translation Studies, nevertheless, the study of political metaphor translation from English into Arabic is still an under researched topic. We found out that two major aspects constitute translation resistant to a political metaphor translation. These are cultural patterns and ideological motivations for metaphors. The major theme of section (4.5) is metaphor translation and culture. The overwhelming opinion when dealing with this topic is that cultural constitutive elements in metaphors can cause difficulties in transferring these metaphors into different or disparate cultures. However, I argued differently that culture could be of considerable help in transferring metaphors into different languages. In section (4.6) I shed light on DTS as a potential theoretical framework that enable translators to utilise culture to translate metaphors. As a target language oriented approach, DTS can grant translators more room to use the cultural elements of the TL in maintaining the metaphors of a targeted language which could be cognitively equivalent to the SL ones.