In this paper we will analyse the role that the translation of newspaper metaphors may play in the cognitive system of the target language, in this case Spanish.  We believe that many traditionally labelled ‘incorrect’ translations of ST metaphors (such as literal translations) are in fact introducing novel metaphors into Spanish and there seems to be sufficient evidence that considerable cognitive changes are slowly but surely being brought thanks to the role of these ‘wrong’ translations. Thus, what interests us in this paper is to evaluate the cognitive role of literal translations, particularly overtly wrong ones (some of which would be ‘calques’, Lorenzo 1996), which in many cases will in time bring about anglicisms in Spanish.

The translation of metaphor has always been a major source of conflict. In prescriptive translation approaches, theorists in general either listed compulsory translation procedures for each type of metaphor (see Nida & Taber 1982, Van Den Broeck 1981, Newmark 1988a & b, etc.) or stigmatized it as ‘untranslatable’. However, thanks to the influence of disciplines like Cognitive Linguistics, Text Linguistics, and Sociology, among others, Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) have undertaken a more realistic study of metaphor translation, showing interest in translations labelled as ‘incorrect’ by traditional studies. One of the major contributions of the approach to metaphor brought about by Cognitive Linguistics is that source-oriented, literal translation approaches have been increasingly disregarded to favour target-oriented studies (Toury 1985:25 & 1995; Snell-Hornby 1988:44; Dickins 2005; Gutt 2001; Schäffner 2004, Hatim & Mason 1997, Rabadán Álvarez 1992, etc.), and this process has had an immediate impact on the concept of equivalence, which is now understood as the relationship existing between a source text (or source item) and a target text (or target item), which is “redefined for each and every act of translation” (Chamosa González 1997: 44-45, my translation). Thus, translemic equivalence does not pursue ‘perfect’ but rather ‘acceptable’ renderings (Rabadán Álvarez 1991:45) of metaphor (Van Besien & Pelsmaeckers 1988), in sharp contrast with former prescriptive parameters of absolute loyalty to the ST (Toury 1995:35).

In this paper we will study the results obtained from a sample of 122 articles published in a British newspaper and their translations into Spanish. A group of 9 informants have selected all the novel metaphors in the Spanish texts; this has been complemented by the use of reliable, appropriate dictionaries to remove the possibility of picking out dead metaphors in the TTs.

Our study tries to discover what material in the STs matches the novel metaphors chosen in the TTs, thus keeping away from traditional approaches by ‘reversing’ the traditional TO-TT comparison and turning it into a TT-TO match. This is the only way for translational possibilities such as the creation of novel material in the TTs from Ø  textual material in the STs to come to light. Following this descriptive/inductive/experimental method, 389 novel metaphors were identified in the TTs, which matched 370 metaphors (novel or otherwise) in English. The paper carries out an analysis of the results obtained, focusing in particular on cases of overtly ‘incorrect’ translations in order to examine their impact on the target system’s cognitive universe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Zoubi, Q.M. et al (2007), “Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors». Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14(3), 230-239.

Anderman, G & M. Rogers (2003), Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives. Multilingual Matters.

Baker, M. & K. Malmjkaer (2001), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge.

Besien, F. Van and Pelsmaeckers, K. (1988), “The Translation of Metaphor” in Nekeman (ed.). Translation, Our Future: Proceedings of the XIth World Congress of F.I.T. Maastricht: Euroterm. 140-146.

Broeck, R. Van Den (1981), “The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor Translation”. Poetics Today 2(4): 73-87.

Cameron. L. & G. Low (eds.) (1999), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: C.U.P.

Chamosa González, J.L. (1997), “Crítica y evaluación de traducciones: elementos para su discusión”. En P. Fernández Nistal & J.M. Bravo Gozalo (Coords), Aproximaciones a los estudios de traducción. Valladolid: S.A.E., 29-50.

Charteris-Black, J. (2004), Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave.

Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse (2004), Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dagut, M. (1976), “Can Metaphor be Translated?”. Babel 12(1): 21-33.

---- (1987), “More About the Translatability of Metaphor”. Babel 33(2): 77-83.

Deignan, A. (1999), “Corpus-based research into metaphor”. In L. Cameron & G. Low, eds., 177-199.

Deignan, A. (2008). “Corpus linguistic data and conceptual metaphor theory”. In M.S. Zanotto et al. (eds), 149-162.

Dickins, J. (2005), “Two Models for Metaphor Translation” Target 17(2)217-273.

Dobrovol’skij, D. & Piirainen, E. (2005), Figurative Language: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Evans, V. & M. Green (2006), Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Evans, V. & B. Bergen (2006), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox.

Fareh, H. & Moussa, M. (2007), “Practicality and Usefulness of English-Arabic Dictionaries in Translating English Metaphors”. Babel 53(1), 32-47).

Gambier, Y. et al (2007), Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies. John Benjamins.

Geeraerts, D. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton de Gruyter.

Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. OUP

Gentzler, E. (2001), Contemporary Translation Theories. Multilingual Matters.

Gibbs, R.W. & G.J. Steen (1999, eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gutt. E.A. (2001), Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. St. Jerome.

Hatim, B. & I. Mason (1990), Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.

---- (1997), The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.

Herbrechter, S. (2002), Cultural Studies, Interdisciplinarity and Translation. Rodopi.

Hung, E. (2005, ed.), Translation and Cultural Change. John Benjamins.

Kristiansen, G. et al (2006, eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applicantions and Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter.

Lorenzo Criado, E. (1996), Anglicismos hispánicos. Madrid: Gredos.

Malmjkaer, K. (2005), Linguistics and the Language of Translation. University of Edinburgh.

Mason, K. (1982), “Metaphor and Translation”. Babel 28(3): 140-149.

Menacere, M. (1992), “Arabic Metaphor and Idiom in Translation”. Meta 37(3): 567-572.

Munday, J. (2001), Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. Routledge.

Newmark, P. (1988a), Approaches to translation. London: Prentice Hall International (1st ed. 1981, Pergamon Institute of English), esp. “The Translation of Metaphor”, 84-96.

---- (1988b), A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall International Limited.

Nida, E.A. & C.R. Taber, (1982) [1969], The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Nord, C. & P. Sparrow (2005), Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology and Didactic Application. Rodopi.

O’Hagan, M. & D. Ashworth (2002), Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World: Facing the Challenges. Multilingual Matters.

Rabab’ah, G.A. (2008), “Communication Strategies in Translation”, Babel 54(2), 97-110.

Rabadán Álavarez, R. (1991), Equivalencia y traducción. Problemática de la equivalencia translémica inglés-español. León: Universidad de León.

---- (1992), “Tendencias teóricas en los estudios contemporáneos de traducción”. En P. Fernández Nistal (Coord.), Estudios de traducción. Valladolid: ICE, 45-59.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. & J.L. Otal. (2002). Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Granada: Comares.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & R. Mairal Usón (2006), “Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet”. Interlingüística 17: 26–47.

---- (2007), “High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”. In G. Radden et al (Eds), Aspects of meaning construction, , 33–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pisarska, A. 1989. Creativity of Translators. The Translation of Metaphorical Expressions in Non-literary Texts. Poznan: Uniwersytet.

Schäffner, C. (2004), “Metaphor and Translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach”, Journal of Pragmatics 36(7), 1253-1269.

Snell Hornby, M. (1988), Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, esp. “The Translation of Metaphor”, 56-63.

Steen, G. (2002), “Towards a Procedure for Metaphor Identification”. Language and Literature 11(1):17-33.

Toury, G. (1985),”A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. En T. Hermans (Ed.), The Manipulation of Literature. Sydney: Croom & Helm.16-41.

---- (1995), Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tymoczko, M. & E. Gentzler (2002), Translation and Power. University of Massachussetts Press.

Ungerer, F. & H.J. Schmid (2006, 2nd ed.), An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York, London: Longman.

Van Besien, F. & K. Pelsmaeckers (1988), “The Translation of Metaphor”. En NEKEMAN (Ed.), Translation, Our Future: Proceedings of the XIth World Congress of F.I.T. Maastricht: Euroterm, 140-146.

Van den Broeck, R. (1981), “The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor Translation”. Poetics Today, 2(4), 73-87.

Venuti, L. (2004, 2nd ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Wolf, M. & A. Fukari (2007), Constructing a Sociology of Translation. John Benjamins.

Zanotto, M.S., L. Cameron & M.C. Cavalcanti (2008), Confronting Metaphor in Use. An Applied Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.