Nominal Metaphor Translation: Extension and Reference to Universal Metaphors by General Terms
Looking at nominal metaphors from the perspective of class-inclusion model of metaphor comprehension and universal (conceptual) metaphors view, the present article aimed to investigate the changes that might happen in a metaphor when it is translated from one language to another one. Participants of this study were 30 undergraduate students in the Department of English of Shahid Chamran University. All participants were Persian native speakers. They were given 35 nominal metaphors to translate from English into Persian. Based on the obtained results, it was found that when English nominal metaphors are translated into Persian, the vehicles of the metaphors tend to be replaced by general words. On the basis of class-inclusion model and universal metaphors view, two possible reasons are suggested to be behind this tendency. Firstly, general words are more readily extended. Consequently, they easily create larger categories that might include both literal and metaphorical sense of the vehicle. Secondly, general words create higher-order or sometimes universal metaphors under which a large number of metaphors are categorized. Universal metaphors are shared by many, and perhaps by all languages of the world. Therefore, they are readily understood across various languages and cultures.
Blasko, D.G., & Connine, C.M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,295-308.
Bokor, Z. (1997). Body-based constructionism in the conceptualization of anger. C.L.E.A.R. series, no. 17. Budapest: Department of English, Hamburg University and the Department of American Studies, ELTE.
Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of Language. Toronto: Thompson publications.
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor & Symbol, 18, 85-105.
Gernsbacher, M.A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 433-450.
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411-446). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed, pp. 401-424). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and language, 36, 50-67.
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi. D.A., & McGlone, M.S. (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. In T.B Wards, S.M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual metaphors and processes (pp. 326-350). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms, Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol. 16,277-293.
Glucksbers, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 92-96.
Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110-124.
Jones, L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 18-32.
Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., Marschark, M., & Clark, J. M. (1988). Norms for 204 literary and 260 nonliterary metaphors on 10 psychological dimensions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3,191-214.
Keysar, B. & Glucksberg, S. (1992). Metaphor and communication. Poetics Today, 13:4, 633-658.
King, B. (1989). The Conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Kovecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland and N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. R. Taylor and R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 137–151). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought? Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 544-565.
Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Riddle, E. M. (2000). The “string” metaphor of life and language in Hmong. Paper presented at international pragmatic conference, Budapest, Hungary.
Taylor, J. & Mbense, T. (1998). Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression (pp. 191–226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vahdat, S. & Khatinzadeh, O. (2014). Aptness dynamism: The impact of culture and introversion-extroversion scale on metaphor acceptability judgments. Paper presented at international conference of ISPLR, Ankara, Turkey.
Yang, G. (2002). Love and its conceptual metaphors in Mandarin. Aspectual classification. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of California, at Berkeley.
Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expression of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 223–245.