This article was downloaded by:

On: 18 February 2009

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

COGNO-CULTURAL ISSUES IN TRANSLATING METAPHORS

Q. Al-Zoubi Mohammad a; N. Al-Ali Mohammed b; R. Al-Hasnawi Ali c
a
Al al-Bayt University, Jordan b Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan c Ibri College, Sultanate
of Oman

Online Publication Date: 31 January 2007

To cite this Article Mohammad, Q. Al-Zoubi, Mohammed, N. Al-Ali and Ali, R. Al-Hasnawi(2007)'COGNO-CULTURAL ISSUES IN
TRANSLATING METAPHORS',Perspectives,14:3,230 — 239
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09076760708669040
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760708669040

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 230

COGNO-CULTURAL ISSUES IN TRANSLATING METAPHORS

Mohammad Q. Al-Zoubi, Al al-Bayt University, Jordan,

Mohammed N. Al-Ali, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan,
and Ali R. Al-Hasnawi, Ibri College, Sultanate of Oman
alali@just.edu.jo

Abstract:
Metaphor translation has been treated as part of the more general problem of ‘untrans­latability’.
This trend stems from the fact that metaphors in general are associated with ‘indirectness’, which
in turn contributes to the difficulty of translation. Different theories and approaches have been
proposed with regard to metaphor translation, each of which has tackled this problem from a dif-
ferent point of view. In this paper, the writers argue in favor of a cogno-cultural framework for
metaphor translation based on the ‘Cognitive Translation Hypothesis’ (henceforth CTH) pro-
posed by Mandelblit (1995). Using authentic examples from English and Arabic along with their
translation, the paper discusses translation of metaphor with reference to culture, and ‘similar
mapping conditions’ as well as ‘different mapping conditions’ proposed by the cognitive approach.
The core of this framework is based on the hypothesis that the more two cultures conceptualize
experience in similar ways, the more the first strategy, ‘similar mapping conditions’, applies – and
the easier the task of translation will be. Otherwise, the second strategy will apply and the task
will be more difficult.
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

Key words: Cognitive approach; metaphors and culture; metaphor translation.

1. Introduction
Regardless of its popularity and mechanism of operation, metaphor as a lin-
guistic de­vice exists in all human languages. The word ‘metaphor’ comes from
Greek meta­phora, meaning ‘to transfer’ or to ‘carry over’. Reference to this uni-
versal linguistic phenom­enon can be found in the writings of classical Greek phi-
losophers and rhetoricians as well as contemporary linguists (cf. Richards 1965,
Leech 1969, Dagut 1976 and Maalej 2002). The earliest definition of metaphor
– quoted from Aristotle’s The Poetics by Richards (1965: 89) – talks about ‘a shift
carrying over a word from its normal use to a new one’. Under this quite broad
definition, all other instances of semantic extension (allegory, synecdoche, me-
tonymy, etc.) might be categorized as being metaphoric. Whichever term is used
for labeling these expressions, they all exhibit some kind of semantic and logi-
cal violation to the referential components of their lexical constituents. Hence
they are studied as instances of figurative language (as opposite to literal usage)
where words gain extra features besides their referential ones. As the meaning
of these lexical constituents cannot be predicted from their referential meaning,
translators will ‘suffer’ twice when approaching these metaphoric expressions.
First, they have to work out their figurative meaning intralingually (i.e. in the
language in which a metaphor is recorded). Second, equivalent meanings and
similar functions of these expressions must be found in the TL.
Studies of metaphor have been largely dedicated to issues such as the mean-
ing, forms, components, typology, and role of metaphors as speech ornaments
and meaning-enhancement analogies. These studies deter from the exploration
of the conti­nuous connection of metaphors as mental representations or visu-
alizations of the real world and the language used to realize these images in

0907-676X/06/03/230-10 $20.00 © 2006 M.Q. Al-Zoubi, M.N. Al-Ali, A.R. Al-Hasnawi

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Vol. 14, No. 3, 2006
 Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali & Al-Hasnawi. Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors. 231

words. Despite the large amount of literature available on the literary aspects
of this linguistic phenomenon, very little research has been done on the cog-
no-cultural translation of metaphors. The present study intends to show how
metaphors reflect cogno-cultural human experiences en­coded by language as a
means of recording human experience and how culture models and constrains
this cognition. In particular this paper is an argument in favor of a cogni­tive
approach in the translation of metaphors, especially between culturally distinct
languages, e.g. English and Arabic. The study of the metaphoric expressions
of a given culture would, hopefully, give us a chance to see how the members
of that culture structure or map their experience of the world and record it in
their native tongue. Since one of the basic assumptions is that culture influences
metaphor in an important way, the following section attempts to clarify how
metaphor is a product of culture. For a cognitive conceptualization of meta-
phor, the present study draws on Mandelblit’s (1995) “Cognitive Translation
Hypothesis” which is the subject of Section 3.

2. Cultural Conceptualization of Metaphor

According to Katan (1999), the word ‘culture’ comes from the Latin cultus,
‘cultiva­tion’, and colere, to ‘till’. The metaphorical extension is apt. ‘Seeds con-
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

tinually absorb elements from the land, or rather the ecosystem, to ensure their
development. In the same way, people continually absorb, unaware, vital ele-
ments from their immediate environment which influence their development
within the human system’ (ibid. 17).
One of the oldest definitions of culture, coined by Edward Burnett Tylor in
1871 and cited by, among others, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1983, vol. 4: 657),
describes culture as ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, customs, and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society’.
The following section will illustrate how the metaphoric choices available
to a user are filtered by the value and belief systems prevailing in the cultural
community into which the text is translated. Following Lakoff & Johnson (1980:
12) ‘a culture may be thought of as providing, among other things, a pool of
available metaphors for making sense of reality’, and ‘to live by a metaphor
is to have your reality structured by that metaphor and to base your percep-
tions and actions upon that structuring of reality’. This is related to the fact
that people of a given culture use language to reflect their attitudes toward the
world in general and the life of their community in particular. This in turn gives
rise to our argument in favor of a cognitive approach to translating metaphors;
one which takes into account cultural beliefs and values, which is especially
important when dealing with culturally distinct speech communities such as
the Anglophone and the Arabic-speaking ones. To put it differently, since dif-
ferent cultures classify the world’s complexities in different ways, translations
from one language to another are often very difficult, especially when tradi-
tions, symbols, life conditions and methods of experience representation differ
between the two cultures involved. For example, if you say “a man has a big
head” in English, it means “he is arrogant” whereas the similar expression in
Italian means that he is clever.
This also explains the ease of translating certain universal metaphors
 232 2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 3

denoting similar ideas in different cultures. Paradoxically, unlike what we saw

in the previous example, even metaphors related to parts of the human body
may act as examples of this. Consider the following English metaphors:

1a. ‘To give someone a hand’, meaning ‘helping someone’

2a. ‘To keep an eye on something’, meaning ‘watching or paying attention to
something’

The Arabic translation of the above metaphoric expressions means the same
and reads as follows, respectively:

1b. yamuddu yada ?almusaa’adah

2b. yaDa’u ‘ayynahu ‘alaa

But the question is how many of these instances can be found among human
languages? Unfortunately, very few exist. In this regard, Chitoran (1973: 69-70)
states that

the differences in environment, climate, cultural development, etc., among vari-

ous com­mu­nities may be extremely significant, but basically, human societies are
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

linked by a com­mon biological history. The objective reality in which they live is
definitely not identical but it is by and large similar.

However, the universe we are living in is made up of things, and we are con-
stantly confronted with them, obliged to communicate about them, and to de-
fine ourselves in relation to them. This is a characteristic of all human societies,
and due to this fact various language systems are not easily translatable. As
different cultures conceptualize the world differently, metaphors are culture-
specific. This is in line with Dagut’s (1976: 32) argument that

there is no simplistic general rule for the translation of metaphor, but the translat-
ability of any given SL metaphor depends on (1) the particular cultural experiences
and semantic as­sociations exploited by it, and (2) the extent to which these can, or
cannot, be repro­duced non-anomalously in the TL, depending on the degree of
overlap in each particular case.

As he goes further, Dagut (ibid. 28) says that ‘what determines the translatabil-
ity of a SL metaphor is not its “boldness” or “originality”, but rather the extent
to which the cultural experience and semantic associations on which it draws
are shared by speakers of the particular TL’. We would like to go even further
to state that the inherent difficulty of metaphor translation is not the absence of
an equivalent lexical item in the TL, but rather the diverging cultural conceptu-
alization of phenomena – even identical ones – in the two speech communities
involved. Snell-Hornby (1995: 41) holds the same idea as she states that ‘the
extent to which a text is translatable varies with the degree to which it is embed-
ded in its own specific culture, also with the distance that separates the cultural
background of source text and target audience in terms of time and place’.

3. Metaphor and Cognitive Equivalence in Translation

Katan (1999) suggests that a cognitive approach to the study of culture can be
seen in terms of the form of things that people have in mind; their models for
perceiving, relating, and interpreting them. This view of culture means that,
 Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali & Al-Hasnawi. Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors. 233

when translating a text, one needs to be aware not only of the patterns of think-
ing and acting in the source culture, but also of the TL cultural models of real-
ity. Nida (1964) described the ‘best’ translation as the one capable of evoking in
the TL reader the same response as the SL text does to the SL reader. Although
we find this rather an unreachable objective, we still believe that some of it can
be achieved provided that the following two conditions are satisfied: First, the
translator must be attentive to the way in which prospective ‘original’ readers
perceive the world and structure their experience. Second, he must also try his
best to accommodate his text to the experience of the target language reader,
and to the way it is recoded in the TL. Our argument in favor of a cognitive
approach to the translation of metaphor rises from the ‘cognitive equivalence’,
where metaphors can be translated from one language to another with a min-
imum degree of loss. And for this reason, we think that metaphors must be
looked at as cognitive constructs rather than mere linguistic entities or rhetori-
cal phenomena. In other words, metaphors represent instances of how people
conceptualize their experience and how they record it.
In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is often given a cognitive function, to which
end human beings draw upon the experience of each other or nonhuman sur-
roundings, or even other concepts or images. Lakoff & Johnson (1980) define
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

metaphor as a means to understand one domain of experience (the target do-

main) in terms of another, a familiar one (source domain). This usually takes the
form of analogy or comparison between two existent entities, or between one
existent entity and another one assumed to exist. To say that someone is a ‘lion’,
for example, reveals that a link has been established between that individual
(tenor) and the ‘lion’ (vehicle) as a symbol of bravery or strength. Therefore,
metaphors are ‘conceptual’ phenomena in which the source domain is mapped
onto the target domain. To put it differently, the structural components of the
source conceptual schema are transferred to the target domain. Here one should
deter the crucial role of culture in this process of symbolization and conceptual-
ization. In the Arab world, for instance, an ‘owl’ is often conceptualized as a bad
omen. Surprisingly to Arabs, it is a symbol of wisdom in the Western culture.
In the cognitive study of metaphor emphasis is put on the psychological
and the socio-cultural and linguistic aspects of metaphor. Furthermore, meta-
phors are associated with ‘indirectness’ (Green, 1989: 124; Maleej, 1990); this
is possibly why they are common as a special mode of expression in politics
and public speeches where direct expressions are censured. To those who study
metaphor within the scope of cognitive linguistics (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980;
Goatly, 1997), metaphor is ‘pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but
in thought and action’, and our ‘ordinary conceptual system is fundamentally
metaphorical in nature’ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 3).
For the translation of metaphor, we would like to incorporate Mandelblit’s
(1995) ‘Cognitive Translation Hypothesis’, but this time for a different purpose
and in a diffe­rent framework. Mandelblit proposed two schemes of cognitive
mapping condi­tions (i.e. Similar Mapping Condition (SMC) and Different Map-
ping Condition (DMC)). While Mandelblit intended to show that ‘the difference
in reaction time is due to a conceptual shift that the translator is required to
make between the conceptual mapping systems of the source and target lan-
guages’ (p. 493), we are more interested in the outcome of his research rather
 234 2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 3

than in its methodology and objectives. He found out that metaphorical ex-
pressions take more time and are more difficult to translate if they exploit a
cognitive domain different from that of the equivalent target language expres­
sion. According to the hypothesis, the reason for this delay, and the difficulty
and uncertainty in the translation of different domains metaphors, is the search
for another conceptual map­ping (i.e. another cognitive domain). The fact that
metaphors almost always exploit such different cognitive domains implies the
search for cognitive equivalence for SL metaphors in the TL. In other words,
the translator is called upon to act the role of a proxy agent doing the act of
conceptual mapping on behalf of the TL reader. If he can touch upon a similar
TL cognitive domain, then his task will be fulfilled quite successfully and easily.
If not, he has to look for the cognitive domain that fits in the TL as the SL one
does. The result of the first action is often an equivalent TL metaphor or – in
the worst case – a TL simile. The result of the second action, however, is open
to many possibilities, of which rendering the SL metaphor into a TL one is the
least likely. Thus a metaphor might be rendered into a simile, a paraphrase, a
footnote, an explanation or – as a last resort – it can be omitted.
Therefore, we believe that attempts of literal, or strickly linguistic, trans­fer of
meta­phoric expressions from one language to another are deemed to produce
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

noticeably bad results, especially when these expressions draw on culture-spe-

cific ways of thinking rather than on shared or universal notions or schemata.
Referring to cultural aspects and drawing on the general guidelines of the
cognitive framework (i.e. the cognitive equivalent hypothesis) for metaphor
translation, we util­ized three sets of authentic English and Arabic examples of
metaphors:
1. metaphors of similar mapping conditions, where shared ideas are ex-
pressed by identical expressions in both languages,
2. metaphors likewise of similar mapping conditions, only realized by differ-
ent expressions in the two languages, and
3. metaphors of different mapping conditions with no equivalents in the TL.

3.1.1. Metaphors of similar mapping conditions realized similarly

This category represents metaphors expressing a small number of ideas shared
by the two languages expressed, roughly speaking, in identical ways. Anthropo­
logists call theses shared ideas ‘cultural universals’. Comprising many diverse
sub-cultures, a universal culture can be thought of as a constellation of common
core atti­tudes and values reflected by practices common to most of the sub-
cultures. Similarities in mapping conditions across diverse cultures could be
attributed to ‘pancultural metaphorical expression’, which derives from ‘pan-
human sharedness of basic experience’ (Emanatian 1995: 165). Consider the fol-
lowing almost similar English and Arabic metaphors; most of them are found in
proverbs reflecting the wisdom of many sub-cultures. Having a didactic func-
tion, these metaphors present human philosophical insights, logic, wisdom,
and instructions in ways which reinforce universal conventional images and
attitudes, and therefore they both reflect and reproduce those conventions. In
other words these metaphors are a reflection of human experience; they can
contribute to exposing the way such conventions are embedded in language.
 Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali & Al-Hasnawi. Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors. 235
3. SL: History repeats itself.
TL: ?ttaariikhu yu’iidu nafsah
(Literal translation: ‘The history repeats itself’)

4. SL: Necessity is the mother of invention.

TL: ?alHaajah um ?al?ikhtiraa’
(The need mother of invention)

5. SL: Actions speak louder than words.

TL: ?al?af’aal ?ablagh min ?alaqwaal
(Actions more rhetorical than sayings)

6. SL: Birds of a feather flock together.
TL: ?aTuyyuru ‘alaa ?ashkaalihaa taqa’
(Birds on their shapes fall)

7. SL: A drowning man will clutch at a straw.

TL: ?alghareeq yata’alaq fii qashah
(A drowning clutches in a straw)

8. SL: This is a mouth-watering opportunity.

TL: ?innaha lafurSah tusiilu ?allu’aab
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

(This opportunity makes saliva come out (of my mouth)

9. SL: You make my blood boil.

TL: ? innaka taj’alu ?adama yaghlii fii ‘uruuqii
(You make blood boil in my veins)

10. SL: This issue is the cornerstone.

TL: haathihi ?almas?alatu hiyya Hajaru ?azzawiyyati
(This issue is the cornerstone)

11. SL: To throw dust in the eyes.

TL: tharu ?aramaadi fii ?al’uun
(Spread off ash in the eyes)

12. SL: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

TL: ‘uSfuurun fii ?alyadi khayrun min ‘asharah ‘ala ?ashajarah
(One bird in hand is better than ten on the tree)

13. SL: A cat has nine lives.

TL: qiTTah bisab’ ?arwaaH
(A cat with seven lives)

14. SL: Time is money.
TL: ?alwaqtu min thahab
(The time from gold)

15. SL: Cleanliness is next to godliness.

TL: ?annaDafatu min ?alliyman
(Cleanliness from faith (in Allah))

While examples 3-11 above represent metaphors expressing shared ideas in

identical ways, examples 12-15 reflect values and beliefs peculiar to each par-
ticular culture (i.e. English and Arabic). Notice how users of each language
conceptualize the concept of number in (12) and (13) to reflect the same idea.
English employs ‘two’ whereas Arabic is only satisfied with ‘ten’. However, in
 236 2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 3

(13), English uses the figure ‘nine’ while Arabic employs ‘seven’. Notice also, in
example (14), the variation in value conceptualization; English refers to ‘money’
while in Arabic, time is likened to ‘gold’. Further, religious affiliations affect the
lexical choices in expressing the same idea, as is the case in example 15. In one
instance (example 4) the SL (i.e. English) concept or experience has been bor-
rowed and loan-translated into TL (Arabic).

3.1.2. Metaphors of similar mapping conditions realized differently

As stated above, beliefs and religion are aspects of culture that play a very sig-
nificant role in translation. As is shown below, although the English metaphors
and their Arabic counterparta are related to the same conceptual domain, the
target-culture religion or ethical system has led to major lexical differences.

16. SL: A fox is not taken twice in the same snare.

TL: laa yuldaghu ?alm?uminu min ?aljuHri marratayn
(No believer (in Allah) stung from a hole twice)

17. SL: Every cloud has a silver lining.

TL: ?inna ma-‘al- ‚usri yusraa
(Verily, with every difficulty there is relief)
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

18. SL: Many hands make light work.

TL: yadu ?allahi ma’ aljamaa’ah
(Hand of Allah with the group)

In the three examples above, the only plausible justification for this variation in
the use of metaphoric expressions is the fact that the users of each language map
the particular conceptual domain of their own world differently. That is to say,
the Arabic translation is quite consonant with those of Islamic beliefs because
the equivalent Arabic translation derives from either the Prophet Mohammed’s
sayings, as in example 16, or from a verse from the Holy Qur’an, as it is the case
in 17, which is the sixth verse of Al InshiraaH. This verse roughly means ‘what-
ever difficulties or troubles are encountered by me, Allah always provides a
solution or a relief if we only follow His Path’.

3.2. Metaphors of different mapping conditions

Examples of this category are culturally-bound SL metaphors mapped into a
domain different from that of the TL. Since ‘languages are the best mirror of
human cultures’, and ‘it is through the vocabulary of human languages that we
can discover and identify the culture-specific conceptual configurations charac­
teristic of different peoples of the world’ (Wierzbicka 1992: 22), different cultures
conceptualize experiences in varying ways. Therefore, following Dagut (1976:
32), ‘the translatability of any given SL meta­phor depends on (1) the particular
cultural experience and semantic associations exploited by it, and (2) the extent
to which these can, or not, be reproduced non-anomalously in TL, depending
on the degree of overlap in each particular case’. This is typically the case when
working on metaphors mapped in the religious and political domains. Such
metaphors are called root metaphors underlying people’s views or attachments
and shaping their understanding of a situation. Religion is considered the most
common root metaphor since birth, marriage, death and other life experiences
 Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali & Al-Hasnawi. Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors. 237

can convey different meanings to different people depending on their religious

adherence. Below are examples of Arabic religious (mostly Qur’anic) concep-
tual metaphors, the image of each of which cannot be reproduced in the TL.
Therefore, the translator has no choice other than replacing the SL image by
a TL image that does not clash with the target culture. This can only be done
by resorting to the strategy of different cognitive mapping in search for cogni-
tive equivalence. As mentioned before, the product of this process might be a
TL simile, paraphrase, explanatory remark, or even a footnote. The reader is
invited to see how inadequate the translation is, due to the absence of identical
cognitive mapping of the SL expressions in the TL on behalf of the translator.
The Holy Qur’an constitutes a rich source of such metaphors which pose a se-
rious problem to the most professional translators. To shed more light on this
subtle aspect of Arabic metaphor, let us consider some authentic exemplary
metaphors cited from the Holy Qur’an along with their English translation by
Ali (1989):

19. SL: ?uHilla lakum laylataS-Siyaamir-rafathu ?ilaa nisaa?ikum Hunna libaasul-la-

kum wa ?antum libaasul-lahunn [Surat Al Baqarah, verse 187]
TL: Permitted to you in the night of the fast, is the approach to your wives.
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

They are your garments and you are their garment.

20. SL: nisaa?ukum Harthun lakum fa?tuu Harthakum ?annaa shi?tum [Surat Al
Baqarah, verse 223]
TL: Your wives are tilth for you, so approach your tilth how you will.

21. SL: qaalat ?annaa yakuunu lii ghulaamun walam yamsasnii basharun walam ?aku
baghiyyaa [Surat Maryam, verse 20]
TL: She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and
I am not unchaste?”

22. SL: ?almaalu walbanuuna ziinatu ?alHayaati ?adunyaa [Surat Al Kahf, verse 46]
TL: Wealth and children are the adornment of the life of this world.

23. SL: walaa yaghtab ba’Dukum ba’Daa. ‘ayuHibbu ?an ya?kula laHma ?akhiihi may-
tan [Surat Al Hujuraat, verse 12]
TL: Nor speak ill of each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat
the flesh of his dead brother?

As can be seen, the literal English translations for the above verses do not work
as equivalents for the Arabic euphemistic areas of sex and related matters; that
is because the question of sexual intercourse is always delicate to handle in Ara-
bic culture. Witness the Qur’anic euphemisms and their English counterparts in
examples 19, 20, and 21 above. In 20, ‘sexual intercourse’ in the SL is compared
to a husbandman’s tilth, where a husband sows the seeds in order to reap the
harvest; he chooses his own time and mode of cultivation. He does not sow
out of season nor cultivate in a manner which will exhaust the soil. However,
this image cannot be reproduced in the TL. Likewise, ‘sexual intercourse’ is
euphemistically referred to as ‘approaching’ in 19 and ‘touching’ in 21, but this
translation is inadequate due to the absence of an identical cognitive mapping
of the SL expressions in the TL, i.e. contemporary English. In a similar way,
in the Arabic SL text in 22, the back-biting is likened to eating the flesh of a
dead brother as an expression of abomination; however, the English translation
 238 2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 3

does not seem to reproduce plausible counterpart metaphors when the general
meaning of the Arabic words is given.
It is apparent that the attempts to maintain these metaphors when translating
into modern English fail communicatively. To solve this problem, the transla-
tor of these verses provides footnotes to explain the denotation of these Arabic
metaphors. However, a better policy in such cases, according to El-Hassan &
Al-Said (1989), is to provide a brief explanation in the text proper, provided that
it does not unduly interrupt the flow of the text.

4. Conclusions
This study attempts to demonstrate how cultural variation represent a source
of difficulty in translating metaphors, and how metaphorical language draws
heavily on culture. Since metaphor is shaped by the socio-cultural beliefs and at-
titudes of a given culture, our translation of this linguistic phenomenon should
aim at ‘cognitive equiva­lence’, where metaphors are looked at as cognitive con-
structs representing instances of how people conceptualize their experiences,
attitudes and practices, and how they record them verbally. Operationally, we
have drawn a distinction between, on the one hand, the individual linguistic
culture with its own set of metaphors related to a range of ideas, conventions
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

and beliefs, and on the other, a proposed ‘universal culture’ comprising many
individual cultures (i.e. sub-cultures) sharing a set of metaphors reflecting core
values and practices common to most of the individual cultures.
Since metaphors are related to different cultural domains, the translator has
to do the conceptual mapping on behalf of the TL reader; he has to look for
cognitive equivalence in the target culture. The more the SL and TL cultures
conceptualize experience in a similar way, the easier the task of translation will
be. But since human real-world experiences are not always similar, and meta-
phors record these experiences, the task of the translator becomes more difficult
when translating these metaphors across languages related to different cultures.
The difficulty of metaphor rendition lies not in the assump­tion that languages
cannot provide equivalent expressions for their metaphors, but in the fact that
they lack counterpart metaphors related to the same conceptual domain or area.
Therefore, in search for cognitive equivalence to replace the SL image with a
TL image that does not clash with the target culture, we have differentiated
between three cognitive mapping conditions to the translation of metaphors:
(1) metaphors with similar mapping conditions realized similarly, (2) meta-
phors with similar mapping conditions but lexically realized differently, and
(3) metaphors of different mapping conditions. The difference between these
three represent a cline or continuum, with the similarly realized set of meta-
phors at one end, and those of different mapping conditions at the other end of
the continuum, with those of similar mapping conditions but differing lexical
realizion as an intermediate set in between the polar opposites. Examples of the
first category are found when working on culturally universal SL metaphors
derived from shared human experience (Emanatian 1995). The second set is re-
lated to situations where we find the same conceptual domain in the SL and the
TL, but where different ethical systems have led to major differences in lexical
choice. Finally, the third set includes the culturally-bound SL metaphors that
are mapped into a domain different from that of the TL.
 Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali & Al-Hasnawi. Cogno-Cultural Issues in Translating Metaphors. 239

It can be concluded that translators whose task is to produce a TL text that

bears a close resemblance to the SL text should be aware of cognitive and cul-
tural issues when translating from Arabic into English or vice versa. Therefore,
it is not enough for translators to be bilingual; they should be bicultural as well.
Because translators are faced with problems twice when approaching culture-
bound metaphors – both in decoding and encoding – it is recommendable that
translators be trained in coping with metaphor translation not only in foreign
language programs but also in their native language. Sometimes, even native
speakers are not always able to comprehend the figurative meaning of mes-
sages in their own language (Al-Ali 2004).

Works cited
Al-Ali, M. 2004. Familiar words in unfamiliar contexts. Perspectives: Studies in Translato­
logy 12 (2), 134-144.
Ali, A. 1989. The Holy Qur’an. Riyadh: Royal Society K.S.A. of Qur’an.
Buchowski, M. 1996. Metaphor, metonymy, and cross-cultural translation. Semiotica 110
(3-4), 301-314.
Chitoran, D. 1973. Elements of English Structural Semantics. EDP: Bucureşti.
Dagut, M. 1976. Can metaphor be translated? Babel: International Journal of Translation,
23 (1), 21-33.
Downloaded At: 23:32 18 February 2009

El-Hassan, S. and Al-Said, M. 1989. Lexical issues in translating the Qur’an into English:
Obstacles and suggested solutions. International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies 6
(2), 45-57.
Emanatian, M. 1995. Metaphor and the Expression of Emotion: The Value of Cross-Cul-
tural Perspectives. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (3), 163-182.
Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Katan, D. 1999. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Medi­
ators. St. Jerome Publishing: Manchester.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Leech, G. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Harlow.
Maalej, Z. 1990. Metaphor in Political and Economic Text. Unpublished DRA Thesis. Tuni-
sia: University of Manouba.
Maalej, Z. 2002. Translating Metaphor between Unrelated Cultures: A Cognitive Per-
spective. Unpublished paper. Author’s address: zmaalej@gnet.tn.
Mandelblit, N. 1995. The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation
theory. Translation and Meaning, Part 3. Maastricht: Universitaire Press. 483-495.
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Richards. I. A. 1965. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York: Oxford University Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. 1995. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John
Benja­mins Publishing Company.
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, Culture and Cognition. Universal Human Concepts in Cul-
ture-Specific Configurations. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.