Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed within the discipline of Translation Studies, predominantly with respect to translatability and transfer methods. It has been argued that metaphors can become a translation problem, since transferring them from one language and culture to another one may be hampered by linguistic and cultural differences.
A number of translation procedures for dealing with this problem have been suggested, e. g. , substitution (metaphor into different metaphor), paraphrase (metaphor into sense), or deletion. Such procedures have been commented on both in normative models of translation (how to translate metaphors) and in descriptive models (how metaphors have been dealt with in actual translations). After a short overview of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies, this paper discusses some implications of a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice.
Illustrations from authentic source and target texts (English and German, political discourse) show how translators handled metaphorical expressions, and what effects this had for the text itself, for text reception by the addressees, and for subsequent discursive developments. # 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Conceptual metaphor; English; French; German; Metaphorical expression; Translation Studies 1. Introduction Metaphor, as a typical feature of communication, presents a challenge for translation too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of Translation Studies.
In the literature on translation, the two main issues have been, ? rstly, the translatability of metaphors, and secondly, the elaboration of potential translation * Tel. : ? 44-121-359-3611×4224; fax: ? 44-121-359-6153. ? E-mail address: c. [email protected] ac. uk (C. Schaffner). 0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. pragma. 2003. 10. 012 1254 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 procedures.
In most cases, the argumentation is based on a traditional understanding of metaphor as a ? gure of speech, as a linguistic expression which is substituted for another expression (with a literal meaning), and whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of the text. It is only recently that a cognitive approach to metaphor has been applied to Translation Studies. In this article, I want to illustrate on the basis of some examples from the language pair, English and German, what a cognitive approach could offer to the description of metaphors in translation. The discussion proceeds primarily from the perspective of the discipline of Translation Studies.
In taking this approach, it is also possible to explore how the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective of translation can contribute to metaphor theory. 2. The treatment of metaphor as a translation problem Translation and interpreting as activities have existed for many centuries, and there is a long tradition of thought and an enormous body of opinion about translation (cf. Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995; Robinson, 1997). But it was not until the second half of this century that Translation Studies developed into a discipline in its own right (cf. Holmes, 1988; Snell-Hornby et al. , 1992).
Although at ? rst conceived as a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, it has taken on concepts and methods of other disciplines, notably text linguistics, communication studies, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics, comparative literature, and recently, cultural studies. Instead of a uni? ed theory, we have a multiplicity of approaches, each of which focuses on speci? c aspects of translation, looks at the product or the process of translation from a speci? c angle, and uses speci? c ? terminology and research methods (cf. Chesterman, 2000; Gentzler, 1993; Schaffner, 1997b; Stolze, 1994).
The phenomenon of metaphor has regularly been of concern to translation scholars who have argued about problems of transferring metaphors from one language and culture to another. The arguments brought forward need to be seen within the context of a heterogeneous discipline, i. e. , with respect to the speci? c model of translation within which the scholars approached their topic. I will therefore begin by giving a brief overview of the most prominent approaches to translation and provide a short account of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies.
Linguistics-based approaches de? ne translation as transferring meanings, as substituting source language (SL) signs by equivalent target language (TL) signs (e. g. , Catford, 1965). The source text (ST) is to be reproduced in the TL as closely as possible, both in content and in form. Since the aim of a translation theory has often been seen as determining appropriate translation methods, language systems (as langues) have been studied in order to ? nd the smallest equivalent units (at the lexical and grammatical levels) which can be substituted for each other in an actual text (as parole).
Textlinguistic approaches de? ne translation as source text induced target text (TT) production (Neubert, 1985). The text itself is treated as the unit of translation, and it is stressed that a text is always a text in a situation and in a culture. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to situational factors, genre or text-typological conventions, addressees’ knowledge and expectations, and text functions.
The central notion of equivalence is now ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 1255 applied to the textual level, and de? ned as communicative equivalence, i. e., a relationship between the target text and the source text in which TT and ST are of equal value in the respective communicative situations in their cultures.
Functionalist approaches de? ne translation as a purposeful activity (cf. Nord, 1997), as ? ? transcultural interaction (Holz-Manttari, 1984), as production of a TT which is appropriate for its speci? ed purpose (its skopos) for target addressees in target circumstances (cf. Vermeer’s ‘skopos theory’, e. g. , Vermeer, 1996). The actual form of the TT, its textual– linguistic make-up, is therefore dependent on its intended purpose, and not (exclusively) on the structure of the ST.
The yardstick for assessing the quality of the target text is, thus, its appropriateness for its purpose, and not the equivalence to the source text. More modern linguistic approaches acknowledge that translation is not a simple substitution process, but rather the result of a complex text-processing activity. However, they argue that translations need to be set apart from other kinds of derived texts, and that the label ‘translation’ should only be applied to those cases where an equivalence relation obtains between ST and TT (House, 1997; Koller, 1992).
Equivalence is probably the most controversial notion in Translation Studies. Some translation scholars reject this notion outright, arguing that by retaining ‘equivalence’ in the vocabulary, translation scholars sidestep the issue that ‘‘it is difference, not sameness or transparency or equality, which is inscribed in the operations of translation’’ (Hermans, 1998: 61). This view is also expressed in current approaches that are inspired by postmodern theories and Cultural Studies, which argue that texts do not have any intrinsically stable meaning that could be repeated elsewhere (e. g. , Arrojo, 1998; Venuti, 1995).
For Venuti, the target text should be ‘‘the site where a different culture emerges, where a reader gets a glimpse of a cultural other’’ (Venuti, 1995: 306). In the course of its development, the focus of Translation Studies has, thus, shifted markedly from linguistic towards contextual and cultural factors which affect translation. Major inspiration for the development of the discipline has also come from research conducted within the framework of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), aiming at the description of translating and translations ‘‘as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience’’ (Holmes, 1988: 71).
Research here includes studying the socio-historical conditions in which translations are produced and received, identifying regularities in translators’ behaviour and linking such regularities to translation norms which operate both in the social event and the cognitive act of translation (cf. Toury, 1995). DTS and postmodern theories thus de? ne translation as norm-governed behaviour (Toury, 1995) and/or a cultural political practice (Venuti, 1996: 197). The contrast between normative models (what a TT should look like) and descriptive models (what TTs actually do look like) is also evident in the discussions about metaphor translation.
Metaphor has traditionally been described as an individual linguistic phenomenon (a metaphorical expression) which can become a translation problem. Most scholars use the same terms as those applied in semantic theories (cf. Goatly, 1997), i. e. , terms like ‘image’ or ‘vehicle’ for the conventional referent, ‘object’ or ‘topic’ for the actual unconventional referent, and ‘sense’, ‘ground’, or ‘tenor’ for the similarities and/or analogies involved.
Newmark (1981) explains these terms on the basis of the example rooting out the faults as follows: the object, that is, the item which is described by the metaphor, is faults. The image, that is, the item in terms of which the object is described, 1256 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 is rooting up weeds. The metaphor, that is, the word(s) used in the image, is rooting out, and the sense, which shows in what particular aspects the object and the image are similar, is (a) eliminate; and (b) do so with tremendous personal effort.
He argues that in translating this ? metaphor, a verb such as eliminer in French, or entfernen in German, would not do, ‘‘unless the phrase was of marginal importance in the text’’ (Newmark, 1981: 85). These arguments re? ect the two main concerns in Translation Studies, the translatability of metaphors, and procedures to transfer them from a source language into a target language. In equivalence-based approaches, the underlying assumption is that a metaphor, once identi? ed, should ideally be transferred intact from SL to TL. However, cultural differences between SL and TL have often been mentioned as preventing such an intact transfer.
For Dagut (1976: 22), a metaphor is an ‘‘individual ? ash of imaginative insight’’, a creative product of violating the linguistic system, and as such, highly culture speci? c. Its main function is to shock its readers by creating an aesthetic impact. In Dagut’s view, the effect of shock is to be retained in a translation, and if linguistic and cultural factors hinder this effect, then he maintains that the metaphor cannot be translated.
For illustration, he uses Hebrew metaphors translated into English, and shows, for example, how Hebrew metaphors are closely connected to Biblical stories and thus culture speci? c (as in the case of the verb form ne’ekad—‘bound’, i. e. , metaphorically, ‘bound like Isaac for the sacri? ce’). Most authors agree that the image in the ST cannot always be retained in the TT (e. g. , because the image that is attached to the metaphor is unknown in the TL, or the associations triggered by the SL metaphor get lost in the TL), and subsequently several translation procedures have been suggested as alternative solutions to the ideal of reproducing the metaphor intact.
For example, van den Broeck (1981: 77) lists the following possibilities. 1. Translation ‘sensu stricto’ (i.e. , transfer of both SL tenor and SL vehicle into TL). 2. Substitution (i. e. , replacement of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with more or less the same tenor). 3. Paraphrase (i. e. , rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical expression in the TL). Van den Broeck provides these modes of metaphor translation as a tentative scheme, i. e. , as theoretical possibilities. By linking them to categories of metaphor (lexicalized, conventional, and private metaphors) and to their use and functions in texts, he presents some hypotheses about translatability.
In the tradition of DTS, van den Broeck sees the task of a translation theory not in prescribing how metaphors should be translated, but in describing and explaining identified solutions. He therefore argues that detailed descriptive studies of how metaphors are actually translated would be required to test the suggested modes and his hypotheses. In contrast to van den Broeck’s descriptive framework, Newmark’s translation procedures are presented in a prescriptive way, with the aim of providing principles, restricted rules, and guidelines for translating and translator training.
He distinguishes between ? ve ? types of metaphors: dead, cliche, stock, recent, and original. In his discussion of stock metaphors, he proposes seven translation procedures, which have frequently been taken up in the literature. These procedures are arranged in order of preference (Newmark, 1981: ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 1257 87–91). Newmark’s focus is on the linguistic systems, and his arguments can be linked to the substitution theory of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997: 116f). (All examples given here for illustration are Newmark’s own examples).
1. Reproducing the same image in the TL, e. g. , golden hair—goldenes Haar. 2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does not clash with the ? TL culture, e. g. , other fish to fry—d’autres chats a fouetter. ? 3. Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image, e. g. , Ces zones cryptuaire ou s’ ? ? elabore la beaute. —The crypt-like areas where beauty is manufactured. According to Newmark, this procedure can modify the shock of the metaphor.
4. Translating metaphor (or simile) by simile plus sense (or occasionally a metaphor plus ? sense), e. g. , tout un vocabulaire molieresque—a whole repertoire of medical quackery ` such as Moliere might have used. Newmark suggests the use of this compromise solution in order to avoid comprehension problems; however, it results in a loss of the intended effect.
5. Converting metaphor to sense, e. g. , sein Brot verdienen—to earn one’s living. This procedure is recommended when the TL image is too broad in sense or not appropriate to the register. However, emotive aspects may get lost. 6. Deletion, if the metaphor is redundant. 7. Using the same metaphor combined with sense, in order to enforce the image.
Toury (1995: 81ff) points out that these translation procedures start from the metaphor as identified in the ST, and that the identified metaphor (the metaphorical expression) is treated as a unit of translation. He argues that from the perspective of the TT, two additional cases can be identified: the use of a metaphor in the TT for a non-metaphorical expression in the ST (non-metaphor into metaphor), and the addition of a metaphor in the TT without any linguistic motivation in the ST (zero into metaphor). This view deals with metaphor not as a translation problem (of the ST), but as a translation solution.
In his descriptive study of ? the translation of verb metaphors (for the language pair Swedish and German), Kjar (1988) included such an inverse analysis as well, but did not go much beyond a presentation of statistical findings. Kurth’s (1995) findings, too, are derived from a descriptive analysis of actual translations. Based on the interaction theory of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997: 117ff) and on scenes and frames semantics as applied to translation (Vannerem and Snell-Hornby, 1986), he illustrates how several metaphors interact in the construction of a macro-scene.
In German translations of works by Charles Dickens, he shows which TL frames have been chosen for a SL scene (e. g. , ‘humanizing’ objects by anthropomorphical metaphors) and what the consequences are for the effect of the text (e. g. , weakening of an image). 3. Metaphors from the cognitive linguistics perspective: consequences for Translation Studies The cognitive approach to metaphor, largely initiated by Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (1980), can contribute new insights into translation as well.
This approach, however, is only gradually taking root within Translation Studies (e. g. , Al? Harrasi, 2000; Cristofoli et al. , 1998; Schaffner, 1997a, 1998; Stienstra, 1993). The main 1258 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 argument of the cognitive approach is that metaphors are not just decorative elements, but rather, basic resources for thought processes in human society. Metaphors are a means of understanding one domain of experience (a target domain) in terms of another (a source domain).
The source domain is mapped onto the target domain, whereby the structural components of the base schema are transferred to the target domain (ontological correspondences), thus also allowing for knowledge-based inferences and entailments (epistemic correspondences). Such models are largely encoded and understood in linguistic terms. In cognitive linguistics, the term ‘metaphor’ is used to refer to this conceptual mapping (e. g. , ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER),1 and the term ‘metaphorical expression’ is used to refer to an individual linguistic expression that is based on a conceptualization and thus sanctioned by a mapping (e.g. , ‘I gave vent to my anger’).
Establishing the conceptualization on which a particular metaphorical expression is based is relevant to translation, too. Such a perspective provides a different answer to the question of the translatability of metaphors. Translatability is no longer a question of the individual metaphorical expression, as identi? ed in the ST, but it becomes linked to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture.
In what follows, some implications of such a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice are illustrated. On the basis of authentic source and target texts, I describe how translators have handled metaphorical expressions. This description is linked to a consideration of the effects of such translation solutions on the text and its reception by the addressees. The examples come from political texts, and the languages involved are primarily English and German. The focus of this paper is the description and explanation of identi? ed translation solutions.
It is thus related to DTS, but, in contrast to van den Broeck, for example, I do not pretend to test pre-established translation schemes or hypotheses. My starting point is authentic TT structures for metaphorical expressions in STs. That is, the description is predominantly product-oriented,2 with the explanation being linked to text, discourse, and culture. In my conclusion, I point out some ways in which the discipline of Translation Studies can contribute to metaphor theory. 4. Metaphor and text In the following two examples, we have an identical metaphorical expression in the ?
German ST, Brucke (bridge), but it has been handled differently in the TTs (both extracts come from speeches by the former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl): 1 In this metaphor, ontological correspondences are, for instance, ‘the container is the body’, ‘the heat of fluid is the anger’; epistemic correspondences are then, for instance, ‘when the fluid is heated past a certain limit, pressure increases to the point at which the container explodes’ (source) and ‘when anger increases past a ? certain limit, pressure increases to the point at which the person loses control’ (cf. Kovecses, 1986: 17f).
2 A process-oriented analysis, i. e. , an analysis of the actual cognitive processes in the translator’s mind during the translation act, would add valuable insights as well. Moreover, such a perspective would also test the validity of Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) theory. For example, one could test whether translators, as text receivers and interpreters, actually do access conceptual metaphors when constructing interpretations of metaphorical expressions (cf. Glucksberg, 2001), and how this might influence the decision-making for the TT structure.
Research into translation processes (e. g. , most recently Danks et al., 1997; Kussmaul, 2000; Tirkkonen-Condit ?? ? and Jaaskelainen, 2000) has not yet been conducted primarily with metaphors in mind. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 1259 ? ? Wir wollen die Brucke uber den Atlantik auf allen Gebieten—Politik und Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Kultur—festigen und ausbauen.
We aim to strengthen and widen the transatlantic bridge in all spheres, in politics and commerce, science and culture. 3 ? So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke ? uber den Atlantik geworden. (literally: . . . an important component of the translatlantic bridge).
The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship. (emphasis are mine) How (if at all) can traditional translation procedures account for these different solutions? Applying Newmark’s translation procedures, we could say that in the ? rst case, the procedure is metaphor for metaphor (i. e. , reproduction of the image), whereas in the second case the metaphor has been deleted. These texts would be examples of what Newmark calls ‘authoritative texts’, and in his guidelines to translators he states that in such texts, metaphors should be preserved.
As a second criterion to guide the translator’s decision, Newmark suggests the importance of the metaphor in the text. The ? rst extract comes from Kohl’s speech on receiving the Honorary Freedom of the City of London (18 February 1998), the second one from his speech at the ceremony at Tempelhof Airport to commemorate the Berlin Airlift on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton (14 May ? 1998). The Berlin Airlift is known in German as Luftbrucke (literally: ‘bridge in the air’). In the London speech, the 50th anniversary of the Airlift is shortly mentioned, but it is not the ? actual topic of the speech.
In the Tempelhof speech, however, the Luftbrucke is the actual topic, and it is used frequently in the short text, thus contributing to the structure of the text. Based on these considerations, Newmark’s recommendation presumably would be: metaphor into same metaphor in the ? rst case, but metaphor into sense in the second case. If we describe this authentic example on the basis of a cognitive approach, ? metaphorical expressions such as Brucke are considered ‘‘in the light of the metaphorical concept of which they are manifestations, and not as individual idioms to be ?tted into the target text as well as they can’’ (Stienstra, 1993: 217).
In this case, one and the same historical event was conceptualized in different ways by different cultures, using different metaphors. The source domain of the English ‘airlift’ is a TRANSPORT domain, focusing on the medium (air), the action, and involving a direction (from–to). In the German ? Luftbrucke, the source domain is an ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE, focusing on the ? medium and the structural object. As said above, the anniversary of the Luftbrucke is the actual topic of Kohl’s Tempelhof speech; but is the bridge indeed the dominant metaphor in the text as a whole? In other words: what is the underlying conceptual metaphor by which ?
the metaphorical expression Freundschaftsbrucke is sanctioned? A closer analysis of the text above shows that the argumentation is structured around the central idea of American–German friendship. In the ? rst ? ve paragraphs, Kohl gives an ? account of the historical event itself and of its political signi? cance. Luftbrucke occurs six 3 Translators are normally not identified by name in the case of translations being produced for the German government. 1260 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 times in these ? rst paragraphs, each time translated as Airlift, since each time it is used as a proper name.
Kohl then links the historical aspect to the development of American– German friendship over the last 50 years, both at a personal level and at the governmental ? level. And it is here that he speaks of the Freundschaftsbrucke (exploiting the bridge image as a rhetorical means for the argumentative function of a political speech): [. . . ] in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten haben rund 7 Millionen amerikanische Soldaten bei uns in Deutschland Dienst getan. Gemeinsam mit ihren Familien waren es etwa 15 Millionen Amerikaner, die fernab ihrer Heimat, ihren Beitrag zur ?
Erhaltung von Frieden und Freiheit leisteten [. . . ]. Im taglichen Kontakt mit ihren ? ? deutschen Nachbarn haben sie viele personliche Beziehungen geknupft. Diese wurden ? [. . . ] eines der Fundamente der engen Freundschaft zwischen unseren Volkern. Es ? ? ? sind ja nicht zuletzt die alltaglichen Erfahrungen und Eindrucke, die personlichen und menschlichen Begegnungen, die in diesen Jahrzehnten die deutsch-amerikanischen ? Beziehungen mit Leben erfullt haben. So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein ? ? wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke uber den Atlantik geworden.
4 What we can see from such an analysis is that Kohl’s speech is structured around a metaphorical understanding of friendship: Germany and the USA are friends. Seeing the state metaphorically as a person seeking friendship involves a metaphorical conception of closeness. Thus, all references in Kohl’s speech to Kontakte, Beziehungen, Begegnungen (contacts, a dense network of personal ties, personal encounters) can be described as metaphorical expressions that are sanctioned by the conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS (see also Gibbs’ comments on primary metaphors (Gibbs et al., this issue)).
One of the means which allows friends who live far apart to experience close personal contact, is a bridge. A bridge links two endpoints, here the USA and Germany (ontological correspondence), thus providing an opportunity for mutual contact (epistemic correspondence). ? From such a conceptual perspective, we can say that rendering Freundschaftsbrucke as transatlantic friendship does not really constitute a case of metaphor deletion. The conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS are present in both ST and TT.
It is these conceptual metaphors that are relevant for the structure of the text and its overall function as a political speech. At the macro-level, the conceptual metaphors are identical in ST and TT, although at the micro-level a speci? c ? metaphorical expression in the ST (Freundschaftsbrucke) has not been rendered in exactly the same way in the TT. However, transatlantic friendship in the TT can equally be characterized as a metaphorical expression which is justi? ed by the same conceptual metaphors.
4 The authentic English translation of this passage reads as follows: Over the past decades some seven million American servicemen have been stationed in Germany. Together with their families, that makes about 15 million Americans who, in this country far from home, have helped, [. . . ] to safeguard peace and liberty. In their day-to-day contacts with Germans the American community here has built up a dense network of personal ties central to the close friendship between our two nations.
It is not least this wealth of personal encounters, these everyday impressions and experiences which make German–American relations a meaningful part of daily life. The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 1261 If we take a cognitive approach, a ? rst aspect of metaphors in translation can therefore be described as follows: not all individual manifestations of a conceptual metaphor in a source text are accounted for in the target text by using the same metaphorical expression.
This argument is in line with one of Stienstra’s (1993) ? ndings. On the basis of several Bible translations into English and Dutch, she illustrates that the conceptual metaphor YHWH IS THE HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE, which is a central metaphor of the Old Testament, was preserved at the macro-level, even if speci? c textual manifestations were changed or not accounted for in each individual case. There is another example in Kohl’s Tempelhof speech which provides insights into strategic uses of metaphors and their treatment in translation.
In elaborating on German– American partnership in the world of today and tomorrow, Kohl says: ? Unser Ziel, Herr Prasident, ist es, den Bau des Hauses Europa zu vollenden. Dabei wollen wir, da? unsere amerikanischen Freunde in diesem Haus auf Dauer ihre feste Wohnung haben. (literally: [. . . ] We want our American friends to have a permanent apartment in this house. Our goal is to complete the construction of the European house—with a permanent right of residence for our American friends—and enable the family of European nations to live together side by side in lasting peace.
(italics are mine) From a cognitive perspective, we can say that the metaphorical expressions Haus Europa, Haus, and feste Wohnung are all sanctioned by the underlying conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE, which is an example of an ontological metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).
Whereas in the ST, the structural elements have been lexicalized, the TT has made the entailments of the source domain explicit; that is, an apartment ensures a right of residence, and these are epistemic correspondences. Both ST and TT remain within the conceptual metaphor of a house, while the additional information in the TT (‘‘and enable the family of European nations to live together side by side in lasting peace’’) can be seen as elaborating on this metaphor, thus also providing a conceptual link to the metaphor INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS which structures Kohl’s speech.
Identifying metaphors and describing target text pro? les is a legitimate research aim for a translation scholar. An additional question concerns the causes and effects of particular translations (cf. Chesterman, 1998). I will illustrate this ? rst, by reference to the Haus Europa again, and then by commenting on the effects of a speci? c translation solution (fester Kern—hard core).
Such an analysis needs to put the text into its historical context, accounting for its function, its addressees, etc. Metaphor is, thus, no longer a translation phenomenon of one particular text, but becomes an intertextual phenomenon. 5. Metaphor as an intertextual phenomenon The metaphorical expression Haus Europa ? gured prominently in the discourse of Helmut Kohl in the 1990s, speci? cally with reference to issues of European integration. Actually, the metaphor of the common European house was introduced into political discourse in the mid-1980s by the then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev.
As a 1262 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1253–1269 re? ection of the ‘new political thinking’ in the Communist Party under Gorbachev, the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was to represent the idea of all European states, East and West of the ‘Iron Curtain’, living and working together in peaceful coexistence. The base schema for Gorbachev’s metaphor was a multi-story apartment block with several entrances, in which several families live, each in their own ? ats (i. e. , the prototypical house in bigger Russian towns).
In his own discourse, Gorbachev hardly elaborated on the structural elements of a house, but most frequently stressed the rules and norms for living together in this common house. The rules of the house have to guarantee that every family can live their own lives, without interference from their neighbours, so that the common house is protected and kept in order (cf. Chilton, 1996; ? Schaffner, 1996). The Russian metaphorical expression dom was rendered as house in English5 and as Haus in German political discourse in reporting on Gorbachev’s new political ideas and aims, which were not readily welcomed in Western European countries.
But more often than being rejected outright, the metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was taken up and conceptually challenged. In British political discourse (especially in the second half of the 1980s), the structural aspects dominated in the argumentation, determined by features of the prototypical English house. That is, there are references to detached and semi-detached houses, to fences, and to questions such as who is to live in which room or on which ? oor.