A contrastive Analysis of translating metaphors in Shakespeare’s Sonnets

Published: 2020-06-02 00:01:04
5152 words
19 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Education

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
The Course Paper A contrastive Analysis of translating metaphors in Shakespeare’s Sonnets” is devoted to the analysis of English metaphors, their classification, the difficulties and mistakes that can appear in translating them into Romanian. The reason of the choice of the given topic is determined by an increasing interest in the subject, mainly the ways of using and translating metaphors of Shakesperean sonnets. The main goal of the study is to compare metaphors from sonnets of Shakespeare with the translation of sonnets of Shakespeare of other translators.
The working hypothesis suggests that this topic would help Romanian learners to identify common and specific features by comparing peculiarities of translating metaphors in their native language. The research objectives of the work are: to examine the main linguistic peculiarities of metaphors; to study more closely the main approaches and types of classifications of metaphors in both languages; to make a linguistic analysis of selected examples and to make statistical analysis of the most interesting cases; to select the most suitable methods and techniques for translating metaphors.
The research methods applied in the study include: Linguistic analysis of metaphors of Shakespeare; Comparative analysis of metaphors of Shakespeare in English and Romanian languages; Semantic and pragmatic analysis of translation techniques used with metaphors; The research material is based on English and Romanian examples from Shakespeare sonnets,translated by Vasile Voiculescu. The study consists of an, Introduction, Two Chapters, Conclusions, Summary, Appendix and Bibliography. The Introduction provides the main goal, tasks and objectives of the Course Paper.
It also includes the methods applied in the study and its practical application. It also includes the structure of the paper and its short description. Chapter I: General Theory Concerning the Notion of Metaphor focuses on the researches tied with the determination of the term metaphor and its main determinations in stylistics. There are many approaches dealing with classifications of metaphors in both English and Romanian languages. Here we may also see the comparison of shortening of two languages and to examine specific groups of Romanian metaphors suggested by the linguists.
And at the end we may see the translation peculiarities of English metaphors into Romanian and some proposed universal techniques. Chapter II: Practical Approach to the problem of Translating Metaphors consists of the analysis of 50 examples of shortenings according to the theoretical preliminaries and by deduces some statistics. It is aimed at underlining some classifications and approaches and by using some methods in translation in practice. In the Conclusion the most significant similarities and differences are mentioned as well as further possibilities for research.
In the Summary the main results of the experimental research are stated and it is aimed at expressing the whole message briefly for those who want to find out what the study is about. The Bibliography contains the alphabetical list of the quoted literature (the sources used in the study for theoretical and practical research) and Dictionaries (sources used for checking grammatical or linguistic mistakes). In the Appendix 50 English and 50 Romanian examples of metaphors are enclosed which served as study material.
The key words are:metaphor, translation, classification,definition,genuine metaphors,trite metaphors,dead metaphors,sustanined,prolonged. Chapter I. LINGUISTIC APROACH TO METAPHOR 1. 1 General Characteristics of Metaphors Talking about metaphor, we mean the use of language to refer to something other than what it was originally applied to, or what it literally” means, in order suggest some resemblance or make a connection between two things. The term ‘metaphor’, as the etymology of the word reveals, means transference of some quality from one object to another.
Different definition has been given by different scientific. Kovecses gives such definition as ”metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is compared to another by saying that one is the other”. Kenneth Burk (1945) defined metaphor as a device for seeing something in terms of something else. ” Yanon (2008) defines metaphor as the juxtaposition of two superficially unlike elements in a single context, where the separately understood meanings of both interact to create a new perception of each and especially of the focus of the metaphor”.
From the times of ancient Greek and Roman rhetoric, the term has been known to denote transference of meaning from one word to another. It is still widely used to designate the process in which a word requires a derivate meaning. Quintilian remarks: ”It is due to the metaphor that each thing seems to have its name in language. ” Language as a whole has been figuratively defined as a dictionary of faded metaphors. Thus by transference of meaning the words grasp, get and see come to have the derivate meaning of understand.
When these words are used with that meaning we can only register the derivate meaning existing in semantic structures of words. Though the derivate meaning existing is metaphorical in origin, there is no stylistic effect because the primary meaning is no longer felt. A metaphor become a stylistic device when two different phenomena (things, events, ideas, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the imposition of some or all of inherent properties of one object on the other which by nature is deprived of these properties.
Such an imposition generally results when the creator of metaphor finds in the two corresponding objects certain features which to his eye have something in common. Structure of metaphors. I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed. Other writers employ the general terms ground and figure to denote tenor and the vehicle. In the cognitive linguistic, the terms target and source are used respectively. There are following types of metaphor:
1) A cognitive metaphor is the association of object to an experience outside the object’s environment; 2) A conceptual metaphor is an underlying association that is systematic in both language and thought; 3) A root metaphor is the underlying worldview that shapes on individual’s understanding of a situation; 4) A nonlinguistic metaphor is an association between two nonlinguistic realms of experience; 5) A visual metaphor uses an image to create the link between different ideas; Various researchers have classified metaphors in different ways, developed different approaches and criteria according to which the metaphor was included into different classes. Different approaches to understand metaphor There are quite different approaches to the understanding of metaphor. The most scientific” investigate real cases, and use experimental data to describe how the brain process metaphorical language. The most traditional” approaches investigate metaphor in relation to truth and word meaning, analyzing metaphors through logic. Cognitive” approaches investigate metaphor through their argument that thought is fundamentally metaphorical and conceptual.
Context-based” and text-based” approaches investigate how information in the context indicates that language is metaphorical, and what kinds of meaning hearers/readers ascribe to metaphor. Also there are substitutional, comparison and property attribution theories to help understanding metaphors. Substitutional models assert that a metaphor is created when a word or phrase from an apparently different area of experience is substituted for a word that expresses some attribute of the topic. Comparison models treat metaphors as implicit comparison or similes, with the word like” omitted. Attribution models go beyond substitution and comparison models, by focusing on the attributes of the vehicle that are transferred to the topic. According to M.
Knowles and R. Moon there are two types of metaphor. Creative metaphors are those which a writer/speaker constructs to express a particular idea or feeling in a particular context, and which a reader/hearer needs to deconstruct or unpack” in order to understand what it means. Creative metaphors are often associated with literature. Creative metaphors contrast with conventional metaphors. The term dead metaphor is sometimes used to refer to conventional metaphors, especially those which people do not recognize as metaphorical in ordinary usage. In the cognitive linguistic view, metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another.
A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domain, in which one domain is understood in terms om another. Conceptual metaphors typically employ a more abstract concepts as target and a more concrete or physical concepts as their source. There are different types of conceptual metaphor and it is possible to classify them in veriety of ways. These include classifications according to the conventionality, function, nature, and level of generality of metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson identify three categories of conceptual metaphors according to the cognitive function that they perform: 1) Structural metaphors. In this kind of metaphor, the source domain provides a relatively rich knowledge structure for the target concept. In other
words, the cognitive function of these metaphors is to enable speakers to understand target of one thing by means of the structure of source of another thing. 2) Ontological metaphors provide much less cognitive structuring for target concepts than structural ones do. Their cognitive job seems to be to merely” give an ontological status to general categories of abstracts target concepts. 3) Orientational metaphors provide even less conceptual structure for target concepts than ontological ones. Their cognitive job, instead, is to make a set of target concepts coherent in conceptual system. There are distinguished three levels of metaphor: 1) The supraindividual” level; 2) The individual” level; 3) The subdividual” level; Each conceptual metaphor can be analyzed on these levels. 1. 2 .
Classification of Metaphors According to the Degree of Unexpectedness Metaphors, like all stylistic devices, can be classified according to their degree of unexpectedness. Thus metaphors which are absolutely unexpected, i. e. are quite unpredictable, are called genuine metaphors. Those which are commonly used in speech and therefore are sometimes even fixed in dictionaries as expressive means of language are trite metaphors, or dead metaphors. Their predictability therefore is apparent. Genuine metaphors are regarded as belonging to language-in-action, i. e. speech metaphors; trite metaphors belong to the language-as-a-system, i. e. language proper, and are usually fixed in dictionaries as units of language. V. V. Vinogradov states:
… a metaphor, if it is not a cliche, is an fact of establishing an individual world outlook, it is an act of subjective isolation…Therefore a word metaphor is narrow, subjectively enclosed,…it imposes on the reader a subjective view of the object or phenomenon and its semantic ties. ” The examples given above may serve as illustrations of genuine metaphors. Here are some examples of metaphors that are considered trite. They are time-worn and well rubbed into the language: a ray of hope”, floods of tears”, a storm of indignation”, a flight of fancy”, a gleam of mirth”, a shadow of smile” and the like. The functional classi? cation of metaphors, suggested by N.
D. Artyunova, which conceptually draws on C. Morris’s pragmatic classi? cation of words, divides them into identifying (classifying) and predicating (characterizing). This classi? cation is based on the assumption, that the semantic content of words is formed in compliance of their role in an utterance. The basic communicative functions of a sentence are identi? cation of subjects of speech and predication, introducing their properties and characteristics, and the pragmatic meanings of words adapt themselves to these functions. In identifying words the denotation (referential, denominative component of meaning) is more prominent than the signi?
cation (the designating, characterizing component of meaning). There are monofunctional speech signs: only identifying — proper names and pronouns (deictic words, ‘shifters’), only characterizing — non-referential words, i. e. , verbs and attributes; and bifunctional, ful? lling both the identifying and characterizing functions (most common nouns) dependent on their speci? c role in a sentence. Examples of identifying metaphors: A small dust of the earth that walks so arrogantly” (M. Moore), breathing on the base rejected clay”(W. Moody). The commonly recognized phenomena cases cognate with metaphor are metaphoric personi? cation ( pathetic fallacy, apostrophe), animali?
cation, metaphoric antonomasia, metaphoric allusion, metaphoric periphrasis, allegory, and metaphoric symbolism. 1. 3. Levels of Generality of Metaphor Conceptual metaphors can be classified according to the level of generality at which they are found. As already discussed, image-schemas are structures with very little detail fi lled in. For example, the motion” schema has only initial location, movement along a path, and final location. This highly generic motion schema gets filled in with more detail in the case of the concept of a journey: we may have a traveler, a point of departure, a means of travel (e. g. a car), a travel schedule, diffi culties along the way, a destination, a guide, and so on.
Another property of such generic-level schemas as motion” is that they can be filled in not just one but in many ways. The motion schema can be realized not only as a journey but also as a walk, a run, a hike, or mountain climbing. These are specific level instances of the generic motion schema. All of these would instantiate the schema in a different way, but they would have the same underlying generic-level structure of the motion schema. Now conceptual metaphors can be generic-level or specifi c-level ones. The ones that we have discussed so far are all specific-level metaphors: life is a journey, an argument is war, ideas are food, and so on.
Life, journey argument, war, ideas, and food are specifi c-level concepts. Schematic structures underlying them are fi lled in a detailed way, as we have seen in the case of a journey. In addition to these, there are generic-level metaphors: events are actions, generic is specific, and what is known as the great chain metaphor. As can be seen, concepts such as events, actions, generic, and specifi c are all generic-level concepts. They are defined by only a small number of properties, which is to say that they are characterized by extremely skeletal structures. For example, in the case of events, an entity undergoes some change typically caused by some external force.
There are many different kinds of events: dying, burning, loving, infl ation,getting sick, freezing, the wind blowing, and more. These are all specific instances of the generic concept of event. Unlike the generic-level concept of event, the specific cases are filled in with specific detail. For example, in death there is an entity, typically a human, who gets old or gets sick, as a result of which he or she ceases to exist. Notice that the characterization of event does not mention any of these elements. However, the general structure of death shares the skeletal structure of generic event: in death, an entity undergoes some change as a result of some force (time-age or illness).
Generic-level metaphors are designed to perform special jobs-jobs that are different from those of specifi c-level metaphors that we have examined so far. The events are actions metaphor, for example, accounts for many cases of personification. The generic is specific meaphor helps us interpret proverbs and other cliched phrases. Proverbs often consist of specifi c-level concepts. Take the proverb The early bird catches the worm. ” Bird,” catch,” and worm” are specifi c-level concepts. The interpretation of the proverb is facilitated by the metaphor generic is specific. It tells us to interpret the proverb at a generic level: the early bird is anyone who does something fi rst, catching is obtaining something, and the worm is anything obtained before others.
Thus, the generic meaning of the proverb is something like If you do something fi rst, you will get what you want before others get it. ” Given this generic-level interpretation, the proverb can apply to a wide range of cases that have this generic structure. One such case is when you go and stand in line early for a ticket to a popular Broadway show and you do get a ticket, while others who come later do not. This example shows how the generic is specific metaphor can give us a generic-level interpretation of a specific-level proverb and then allows us to apply the generic interpretation to a specific case that has the appropriate underlying generic structure. 1. 4. The Ways of Translating Metaphors
For translating metaphors it is important to have next definitions: 1) Suitable, operational definition of metaphor; 2) A specification of what can actually be meant by translating a metaphor from SL (source language) to a TL (target language)” i. e. , of possible modes of translating metaphors; 3) A specification of distinct context in which metaphors can occur, i. e. , of the various structural relationship into which metaphors in text can enter, and of the particular constraints which, according to their occurrences, are imposed on them; 4) A specification of the constraints which can be imposed on the treatment of metaphor by translation itself as a rule-governed activity, i. e.
, of the norms” that are operative in the translation process. Generalization about metaphor translation, if ever they are possible, will at least have to take these specifications as a starting-point. A tentative scheme of modes of metaphor translation would show the following possibilities: 1. Translation sensu tricto”. A metaphor is translated sensu tricto” whenever both SL tenor and SL vehicle are transferred into the TL. For lexicalized metaphors this mode of translating may give rise to two different situation depending on whether or not the SL and the TL use corresponding vehicle; 1. 1. If the vehicle in SL and TL correspond, the resulting TL metaphor will be idiomatic; 1. 2.
If the vehicle in SL and TL are different, the resulting TL metaphor may be either a semantic anomaly or a daring innovation; 2. Substitution. This mode applies to those cases where the SL vehicle is replaced by a different TL vehicle with more or less the same tenor. Then the SL and TL vehicles may be considered translational equivalents in that they share a common tenor; 3. Paraphrase. A SL metaphor is paraphrased whenever it is rendered be a non-metaphorical expression in the TL. In fact this mode of translating metaphors renders them into plain speech”; the resulting TL expression comes up to the level of a commentary rather than of actual translation.
Whenever you meet a sentence that is grammatical but does not appear to make sense, you have to test its apparently nonsensical element for a possible metaphorical meaning, even if the writing is faulty, since it is unlikely that anyone, in an otherwise sensible text, is suddenly going to write deliberate nonsense. Types of metaphors Peter Newmark distinguished six types of metaphor: dead, cliche, stock, adapted, recent and original, and discuss them in relation to their contextual factors and translation procedures. Dead metaphors Dead metaphors, viz. metaphors where one is hardly conscious of the image, frequently relate to universal terms of space and time, the main part of the body, general ecological features and the main human activities: for English, words such as: ‘space’, ‘field’, ‘line’, ‘top’, ‘bottom’, ‘foot’, ‘mouth’, ‘arm’, ‘circle’, ‘drop’,’fall’, ‘rise’.
They are particularly used graphically for concepts and for the language of science to clarify or define. Normally dead metaphors are not difficult to translate, but they often defy literal translation, and therefore offer choices. Thus, for ‘(in the) field’ of human knowledge, French has domaine or sphere, German Bereich or Gebiet, Russian oblas? ‘. For ‘at the bottom of the hill’, French has aufond de la colline but German only am Fuft des Bergs. Some simple artefacts such as ‘bridge’, ‘chain’, ‘link’, also act as dead metaphors in some contexts, and these are often translated literally. Lastly, common words may attain a narrow technical sense in certain contexts: e. g.
, ‘dog’, ‘fin’, ‘element’, ‘jack’, arbre (‘shaft’), plage (‘bracket’), metier (‘loom’), Mutter (‘nut’). These are just as surprising in all foreign languages, and are particularly insidious and irritating if they make half-sense when used in their primary sense. Remember Belloc’s advice, which one cannot take serioulsy even though it has a certain truth: look up every word, particularly the words you think you know – and now I will add to Belloc: first in a monolingual, then in a bilingual encyclopaedic dictionary, bearing in mind the rather general tendency in many languages to ‘decapitalise’ (remove the capital letters from) institutional terms.
Note that in English, at least, dead metaphors can be livened up, sometimes into metonyms, by conversion to phrasal words (‘drop out’, ‘weigh up’) and this must be accounted for in the translation (marginal, mettre en balance). Cliche metaphors Peter Newmark,defined cliche metaphors as metaphors that have perhaps temporarily outlived their usefulness, that are used as a substitute for clear thought, often emotively, but without corresponding to the facts of the matter. Take the passage: ‘The County School will in effect become not a backwater but a break through in educational development which will set trends for the future. In this its traditions will help and it may well become a jewel in the crown of the county’s education.
‘ This is an extract from a specious editorial, therefore a vocative text, and in translation (say for a private client), the series of cliches have to be retained (mare stagnante, percee,donnera le ton, joyau de la couronne, traditions, not to mention the tell-tale en effect for ‘well’) in all their hideousness; if this were part of a political speech or any authoritative statement, the same translation procedures would be appropriate. However, a translator should get rid of cliches of any kind (collocations as well as metaphors), when they are used in an ‘anonymous’ text, viz. an informative text where only facts or theories are sacred and, by agreement with the SL author, in public notices, instructions, propaganda or publicity, where the translator is trying to obtain an optimum reaction from the readership. Here there is a choice between reducing the cliche metaphor to sense or replacing it with a less tarnished metaphor: ‘a politician who has made his mark’ – ein profilierter (vogue-word) Politiker, politicien qui s’estfait un nom, qui s’est impose.
For an expression such as ‘use up every ounce of energy’, ‘at the end of the day’, ‘not in a month of Sundays’, there are many possible solutions, not excluding the reduction of the metaphors to simple and more effective sense: tendre ses dernieres energies, definitivement, en nolle occasion and you have to consider economy as well as the nature of the text. Bear in mind that a cultural equivalent, if it is well understood (say ‘every ounce of energy’), is likely to have a stronger emotional impact than a functional (culture-free, third term) equivalent (grain d’tnergie). If in doubt, I always reduce a cliche metaphor or simile to sense or at least to dead metaphor: ‘rapier-like wit’ -esprit mordant, acerbe.
Cliche and stock metaphors overlap, and it is up to you to distinguish them, since for informative (i. e. , the majority of) texts, the distinction may be important. Note that the many translation decisions which are made at the margin of a translation principle such as this one are likely to be intuitive. The distinction between ‘cliche’ and ‘stock’ may even lie in the linguistic context of the same metaphor. Stock or standard metaphors Peter Newmark,defined a stock metaphor as an established metaphor which in an informal context is an efficient and concise method of covering a physical and/or mental situation both referentially and pragmatically – a stock metaphor has a certain emotional warmth – and which is not deadened by overuse.
(You may have noticed that I personally dislike stock metaphors, stock collocations and phaticisms, but I have to admit that they keep the world and society going – they ‘oil the wheels’ (mettre de I’huile dans les rouages, schmieren den Karren, die Dinge erleichtern). )Stock metaphors are sometimes tricky to translate, since their apparent equivalents may be out of date or affected or used by a different social class or age group. You should not use a stock metaphor that does not come naturally to you. Personally I would not use: ‘he’s in a giving humour’ (il est en veins de generosite);’he’s a man of good appearance’ (ilprisente bieri); ‘he’s on the eve of getting married'(i/ est a la veille de se marier). All these are in the Harrap dictionary but they have not ‘the implications of utterance’ (J. R. Firth) for me; but if they have to you, use them.
The first and most satisfying procedure for translating a stock metaphor is to reproduce the same image in the TL, provided it has comparable frequency and currency in the appropriate TL register, e. g. ‘keep the pot boiling’, faire bouillir la marmite (‘earn a living’, ‘keep something going’); Jeter unjour nouveau sur, ‘throw a new light on’. This is rare for extended metaphors (but probably more common for English-German than English-French), more common for single ‘universal’ metaphors,such as ‘wooden face’, visage de bois, holzernes Gesicht; ‘rise’, ‘drop in prices’: la montee, la baisse des prix, die Preissteigerung, -ruckgang. Note, for instance, that the metaphor ‘in store’ can be translated as en reserve in many but not all collocations, and in even fewer as auf Lager haben (eine Uberraschung auf Lager haben).
Symbols or metonyms can be transferred provided there is culture overlap: ‘hawks and doves’, faucons et colombes, Falken und Tauben; this applies to many other animals, although the correspondence is not perfect: a dragon is maleficent in the West, beneficent in the Far East. The main senses are symbolised by their organs, plus the palate (lepalais, derGaumen), for taste; non-cultural proverbs may transfer their images: ‘all that glitters isn’t gold’; alles ist nicht Gold was gldnzt; tout ce qui brille n’est pas or. Chapter II. Practical Approach to the Problem of Translating Metaphors 2. 1. The Specific Features of Translating Metaphors are very usually used in the official literary speech; they mostly occur in the literary layer of the vocabulary and in oral speech. The most frequently English metaphors are translated into Romanian as full words.
There are very few examples of this type of metaphors, so there will be several variants of translating: first will be the official, taken from the practical source, second – the unofficial, the author’s variant. Also the metaphors will be classified depending on which part of the word was dropped. The most numerous metaphors are the genuine: the first example is age’s cruel knife: I now fortify / Against confounding A. , / That he shall never cut from memory / My sweet love’s beauty (Sonnet 63,”1609 line 9); in Romanian text it is translated as Acum ma simt puternic/Impotriva infringerii lui A. / Pentru ca el nu isi va pierde memoria / din frumusetea dragostei mele,although sometimes in Romanian texts the English varian is age’s cruel knife:can be used.
One more example is age’s steepy night and in Romanian is translated miezul noptii. There can also be another variant of translation. One more example can be the metaphor for the word combination beauty: The ornament of b. is suspect / A crow that flies in heaven’s sweetest air (Sonnet 70,” 1609,line 3), which is beauty. In Romanian it is translated as frumusetea. Another group consists of cliche metaphors: one of examples is beauty’s field: When forty winters shall besiege thy brow, / And dig deep trenches in thy b. (Sonnet 2”, 1609, line 1)from beauty’s field, being translated in Romanian as frumusetea cimpului; another example can serve the word beauty’s legacy Unthrifty
loveliness, why dost thou spend / Upon thyself thy b.? (Sonnet 4,” 1609, line 1)which is the shortened variant of the metaphor beauty’s legacy. In Romanian this clipping is translated as mostenirea frumusetii. One more example is the well known notion of beauty: that b. which you hold in lease(Sonnet 13,”1609, line 5). And in Romanian this metaphors is translated as frumusetea. The less frequently encountered are the stock metaphors. There are very few examples. One of them is beauty: For all the b. that doth cover thee / Is but the seemly raiment of my heart (Sonnet 22,”1609, line 5). In Romanian it is translated as splendoare. Another example is cheek: Thus is his c.
the map of days outworn,/ When beauty lived and died as flowers do now (Sonnet 68,”1609,line 1),and the Romanian translation is obraz. 2. 2. Metaphor translation technicalities Least of the many aspects of the human being make-up in their differences metaphor reflects culture, behavior, language. That is why, metaphor, as it is, stands out as the most challenging element to translate into another language. In the translation of metaphor, we are not dealing only with language as a means of communication, but with a culture as an integral entity. Dagut echoes this point, believing that since a metaphor in the SL is, by definition, a new piece of performance, a semantic novelty, it can clearly have no existing ‘equivalence’ in the TL: what is unique can have no counterpart.
Here the translator’s bilingual competence…is of help to him only in the negative sense of telling him that any ‘equivalence’ in this case cannot be found but will have to be created. The crucial question that arises is thus whether a metaphor can, strictly speaking, be translated as such, or whether it can only be reproduced in some way”. (Dagut 1976, quoted by Bassnett 1991: 24). However, metaphor is not always a new piece of performance, a semantic novelty since the same metaphor can be produced in different languages and cultures. Metaphors, then, can either be common or specific. Common metaphors are shared by different cultures and languages. Specific metaphors are specific to a given culture and language. A common metaphor has a tendency to be translated whereas specific one is to be reproduced. Newmark’s model
Newmark sets up some guidelines for the translator to make an attempt to clarify each sentence that is grammatical but does not appear to make sense” (1988: 106). Also, the translator has to tease out the meaning of each word in a figurative meaning by matching its primary meaning against its linguistic, situational and cultural contexts”. (1988: 106). A translator is called upon to not bind himself within the grammatical structure and the denotative meaning, but dig beyond the first meaning into the ‘meaning of meaning’ , instead. This can be illustrated by the following Shakesperean metaphor disgrace: For no man well of such a salve can speak, / That heals the wound, and cures not the d. , / Nor can thy shame give physic to my grief(Sonnet 34”, 1609, line 7).
If translated on the basic of the first meaning as ‘De ce ai avut grija sa promiti o astfel de victorie glorioasa,/Ce ma face sa calatoreasc mai departe fara mantia mea,/Pentru a le permite norilor ce se bazeaza pe mine. ’the utterance would be meaningless in English. An idiomatic translation such as ‘you are at a cross roads is meaningful in the target language since it reflects the uncertainty expressed in ST. According to Newmark, even though dead metaphors can do without translation techniques as they are not difficult to translate, they often defy literal translation, thus calling in for more choices” (1988: 106). He adds further that a cliche metaphor can always be reduced to sense or at least to dead metaphor” (1988: 107). The English metaphor in the example has apparently been substituted by another Roman

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read