Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English-language Translation

Petr Dvořák

Translating Metaphorswithin Political Discourse:

The Case of EU

Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D.

2011

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr. Renata

Kamenická, Ph.D., for her patient guidance and immense help throughout the

creation of this thesis. I would also like to thank my family for the support which

made my studies possible.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................1

1.1 Remarks on the scope and aims of the thesis..........................................3

2. Area of interest and the research questions....................................................4

3. Method............................................................................................................7

4. Metaphor as an issue in translation studies..................................................10

4.1 Prescription versus Description...............................................................10

4.2 Two main issues.....................................................................................10

4.3 Translatability..........................................................................................12

4.3 Classical versus conceptual perspective.................................................13

4.4 Translatability revisited............................................................................16

4.5 Types of metaphors and strategies of translation...................................19

5. Metaphors in political discourse. Context and challenges.............................24

5.1 Agenda setting and persuasion...............................................................26

5.2 Concepts and transitivity in politics.........................................................28

5.3 Intercultural communication....................................................................30

5.4 Specifics of the EU..................................................................................32

6. The Corpus....................................................................................................34

6.1 Selection procedure................................................................................37

6.2 Time range..............................................................................................38

7. Qualitative analysis of metaphors..................................................................39

7.1 General information on metaphors..........................................................40

7.2 Nature and type of metaphors.................................................................44

7.2.1 Unlexicalised metaphors proper......................................................45

7.2.2 Lexicalised metaphors proper..........................................................48

7.2.3 Metonymy and synecdoche.............................................................51

7.3 Translation strategies..............................................................................54

7.4 Concepts and intercultural communication.............................................58

7.4.1 Concepts changed by translation.....................................................61

8. Discussion. Avenues for future research.......................................................64

9. Conclusion.....................................................................................................66

10. Sources and works cited.............................................................................69

List of schemata and tables...............................................................................74

Abstract.............................................................................................................75

Length of the text: about 115,400 characters

List of abbreviations

SL (L1) Source language

ST Source text

TL (L2) Target language

TT Target text

EN English

CS Czech

UK United Kingdom

CZ Czech Republic

EU European Union

EP European Parliament

CE Council of the European Union

MEP Member of the European Parliament

MIP Metaphor Identification Procedure

TS Translation studies

Subcorpora:

PRES Speeches and texts of highest representatives of the Council

DOC Texts and press releases from the Presidency of the Council

EP Speeches from the floor and texts from the European Parliament

Motto

“And this is the office of the supreme Figure of all: Metaphor. If Genius, & therefore

Learning, consists in connecting remote Notions & finding Similitude in things

dissimilar, then Metaphor, the most acute and farfetched among Tropes, is the only one

capable of producing Wonder, which gives birth to Pleasure, as do changes of scene in

the theater. And if the Pleasure produced by Figures derives from learning new things

without effort & many things in small volume, then Metaphor, setting our mind to flying

betwixt one Genus & another, allows us to discern in a single Word more than one

Object.”

– Umberto Eco: The Island of the Day Before

1. Introduction

Metaphor is a highly important tool of communication and quite a difficult phenomenon

to study. It often does not allow fully equivalent translation; it therefore provokes

important questions about its nature and possible transferability across languages and

cultures. These questions are being handled in many different ways by various scholarly

approaches, where most of them do not offer more than partial explanations and a

considerably limited scope of operation. For that reason, translation of metaphors will

be always seen as “problematic no matter which approach to metaphor is chosen”

(Olivera 1998: 5 as cited in Fernández 2003: 66).

Moreover, metaphor is a topic where growing interest can be perceived, which is

given for one thing by the increasing importance of non-literary texts and the

implications of using English as lingua franca (Stålhammar 2006), for another by

increasing heterogeneity and multidimensionality of scholarly disciplines – since

metaphor as such and particularly its practical use is a topic located on the borderline of

more fields, including linguistics, social science, anthropology, and philosophy.

However, this master’s thesis does not aspire to cover the topic in its entirety and

complexity. It primarily employs the viewpoint of translation studies and it focuses

mainly on the practical perspective of everyday translation process within one particular

context, namely European Union, and more specifically between two different

languages, English and Czech. The thesis shall empirically analyse the features of

metaphors and the strategies of their translation in these settings. Knowledge of ways of

treatment of metaphors and creative language in general within EU (and possible

1

detection what the obvious priorities are) could tell us something about typical features

of intercultural communication within this peculiar entity.

The positive contribution of the thesis to TS should ideally consist in adding

some modest yet tangible results to the list of works dealing with the phenomenon in a

rather practical way. It seems that analytic papers of this kind are rather rare in terms of

quantity. Moreover, in my humble opinion, they rarely offer in-depth analysis of

complex features. These articles which are not openly theoretical often do not go

beyond the level of pure description of metaphorical concepts used by a particular actor.

These works which would dare to directly apply another, translation-related layer of

questions, such as the question of equivalence or interculturality, are truly sporadic.

This is, of course, no surprise with regard to the procession of problems which are

connected to the phenomenon and which tend to emerge during any serious analysis of

it.

Therefore, specifying the outline and desired practical outcomes of the research

was not an easy task. Having done an initial research of existing resources, I am of the

opinion that there currently is no such methodological tool available which would be

universal, clear-cut and robust enough to product results directly comparable with other

similar analyses.

This analysis focuses on both novel and older metaphors within political

communication, particularly such ones which bear some kind of metaphorical “tension”

and could be thus used strategically to provoke an intentional semantic shock or to

portray a particular concept in a desired way.

The thesis is divided into four logical parts:

2

I. Introductory part (covering aims and methods): chapters 1 – 3

II. Theoretical part (covering relevant concepts and specifics of the material analysed):

chapters 4 – 5

III. Information on corpus: chapter 6

IV. Results and conclusions: chapters 7 – 9

1.1 Remarks on the scope and aims of the thesis

Firstly, I would like to point out that the aim of this thesis is to apply selected

tools to one particular discourse in an attempt to explore the details discussed only

sporadically so far; in other words, the thesis should focus on a relatively narrowly-

specified area and it has no far-reaching theoretical or meta-theoretical goals. The

questions dealt with tend to open deeper epistemological and ontological problems, but

these are at any case beyond the frame of this text. The thesis does not lay a claim to

define general explanatory laws, and the results of the work should be interpreted as

such.

Secondly, the topic of metaphors raises the problem of multidisciplinarity. One

cannot escape the socio-political and socio-cultural factors which need to be addressed

when the analysis is to be carried out. This analysis of metaphor draws on the

perspective of linguistics while staying open to the perspective of social science, so the

conclusions of the analysis shall not be strictly limited to a single scholarly field – a

certain overlap is expected.

Thirdly, the thesis also explores themes located on the borderline of approaches,

some of them having direct links to political reality, particular world views, social-

3

scientific agendas and so forth. Not only for this reason should the strategy of the

argumentation be neutral, compatible with multiple scholarly disciplines, and

descriptive and empirical rather than prescriptive and normative. The search for the

essence of metaphor can even make researchers take extreme philosophical or political

positions – something undesirable in the world of research. I personally have no

attachment to one particular approach, strategy, or even ideological interpretation.

2. Area of interest and the research questions

Metaphor is, without doubt, a practical challenge to a translator, as well as a theoretical

problem of translation and therefore a phenomenon worth studying, since transferring

metaphors across languages and culture systems is not a simple, straightforward

process.

At the same time, metaphor is literally ubiquitous: For instance, the analysis

carried out by Steen et al. (2010) discovered that one in about every seven and a half

lexical units in the British National Corpus is related to a metaphorical mapping

structure. Impressive as this figure may seem, it is of course not my intention to explore

that deep levels of language. The underlying problem is that a large part of our

communication has originated in metaphors, yet this is more a subject-matter for

theoretical linguistics than for translation scholars. Analysing the basis of the

phenomenon would require immensely intricate research, well beyond the framework of

this study.

4

To carry out a modest study, it is therefore crucial to define a portion of the

problem to look at. In this case, this “tip of the iceberg” (metaphorical pun intended)

shall be represented particularly by those metaphors used within political discourse

which may have pragmatic or strategic effect on general audience. These metaphors

may be novel (unlexicalised) and also older (lexicalised), provided their effect can be

interpreted as contextually relevant in political discourse.1 In other words, bearing the

inevitable risk of including even ambiguous cases, I will try to pick up those metaphors

which are capable of provoking intentional or unintentional effect or those that can be

regarded as strategic tools within the discourse. The analysis is thus focusing on such

language tools which constitute the figurative, creative layer of communication which

can have other, less known consequences in political environment.

Moreover, when picking up the metaphors to analyse, the complementary,

equally important criterion – apart from relevance to political discourse and persuasive

strategies – shall be the interestingness for real translation processes within the

European institutions, as metaphorical expressions are specific and can pose a challenge

to a translator who is supposed to transfer the meaning paying attention to various

traditions and intercultural differences. The European Union is classed as an entity

where distortion of culturally-specific message can be a real risk. The analysis of

metaphor is a good way to look at this problem, since some metaphors can be easily

regarded as conceptualizations of culture-bound phenomena or memes.

The phenomenon of metaphor translation can be studied from various points of

view, for example that of traditional linguistics (“Is the metaphor equivalent as closely

as possible?”) or functionalism (“Does this strategy fulfil the intended function in the

1 See the terminology explanation and typology outlines in chapters 5 and 7.

5

text?”). This thesis shall adopt the empirical and descriptive approach, paying attention

to both mentioned aspects.

The general key issue of the thesis is how important metaphorical constructions

are used in political discourse in EU. What are the specifics of metaphors used here and

what are the biggest perks and perils of their translation? Should a translator working

for EU be concerned about a specific set of problems? More specifically:

Is there any profound difference in applying metaphors and their strategic use

(see chapter 5) between the official (supposedly neutral) EU bodies and the

broad political actors representing European voters?

If so, do the translators tend to preserve the differences by adopting different

translation strategies? Which metaphor types, patterns, and translation strategies

are most common?

Which conceptual patterns are most common? Can any particular transitive

structures (structures describing types of relations between concepts) be

identified?

Is there a tendency to get rid of metaphors in EP altogether?2

Is the approach to translation of figurative tropes within EU ad-hoc or rather

uniform?

How are cultural differences tackled?3

2 There may be a tendency in case of simultaneous interpreting (used in EP) to “kill” [sic] metaphors, owing to the effort for minimising the risks and (unlike the typical translation of texts) limitedness of resources available in this particular type of inter-lingual mediation (Spinolo – Garwood 2010 as cited in Prandi 2010: 305).3 Cultural differences have often been mentioned as obstacles to successful translation of metaphorical expressions. The strategy used by a translator should probably reflect the difference of associations, the unfamiliarity of the concept to a foreign reader etc. (Schäffner 2004: 1264). A plethora of other variables has been mentioned as well (Fernández 2003: 66), where most of them, I presume, could be assigned to sub-topics of either cultural or language differences (the other ones being related to problems of context or translator’s competence).

6

Are there any particular high-risk areas to be identified?

The analysis should allow setting and comparing variables dependent on input

parameters and even their combinations. The results should be straightforward enough

to allow comparison with ease. The aim to bear in mind is to focus on typical patterns

and to find the most widely used types and strategies.

3. Method

My thesis shall make use of an empirical, descriptive approach integrating several

established approaches to the phenomenon of metaphors. I am going to create a research

material of my own, namely a parallel bilingual corpus compiled exclusively for the

purpose of this work (for the composition of the corpus, see chapter 6). Using this

corpus, I am going to perform an analysis of the metaphors found. This research process

should allow me to gain complex information about the types of metaphors used within

the corpus, the underlying conceptual metaphors, and strategies of translation.

The method of the thesis is largely inspired by the approach of Christine

Schäffner (2004), who argues in favour of applying cognitive approach (drawing from

Lakoff and Johnson’s theory) to the field of descriptive translation studies. In her

analysis of the treatment of metaphors (Schäffner 2004: 1258 ff.), she used authentic ST

and TT pairs to analyse and describe the strategies to handle metaphorical expressions –

7

with regard to both cross-linguistic and cross-cultural features – making use of the

cognitive approach to compare possible effects of particular expressions on a reader.

Likewise, this thesis shall make use of the orientation of the research which she

describes as “product-oriented”, i.e. focused on functions of metaphors as agents in the

texts, “with the explanation being linked to text, discourse, and culture” (ibid.).4

Moreover, the thesis shall make use of Lakoff and Johnson’s famous concept to

examine the metaphors analysed in terms of conceptual metaphors used (see chapter

4.3). I am convinced that this aspect of metaphors in use is one of the common

denominators of translation studies and other scholarly fields.

Throughout the thesis, such metaphors are discussed which do not pass

unnoticed when the text is read – i.e. dead metaphors hidden in the literal expression

which cannot cause any kind of tension were usually unnoticed. The corpus shall be

searched for these interesting cases of metaphors and their translations, the metaphors

will be manually marked and analysed for (typical) conceptual patterns and translation

strategies using the procedure which has been inspired by the “Metaphor Identification

Procedure” (MIP) developed by the Pragglejaz Group (see Steen et al. 2010: 769 ff.),

which, according to its coordinator, “provides an operational way of finding all

conventional metaphor in actual message” (ibid.: 770).

The original MIP was developed over several years and tested by the Group on

various texts. It was an attempt to construct an explicit and systematic inductive5 tool of

metaphor identification. I will follow the basic logic behind the MIP, albeit – with

4 The other side of the problem (not to be discussed here) is “process-oriented” part of analysis (focusing on cognitive processes in translators’ mind).5 In this respect, inductive refers to the analysis moving from the linguistic structures towards conceptual ones (first, a word or phrase is found, then tagged and assigned). The opposite way of analysis, deductive, would start with a set of metaphorical concepts which would be searched in the text analysed (the set of possible metaphors would be defined even before reading the text). See Steen et al. 2010: 768 for more details.

8

regard to the obvious limits of resources – not in the same depth as the Praggejaz Group

did. The (rather simplified) MIP can be summed up as follows:

1. Reading the text in its entirety,

2. Determining lexical units,

3. Establishing meaning and meaning connections,

4. Deciding about the existence of contextual contrast (such contrast can be used

both directly and indirectly) – in my case, including the judgment about a

possible strategic and contextual effect from the point of view of political

discourse.

The metaphorical expressions marked will be then recorded along with their possible

metaphorical concepts and other data related to their use (possible transitive relations,

remarks on context, possible shift in meaning, cultural issues etc.). To sum up, the

resulting information on each metaphor should contain its nature and type, strategy (see

chapter 4.5), conceptual frame and perhaps transitive relations (see chapter 4.3 and 5.2),

and, if justified, a note on context. It is quite clear that the weakest spot in this strategy

is the identification of the expression itself. There are inevitable risks of ambiguity,

omission, or misinterpretation. Nevertheless, I cannot think of a better way of creating

the corpus, given the current circumstances.

9

4. Metaphor as an issue in translation studies

4.1 Prescription versus Description

The problem of translating metaphors can be addressed both by prescriptive (as

advocated by e.g. Nida, van den Broeck, Newmark) and descriptive (Toury, Snell-

Hornby, and Baker) approaches (Fernández et al. 2003: 61). Those approaches seeking

ST faithfulness have been increasingly disregarded in favour of target-oriented studies,

which had an impact on the concept of equivalence. Translemic equivalence thus does

not pursue ‘perfect’ but rather ‘acceptable’ renderings (Rabadán – Álvarez 1991: 45 as

cited in ibid.), and the whole concept of faithfulness has become increasingly relaxed –

there are authors who tend to see previously condemned choices as rather innovative.

4.2 Two main issues

So far, with regard to the phenomenon of metaphors, translation studies has been

concerned with two main questions (cf. Schäffner 2004: 1256), namely

1. The problem of translatability (which somewhat resonates with the question

of equivalence). This is a question of the very nature of the metaphor as a figure,

as a part of communication, and as a tool used (in semantic and pragmatic sense)

with a particular purpose – all of this in different systems (be it grammar, langue

/ parole, culture etc.). In short, there is a problem of equivalence versus systemic

difference. The important thing to realise is that the transfer of such a

complicated entity as a metaphor cannot be simple by definition.

10

2. The problem of procedure, strategy of translation. Once we admit that there

is a way to recreate the semantic entity (or purpose) of a metaphor in a target

text (depending on the approach one prefers), a myriad of other, practical

difficulties appear. Is there a general way to deal with the translation of

metaphors, based on their nature, type, or function in the text, or is this an ad-

hoc process? Can a typology of strategies be constructed, or is it a foolish vanity

to try to capture such an “individual flash of imaginative insight” (Dagut 1976:

22 as cited in Schäffner 2004: 1256)? For more information on translation

procedures, see chapter 4.5.

Both questions can be addressed from significantly different scholar positions.

Schäffner herself (2004: 1254) warns that arguments brought forward need to be seen

“within the context of a heterogenous discipline” which translation studies indisputably

is. As for the first question, among possible sub-disciplines of translation studies

preoccupied with the problem of equivalence (ibid., 1254 ff.) are:

Linguistics: Preoccupied with translation as transferring meaning. The notion of

equivalence: Transfer of a text should be as faithful as possible, both in content

and form.

Text linguistics: Metaphor as a unit of translation. Treating source text and

target text in context of situational factors, conventions, text functions etc.

Equivalence is of communicational nature.

Functionalism: Translation as trans-cultural interaction, translation strategy is

dependent on appropriateness to purpose (in other words, importance of

equivalence is reduced).

11

The whole sub-domain is further complicated by the fact that no universally accepted

notion of equivalence exists, especially if various post-modern and cultural approaches

are to be incorporated to the discussion in their entirety and with all consequences.

4.3 Translatability

With regard to translatability, three or four main positions have crystallised inside TS

(according to Fernández 2003: 67 ff.):

1. Metaphors are untranslatable (as argued by Nida (1964) or Dagut (1967), i.e.

any translation of metaphor brings about a different metaphor;

2. Metaphors are fully translatable (e.g. Kloepfer (1981) or Mason (1982)), i.e.

there cannot be a theory of metaphor as such, just a theory of translation applied

to metaphors;

3. Metaphors are translatable with a considerable degree of interlinguistic

inequivalence (e.g. van den Broeck (1981), Toury (1995) and Newmark

(1988));

4. Fernández lists – as a distinct fourth type – so called Conciliatory approach

proposed by Snell-Hornby (1988), who claims that the range of renderings will

depend on the type of text and ad-hoc factors.

I reckon that for our purposes, this could be regarded as a variation of the third type

(depending on the strictness of definition of equivalence, which is, after all, not a

primary issue here).

12

As we can see, no universal definition of equivalence (and therefore no simple means of

measurement of it) has been provided so far (cf. Lotfipour-Saedi 1990). Also, we are

always dependent on which approach we take, as each theory focusing on one issue is

condemned to be partial or inadequate (cf. Prandi 2010).

As for the question of translatability seen from the point of view of metaphor

types (see chapter 4.5), Newmark (1988: 48-49 in Fernández 2003: 68) argues that

metaphors most ‘translatable’ are the dead ones, whereas the translatability of stock

and original ones is proportional to the proximity of the two polysystems involved. Van

den Broeck (1981: 73 in ibid.) suggests that not all metaphors pose the same risks, and

their translatability thus depends on their communicative function and cultural bounds –

the larger the quantity of information and the degree to which this information is

structured in the text, the lower the translatability.

For the purpose of this thesis, let’s assume that approaches No. 3 and 4 (let’s call

this position ‘metaphors are carefully translatable with important reservations’) are

valid and that both are a part of the empirically-constructed model which is going to be

applied here.

4.3 Classical versus conceptual perspective

General study of metaphors is drawing on two equally important sources, that of the

classical and the conceptual approach. Whereas the principles of the two approaches are

fundamentally different, various attempts have been done during quite a lively debate in

13

the recent decades to combine and mutually inspire these two “traditions”. What are

their main features?

First of all, metaphor can be defined in various ways, among the particularly

interesting being ‘textual interpretation of a conflictual complex meaning’, or ‘putting

strange concepts into interaction’ etc. (Prandi 2010: 305). If we yield to a certain level

of simplification, one of perhaps the most general and often quoted definitions is

Aristotle’s definition of metaphor as “a transfer of a word into a strange domain”

(ibid.).

See the chart below featuring the same concept described by various terms and

points of view, none of them being truly universal (cf. Slingerland – Blanchard – Boyd-

Judson 2007; Prandi 2010). Each of the four pairs comprises a term of its own:

Fig. 1: The principle of metaphor

14

Metaphor / Frame / Transfer / Interaction

1. Tenor2. Subsidiary subject3. Strange domain4. Extension

1. Focus2. Vehicle

3. Word4. Meaning

In the classical view, metaphor has been primarily seen as a rhetorical figure or as a

device to add interest to the text. At the same time, metaphor has been treated as

something albeit interesting, yet rather peripheral and difficult to study, as an object in

realm of poetics rather than empirical analysis.

Nonetheless, the traditional understanding of metaphor as a figure of speech

(whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of a text) has been recently replaced

with a more complex conceptual, cognitive6 approach (Schäffner 2004: 1254) which

tends to see this phenomenon in context of broader aspects of communication. Whereas

this shift is very interesting, it inevitably leads to further methodological confusion.

With publication of Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (1980), the

whole world of study of communication was once again significantly moved. In recent

years, the new conceptual paradigm has been, according to e.g. Schäffner (2004: 1257-

1258) taking root also in translation studies as such. In their remarkable work, Lakoff

and Johnson argue that metaphors are nothing less than demonstrations of the whole

system of experience and thought of human society – in other words, that metaphors “

‘permeate’ and ‘pervade’ both language and thought” (Fernández 2003: 65).

From this point of view, each metaphor is an expression of conceptual mapping

(from the source – “vehicle” – to a target – “tenor” – conceptual domain). Whereas this

may terminologically resemble the classical view, the crucial importance is that

metaphorical mapping is not regarded as a finite object. It is only a surface

demonstration of a relation existing on a much deeper level, firmly set in the

experiential system of human beings who are capable to “see” or understand one

domain by means of another. This changes the whole perspective.

6 Schäffner is among those scholars who use the term “cognitive” to describe the conceptual approach.

15

Moreover, the conceptual approach does not regard metaphors as optional

linguistic tools or language devices that may be easily replaced by other means (as had

been tended to in older, “classical” times) – instead, they are ubiquitous signs of the

ways people think just demonstrated through linguistic means (cf. Slingerland –

Blanchard – Boyd-Judson 2007: 55-57; McElhanon 2006: 37; Chaban et al. 2007: 81),

they are “absolutely central to ordinary language” (Lakoff 1993: 203 in Candel 2005:

10).

Common utterances seen from this point of view become the expressions of

underlying conceptual models. From this perspective, even completely novel, original

metaphors have to be compatible with already established concepts in order to be

comprehensible for a receiver of information (Because, after all, each metaphor ever

used is only a surface demonstration of a more abstract concept which lies somewhere

much deeper; Slingerland – Blanchard – Boyd-Judson 2007: 57).

4.4 Translatability revisited

If true, this brings immense consequences for the problem of translatability of

metaphors. As Schäffner (2004: 1258) argues, “[t]ranslatability is no longer a question

of the individual metaphorical expression, as identified by the ST, but it becomes linked

to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture.”

As I see it, this revolutionary shift may imply that at least “older” (such as

“stock” or “recent”, see chapter 4.5) and a considerable part of original or “novel”

metaphors are translatable (conceptually transferable), not because of the relative

closeness of the SL and TL, but because basic human experiential concepts are

16

universal (as proclaimed by Lakoff and Johnson). The remaining ones might perhaps be

“reproducible” – provided a certain level of compatibility between cultures can be found

(which is, after all, not incompatible with both Newmark’s and van den Broeck’s

notions mentioned in chapter 4.3). In this context, different types of metaphors should

be identified with regard to the level of their universality / specificity (cf. Stienstra 1993

in Schäffner 2004: 1264) – for instance, one could expect the metaphors based on

human body to be universally understandable, whereas metaphors originated in local

traditions as specific.7

This actualised approach is rather optimistic with regard to the question of

possibility of intercultural communication. It can also serve as an intermediate position

between the extreme points of view on the problem of translatability of metaphors, as

represented by the debate “every metaphor is translatable” versus “metaphor cannot be

translatable implicitly”.

Prandi (2010: 305 ff.) nevertheless warns against simplified solutions. She notes

that no strategy to tackle the translation of metaphors can be universal. She rather

argues for a much more complex and differentiated approach where the final decision is

dependent on the kind of metaphor used (for instance, consistent versus “conflictual”,

openness to substitution, coincidence to lexical versus textual interpretation etc.). For

her, metaphors in general have the same origin – conceptual interaction – but many

7 McElhanon (2006: 45-47), inspired by Kövecses (2005 in ibid.), proposes using three elementary models of translation of “image-schemas” and conceptual metaphors:1. “Universalism”: Translate a metaphor that reflects a universal, human conceptual process so as to preserve the underlying image-schema structure. (This principle reflects Lakoff’s invariance hypothesis – i.e. image-schematic elements and structure of the metaphor should be preserved.)2. “Human physiology”: Translate a metaphor that reflects common human physiological processes so as to preserve the sense of a psychological basis.3. “Experiential cultural models”: Translate a metaphor that has an underlying cultural model with a similar model ensuring that the coherence and integrity of the underlying translation model is not compromised.

17

possible outcomes. Also, a mere co-existence of different concepts (signalled by putting

a word into a strange domain) does not automatically mean that a true metaphor is

present unless a real conceptual interaction (with an identifiable conceptual balance of

the result) is proven.

For Prandi, there are 1. consistent metaphors that are integrated in our ways of

thinking and there are 2. conflictual, living metaphors containing an overt conceptual

conflict (Prandi 2010: 311). The difference might be summed up as follows: Whereas

consistent metaphors are used automatically and we are not aware of them unless we

focus on them, conflictual metaphors have a striking effect, they attract attention.

Prandi’s underlying argument is that each theory focusing only on chosen aspects is

therefore condemned to be partial and inadequate, and it would also be problematic to

come up with such definitions which would cover such different phenomena as these

two kinds of metaphor, whose cores actually directly oppose each other.8

This distinction between metaphors has also highly relevant consequences for

translation (Prandi 2010: 318 ff.): Whereas a conflicting expression may actually be

translated immediately and it is almost impossible to “kill” it,9 a metaphorical sense of a

(highly language-specific) polysemous word or an idiom is not – it cannot be.

Therefore, as Prandi states, it is actually not a novel metaphor which is challenging for a

translator; it is the consistent and conventional one.

8 It should be noted that Prandi’s terms should not be mistaken with Newmark’s. For Prandi, the difference is given by the distance between particular concepts; for Newmark, the difference is based on temporal dimension. Whereas Prandi sees some metaphors as inherently conflictual on, say, psychological grounds, for Newmark, all metaphors could eventually become dead after some time – the question of their effect is dependent mainly on the time they have been used. Prandi’s approach to origins of metaphor is listed here as complementary theory.9 The only real risk being the usual engagement in over-interpretation and explicitation; cf. e.g. Blum-Kulka (1986) as cited by Prandi (2010: 321).

18

On a side note, as has been stated earlier, metaphors are truly ubiquitous. Modern

languages in their use are constructed by sediment, petrified, metaphors, including those

which are already dead (i.e. not perceived as metaphorical expressions at all). There are

scholars who take the discussion one step further and argue that there actually cannot be

such a thing as a proper distinction between literal and figurative language at all –

everything we perceive as literal had in fact roots in metaphorical nature, and words

commonly used are in fact troped, i.e. lacking one exclusive meaning.10 If metaphors are

indeed everywhere, if they “[…] cannot generally be regarded as something literary or

creative” and they “[exist] rather in clines and also include expressions whose

metaphorical meaning can be found in a dictionary” (Müller 2005: 55), the resulting

complexity of this perspective is truly overwhelming and one has to be extremely

careful when drawing general conclusions. The fact that there could be interference

between all concepts mentioned above and the way whole language systems work is a

real possibility.

4.5 Types of metaphors and strategies of translation

As for types of metaphors, the criterion of time, or in other words, novelty or originality

of expressions proposed by Newmark has been often applied. At one hand, there are

non-lexicalised (i.e. “newer”) metaphors which are absolutely or relatively novel and

creative, at the other hand, there is a whole world of lexicalised (i.e. “older”) metaphors

10 “One of the first things that a student of etymology […] discovers for himself is that every modern language […] is apparently nothing, from beginning to end, but an unconscionable tissue of dead, or petrified metaphors. […] If we trace the meanings of a great many words […] about as far back as etymology can take us, we are at once made to realize that an overwhelming proportion, if not all, of them referred in earlier days to one of these two solid things – a solid, sensible object, or some animal (probably human) activity.” (Barfield 1928: 63 as cited by Knútsson 2008)

19

whose metaphorical nature is still apparent but which are already established in the

language.11

The Newmark’s (1981, 1988) typology of metaphors is as follows:

Newmark’s typology of metaphors

(Newmark 1981)

Dead Cliché Stock Recent Original

(Newmark 1998)

Dead Stock Recent Adapted Original

Lexicalised metaphors Non-lexicalised metaphors

Table No. 1

The meanings of the typology categories as described by Newmark (1988: 196 ff. as

cited by Dickins 2005: 16-18 including examples) are:

11 On a side note, Dagut (1976: 23 in Candel 2005: 10) strongly opposes this view and argues that all metaphors are new and unique creations by definition. For him, solely Newmark’s “original” metaphors would qualify as proper metaphors at all. The discussion has evidently been complicated, not only across different paradigms but also in the scope of particular approaches. All attempts to deal with the topic thus have to be partial and limited, no universal tool to classify procedures is at hand.

20

Newmark’s typology of metaphors explained

Type Description Examples

Dead Metaphors where one is hardly conscious of the image; universal terms of space and time etc.

space, field, top, bottom, arm, fall, rise...

Cliché Metaphors that have temporarily outlived their usefulness; substitute to clear thought

“[school’s] traditions will help and it may well become a jewel in the crown in the country’s education.”

Stock Established metaphors; in informal context referentially and pragmatically efficient

oil the wheels

Recent Metaphorical neologisms which have spread rapidly in language

groovy as good, skint as without money

Adapted Metaphors which involve an adaptation of an existing (stock) metaphor

“the ball is a little in their court” (R. Reagan)

Original Non-lexicalised and non-adapted metaphors

Table No. 2

A similar principle in a less rigorous way is noted by Müller (2005: 55), who argues: “a

procedure of metaphor identification has to differentiate between rather conventional

21

metaphors and ‘creative metaphors’ which occasionally exploit the principles of

conceptual mappings.” However, as Müller points out, drawing real distinctions

between these types is not an easy task. This problem therefore calls for establishing a

set of criteria which could be used during the process of determination and

classification.

Along with Müller, I suppose that creative metaphors in political discourse are

those that “[depend] on deviation from what might be expected in a given situation” or

“[challenge] discursive or linguistic norms” (ibid., 56), with regard to “appropriateness”

and “usefulness”, and “strategic value” of the term used. This is relevant for the analysis

of discourse, where even an established, say, stock metaphor can have a shocking effect

if used creatively and/or with attention to the context.

The thesis shall make use of Newmark’s typology (especially with regard to the

distinction between unlexicalised and lexicalised expressions) but will pay attention to

Müller’s “pragmatic criterion” as well. Lexicalized and unlexicalized metaphors will be

analysed separately. I shall search for possibly all cases of non-lexicalised metaphors

and, at the same time, for those cases of lexicalised metaphors which can be

contextually (or pragmatically) relevant in political discourse. As a rule, dead metaphors

without any relevant function in the text will be omitted. It is, of course, expected, that

lexicalised metaphors in the corpus will be much more common than the other type.12

12 It remains an inconvenient truth that the distinction cannot be always clear-cut, which holds true for the issue of typology as well as strategy. There is no easy way to solve this problem. In doubtful cases, notes or short in dataset are provided in the dataset.

22

As for the question of technique, procedure, or strategy of translation applicable to

metaphors, relatively many strategy typologies based on ideal-typical models exist. 13

Perhaps the most frequently cited among the source oriented14 approaches are:

1. A descriptive approach elaborated by van den Broeck (1981: 77 in Schäffner

2004: 1256 ff.) operating with three possible strategies:

a. Translation sensu stricto (both SL tenor and “vehicle” are transferred

into TL)

b. Substitution (replacement of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with

the same tenor)

c. Paraphrase (rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical expression

in the TL)

2. A prescriptive approach advocated by Newmark (1981: 87-91 in ibid.; 1985 in

McElhanon 2006: 35)15 (English-German and English-French examples taken

from Schäffner 2004). Newmark’s typology is one of the most comprehensive

ones and it was applied in this thesis.

a. Reproducing the same image in TL

golden hair // goldenes Haar

b. Replacing the SL image with a standard TL image (which is compatible

with TL culture)

13 It should be noted that whereas these typologies have been largely constructed as a part of prescriptive-based works, I mention them in order to use them just in an empirical, descriptive way – I am not trying to favour any of them.14 As for target-oriented perspective, Toury (1995: 81 ff) adds two other scenarios, namely (1) Use of a metaphor in a TT for a non-metaphorical expression in a ST, and (2) Addition of a metaphor in a TT without any linguistic motivation in a ST. In this respect, Toury is clearly interested in viewing metaphor not only as a translation problem, but also as a translation solution. As this thesis is inherently source-oriented, thus focused on ways of translating already existing tropes, this additional set of strategies is mentioned only for the purpose of context.15 In Newmark’s work, the term object corresponds to topic, image to vehicle, and sense to “grounds”.

23

other fish to fry // d’autres chats á fouetter

c. Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image (Effect: metaphor’s

shock possibly modified)

Ces zones cryptuaire oú s’ élabore la beauté // The crypt-like

areas where beauty is manufactured

d. Translating metaphor (simile) by simile plus sense (simile plus sense

statement) (Effect: loss of shock, compromise solution)

tout un vocabulaire moliéresque // a whole repertoire of medical

quackery such as Molière might have used

e. Converting metaphor into its sense (Effect: possible loss of emotive

aspects)

sein Brot verdienen // to earn one’s living

f. Deletion (if metaphor is “redundant”)

g. Using the same metaphor combined with sense (Effect: enforcing the

image)

5. Metaphors in political discourse. Context and

challenges

To some extent, political discourse is driven by underlying conceptual metaphors. These

metaphors are, on the other hand, partially rooted in ideologies and cultural models.

Simple examples of such metaphors include the conceptual dualisms such as right and

24

left, progressive and conservative, and other everyday terms, such as green or political

spectrum. There is a myriad of various terms from the scope of war, sports etc. In fact,

each political commentary in the newspaper is a noteworthy aggregate of political

metaphors. Also, it is not uncommon that a simple metaphor becomes a meme, a

shorthand term for a complex social phenomenon. Such term can then become a

standard term of its own. When performing the analysis of the political discourse,

pragmatic aspects should be taken into consideration and the analysis has to be of

critical nature, exploring the intentions of a speaker and the strategies they use to win in

the never-ending negotiations.

In general, metaphors are absolutely central to our “understanding” of many

political concepts, which are usually too abstract, remote, and complex to grasp to an

average voter. The more distant the object, the more important vehicle of understanding

and comforting one’s mind metaphor is. In my opinion, metaphor, regardless if novel or

established, then bears the function of prejudice, i.e. of the tool to deconstruct and

internalise reality.16

As we can see, the issue of expressions typical of political discourse is complex

and has been approached from various perspectives. Määttä (2007: 168), making use of

Foucault’s (1969) insights, defines the goal of [political] discourse analysis as “to

determine why a certain fragment of discourse (statement or énoncé) and no other has

appeared in a given place in a given time”. This Foucaltian and pragmatic perspective

makes the reader pay attention to the subtle yet omnipresent variables of contextual

meaning, ideology, relations of power and coercion, audience-specificity, and so forth.

16 On a side note, this is one of the reasons why deliberate, participatory democracy has empirical limits and cannot be employed successfully in real conditions.

25

All utterances need to be looked at with regard to their role in vast networks of concept,

meanings, and desired aims.

Following Foulcaltian logics, we could define analyzing metaphors as a

particular method of discourse analysis, which in turn would be a method of analyzing

either likely intentions of the players in the political system (which is the case of this

text) or political ideology in general (which would require a much more sophisticated

analysis).

In the context of EU, this is particularly relevant with regard to the fact that the

Union is a relatively young17 and still evolving entity. It is a project still in the making.

There is an ongoing debate whether its future lies in converting the Union into a

somewhat integrated, centralised supranational project or rather going back to the

intergovernmental, loosely-federated approach. Recall past employing and successful

introducing (i.e. lexicalizing) of such metaphors as “Common European house”, “Three

Pillars of the European Communities”, “two-speed Europe”, “democratic deficit” and so

forth, which undoubtedly influenced the way EU has been portrayed in the media and

thought over by political actors as well as voters (cf. e.g. Chaban et al. 2007, Hülsse

2006).

5.1 Agenda setting and persuasion

In 1946, in his famous essay Politics and the English Language, George Orwell

noted: “By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at

17 Despite having roots as far as in the 1950s, EU in its current form and subjectivity has been in existence only since 1993.

26

the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself.”

(Orwell 1968: 134 as cited by Müller 2005: 54).

For Orwell, the term “stale” was primarily a question of style. He viewed using

vague language and clichés as a sign of decay of English rhetorics, not as rudimental

presence of the change of foundations of public politics which can be traced back to

these times. On the other hand, as Müller interestingly points out, Orwell’s definition go

against the “traditional” view of metaphors as a mere stylistic ornament, for his

conception is also connected to the condition of “mental efforts” and “ethics” of a

speaker. This might have been a nodal point in the evolution of understanding of

metaphor.

Since WWII, an increasing attention has been given to the problems of

persuasion, strategies, self-portraying, and targeted use of concepts in political

communication. Nowadays, hardly anyone questions the fact that political discourse is

characterized by its predominantly persuasive function and argumentative, often

market-oriented style. Under typical circumstances of a democratic political system,

language used within political discourse is a strategic tool directly employed in political

battle. This has never been so much true as now, in the gold age of political marketing.

All utterances should be regarded as possibly strategically chosen ways of setting and

promoting the agenda. Use of metaphor in political discourse is “a fundamentally

persuasive discourse act” (Charteris-Black 2004: 13 as cited in Candel 2005: 16).

In the agenda setting theory (see e.g. McCombs 2009), ‘strategic framing’ 18

refers to intentional emphasizing of those elements of a problem which are considered

18 In this thesis, strategic use of framing is strictly called ‘strategic framing’. This is not always the case in theoretical works. This choice is motivated by the effort for terminological charity (strategic framing is a pragmatic act, “portraying with the help of concepts”, whereas framing (without an attribute) is a general or theoretical term referring to working with concepts.

27

as important by an actor, or those definitions and views of the problem which are

strategically advantageous, particularly using media. The aim is making such solutions

or topics salient, i.e. widely discussed and perceived as important (e.g. McCombs 2009:

133). Using metaphors is one of the way of persuasion. “By highlighting some aspects,

and ignoring others, conceptual metaphors located in media discourses are claimed to

‘form cognitive models which organize thought and action’” (Gozzi 1999: 10 as cited

by Chaban et al. 2007: 88).

Strategic framing usually works with direct, intentional linkage of source and

target concepts, thus creating a metaphor which can be used to make a particular socio-

political issue salient or, alternatively, to portray the speaker as an agent capable of

resolving the problem perceived. Hypothetical examples include conceptual frames such

as TERRORISM IS A DISEASE + CANDIDATE IS CURE; or POLITICAL OPPONENT IS A

CRIMINAL + CANDIDATE IS A GUARDIAN etc. Metaphor may play a key role in

addressing a voter because it can be used as a shortcut for delivering a message using a

concept familiar to the voter.19

5.2 Concepts and transitivity in politics

If the validity of the conceptual (cognitive) model is accepted, one could also argue that

important societal changes are accompanied by large shifts in conceptual sets (and vice

versa). In this respect, it might come in handy to recall George Orwell’s 1984 and all

sorts of wag-the-dog remarks. Societal discourse and power structure are clearly

19 On the other hand, the notion that metaphor is an undoubtedly effective tool of persuasion has not remained uncontested and needs to be viewed as a qualified hypothesis rather than a fact. There were also scholars who argued that metaphor-free speech was more persuasive than the other kind. Both parties had empirical proofs of their position (cf. Müller 2005: 55).

28

interconnected systems. I am far from saying “Change the meaning of words and

empires will fall,” I just want to remind the reader of the ever-faster changes in public

discourse and the nature of the power relations which we have been seeing since the 2nd

half of the 20th century. As Lakoff (2004: xv in Hellín García 2010: 59) indicates: “In

politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we conform to carry

th[ese] policies. To change our frame is to change all of this. Reframing is social

change.”

Metaphor plays a prominent role especially in the post-modern approach to

political and societal reality. As Hülsse (2006: 397) sums up, “[m]etaphors are a means

of imagining and by the same token constructing social reality. This has to do with their

very logic of operation: they project the meanings of a familiar issue onto a less

familiar and abstract one, thus constituting the unknown in terms of the known.”

Analyzing discourse of a particular political actor thus touches upon the belief and

conceptual constructions hidden in their expressions. By decoding and interpreting

metaphorical concept, we may arrive at finding out the speaker’s intentions.

Accepting Lakoff & Johnson’s theory of conceptual systems in its entirety, we

can assume that metaphors, once said, work also subconsciously, thus making the

message accessible on multiple levels simultaneously. A clever use of metaphors may

thus enable an informed political actor to kill two – or possibly more – birds with one

stone.

Possible use of conceptual metaphors may also include working with transitive

relations as defined by Systemic Functional Grammar of English (Halliday 2004). “The

distribution and mixture of different process types gives a particular flavour to a text

and contributes to determining the text type and the discourse genre to which it

29

pertains. In addition, the transitivity grammar ‘construes a particular world view’

specific to the text in question (Halliday 2004: 174, 283): it inscribes the text within a

particular discourse type by encoding ideologies in the textual grammar.” (Määttä

2007: 169-170). A general idea of types of relations used in metaphors can help to

discover which values are presented in speeches and texts, and how the political issues

are constructed by various speakers.

5.3 Intercultural communication

Let us not forget the other side of the equation – the acceptability and comprehensibility

of the message. Clearly, even most unusual metaphors must be compatible with the

established conceptual system if they are to be decoded by the receiver of the

communication.

That’s where the factor of shared culture, context, experience, and translation

across different cultures comes into consideration. All metaphors, whether novel or not,

must be used in accordance with the (long established) conceptual system in order to be

recognized and interpreted appropriately. One can assume that this does not pose a big

problem in case when the speaker and receiver live in the same cultural system.

However, what happens if the strategic, subtle, conceptually salient, and politically

important metaphor needs to be translated to someone coming from a completely

different background? A failure in transfer may have a number of dramatic

consequences, form unnatural feel to logical incomprehensibility to misinterpretation of

speaker’s intention.

30

The role of language and translation and interpreting in international politics is

therefore crucial and cannot be overestimated. Negotiations take place under

circumstances with a great scope for misunderstanding, and different conceptualisations

of the world are inevitable (Sharifian 2007: 413-414). That is why the role of translators

as mediators is so important in this field.

The relationship between translation studies and political discourse has not been

widely discussed yet. Most analyses have focused on textual or (critical) discourse

analysis. The role of a translator has been largely seen as mediatory in the process of

intercultural (contextual) communication (Lande 2010; Xiaoqian 2005: 85). There is a

shared belief among the scholars that “broader societal and political framework in

which such discourse is embedded has to be taken into consideration” (Schäffner 1997:

119 as cited in Lande 2010.). In the recent years, there has also been a growing

appreciation of usefulness of the models of cognitive science for the fields such as

political science or international relations (Slingerland – Blanchard – Boyd-Judson

2007: 57).

In the last decades, such an approach to translation in the context of

interculturality has prevailed that translation is always connected to interpretation, or

that “translation means cross-cultural understanding” (Rubel – Rosman 2004: 1 as

cited by Shore 2005). As Shore correctly points out, this shorthand definition is

somewhat idealised and does not touch upon serious problems of intercultural

interpretation. The main issue is the risk of misinterpretation and meaning lost in

translation due to the inevitable ambiguity of cross-cultural references and the lack of a

universally understood language system. The impacts are crucial because there are

examples when questions of war and peace depend on which language version one

31

reads. And, of course, in our increasingly globalised and multi-cultural world, the risks

are more and more common (ibid.: 13-14).

5.4 Specifics of the EU

The EU project accounts for an environment sui generis unparalleled anywhere in the

world, today or in history. On one hand, it is a conglomerate of many (often

fundamentally) different cultures and languages. One the other hand, a process of

creating shared political institutions and political élite has quite advanced in the last

decades and the today’s Union may thus be considered to be an entity with many

features typical of a common western polity.

European Union is worth analysing for several important reasons: I believe that

EU is a good example of a novel socio-political structure where the processes of

intercultural communication play a key role. Moreover, the questions and rules

discussed are of political nature, thus inherently dealing with relations of power,

economics, international security, and so on. The importance of translations of such

discussions and documents cannot be questioned. Last but not least, the discourse

originating inside and among European institutions inevitably influences discourse in

other fields and in other levels.

The highly complex system of internal translation in EU itself, with 23 official

languages possessing (formally) the same status, is unique in the world and should be

thus studied from various scholarly perspectives. The costs of translation and the

logistic complexity of the system are extraordinary. The number of language

combinations and types of communication is so high and the incidence of high-risk

32

areas and sensitive topics so common that the system is prone to having issues of inter-

cultural misinterpretation and ambiguity. This is the case not only from the theoretical

point of view – the problems can be documented by a number of translation blunders

and misinterpretations: Hence, the metaphors of “the Tower of Babel” and “a game of

Chinese whispers” (Shore 2005: 17) are indeed pertinent.

From the intercultural point of view, there are three working languages (English,

French, and German), which are used primarily within the European institutions such as

in the Commission, and enjoy a special status. As the website of the Department

(“Directorate-General”) for Translation states,

“[...] the only documents produced in all 23 official languages are pieces of

legislation and policy documents of major public importance — accounting for

about a third of our work. [...] Internal documents are all written in (and

sometimes translated into) English, French and German. Similarly, incoming

documents — which may be drafted in any language — are translated into one

of these three languages so they can be generally understood within the

Commission.” (DG Translation 2011).

This (technically certainly understandable) custom creates a possible imbalance within

EU and may contribute to the predominance of the “cultural perspective” of chosen big

European countries, which may shape the discourse and lead to the additional cultural

gaps between the big players and those countries with non-dominant languages.

33

6. The Corpus

One of the most difficult tasks when dealing with given research questions is securing

available material, i.e. finding suitable (i.e. political, non-legal) texts from a rather

narrowly specified area which would be available in both English and Czech. I tried to

create such a corpus which would possibly contain at least traces of creative

communication, persuasion, and other features typical of political discourse. Out of

question thus were purely or predominantly technical and procedural materials (laws,

notes, memos); priority was given to such texts where higher occurrence of tropes was

assumed.

As a rule, not all potentially interesting material could have been used due to a

simple fact that the amount of material translated into Czech is substantially limited. A

surprisingly acute problem was that the suitable textual materials produced in EU are

really scarce. For instance, a significant part of documents is being produced only in

widespread working languages, i.e. French, English, and German. On a similar note,

absolutely out of the question did prove to be political manifestos and platforms of the

party fractions existing in EP – the primary political materials where most metaphors

can be expected – the reason being simply non-existence of their translations to minor

languages such as Czech.20

The final, compromise version of the corpus contains two sets of texts:

20 With no doubt, declarations and electoral manifestos of political fractions would fulfil the criteria of political discourse like no other comparable material, but these were unfortunately not available in Czech at all. Also, it has been tried to add other, not purely translated texts (Schäffner (2004): “In order to find out more about universal, culture-overlapping, and culture-specific metaphors, the analysis of translations can also be of use. A potentially good source for empirical analyses are multilingual documents that have come into being in a text production process, involving a combination of multilingual negotiations”. However, these are extremely difficult to obtain as well.

34

1. Official press-releases from top European institutions,21 as available from the

official internet portal of the EU [http://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.do].

Unlike legislation, press-releases are expected to contain at least traces of

figurative language and creatively used metaphors. When building up the text

bank of press releases, two criteria were applied:

An institution must offer a significant part of its press releases in Czech,

Priority must be given to (quasi)political institutions (such as the

Commission) over those of purely technical nature (such as European

Personnel Selection Office).

With regard to the nature of the material published from particular institutions

and availability of its translations, two types of texts were taken into account,22

namely (in the EU jargon):

a. “Presidency of the Council of the European Union” (“DOC”) – 11 pairs

(i.e. all available texts from the term which fulfilled the criteria). Texts

from this domain have been published by the Commission and usually

resume the outputs of what the particular session of the Commission:

what was debated and what conclusions and recommendations were

achieved. In each DOC text, an introductory (preamble) chapter plus one

randomly selected chapter from the paper itself was analysed. As the

initial pre-research revealed certain stylistic uniformity of these texts and

21 In case of official press releases, the original source language of the documents cannot be determined. Although the English source texts are presumably prevalent (as traceable from the variety of texts not translated), another possibility cannot be ruled out that certain texts were originally formulated in in other language (usually French). This is implied by the nature of practice of the European institutions.22 The selection of the EU institutions is rather narrow because typical press releases of most offices are in fact based in journalistic discourse rather than political (which is no surprise after all), PESC press releases are rather public memos and statements on various happenings in the world at large, and CJE texts are full of uninteresting legal jargon.

35

a relatively lower incidence of tropes, it has been decided that the

analysis of the texts in their entirety was not necessary.

b. “Council of the European union” (“PRES”) [sic] – 8 pairs. These texts

contain the speeches, conference opening remarks, published opinion

and so forth by the highest EU representatives. In other words, this part

of the text bank contains the press releases of the European Council

including the occasional semi-political declarations of the highest

representatives of the Union, the President of the EC Mr van Rompuy

(up to 7 pairs) and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign

Affairs and Security Policy, baroness Ashton (1 pair).

2. Selected plenary speeches from the floor of the European parliament.

Exclusively British and Czech representatives were selected. As a rule, these

speeches tend to be semi-prepared; traces of expressive language and a certain

level of lively discussion, thus a larger role of figurative tropes are to be

expected. The speeches are available on the EP website

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?

language=EN]. There are seven British and four Czech fractions in the current

term. The speeches from the whole period were selected, with regard to length

and the type of speech. If possible, speeches marked as “Explanations of vote”

were not preferred (a decision based on their shorter form and technical nature),

but had to be taken into account in cases of less active MEPs in whose profiles

no proper speeches were at hand. In case the randomly selected text was not

long enough, the next suitable one on the list was chosen.

36

1. As for the British MEPs, speeches of members from five fractions (S&D,

ALDE, G-EFA, ECR, EFD) plus one solitary member from the

remaining fraction (GUE-NGL) were taken into consideration.

Unattached members (NI) were ignored. That makes a total of 11 people.

2. As for Czech MEPs, an analogous procedure was carried out. In this

case, the speeches of nine members from three fractions (S&D, ECR,

GUE-NGL) plus two members of one remaining fraction (EPP) were

analysed, which makes us arrive at the same result, 11 people.

As a presupposed rule, Czech representatives tended to formulate their speeches

and written answers in Czech. This part of the corpus can thus be practically

considered as a bilingual corpus of a mixed nature23 where L1 is Czech and L2

English. The same (vice versa, needless to say) holds true for the British

members.24

6.1 Selection procedure

The selection of the official press releases was as follows:

1. Select the press releases available from chosen institutions in both languages.

2. Apply random sample selection (only applicable for PRES; in case of DOC, all

11 text pairs were taken).

The selection of the parliament speeches was as follows:

23 Most texts are transcribed speeches, however, some texts are provided in writing and the ratio of both types varies from person to person. 24 It should be noted that the number of MEPs analysed is too small to allow full statistical analysis – the aim of the selection procedure is to have a balanced corpus rather than trying to reach statistically significant results for all groups. Moreover, the distribution of members across groups in both parties is by definition irregular.

37

1. Select the UK and CZ MEP group in the chosen term (7th EP)

2. Select all fractions except from Non-attained representatives (NI).

3. Select two (UK) or three (CZ) most active representatives of each fraction. If

there are not so many representatives in a particular fraction, take all and skip.

(For obvious reasons, disregard those MEPs whose contributions are largely

technical, typically the chairmen of EP committees.)

4. Apply random sample selection of those texts which have been translated to L2.

(In order to sort out too short and technical questions: If the text is not at least

two paragraphs long, skip it and select another article in the queue.)

6.2 Time range

After consideration, I decided to analyse solely the material from the current EP term,

which effectively started on 14 July 2009 and has been continuing till today. The final

time range covers the period between July 2009 and September 2011, i.e. about 2 years.

Whereas it would be most interesting to extend the time range to more terms, the

differences in composition of the EP would make the complexity of the corpus too high

and, consequently, the analysis rather unfeasible.

38

7. Qualitative analysis of metaphors

First of all, the results and other information on the research stated in following

subchapters deserve several notes: As outlined in the text above, it was not the aim of

the analysis to capture all metaphors in the corpus (this effort would be, after all, futile

due to the pervasiveness of metaphors in language) but to arbitrarily pick up those

which bear the semantic or pragmatic tension with regard to the functions of political

discourse. The same set of criteria has been applied to all three subcorpora, so the

difference between the numbers of metaphors in all three sets really should correspond

to the differences in nature and discourse.

The dataset contained “living” (i.e. not dead) metaphors whose tension was

implicit along with usually less interesting, dead metaphors recorded solely due to their

potentially important conceptual frame or contextual relevance. If a metaphor was not

likely to bear either of these two kinds of tension, it was usually not recorded. This was

the case particularly for the sedimented expressions which currently are either dead or

established as technical terms (provided they did not bear any contextual significance) –

at any case, not perceived as figurative very much. Examples of real cases of tropes

(metaphors, metonymy, synecdoche) found in the corpus and usually deliberately

omitted from the analysis include:

In English: We have important work ahead; We focused our debate; Tailored to

one's own needs; The way forvard; Third-country nationals; Frozen conflict;

Collapse of the banking system / Soviet Union etc.; Sister parties; In the light of

progress made; Play a key role; Arab world; Schengen

39

In Czech: Čas ukáže / dozrál; Krok k větší ochraně spotřebitelů; Vyslat signál

společnosti; Boj proti násilí na ženách; Transparence financování; Rozpočtové

škrty; Legislativní rámec; Státní pokladna; Pád berlínské zdi; Sametová

revoluce

The metaphors have been recorded using the ST perspective. Whereas the source texts

were scanned through in their entirety, target texts were read only selectively. That

means that solely those metaphors found in the source text have been compared to their

translated counterparts in the L2 version. Even when an inverse case of translation was

found (lexical language translated as figurative, for example “have double standards //

měřit dvojím metrem”), these cases were omitted.

Perhaps needless to say, the terms “metaphor”, “metaphorical expression” etc. in

all following subchapters refer solely to those terms which have been found interesting

enough and subsequently recorded to the dataset and analysed, even if, for the sake of

simplicity, the text refers to features of texts and EU practices in general. In other

words, the data and conclusions presented are related to metaphors bearing pragmatic or

conceptual significance, not all metaphors in the corpus.

7.1 General information on metaphors

The analysis of the corpus showed that metaphors really are widely used in various

types of political texts within EU. That means that figurative tropes and expressions

presenting conceptual relations indeed are a real issue of communication, which means

that translators have to deal with them on a daily basis.

40

As has been already mentioned, the corpus comprised three parts or subcorpora

of texts: “PRES”, the texts presented by Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton on

various occasions; “DOC”, the press releases of the Council of EU; and “EP”, the texts

and speeches from the floor of the European Parliament. In a simplified way, PRES and

DOC are texts published by the executive, supposedly neutral EU bodies, and EP texts

come from the only (quasi-)legislative body EU has. Whereas PRES and DOC

subcorpora were unidirectional (EN-CS), the EP part contained the same number of

Czech-to-English and English-to-Czech translations. The length, number of texts, and

general number of expressions recorded are summarised in the table (all figures are

related to the L1 version of the subcorpora):

Information on corpus

Subcorpus Number of texts

Total length Average length of a text

Number of expressions

PRES (Van Rompuy, Ashton)

8 35,371 characters (19.7 pages)

4,421 characters (2.5 pages)

46

DOC (Council of EU)

11 58,320 characters (32.4 pages)

5,301 characters (2.9 pages)

69

EP (European Parliament)

215 243,147 characters (135 pages)

1,130 characters (0.63 page)

181

Total 234 336,838 characters (187 pages)

302

41

Table No. 3

As already partially apparent from the table, the presence of metaphors was uneven and

not uniform. In the texts published by the executive bodies, about 2.2 metaphorical

expressions per page were found (2.33 and 2.1 respectively); in the EP part, it was only

1.34 metaphors per page. The last figure is slightly misleading because it ignores the

considerably higher heterogeneity of EP texts (with regard to length, purpose, and

individual style): the differences in general use of language among individual

representatives were fundamental (and naturally so). 110 out of 215 texts analyzed did

contain no metaphor at all. If we take them away and focus only on those texts

containing at least one metaphorical expression, the incidence increases to 2.6

metaphors per page. In other words, those texts which did not lack figurative language

altogether were considerably richer in metaphors than those produced by the

(stylistically rather uniform) executive bodies. As for possible differences between the

CS-EN and EN-CS texts in the EP subcorpus, both parts proved to be exceptionally

similar, with 93 expressions distributed across 108 texts and 88 expressions across 107

texts respectively.

Overall, only a part of the texts included in the corpus could have been marked

as typical, recognizable political discourse which was to be expected in these settings.

There were considerable differences in the styles of usage of metaphors among different

representatives, which follows from different personal styles of expression, and

seemingly from the differences between spoken and written communication in EP. It

probably goes without surprise that several representatives even did not use political

discourse proper and confined themselves to general or technical discourse featuring

technical terms and jargonese, yet no creative and figurative lexical units. This was the

42

case primarily among those MEPs with higher percentage of answers provided in

writing, i.e. so called explanations of vote,25 and particularly relevant in case of those

MEPs not very much active on the floor at all. Consider the following example taken

from one of the “explanations of vote” and note the distinctive technical style, overly

complicated structure and the obscurity of the actual message:

“Neméně důležitá je výzva Komisi ke zvýšení potenciálu strukturálních fondů

zjednodušením a zlepšením postupů a pružnosti s důrazem na dimenzi sociální

integrace s cílem pomoci členským státům optimalizovat výsledky sociální

politiky a politiky zaměstnanosti a dosažení udržitelného růstu. // No less

important is the Commission’s call to boost the potential of structural funds by

simplifying and improving approaches and flexibility, with an emphasis on the

dimension of social integration, in order to help Member States optimise the

results of social policy and employment policy and achieve sustainable growth.”

Speeches on the EP floor were relatively less “technical” and also richer in metaphors

than answers provided in writing which lacked tropes or pragmatic markers. The nature

of discourse in both types of communication is different. Another thing to mention is

the natural difference among individual styles. Even in cases where all texts were likely

delivered on the floor, there were MEPs whose using metaphorical expression was

rather an exception in the stream of factual or technical speech. On the other hand, for

some of the MEPs, using tropes was a frequent strategy or a common way of

expression.

25 The types of texts were not known and thus not recorded for the purposes of statistical enquiry but were quite noticeable nonetheless, because explanations of vote differed considerably from speeches in terms of style as well as in structure and different choice of expressions (“I decided to vote for this bill because…”).

43

7.2 Nature and type of metaphors

As outlined in the methodological chapter (4.5), Newmark’s typology was used to

examine the kinds of metaphors in the texts. The most important distinction was drawn

between older, lexicalised (LEX) expressions and newer, unlexicalised ones (UNL).26

When in doubt whether a metaphor was lexicalised or not, British National Corpus27

was consulted.

Whereas the borderline between lexicalised and unlexicalised is comparatively

easy to draw, assignment to specific subcategories is more problematic and involves a

certain degree of risk. Several cases were possible to assign to more subcategories than

one, contextual meaning had to be taken into consideration and in some cases, and the

rules had to be specified in an arbitrary way. For example, when discussing economy,

the term “The way to recovery” is a relatively established and common, thus classified

as “stock” metaphor, whereas “the economy infected by the crisis” is a metaphor

reintroduced not so long ago and shaping current discourse relatively strongly, hence

classified as “recent”. When in doubt which particular category to assign, a borderline

category X/Y was planned. This is no surprise due to the impressionistic nature of

Newmark’s categories and the dynamics in the metaphors’ evolution. (On the other

hand, just one transitional category type, namely STOCK / RECENT, had to be

established in the end.)

Summary of metaphor types found in the corpus:

26 In the dataset, this variable is referred to as „Nature“.27 BNC Interface: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk

44

Metaphor types in the corpus

Unlexicalised Lexicalised Synecdoche, metonymy

Total

Subcorpus Adapted Original Dead Cliché Cliché / Stock

Stock Recent

PRES (Van Rompuy, Ashton)

4 0 1 3 3 17 6 12 46

DOC (European Council)

0 0 12 0 8 31 5 13 69

EP (European Parliament)

12 19 19 10 12 74 7 28 181

Total 16 19 32 13 23 122 18 53

Table No. 4

7.2.1 Unlexicalised metaphors proper

It probably could have been expected that unlexicalised, or recent and original,

metaphors were represented to a considerably lesser extent than lexicalised ones: Only

35, or 12%, of all metaphorical expressions were categorised as unlexicalised.

Moreover, a strong difference was found between the two executive subcorpora on one

hand and the EP subcorpus on the other hand.

45

In PRES subcorpus, only four unlexicalised metaphors were found, one of them used

twice in almost the same exact form. All of them fall under “Adapted” subcategory. (In

the DOC subcorpus, no unlexicalised metaphor was found whatsoever.) The

expressions are:

“Without Europe, there would have been an Arab Spring, but without us there

will be no Arab summer! // Arabské jaro by nastalo i bez Evropy, bez ní však

nepřijde arabské léto!”

“Without Europe, there would still have been an Arab Spring, but without us

there will be no Arab summer! // Arabské jaro by vypuklo i bez Evropy, avšak

arabské léto bez nás nepřijde!”

[in a speech about tackling the economic crisis:] “we created a solid fire-wall

and better fire-brigade equipment // vytvořili jsme solidní protipožární hráz a

lepší hasicí prostředky”

[Used in a title:] “A SUMMER OF DISCONTENT? // BOUŘLIVÉ LÉTO?”

In the EP subcorpus, 31 expressions were found, 19 original and 12 adapted.

Examples (ORIGINAL):

“Občas mám v této ctihodné instituci pocit, že pravá hemisféra vidí obsah

„better regulation“ diametrálně odlišně od hemisféry levé // I sometimes have

the feeling in this venerable institution that the right hemisphere sees the content

of ‘better regulation’ diametrically differently from the left hemisphere”

“uzavřená pevnost Evropa neprospěje nikomu // a closed fortress Europe would

benefit no one”

46

“Indiáni kmene Dakotů mají přísloví: „Sedíš-li na mrtvém koni, sesedni.“ A

takovým mrtvým koněm je vámi doporučovaná politika 20-20-20 // The Dakota

Indian tribe have a saying: ‘If you are sitting on a dead horse, dismount.’ Your

recommended 20-20-20 policy is just such a dead horse”

“Belarus is the missing piece of Europe’s democratic jigsaw puzzle // Bělorusko

je chybějící kus demokratické skládačky Evropy “

“[…] Baroness Ashton, the Sarah Palin of the ex-student Left […] // […]

baronky Ashtonové, jakési Sarah Palinové exstudentské levice […]”

Examples (ADAPTED):

“udržení náskoku před inovačními tygry, jako jsou Čína či Brazílie //

maintaining a lead against innovation tigers such as China and Brazil”

“Antidumping je dobrý sluha, ale zlý pán // Anti-dumping is a good servant but

a bad master”

“Their European dream, to quote the Commissioner, is that they will receive

subsidies // Jejich evropský sen, abych citoval komisaře, spočívá v tom, aby

dostávaly dotace”

“[Marine Stewardship Council] is setting a gold standard. // Tato organizace

stanovuje zlatý standard.”

The peculiarity of unlexicalised (i. e. original and adapted) metaphors (not only) in

political discourse lies in the almost certain intent of the speaker. One can hardly

assume that someone spends their intellectual resources creating original or creatively

adapted metaphor without the intention to point out specifically the meaning of the

47

message, or to exploit the conceptual tension involved. (On the other hand, older or

lexicalised metaphors can be used both automatically and intentionally, and there is no

easy way to prove the true intention of the speaker.)

This also means that using an unlexicalised metaphor is a straightforward

strategy: The intention is to highlight a point, not to cover the concept in any kind of

“wrapping”. The examples are profound: Comparing policy to a dead horse is a very

strong way to say – by means of an original metaphor – that such a policy is defunct and

not worth defending. Similar effects are seen in cases of adapted metaphors, for

example “European dream” as an adaptation of “American dream” (meaning “the very

best one can achieve, the underlying idea of a society”) contrasting with the low-level

aim; and “innovation tigers” as an adaptation of “tiger economy” to emphasize the point

that innovation is the single most important thing in economy today and that innovators

are the winners of future.

7.2.2 Lexicalised metaphors proper

As for the lexicalised category, these expressions accounted for the vast majority of the

dataset (298 expressions, i.e. 70%). Most of them fell under stock category but

occasional examples of recent, cliché, and dead metaphors were present as well.

Examples

“we decided to refine and strengthen our tool box. // rozhodli [jsme se] zpřesnit

a posílit nástroje, které máme k dispozici.” (PRES, STOCK)

48

“The Arab spring is also an invitation to redouble our efforts // Arabské jaro je

pro nás také výzvou ke znásobení úsilí” (PRES, RECENT)

“This [the options to tackle the problems of economy] is a strong package. // Jde

tedy o důrazný balíček opatření.” (PRES, CLICHÉ / STOCK)

“We will build on individual assessments of partners' performance and needs

[…] // Stavět budeme na samostatném posuzování výsledků a potřeb partnerů

[…]” (PRES, DEAD)

“framework for closer policy coordination on financial stability, in line with the

roadmap agreed by the Council // komplexního rámce pro celou EU v zájmu užší

koordinace politik v oblasti finanční stability, v souladu s cestovní mapou,

kterou Rada schválila” (DOC, STOCK)

“It concluded the first European semester // Uzavřela první evropský semestr”

(DOC, RECENT)

“Progress and democracy go hand in hand // Pokrok a demokracie jsou

nerozlučně spjaty” (DOC, CLICHÉ / STOCK)

“Basel agreement, which is an important step in strengthening global financial

stability // Basilejské dohody, jež představuje významný krok k posílení globální

finanční stability” (DOC, DEAD)

“míč je nyní na straně Evropské komise // the ball is now in the hands of the

Commission” (EP, STOCK)

“the years the UK Labour Government acted as a Bush poodle // v letech, kdy se

labouristická vláda Spojeného království chovala jako Bushův pudlík” (EP,

RECENT)

49

“Dame Sarah and the Lib Dems can cry crocodile tears now over cases like Mr

Symeou // Paní Sarah Ludfordová a liberální demokraté nyní mohou ronit slzy

nad případy, jako je kauza pan Symeoua” (EP, CLICHÉ)

“the Lisbon Treaty is, in our view, still a step in the wrong direction. //

Lisabonská smlouva je podle našeho názoru stále krokem špatným směrem.”

(EP, DEAD)

The results show that lexicalised metaphors, and especially stock ones, are by all means

the most typical tropes in the texts analyzed.28 I would not argue for the thesis that this

is the commonality between the political discourse and general discourse. Instead, I

would like to raise the question of multidimensionality and interdiscursivity. It seems

that – with regard to the presence of metaphors in language – whereas the PRES and

DOC subcorpora feature something as common, typical style (characterized by

relatively high occurrence of stock metaphors and synecdoche / metonymy on one hand

and the general lack of unlexicalised metaphors on the other hand), a similar conclusion

cannot be drawn in case of EP texts. EP texts are heterogeneous in terms of occurrence

of metaphors, and stock metaphors, albeit most common, are not as dominant as in the

case of executive subcorpora. Also, original and adapted metaphors are more common

here.

Moreover, consider the differences in style which can be found among the EP

texts. These are striking especially when the passages in the dataset are compared to

those texts which were omitted. It is naturally quite common for one particular

representative to use different styles and discourse strategies according to the nature of

28 For the data on strategies of translation, please see chapter 7.3.

50

the debate, topic discussed, context etc. The EP texts also featured many cases of

legalese, technical style etc. The point is that there indeed are differences in using

metaphors between executive EU bodies and members of the European Parliament. The

style used by the European Council is just one way which can be employed on the floor

of the Parliament, and there is no such thing as a universal European jargon.

7.2.3 Metonymy and synecdoche

In all three subcorpora, there was quite a high presence of expressions which fall under

the category of synecdoche and metonymy (53 cases or 18%). These tropes are based on

proximity or interchangeability of concepts; they are more explicit than metaphor

proper. “Metonymy is often considered as being of less interest because of less

originality: its very essence is predictability (the association must be obvious), whereas

metaphor is traditionally praised for its originality, its heuristic effect of showing

hitherto unnoticed connections.” (Stålhammar 2006: 101).

Although the analysis of synecdoche and metonymy was not a primary goal of

this work, this kind of trope was identified as one of the most typical communicational

tool in the corpus. Those cases of synecdoche / metonymy where the objects were

“livened” by the speaker, i.e. added metaphorical sense, have been recorded and added

to the dataset, for their use can be located on the borderline of the research questions of

the thesis. Synecdoche / metonymy, if used creatively, may become a linguistic

demonstration of the conceptual metaphor, the most typical strategy in these settings

being personification (i.e. STATE or COLLECTIVE ACTOR IS (i.e. has attributes of) A

PERSON).

51

In the dataset, this kind of expressions comprised 12 cases (26%) in the PRES

subcorpus, 13 cases (17%) in the DOC subcorpus, and 28 (15%) in the EP subcorpus.

With regard to the fact that other cases of synecdoche / metonymy were not recorded

because they did not bear significant conceptual tension, this kind of figurative tropes

can be considered to be the typical feature of the political discourse texts within EU.

Moreover, two different patterns of this metonymy could be identified in the

corpus:

1. “Animate” synecdoche / metonymy – these do not make any sense without the

metaphorical dimension (For example: “The Commission is looking forward”)

2. “Inanimate” synecdoche / metonymy – these can be regarded as shorthand,

they make sense even with no metaphorical interpretation involved (For

example: “The Commission accepted a proposal”)

The difference between both categories can be identified by logical reflection. Whereas

the meaning of some verbs, say, accept, can refer to technical procedure and can be

traced back (i.e. absolute majority of members accepted the proposal, maybe there was

an unanimous vote among the members of the Commission, etc.), verbs such as look

forward or welcome cannot be deconstructed in a pure technical way (did each and

every member of the Commission really like the motion? Is there a way to prove that

objectively?) Here, the body is clearly becoming more than a sum of its parts, the

“holistic” metaphorical dimension is activated and the figure is therefore used as a

conceptual metaphor.

The field of synecdoche and metonymy is quite vast and it is difficult to link

these expressions to concepts and strategies. For example: The metonymy

52

“bude to evropský úředník, a nikoli americký úředník, [...] kdo ve Státech bude

rozhodovat” // “it will now be a European official, and not an American official

[...] who will decide in the Member States”

could be ignored on basis of the linguistic criteria (no figurative element used) but can

be taken into account because it bears an emotive tension, a strategic portrayal of

political issue (The concept, say, OURS VERSUS FOREIGN). Clearly, this statement is

more powerful than a hypothetical “The competence to decide on this issue is in

European, not American authority”.

Also, we could say that various stages of “sedimentation” can be identified here,

similarly as in the case of metaphors proper. Only briefly, expressions such as

[Institution] is invited; [Institution] plays a role; [Institution] faces [a

pressure]; Head of state; Kanada zavedla víza; paní komisařka se postavila za

Rumuny a Bulhary; Dát Washingtonu jasně najevo

... bear less tension and were often not included in the dataset. The opposite can be said

of expressions such as

[Institution] reaffirm one's determination; "A Europe that protects"; the

European Council remains firmly committed to the process; the Union can

better engage with its strategic partners; [Institution] express[es its]

satisfaction; EU selhává a netlačí na Kanadu.

Nevertheless, these categories are constructed in a rather impressionistic way. The area

of dubious cases is vast. The actual relevance of the verbs such as recall, urge,

recognize, or exchange views is highly context-dependent and cannot be determined

universally and objectively.

53

7.3 Translation strategies

The problem of translation strategy is one of the most interesting ones from the point of

translation studies, because it shows how the expressions are changed in the process of

translation and how much different their SL and TL leverage is. Newmark’s typology

was applied in this part of the analysis. The frequency of all strategies used is summed

up in the table:

Translation strategies

Strategy

Subcorpus 1Reproducing

2Standard image

3Simile

4Simile plus sense

5Sense

6Deletion

7Metaphor plus sense

PRES (Van Rompuy, Ashton)

36 3 0 1 6 0 0

DOC (European Council)

51 3 0 0 15 0 0

EP (European Parliament)

115 25 6 2 32 1 0

Total 202 31 6 3 53 1 0

Table No. 5

The strategy of reproducing the metaphorical image in target language (No. 1) is by far

the most common one, followed by the strategy of converting metaphor into sense (No.

54

5). Replacing the image with a different image (common in TL, No. 2) has been also

used, particularly in EP, yet not so widely. With only one exception, solely these three

strategies are occurring in PRES and DOC subcorpora. In EP subcorpus, three other

ways of translation are found, however this cannot be regarded as an important

difference due to the significantly larger size of this part. Also, almost surprisingly,

there is almost no tendency whatsoever to delete metaphorical expressions. Let us see

some examples:

Typical strategies

Reproducing image in the TL (No. 1):

“we covered all the sides and angles of the debt crisis // bylo na dluhovou krizi v

eurozóně nahlíženo ze všech stran a úhlů” (PRES)

“[a referendum is] a significant step towards a more open and democratic

political system // jde o významný krok vpřed na cestě k otevřenějšímu a

demokratičtějšímu politickému systému” (DOC)

“Europe’s expertise and resources must be mobilized in a coherent manner //

Je nezbytné soudržným způsobem mobilizovat odborné znalosti a zdroje, které

má Evropa k dispozici” (DOC)

“cestu, kterou Rusko postupně kráčí od totality přes autoritativní systém směrem

k demokracii // the path Russia is gradually treading from totalitarianism via an

authoritarian system to democracy” (EP)

“persecution and harassment against those who dare challenge [Lukashenko's]

iron-fisted rule // svou kampaň za pronásledování těch, kteří si dovolí vyzvat

jeho vládu železné pěsti” (EP)

55

Converting image into sense (No. 5):

“Your country has turned the fundamentals of the State inside out // Vaše země

dokázala zásadně změnit základy státu” (PRES)

“A win-win situation // Taková situace bude výhodná pro všechny” (PRES)

“of the comprehensive package of measures // komplexního souboru opatření”

(DOC)

“It is time to get off the reactive and chaotic back foot and onto the proactive,

well-managed front foot // Nastal čas skoncovat s reakcí a chaosem a přiklonit

se k aktivnějšímu a dobře řízenému počínání” (EP)

“It is American pork-barrel politics – special pleading for sectoral interests –

brought into the European Parliament // Americký styl politiky využívající

veřejné prostředky k prosazování zájmů jednotlivých odvětví je přenesen do

Evropského parlamentu” (EP)

“alespoň si tady nelžeme do kapsy // but let us at least not lie to ourselves” (EP)

Replacing SL image with TL image (No. 2):

“the European Council paved the way for Croatia's accession to the EU // [Ve

vztahu k Chorvatsku] dnes Evropská rada připravila půdu pro to, aby

přistoupilo k EU” (PRES)

“[the European Council] mapped out the next steps // [Evropská rada] nastínila

v této otázce další postup” (DOC)

“přešlapování na místě musí skončit // we must stop dragging our feet” (EP)

56

“není možné donekonečna tahat Turecko za nos // it is not possible to pull the

wool over Turkey’s eyes” (EP)

“we should be bending over backwards to respect that principle // měli

[bychom] dát zpátečku a tuto zásadu respektovat” (EP)

Infrequent strategies and noteworthy cases

Translating metaphor (simile) by simile plus sense (No. 4)

“several countries have gone far beyond their traditional positions and red lines

// Několik zemí se při přijímání těchto smělých rozhodnutí značně odchýlilo od

svých obvyklých postojů a překročilo hranice [z důvodu...]” (PRES)

“[prezident Obama] Inovace tehdy nazval „Sputnikem naší generace“ // He

referred to innovation as ‘our generation’s Sputnik moment’” (EP)

“Nenechme si prosím uletět „Sputnik naší generace“ // We must not allow ‘our

generation’s Sputnik moment’ to slip away” (EP)

Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image (No. 3)

“Solidarity and responsibility has to be a two-way street. // Solidarita a

odpovědnost musí být obousměrné.” (EP)

“We are also fooling ourselves if we think that what is on the table here is

actually going to meet the needs of each and every migrant worker //

Klameme sami sebe, pokud se domníváme, že to, co zde před námi leží, skutečně

uspokojí potřeby každého jednotlivého migrujícího pracovníka” (EP)

“the Western Balkans, a region where EU membership prospects are the glue

that binds these fractious countries together // […] západním Balkáně,

57

v regionu, kde vyhlídka na členství v EU je oním tmelem, který všechny tyto

roztříštěné země spojuje.” (EP)

It is perhaps natural that the strategies No. 1, 2, and 5 are used predominantly. A

hypothesis can be formulated that the strategies No. 1 and 5, reproducing image and

converting it into its sense, may be the most implicit and least risky ones. Previous

research has also shown the tendency to “emulate” the form of expression found in SL.29

Choosing these strategies might even be connected to the tendency of being influenced

by the ST structures during translation process. Moreover, judging from Newmark’s

notes on particular ways of translation, strategies No. 1, 2, and 5 may be most suitable

for translating non-literary, factual texts: Since other strategies are believed to have

some influence on the value of the resulting expression (No. 3: modification of the

metaphorical “shock”; No. 4: loss of tension, No. 7: enforcing the metaphorical image),

the translators might avoid them (automatically or on official recommendation) in order

to lessen the risk of misinterpretation.

7.4 Concepts and intercultural communication

One of the most common conceptual metaphors found in the corpora (featured by

several dozens of expressions) was the metaphor EU / STATE / INSTITUTION IS A

PERSON which was often (but not always) conveyed by synecdoche / metonymy (See

chapter 7.2.3):

29 When analyzing the translations of journal articles from English to Spanish, Fernández et al. (2003: 77) even found that there was a tendency to isomorphism, i.e. translation tended to copy the original.

58

“The European Union remains deeply concerned [about the detention] //

Evropská unie je i nadále hluboce znepokojena [skutečností, že]”

Other concepts typical of PRES and DOC subcorpora

GOVERNANCE / LIFE IS CONSTRUCTION

“[help young people] to build a future in their own country // [pomoci mladým

lidem] s budováním jejich budoucnosti ve vlastní zemi”

GOVERNANCE / LIFE / NEGOTIATION IS A GAME / WAR

“we will not waver in the defence of our monetary union and our common

currency // v obraně naší měnové unie a naší společné měny nepolevíme”

GOVERNANCE / LIFE IS A PATH

“[Its implementation will] constitute a major step forward // [Její provedení

bude] významným krokem vpřed”

CRISIS IS A DISEASE / FIRE

“To prevent healthy euro area economies from being cut off from funding //

Abychom předešli situaci, kdy by byl v důsledku rozmarů trhů zdravým

ekonomikám eurozóny znemožněn přístup k financování”

ADMISSION IS A PATH, MEMBERSHIP IS A DESTINATION

“probíhá proces demokratizace v Turecku a přiblížení se EU // democratisation

process in Turkey and the process of drawing closer to the EU”

EU IS A FAMILY

“[congratulate on this achievement,] allowing Croatia to fully join the

European family// [blahopřál k tomuto úspěchu;] Chorvatsko se stává

plnohodnotným členem evropské rodiny”

59

In EP, in addition to the concepts above, several other, less frequent cases appeared,

including:

MONEY / PEOPLE ARE LIQUID

“transparentnost finančních toků, které proudí do politických hnutí //

transparency in relation to the financial sums flowing into political movements”

Metaphor of CONTAINER

“uzavřená pevnost Evropa neprospěje nikomu // a closed fortress Europe would

benefit no one”

CITIZENS ARE BELOW, INSTITUTIONS ARE ABOVE

“[rozhodnutí se mi jeví jako] umělý krok, který nevychází zdola // [the decision

looks like] a measure artificially imposed not from below”

EU IS A TERRITORY BROKEN APART

“The San Andreas Fault for the European Union is between the seven Member

States who are large net contributors, and the rest. // Zlom San Andreas pro

Evropskou unii probíhá mezi sedmi členskými státy, které jsou velkými čistými

plátci, a těmi ostatními”

Differences in concepts across subcorpora do exist because there was a wider range of

concepts found in EP texts. Then again, the difference was not fundamental and can be

most probably again accounted for the multidimensionality of EP discourse.

No particular structures of transitivity were discovered apart from several cases

dealing with the phenomenon of spatial reasoning (what is coming from citizens comes

from below; nations who are not members of EU are outside; there is a physical

60

distance between rich countries and beneficiaries of the financial support, between

citizens and Europe etc.)

Overall, EP metaphors serve as better examples of intertextuality which is again

given by the differences in purpose and style. Consider for example the following

statement which appeared in the speech about crisis in Iceland and which refers to the

phenomenon of Nordic sagas:

“The referendum at the end of this week will hopefully bring an end to the saga

[regarding Iceland] // Referendum, které proběhne koncem tohoto týdne, tuto

ságu doufejme ukončí”

Utterances of this kind are naturally likely to appear in public, lively, and – to some

extent – topical discussion such as during the debate in the Parliament.

7.4.1 Concepts changed by translation

As visible in the previous subchapters, one could say that the typical metaphor used

within European political institutions is a lexicalised, stock metaphor translated by close

reproduction of the image in the target language without the change in concept. Most

metaphors are indeed so. On top of that, most metaphors analyzed were found to be

culturally universal, working with concepts directly transferable between the two

cultures involved (as demonstrated e. g. by the predominance of the strategy of

reproducing the image). On the other hand, there was a very small amount of cases

which deserve more attention.

Comparing conceptual frames may tell us about the difference of metaphorical

expression for the source and target culture, ergo about tackling cultural differences. Let

61

us see at the cases where the conceptual metaphor has been changed during translation

(i.e. obviously in those cases where the strategy was different from simple reproducing):

Cases where the conceptual metaphor was loosened:

“[To obtain for Parliament an equal role to Council in] determining the

scoreboard for detecting possible macroeconomic imbalances. // [zajistit

Parlamentu] při vypracovávání přehledu za účelem odhalení možných

makroekonomických nerovnováh [stejnou úlohu, jakou má v této souvislosti

Rada]” (EN: GOVERNANCE IS A GAME – CS: none)

“The European Council welcomed progress made in Ireland in the

implementation of its reform programme, which is well on track // Evropská

rada uvítala pokrok Irska při provádění reformního programu, které probíhá

uspokojivým tempem.” (EN: GOVERNANCE IS A PATH – CS: none)

Cases where the conceptual frame has been directly changed into a different one,

either slightly:

“suma […] zmizí v propadlišti korupce // [aid] disappears into the jaws of

corruption” (CS: CORRUPTION IS DOWN, CORRUPTION IS A TRAP – EN:

CORRUPTION IS A MONSTER)

…or profoundly (the only case of this very kind was found):

“the European Council paved the way for Croatia's accession to the EU // [Ve

vztahu k Chorvatsku] dnes Evropská rada připravila půdu pro to, aby

přistoupilo k EU” (EN: ADMISSION IS A PATH – CS: ADMISSION IS PLANTING)

62

Nonetheless, it is necessary to point out that those cases were truly sporadic; one cannot

possibly speak about fundamental shifts in conceptual metaphors or even distortion of

meaning with regard to intercultural communication. The most typical cases of shift of

meaning were not those which would involve the change in conceptual frames; it was

rather a question of style, emphasis, and emotional temperature, as in following

examples. In these cases, we can see a distinctive loss of not only the metaphor tension

but also a certain shift in the semantic meaning of the phrases. That is because the SL

metaphors are truly language- and culture specific, and their transfer to another

language is very difficult:

“Je to pět minut po dvanácté // It is high time to act”

“otázka na Komisi […] je, jak se říká, mimo mísu // question to the Commission

[…] is, so to speak, off message”

“námitky jsou liché // the objections are unfolded”30

“knee jerk reactions from this Parliament are unlikely to solve any problems //

Spontánní reakce Parlamentu jen stěží vyřeší jakýkoli problem”

Let us take a look at the first two examples for instance. The first translation shows a

shift in meaning: The proper literal sense of the phrase would perhaps be “It is almost

too late to act”. The second translation is very similar as the previous one. The term “off

message” refers to messages which are unofficial, spoken not on behalf of the

institution. The proper sense could be “this is not the right actor to ask such a message”.

30 On a side note: Mistranslated.

63

Nonetheless, such examples of mistranslation were too truly exceptional and one

could argue that the shifts in meaning are, due to the context, not strong enough to

preclude proper understanding.

Perhaps one of the most interesting translation problems encountered in the

course of the analysis was the case of double meaning needed to deal with in the

following statement. It was also probably the only metaphor found which was

impossible to be transferred without the (at least partial) loss of its SL tension and

creatively crafted point:

“The French now want to join the Italians and say ‘arrivederci Roma’ //

Francouzi se chtějí připojit k Italům a zvolat „sbohem, Romové“

The expression plays with two meanings of the word “Roma” – that of the name of the

ethnic group and that of the name for the capital city of Italy. Owing to the inescapable

fact that there are two distinctive names for the two objects in Czech, “Romové” and

“Řím”, there was no easy way to convey the point. On the other way, no factual mistake

has been made, the only loss made was of metaphorical punning, not metaphor as such.

8. Discussion. Avenues for future research

The translation-studies-driven and discourse-analysis-driven research of political texts

and speeches is the kind of research which deserves more attention than it currently has.

The crucial importance of clarity of communication in politics for the lives of nations

64

and the far-reaching consequences of translating international key documents in

increasingly globalised and interconnected world are indisputable.

This thesis used more-or-less established methodological tools (the Newmark’s

typologies) along with relatively novel approaches (e. g. Schäffner’s taking conceptual

analysis into consideration) to analyse current European communication. Its aim was to

find out how tropes are translated within one particular institution. It has thus only

slightly touched upon the question of metaphors used in political discourse because its

framework was imperatively limited.

In future research, it would certainly be interesting to explore more layers of the

phenomenon – either with regard to the vast topic of metaphorical concepts in general

or with regard to practical issues involved in translating. As for the first case, possibly

fruitful research topics of the future include tracing the sources of deeper conceptual

metaphors used in politics, their replication on various levels, treating European

neologisms and newly introduced technical terms, and comparing different institutional

settings where metaphors are used. The tools of semantics, pragmatics, and critical

discourse analysis might come in handy in this respect, and so might a diachronic

analysis of documents from long periods of time with regard to comparison of treatment

of metaphors. As for practical issues, potentially interesting could be a comparison of

working routines and inner procedures (in EU and elsewhere) and their impact on the

product, and ever-more important analysis on the impact of translation memories and

term banks on transferring meaning of creative communication. As the thesis pointed

out, a research on which strategies are preferred in EU with respect to risk involved and

whether there are any official directives regarding this issue may be very interesting.

65

Open possibilities remain in the domain of the micro-level analysis as well.

Here, applying target-text perspective, cognitive perspective, and any kind of rigorous

analysis of grammatical structures and lexical components of metaphorical expressions

(cf. the Componential analysis; Al-Zoubi 2009) may be of use.

9. Conclusion

The thesis analysed a way of treatment of metaphors within top political institutions of

the European Union. Its general aim was to shed light on the way of translating

speeches and documents in EU with regard to the possible distortion of meaning and

cultural messages in everyday communication.

In general, the analysis has shown that translating tropes in EU might be

described as largely functional, “austere” (uncomplicated, unsophisticated), and trouble-

free. Although several cases of shift of meaning did occur, it can be safely concluded

that – in view of the number of expressions occurring – these were really sporadic. In

almost all cases, the meaning was conveyed realistically and the cultural shift was not

fundamental, i.e. it did not induce incomprehensibility of the message. Of course, this

might have been so because most metaphors were not challenging in terms of

transferring culturally-specific messages. The results might be different if the analysis

focused on these metaphors and picked them up specifically from the texts.

As for the features of metaphors used within EU, these indeed constitute a

noticeable part of texts produced by the executive bodies as well as (some) Members of

66

the European Parliament. Most metaphors found fell under categories of lexicalised (i.e.

older), metaphors. That means that most tropes used in EU are not specific but rather

borrowed from general language. The most common subcategory was stock (i.e.

commonly used) metaphors. Unlexicalised, i.e. original and adapted, metaphors do

occur but more-or-less only in EP and to considerably lesser degree than lexicalised

ones.

As for translation strategies, most metaphors were transferred using the

technique of reproduction the same image in the target language. Other commonly used

strategies are that of converting metaphors into their sense and that of replacing

metaphor with an image which is standard in the target language. Other strategies (as a

rule, involving use of similes and their combination with the sense of metaphor) are

used much less. A hypothesis can be formulated that those strategies which are more

implicit and less risky are preferred. As a rule, deleting metaphors was not pursued.

As for the issue of conceptual metaphors, several typical concepts occurred

repeatedly and can be described as typical – for example EUROPE IS A PERSON of CRISIS

IS A DISEASE. The differences in subcorpora in terms of concepts used could be

attributed to the differences in the extent and nature of the material analyzed; no

difference was fundamental. Contrary to the expectations about the European political

environment and intercultural factors involved, the changes in concepts during

translation were almost non-existent.

The types of text analysed did prove to be quite different. On the one hand, there

are texts published by the executive institutions which use predominantly lexicalised

metaphors and are rather uniform in style. On the other hand, there were the texts from

the European Parliament where much wider variety of metaphor types was found, more

67

unlexicalised metaphors have been employed and more conceptual metaphors have been

used. Special features in EP subcorpus are likely to result directly from the collective

nature of the institution and the incomparably higher number of situations and strategies

which can be pursued here. Whereas the Council of the European Union produces just

one kind of press releases along with occasional publication of an important speech, the

situation in the Parliament is interdiscursive – a matrix of different text and discourse

types can be found here. Some of the texts from the Parliament not only contained no

metaphors whatsoever but also could not be categorised as political discourse at all.

Each language is a living, multidimensional space featuring inconceivably many

conceptual relations with various levels of abstraction. A significant part of each

language consists of metaphors in different degrees of “sedimentation”. Other

metaphors can bear metaphorical tension or shock which can be used creatively.

Political discourse is known for being able to use such features of metaphors, either

directly or indirectly, both subconsciously and in a straightforward way. This thesis

tried to find out more about these processes as made in the unique settings of the

European Union, the largest political conglomerate ever made.

68

10. Sources and works cited

Al-Zoubi, M. (2009): The validity of componential analysis in translating metaphors,

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 151-160. Available online

from InformaWorld [www.informaworld.com], accessed on 1 June 2011

Barfield, O. (1928): Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning, London: Faber and Gwyer

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986): Shifts in Cohesion and Coherence in Translation, in: House, J.

et al. (Eds.): Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and

Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, Tübingen, pp.

17-35

Candel, B. (2005): Political Islam and Translation: Metaphors and Frames in Media

Reporting and Islamist Rhetoric, Diploma thesis, University of Surrey

Chaban, N. et al. (2007): Under Construction: Images of the Enlarging EU in the

Australasian News Media, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across

Disciplines Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 79-95

Charteris-Black, J. (2004): Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis, New

York: Palgrave MacMillan

Dagut, M. (1976): Can ‘metaphor’ be translated? Babel Vol. 22, pp. 21-33

DG Translation (2011): Translation and the European Union, official website,

[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/translating/index_en.htm], accessed on 3

November 2011

69

Dickins, J. (2005): Two Models for Metaphor Translation, available online

[http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1343/1/niTrOfMetArtTARGETtextFINAL.pdf], accessed

on 1 June 2011

Fernández, E. S. et al. (2003): Translations we live by: the impact of metaphor

translation on target systems, 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference

Foucalt, M. (1969): L’Archéologie du Savoir, Paris: Gallimard

Gozzi, R. (1999): The Power of Metaphor in the Age of Electronic Media, Cresskill:

Hampton Press

Hellín García, M. J. (2010): Diagnosing Terrorism in Spain: Medical Metaphors in

Presidential Discourse, Southwest Journal of Linguistics Vol. 29, No. 1

Hülsse, R. (2006): Imagine the EU: the metaphorical construction of a supra-

nationalist identity, Journal of International Relations and Development Vol. 2006,

No. 9, pp. 396-421

Kloepfer, R. (1981): Intra- and Intercultural Translation, Poetics Today Vol. 2, No. 4,

pp.29-37

Lande, I. (2010): The Role of Critical Discourse Analysis in the Translation of Political

Texts, Master’s thesis, Århus University

Lakoff, G. (1993): Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in: Ortony, A. (Ed.): Metaphor

and Thought (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lakoff, G. (2004): Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the

Debate, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing

Lakoff, G. – Johnson, M. (2002): Metafory, kterými žijeme, Praha: Host

Newmark, P. (1981): Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Nida, E. (1964): Towards a Science of Translating, Boston: Brill

70

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. et al. (1998): Metaphor and Translation: a case study in the field

of economics, pp. 79-95, in: Fernández Nistal, P. – Bravo Gozalo, J. M. (Eds.): La

Traducción: orientaciones lingüísticas y culturales, Valladolid: Universidad de

Valladoolid

Knútsson, P. (2008): Metaphor, lecture material, University of Iceland, available online

[http://notendur.hi.is/peturk/KENNSLA/METAPHOR%20TOLLI/metaphor.ppt],

accessed on 5 November 2011

Kövecses, Z. (2005): Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (1990): Discourse Analysis and the Problem of Translation

Equivalence, Meta: journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal Vol. 35, No.

2, pp. 389-397. Available online from Érudit [www.erudit.org], accessed on 25 May

2011

Mason, K. (1982): Metaphor and Translation, Babel Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 140-149

Määttä, S. K. (2007): The Foundations of Europe: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the

EU Constitution, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines Vol.

1, No. 1, pp. 166-178

McCombs, M. (2009): Agenda Setting. Nastolování agendy: Masová média a veřejné

myšlení, Praha: Portál

McElhanon, K. A. (2006): From Simple Metaphors to Conceptual Blending: The

Mapping of Analogical Concepts and the Praxis of Translation, Journal of

Translation Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 31-81

Müller, R. (2005): Creative Metaphors in Political Discourse. Theoretical

considerations on the basis of Swiss Speeches, Metaphorik.de Vol. 2005, No. 9

71

Newmark, P. (1981; 1988): Approaches to Translation, London: Prentice Hall

International

Orwell, G. (1968): Politics and the English Language, in: Orwell, S. – Angus, I. (Eds.):

George Orwell: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell. In

Front of Your Nose: 1945-1950, Vol. 4, London, pp. 127-140

Prandi, M. (2010): Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation, Mutatis

Mutandis Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 304-322

Rabadán, R. –Álvarez, R. (1991): Equivalencia y traducción. Problemática de la

equivalencia translémica inglés-español, León: Universidad de León

Rubel, P. – Rosman, A. (2004): Introduction: Translation and Anthropology, in: Rubel,

P. - Rosman, A. (Eds.): Translating Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and

Anthropology, Oxford: Berg.

Sharifian, F. (2007): Politics and/of Translation: Case Studies between Persian and

English, Journal of Intercultural Studies Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 413-424. Available

online from InformaWorld [www.informaworld.com]

Shore, C. (2005): All in the Translation: Interpreting EU Constitution, SITES: New

Series Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 10-32

Schäffner, Ch. (1997): Strategies of translating political texts, in: Anna (Ed.): Text

Typology and Translation, Trosborg

Schäffner, Ch. (2004): Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive

approach, Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 36 (2004), pp. 1253-1269. Available online

from Elsevier [http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma]

72

Slingerland, E. – Blanchard, E. M. – Boyd-Judson, L. (2007): Collision with China:

Conceptual Metaphor Analysis, Somatic Marking, and the EP-3 Incident,

International Studies Quarterly, No. 51, pp. 53-77

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988): Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam:

John Benjamin’s Publishing Company

Spinolo, N. – Garwood, Ch. J. (2010): To kill or not to kill: Metaphors in simultaneous

interpreting, FORUM, International journal of interpretation and translation Vol.

VIII, No. 1, pp. 181-211

Stålhammar (2006): Grammatical Metaphor/Metonymy in the Treaty Establishing A

Constitution for Europe: A Comparison between the English and Swedish Versions,

Nordic Journal of English Studies; Vol 5, No 1, pp. 99-117

Steen, G. J. et al. (2010): Metaphor in usage, Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.

765-796

Stienstra, N. (1993): YHWH is the Husband of His People. Analysis of a Biblical

Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation, Kampen: Kok Pharos

Toury, G. (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam: John

Benjamins

van den Broeck, R. (1981): The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor

translation. Poetics Today Vol. 2, pp. 73-87

Xiaoqian, D. (2005): Intercultural Factors Influencing the Process of Translation, k@ta

Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 85-93

If not stated otherwise, the electronic sources were checked on 25 May 2011.

73

List of schemata and tables

Figure No. 1: The principle of metaphor (p. 14)

Table No. 1: Newmark’s typology of metaphors (p. 20)

Table No. 2: Newmark’s typology of metaphors explained (p. 21)

Table No. 3: Information on corpus (p. 41)

Table No. 4: Metaphor types in the corpus (p. 45)

Table No. 5: Translation strategies (p. 54)

74

Abstract

The thesis deals with the topic of translation of metaphors within political discourse.

Most important aspects and problems of metaphor translation as presented by the

discipline of translation studies are listed, namely, the problem of translatability, the

difference of classical and conceptual approach to metaphor, and the typologies of

metaphor types and metaphor translation strategies as compiled by Newmark.

Subsequently, metaphor is presented as a relevant tool to use within strategies typical of

political discourse: The thesis argues that metaphor can be used as a tool of persuasion

or as a shorthand term for complicated concepts. In the practical part of the thesis, a

parallel corpus is analysed consisting of English and Czech texts coming from EU

(namely press releases from the Council, speeches of its highest representatives, and

speeches from the floor of the European Parliament). Those metaphors which bear

conceptual or contextual tension are recorded and their types and strategies of

translation are examined. The results of the analysis are that metaphors are indeed

common in the texts analysed. Political actors in EU use predominantly older, non-

original metaphors, although novel metaphors are not uncommon in the parliamentary

speeches. Moreover, translation of tropes in EU is largely functional, trouble-free, and

also non-problematic in terms of intercultural communication, as shifts in meaning or

concepts used are truly sporadic.

Keywords: Translation, Metaphor, Political discourse, EU, English, Czech

75

Resumé

Diplomová práce se zabývá tématem překladu metafor v rámci politického diskursu.

Zmiňuje nejdůležitější vědecky diskutované aspekty překladu metafor, a sice otázku

jejich přeložitelnosti, rozdíl klasického a konceptuálního přístupu k metaforám a

typologie druhů metafor a strategií jejich překladu P. Newmarka. Metafora je následně

představena coby důležitý nástroj použitelný v rámci strategií typických pro politický

diskurs. Práce obhajuje tezi, že metafora může být uplatněna jako přesvědčovací nástroj

či jako zástupný termín pro složité koncepty. V praktické části práce je analyzován

paralelní korpus, který sestává z anglických a českých textů pocházejících z EU,

konkrétně z tiskových zpráv Evropské rady, projevů jejích nejvyšších představitelů a

projevů z Evropského parlamentu. Metafory, které obsahují konceptuální nebo

kontextuální napětí, jsou zaznamenány a následně jsou zkoumány jejich typy a strategie

použité při jejich překladu. Výsledkem analýzy je, že metafory se skutečně

v analyzovaných textech běžně nachází. Dále, že političtí aktéři v EU používají

především starší, neoriginální metafory, ačkoli nové metafory jsou běžné v textech

pocházejících z EP. Dále můžeme říci, že překlad tropů v EU je z velké části praktický,

bezproblémový, a rovněž nepředstavuje problém z hlediska mezikulturní komunikace,

neboť překroucení významu nebo změny použitých konceptů jsou pouze ojedinělé.

Klíčová slova: Překlad, Metafora, Politický diskurs, EU, Angličtina, Čeština

76