translation studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor

Review of Cognitive Linguistics 91 (2011) 262ndash279 DOI 101075ml9112samISSN 1877ndash9751 E-ISSN 1572ndash0276 copy John Benjamins Publishing Company

Translation Studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor

Eva Samaniego FernaacutendezUNED

Although metaphor has always been a main concern in TS little has been done to apply a far-raging cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy to transla-tion As a rule the few authors that have tried to deal with it are eclectic in their cognitive approach and show a prescriptive bias as concerns translation theory However thanks to the influence of disciplines like Cognitive Linguistics among others Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) can undertake a more realistic study of metaphor translation which reflects the true nature of metaphor and the underlying regularities of its interlinguistic transfer including cases excluded a priori by traditional studies for being lsquounfaithfulrsquo lsquoanomalousrsquo or lsquoincorrectrsquo renderings

Keywords cognitive theory of metaphor Translation Studies metaphor translation

1 Is metaphor translatable

In spite of metaphorrsquos ldquoastounding popularityrdquo in Translation Studies (Dobrzyn-ska 1995 p 595) it is ldquolargely unmapped by translation theoryrdquo (Kurth 1999 see Kurth 1995) essentially due to the fact that it presents a particularly searching test of the translatorrsquos ability (Dagut 1987 p 77) which would explain why ldquometaphor and translation enjoy an uneasy relationshiprdquo (Gentzler 2000 p 941) For transla-tors metaphors are an area of ldquogreat unpredictabilityrdquo (Menacere 1992 p 568) Newmark (1988b p 113) believes that metaphor is the epitome of all translation and for Toury (1995 p 81) it is ldquoa kind of ultimate test of any theory of translationrdquo Tabakowska (1993 p 67) agrees since metaphor often presents ldquounsurmountable problems for translationrdquo

In Translation Studies (henceforth TS) two of the main issues concerning metaphor are (i) the translatability of metaphor and (ii) metaphor translation

Translation Studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor 263

procedures Back in 1981 Van den Broeck had already established these two is-sues ldquo[TS] may content itself with (hellip) laying bare some of the hidden mecha-nisms governing the translation of metaphor and their theoretic degree of translat-abilityrdquo (76)

As early as 1976 Dagut (p 32) had remarked on the inadequacy of ldquoa single generalization about the translatability of metaphorrdquo pointing out that such a gen-eralization would fail to do justice to the great complexity of the factors determin-ing the ontology of metaphor Mason (1982 p 140) had also noticed the futility of a prescriptive approach to metaphor translation trying to establish a theory of the translation of metaphor is not ldquoa happy project in which to engagerdquo Each case remarked the author must be treated on its own merits and thus ldquothere cannot be a theory of the translation of metaphor there can only be a theory of translationrdquo (Mason 1982 p 149) Touryrsquos remark (1985) on this issue is also well-known we cannot generalize about the translation of metaphor without being specula-tive For Van den Broeck however to admit the inadequacy of generalizations about the translatability of metaphor would be to admit that translation theory as a whole is an absurd undertaking ldquosince it then should be incapable of account-ing for the translation of one of the most frequent phenomena in language use (hellip)rdquo The proper task of translation theory would not be to specify how metaphor should be translated but to describe and account for actual renderings of meta-phors (cf Samaniego Fernaacutendez forthcoming) For Van Den Broeck it is possible to make generalizations on metaphor translation since otherwise the applicability of translation theory would be invalidated (1981 p 84)

(hellip) translatability keeps an inverse proportion with the quantity of information manifested by the metaphor and the degree to which this information is struc-tured in a text The less the quantity of information conveyed by a metaphor and the less complex the structural relations into which it enters in a text the more translatable this metaphor will be and vice versa

According to Dagut (1976 p 25) there are two diametrically opposed views on the problem of translating metaphor at one extreme it is held that there is no solution (ie metaphor is untranslatable) and at the other that there is no problem (ie metaphor can be quite lsquosimplyrsquo translated word by word) Van Besien and Pels-maekers (1988 p 144) discriminate between the lsquotraditionalrsquo approach that tends to produce normative statements about how metaphors ought to be translated (cf Aacutelvarez 1993) and a lsquonewerrsquo approach that sets up models for the description of actual metaphor translation

However when the different views on metaphor in TS are contrasted three basic positions can actually be observed (1) metaphors are untranslatable (Nida 1964 Vinay and Darbelnet 1958 Dagut 1976 1987) (2) metaphors are fully

264 Eva Samaniego Fernaacutendez

translatable just like any other translation issue (Kloepfer 1981 Mason 1982 Kurth 1995) and (3) metaphors are translatable but pose a considerable degree of inequivalence (Van Den Broeck 1981 Rabadaacuten Aacutelvarez 1991 Toury 1985 and 1995 Newmark 1980 1988ab Snell-Hornby 1988 Riedemann amp Dieacuteguez 1999 Schaumlffner 1997 1998 2004 Ali 2006) The range of renderings would depend on a wide range of factors (cf Munday 2001 p 51 see Tabakowska 1993 74ndash77)

Many efforts have been devoted in TS to the analysis of the variables that may have a bearing on the degree of translatability of metaphors (see Samaniego Fernaacutendez 1995 1996 2000 for a full account) Among those most often quoted we find cultural references communicative purpose functional relevance in-formation burden metaphor typology cotext and context restrictions degree of compatibility of the conceptual and formal structures of the languages involved synchronic translation norms foregrounding degree of lexicalization of the meta-phor translatorrsquos competence connotations etc However there are many other variables which certainly have a say in the translation process but whose nature is much more elusive such as the reference material used by translators the time pressure the amendments introduced in post-translation revisions the transla-torrsquos mood (Newmark 1993) or affections (Jaumlaumlskelaumlinen 1999) client-imposed terms etc Most of these factors have not as yet been accounted for in academic studies although a lot of effort has been devoted to the study of issues just as ardu-ous to measure -such as translatorsrsquo decisions- by means of think-aloud protocols (TAPs) and similar procedures

A few researchers have posited generalizations about what Dagut called lsquogra-dient of translatabilityrsquo (1987) most of these proposals refer to the degree of lexi-calization of the metaphor as a classifying feature Source Text (henceforth ST) metaphors would thus occupy a position on a gradient of translatability ranging from nearly untranslatable (novel non-lexicalized metaphors) to literally trans-latable (dead lexicalized metaphors) For Dagut (1976 p 32 1987 pp 81ndash82) the translatability of any given source language metaphor depends both on the particular cultural experiences and the semantic associations exploited as well and the ldquostructural distancerdquo between the two languages involved Van Besien and Pelsmaeckers term these broad principles of translatability lsquospeculativersquo while Snell-Hornby (1988 p 59) is convinced that translation scholars should research on metaphor singularity and deal with the specific contextual features involved in the process of transfer The pivotal issue for Van den Broeck is whether or not met-aphors are ldquofunctionally relevantrdquo (1981 p 76) that is whether they are relevant to the communicative function of the text This is also emphasized by Rabadaacuten (1991) who refers to the role played by foregrounding in metaphor translation

As mentioned above metaphors in TS are usually divided into different types according to the degree of lexicalization or the novelty that they show For Dagut


(1976 p 23) there are ephemeral metaphors metaphors that remain as they began and metaphors that become established as part of the stock of language Van den Broeck (1981) sets up three categories lexicalized conventional (or traditional) and private Dickins (2005) simplifies them to two types lexicalized and non-lex-icalized Newmark (1981) classifies them into dead (or lexicalized) metaphors (no longer recognisable as metaphors Snell-Hornby 1988 p 57) clicheacute metaphors stock (or standard) metaphors1 (traditional) and recent (or original) metaphors In 1988 he added adapted metaphors Snell-Hornby (1988) brings this classifica-tion down to two types original metaphor and dead metaphor Between them there would be a ldquobroad and disputedrdquo territory (1988 p 57) Dobrzynska (1995 p 596) also contents herself with two dead and live metaphors Rabadaacuten (1991) prefers three categories novel traditional and lexicalized However the border-lines between all these different categories are extremely confusing and blurry

Newmarkrsquos list of metaphor translation procedures (1988a pp 88ndash91) based on the various types of metaphors that he established is often quoted and has been used profusely in spite of its fuzziness reproducing the same image replac-ing the SL image with a standard TL image translation by simile translation by simile plus sense conversion to sense deletion and translation by same metaphor combined with sense This is a prescriptive list which offers very little since none of the proposed procedures is motivated or reasoned There seems to be no jus-tification for its popularity it does not consider actual translation occurrences and does not contemplate possibilities such as lsquonon-metaphorical expressions into metaphorsrsquo or lsquocreation of linguistic material from ltOslashgtrsquo (ldquozero into metaphorrdquo Toury 1985 p 25) that is the creation of a metaphor that does not exist in the ST by translators It only shows how the author would like metaphors to be translated and unfortunately is very far from showing how metaphors are really translated

Toury (1995) criticizes any theory on the translation of metaphor which is not based on descriptive studies For him the traditional procedures would be meta-phor into same metaphor metaphor into different metaphor and metaphor into non-metaphor However there are at least three ldquorather commonrdquo possibilities which are usually neglected metaphor into nothing non-metaphor into metaphor and nothing into metaphor For Dickins (2005) ldquoST metaphors are not necessarily translated into target text (henceforth TT) metaphors (hellip) and ST non-metaphors may be translated into TT metaphors or pseudo-metaphorsrdquo He does not howev-er get to the point of acknowledging that lsquonothingrsquo in the ST may become a meta-phor in the TT Hiraga (1991) although not referring specifically to translation but rather to comparative cultures lists four possibilities (a) similar metaphorical concepts and similar metaphorical expressions (b) similar metaphorical concepts but different metaphorical expressions (c) different metaphorical concepts but similar metaphorical expressions and (d) different metaphorical concepts and dif-


ferent metaphorical expressions Zabalbeascoa (2001 p 860) suggests two types of translation procedures (1) metaphor into metaphor with different sub-types and (2) metaphor into no metaphor which includes several possibilities However he excludes all metaphors in the TT that do not have a source text metaphor arguing that ldquothe absence of a metaphor in the ST cannot be considered a translation prob-lemrdquo (861 my translation) Van den Broeck (1981 p 77) who deals with literary metaphors exclusively lists three procedures translation lsquosensu strictorsquo substitu-tion (of the vehicle) and paraphrase Dobrzynska (1995 p 595) also refers to three categories metaphor into exact equivalent (MrarrM) metaphor into metaphorical expression with a similar sense (M1rarrM2) and untranslatable metaphor into ap-proximate literal paraphrase (MrarrP) Kurth (1995 p 19) studies the translation of a literary work in the language pair English-German and ends up with nine trans-lation procedures ldquodeletion demetaphorisation partial deletion downtoning adherence enhancement shifted image new metaphorisation and elaborationrdquo

The translation procedures that are traditionally suggested in TS for dealing with metaphors (1) are a collection of prescriptive lists of translation procedures based on theoretical hypotheses as well as the authorsrsquo prescriptive ideas of how metaphors should be translated (2) are far from describing the true variety of actual occurrences and (3) are not valid translation procedures inasmuch as they are not based on any real data but rather on ad hoc examples More often than not as Toury remarks (1995) these generalizations masked as inherently binding ldquodownright theoretical formulationsrdquo (261) are filtered through a preconceived concept of what would constitute a lsquobetterrsquo or lsquoworsersquo translational strategy or solu-tion In translation each specific situation determines what and how people com-municate situations are not universal but embedded in a cultural habitat which in turn conditions the situation (Nord 2001 p 151) Thus every translation process is guided among other factors by the communicative purposes the target text is supposed to achieve in the target culture the translator analyses the situation be-fore deciding what to say (information selection) and how to say it (information arrangement) An account of metaphor translation needs to keep this in mind

We are not going to deal in detail with the prescriptive rules on how to trans-late the different types of metaphors these references can be easily found (see Samaniego Fernaacutendez 1995 1996 2000) and do not contribute much to a cogni-tive-descriptive theory of metaphor translation Suffice it to say that there is little agreement as to which metaphor would be more readily translatable or would lend itself to a more lsquoadequatersquo translation although in general it is stated that dead metaphors are more readily translatable between related languages


2 A cognitive approach to metaphor translation

Unfortunately cognitive approaches to metaphor translation are relatively recent in time and few in number (Crofts 1988 Stienstra 1993 Buchowski 1996 Kurth 1999 Mandelblit 1995 Barcelona 1997 Arduini 1998 amp 2002 Cristofoli et al 1998 Saad 2001 Saygin 2001 Tirkkonen-Condit 2001 Schaumlffner 2004 Dick-ins 2005 Al-Hasnawi 2007 Al-Zoubi et al 2007 Maalej 2008 and few more) Conceptual metaphor theory emphasizes the embodied nature of meaning and focuses on conceptual structures which are likely to be universal and the cognitive processes involved in translation (McElhanon 2006 cf Danks et al 1997 Rojo 2001 Muntildeoz Martiacuten 1995 2007) The main argument of a cognitive approach then is that metaphors are a means of understanding one domain of experience (target) in terms of another (source) by means of a mapping from the source onto the target allowing for knowledge-based inferences base schema and epistemic correspondences (Schaumlffner 2004) Metaphor is a conceptual category therefore metaphor is not a matter of language but of thought and it is one of the basic prin-ciples of human cognition (Dobrovolrsquoskij and Piirainen 2005 p 122 cf Shreve 1997 Steen 2004) as well as a fundamental part of everyday language not just a figure of speech designed to lsquoembellishrsquo discourse or typical of literature In this view metaphors ldquoare not just decorative elements but rather basic resources for thought processes in human mindsrdquo (Schaumlffner 2004) A set of conceptual meta-phors structures our daily experience emotions abstract concepts embodied ex-perience etc We truly live by metaphors

As we have already seen in the section above most approaches to metaphor translation still try to set prescriptive translation rules that is they search for a way to transfer metaphors lsquoproperlyrsquo (= with no lsquolossrsquo implied) Al-Hasnawi (2007 p 14) for example states that translatorsrsquo task is ldquoto produce a TL text that bears a close resemblance to the SL textrdquo He further assumes that the more two cultures conceptualize experience in a similar way the more the strategy lsquosimilar map-ping conditionsrsquo applies and the easier the task of translation will be The same can be said about the studies carried out by Barcelona (1997) Tirkonnen-Condit (2001) Saygin (2001) Schaumlffner (2004) etc all of them are outstanding pieces of research from a cognitive point of view but still adhere to a source-oriented ap-proach which detects ST metaphors (cognitive and linguistic) and judges their TT equivalent in search of similarities between the original and its translation Most of them try to establish pre-determined equivalences andor rules about the best way to find mappings and correspondences between the SL and the TL and to set down rules for the translation of metaphor based on the degree of the TT meta-phorrsquos correspondence to the ST metaphor


From a cognitive perspective two factors that turn metaphor into a translation issue are that (i) SL metaphors may be approached from the TL cognitive domain and thus interpreted through the filter of the TL (ii) SL metaphors may trigger associations in the translator that differ from the ones activated in the ST address-ee and member of the source polysystem (Kurth 1999) In Lakoff and Johnsonrsquos words (1980 p 142) ldquothe meaning a metaphor will have for me will be partly culturally determined and partly tied to my past experiencesrdquo In translation two languages are involved each with its different value system and cultural load (Do-brzynska 1995 p 596) Language boundaries are at the same time boundaries of distinct cultural communities and metaphor interpretation is strongly culturally conditioned (Snell-Hornby 1988 p 62 see also Schaumlffner 2004)

As an abstract concept metaphor might be universal (hellip) in its concrete realiza-tion however being closely linked with sensuous perception and culture-bound value judgement it is undoubtedly complicated by language-specific idiosyncra-cies

Cultural models are also employed in cognitive processes such as reasoning (Koumlvecses 1999 p 167) so culture permeates translation Comparing cultures re-quires a lot of knowledge by the translator on the areas of conceptual and linguistic overlap andor dissimilarity between cultures but what is truly at stake is whether or not she decides to apply them and how if at all That is precisely what most approaches to a cognitive theory of metaphor translation ignore the translator de-cides what is transferred and how it is transferred on the basis of some factors that may be said to be general (relatively common to some genres text types metaphor types etc) and some factors which may be said to be individual or ad hoc (trans-lator choices etc) Some of them may be cultural and some of them may have a different nature According to Alexieva (1993 p 108) with a cognitive approach ldquoit becomes possible to capture at least part of the source and target text receiv-ersrsquo knowledge and experience (hellip) and to introduce it ndashalbeit indirectly- into the semantic structurerdquo As Toury argued in 1985 and 1995 (p 57) even the most adequacy-oriented translation involves shifts from the source text Even when no clear macro-level tendency can be shown any micro-level decision can still be accounted for and the reverse where an overall choice has been made it is not necessary that every single lower-level decision be made in accordance with it this is because regularities are not of an absolute type Translatorsrsquo behaviour cannot be expected to be fully systematic (Toury 1995 p 67) their decisions usually involve some ad hoc combination of the two extremes in the initial norm (adequacy vs acceptability Thelen 1995) or a compromise solution between both Only this approach can explain some translation occurrences in line with Schaumlffnerrsquos results (2004) some shifts differences or even apparently radically diverging translations


can only rarely if at all be characterized as translation errors from a descriptive point of view Linguistically they may be errors but culturally and cognitively they may end up being incorporated into the target universe (cf Olohan 2000) Even if they are errors by translators what matters is the impact such translations may ultimately have on the target culture

Different experiential realities are likely to bring about different categoriza-tions thus cultural differences between the SL and the TL have often been men-tioned as a problem for translation in general and for the translation of metaphors in particular However for Koveumlcses (2005) ldquocognitive linguists have overempha-sized the universality of some of the cognitive structures that they foundrdquo (p xii) In Lakoff and Turnerrsquos words (1989 p 214) to study metaphor is ldquoto be confronted with hidden aspects of onersquos mind and onersquos culturerdquo In cognitive metaphor the-ory there is a long-running debate over whether metaphors constitute abstract concepts (as structured by cultural models) or whether they simply reflect them (Koumlvecses 1999 p 167) Gibbs (1999b p 162) in an attempt to acknowledge the culturally embodied nature of what is cognitive suggests a new approach where there would be much less of a difference between what is cognitive and what is cultural than many of us have been traditionally led to believe This to him does not make metaphor any less cognitive

For Snell- Hornby (1988) the extent to which a text is translatable varies with the degree to which it is embedded in its own culture Barcelona (1997 p 84) em-phasizes that English and Spanish have a basically similar worldview and that the amount of conceptual common ground shared by two languages determines to a very large extent the degree of translatability between them Stienstra (1993) advo-cates for a differentiation between universal culture-overlapping and culture-spe-cific metaphors human experience being largely universal it is the linguistic re-alization of metaphors that would be culture-dependent In this sense it has been argued that if a metaphor triggers different associations in two cultures a literal translation should be avoided unless the culture specificity of the SL is to be em-phasized in which case the addition of an explanation is advised (Schaumlffner 2004)

Most of the studies dealing with metaphor translation from a cognitive per-spective use similar methodological procedures STs are searched for linguistic metaphors (of whichever type dead dying originalhellip) these are retrieved and classified into groups so as to propose a series of conceptual metaphors that would account for them Then the communicative value and significance of these con-ceptual metaphors within the specific type of discourse is assessed and so is the type of translation chosen for linguistic metaphors evaluating the impact that the translations have had nearly always in comparison with the function and impact of the ST metaphors that is from a prescriptive point of view This approach high-lights the relevance of cognitive operations and abilities in translating metaphor


but uses decontextualized examples to make its point Very rarely is the role played by translator-focused factors taken into account (Chesterman 2009) such as cul-tural factors (values ethics ideologies traditions etc) cognitive factors (mental processes decision-making text-processing and re-arrangement strategies etc) sociological factors (translational norms followed by translators social status and network professional groups etc) etc All of these together with the overriding force of translational norms may help to explain the decisions taken by translators as well as their creativity (see Pisarska 1989) Another type of study that has not yet been carried out is the role of the lsquominimax strategyrsquo suggested by Levy2 (1967) which might just be able to account for certain unexplained (or inexplicable) shifts in the renderings of metaphors and how these may ultimately reshape the cogni-tive universe in the target culture

Mandelblit (1995) proposed two schemes of cognitive mapping conditions SMC (Similar Mapping Conditions) and DMC (Different Mapping Conditions) The difference in reaction time between one type and the other seems to be due to a conceptual shift that the translator is required to make between the conceptual map-ping systems of the source and the target language (1995 p 493) Metaphorical ex-pressions take more time to process and are more difficult to translate if they exploit a cognitive domain different from that of the target language equivalent expression

Barcelona (1997) analyses the translation of metaphorical lexemes from a lexicographic approach and concludes that the best context-free translation for metaphorical lexemes in cases where both languages have the same or a similar metaphor would in principle be expressions in the TL that in order of importance (1) can conventionally be used as linguistic expressions of the same metaphor (2) highlight in their metaphorical use the same ontological and epistemic correspon-dences as the original and (3) can be used as metaphorical denotations of the same target concept To these two more criteria would add that the TL equivalent be in the same position along a stylistic scale and that it be as similar as possible in its morphosyntax (pp 87ndash88)

Tirkonnen-Condit dealt with translatorrsquos difficulties with metaphors and in 1998 proposed (and confirmed in 2001) after Mandelblit (1996) the Cognitive Translation Hypothesis whereby metaphorical expressions would take more time and would be more difficult to translate if they exploit a different cognitive domain than the target language equivalent expressions In these cases it is the search for another conceptual mapping (another cognitive domain) which causes delay un-certainty and difficulty in the translation of different domain metaphors (Tirkon-nen-Condit 2001 p 12)

Another cognitively focused study was carried out by Saygin (2001) who re-ported on metaphor comprehension and production in a multi-lingual setting us-ing a translation task The results obtained indicated that a significantly greater


proportion of metaphors were translated literally when subjects translated from their L2 into their L1 (English into Turkish) Priming and sentence processing re-search seem to indicate according to Saygin that multiple interpretations are ac-tivated in the interpretation process of a metaphor both the underlying metaphor and the literal meaning are likely to be active Since processing is faster and ldquomore robustrdquo in the native language the literal activation is likely to die out quickly thus the priming effect of the literal meaning would be much bigger for a translation into the native language than for a translation into a second language Besides the activation of literal meaning no matter how short may activate related concepts in the native language and this may aid the production and facilitate the com-prehension of the original metaphor even if it does not have a counterpart in the target language

Croft and Cruse (2004) touch very briefly on translation and their profile-framedomain distinction may be difficult or even unsuccessful in cases where words profile the same or similar concept domains but show differences in their frames Schaumlffnerrsquos 2004 article is one of the first very good attempts at relating a cognitive theory of metaphor to DTS The author analyses the advantages of a cognitive approach to metaphor transfer giving illustrative examples of how some authentic metaphors from texts in political discourse have been translated from German into English From a cognitive point of view the first outcome of her research is that not all individual manifestations of a conceptual metaphor in a ST are accounted for in the target text using the same metaphorical expression this confirms Stienstrarsquos 1993 findings Thus from a cognitive perspective metaphor is no longer merely a translation phenomenon of one particular text but an inter-textual phenomenon In the examples analysed Schaumlffner identifies five cases (1) a conceptual metaphor is identical in the ST and TT (2) structural components of the base conceptual schema in the ST are replaced in the TT by expressions that make entailments and knowledge-based inferences explicit (3) the TT metaphor is much more elaborate (4) ST and TT employ different metaphorical expressions (which can be brought under the same conceptual metaphor) and (5) the expres-sion in the TT reflects a different aspect of the conceptual metaphor All these cases give translators a much more relevant creative and intelligent role than had traditionally been acknowledged What is really interesting is that translations can make differences in conceptual metaphors explicit

Dickins (2005) proposes two six-dimensional models of metaphor transla-tion lsquofullrsquo and lsquosimplifiedrsquo which are then applied to Arabic-English translation Although the paper is a remarkable attempt at conciliating old and new theories on the translation of metaphors cognitive metaphors are not dealt with and the examples are chosen from different text types and mostly for their representative-ness of the points argued in each case He does however acknowledge that he has


ldquovirtually ignored the translation from non-metaphor into metaphor or even (hellip) Oslash into metaphorrdquo

Al-Hasnawi (2007) attempts to carry out a cognitive study of the translation of some metaphors from English into Arabic Following Mandelblitrsquos lsquoCognitive Translation Hypothesisrsquo his ultimate goal is through the study of metaphoric ex-pressions in a given culture ldquoto see how the members of that culture structure or map their experience of the world and record it into their native languagerdquo (2007 p 3) He studies metaphors of similar mapping conditions but lexically realized differently and metaphors of different mapping conditions However metaphor translation is judged through an a priori concept of what would be a lsquobetterrsquo or lsquoworsersquo translation according to a pre-established prescriptive definition of what equivalence should be He remarks that metaphors can be translated from one lan-guage to another ldquowith a minimum degree of lossrdquo and refers to ldquoattempts of literal renderingrdquo as ldquoa noticeably bad productrdquo (p 7) Unfortunately the 23 examples chosen are randomly selected instances chosen for their representativeness of the points argued and the focus is not on the solutions as they really are with no a priori value judgments

One of the most recent studies has been carried out by Maalej (2008) The hypothesis is following Mandelblitrsquos that metaphoric expressions tend to be kept under the same conceptual metaphors if the two cultures share the same concep-tual mappings and linguistic expressions if they do not share them the search for a pragmatic equivalent in the TT will be very hard indeed (p 60) Metaphor is not a case of untranslatability but a challenging phenomenon in terms of un-packing SL information and re-packing it in the TL and culture Maalej points out that the criteria of understanding using framing and organizing experience are all crucial for translating metaphors and argues for a three-step cognitive model of meta-phor translation (p 65)

unpacking the SLSC linguistic metaphors into their conceptual counterparts comparing cultures by determining whether linguistic and conceptual metaphors across cultures show a lsquosimilar mapping conditionrsquo or a lsquodifferent mapping condi-tionrsquo and re-packing TLTC conceptual and linguistic counterparts according to the experiential practices of the TLTC

Maalej however attempts to establish correspondences and refers to ldquoshiftsrdquo in the translation process negatively Metaphor translation would work with linguistic categories that may be pragmatically equivalent in terms of semantic packaging to the knowledge carried by the TLTC metaphor to be translated (p 66) A sample is analysed (a play written by a Tunisian playwright and translated into English) and four metaphoric clusters are discovered but (1) the examples given seem to have been chosen for their representativeness and (2) translation is submitted to


a traditional notion of a lsquogoodrsquo transfer based on non-literalness ldquoif literal transla-tion sounds odd shocking or unintelligible to English speakers DMC [different mapping conditions] appliesrdquo (p 69)

Although cognitively appropriate and very worthy indeed none of these pro-posals accounts for cases where conceptual mappings andor linguistic expressions may be shared but the translator decides to leave aside standard correspondences and opts for a creative translation or an alternative translation procedure instead A cognitive theory of metaphor translation cannot account for these instances without the assistance of DTS it is in fact translator-related factors (together with other cognitive factors and translation constraints) that in certain cases seem to impede a rather straightforward transfer procedure and activate other cognitive strategies From a cognitive point of view a lot of factors come into play when a metaphor has to be translated issues such as the translation norm prevalent in the target universe the translatorrsquos degree of manoeuvre and creativity (see Pisar-ska 1989 cf Ballard 1997) the general value system of the target universe etc are paramount in the translation process Metaphor is based on peoplersquos ability to structure one conceptual domain in terms of another generate mappings and es-tablish conceptual correspondences (Dobrovolrsquoskij and Piirainen 2005 p 122 cf Yan et al 2010) Thus from the point of view of translation the debate should not be whether to translate lsquoimagersquo or lsquovehiclersquo but rather to what extent metaphors are universal or culturally determined and what features -if any- are being transferred on the basis of a series of factors many of them translator- and culture-based

3 Conclusion

In Zanotto et alrsquos words (2008 p 3) ldquoa single research method is unlikely to be adequate for investigating metaphor in real world contextsrdquo However a cognitive view of metaphor can provide TS with valuable insights first of all because it sheds light on the cognitive processes and reasoning behind the choice of a translation equivalent without the prejudice of a prescriptive approach which focuses on the ST as a paradigm to be followed Armed with this descriptive approach TS can account for apparently divergent translation solutions which should in justice be analysed as selective choices or creative attempts by translators rather than as mere errors negative shifts undertranslations or overtranslations In fact according to Halverson (2007) translation shifts may derive from so-called construal opera-tions and as such are fundamentally cognitive

Interestingly enough although quite a lot of researchers point out that trans-lators often translate metaphors lsquoincorrectlyrsquo (literally etc) the role of those lsquowrongrsquo translations in the target system have not been studied much to date For


Samaniego (2002 2007) Samaniego Velasco and Fuertes (2005) and Fuertes-Olivera (2011 forthcoming) lsquoliteralrsquo translations might in fact be diffusing the distinction between culture-dependent and culture-independent subject domains The role of English metaphorical terms (English being a dominant language) in the creation of target conceptual scenarios in different target languages through literal (lsquowrongrsquo translations) and the subsequent process of cognitive expansion has not been studied sufficiently it could shed some light on the mental processes associated with translation and their effects on the cognitive potentialities of tar-get languages The relationship between observable data and cognition strategies might help us understand how the human capacity for communication (transla-tion being a type of interlinguistic communication) fits into the broader picture of social cognition The issue of the role played by the creativity of translators in the target cognitive world has hardly been touched upon and is an unresolved matter in TS (Kussmaul 2000abc) unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this paper but it is a very interesting issue for research indeed

In the end the pivotal point is the translator which is precisely what cognitive approaches to TS are lately focusing on Many disciplines among them Cognitive Linguistics have to walk hand in hand in order to be able to account for the rea-soning processes (deductive inductive abductive analogical etc) and the re-for-mulating processes (problem-solving planning knowledge representation etc) carried out by translators Information selection and information rearrangement are cognitive processes applied by translators on the basis of a series of factors

As we have seen the translation procedures that are traditionally suggested in TS for dealing with metaphors are a collection of prescriptive lists of translation techniques based on theoretical hypotheses which are far from describing the true variety of actual occurrences They are not valid translation procedures as they are not based on any real data but rather on ad hoc examples The study of real trans-lation occurrences seems to confirm the hypothesis that translators have a much more relevant creative and intelligent role than had traditionally been acknowl-edged (Kussmaul 2000a Jaumlaumlskelaumlinen 1999 Chesterman 2009)

Eventually what is at stake in the translation of metaphor is the concept of lsquoequivalencersquo Notwithstanding the impact of functionalist communicative textual and most of all descriptive approaches for most scholars and translators the term lsquotranslationrsquo should still only be used for binomials where an equivalence relation stands between ST and TT which is close in nature (Schaumlffner 2004) Equivalence however is merely the relationship between an ST and a TT of whichever type it may be in Hermansrsquo words (1999 p 60) ldquoit is difference not sameness or trans-parency or equality which is inscribed in the operations of translationrdquo Equiva-lence is a formula that has to be enlarged to cover the multiplicity of translational answers given by translators creativity amongst them


Unfortunately a prescriptive approach also applies to metaphor translation too many pages have been written on how much is lost in their translation instead of focusing on the gains that the process of transfer may produce its impact on the target culture and the role of translators in the expansion of the target culture cognitive world

Notes

Thanks are due to the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacioacuten for financial support (FFI2008ndash01703)

1 Newmark initially termed them ldquostandard metaphorsrdquo while Van Den Broeck (1981) calls them ldquoconventionalrdquo These are mainly metaphors coming from literature and assimilated through usage

2 The concept of lsquominimax strategyrsquo was originally formulated for two-player zero-sum game theory and it is a decision rule minimizing the possible loss while maximizing the potential gain (Wikipedia httpenwikipediaorgwikiMinimax consulted on 15052010) As applied to TS it refers to the possible solutions which promise a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort (Levy 1967)

References

Alexieva B (1993) A cognitive approach to translation equivalence In Palma Zlateva (Ed) Translation as Social Action Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives (pp 101ndash109) London Routledge

Al-Hasnawi A (2007) A cognitive approach to translating metaphors Translation Journal 11(3) In httpaccurapidcomjournal41metaphorhtm

Ali ASM (2006) On the translation of metaphor notions and pedagogical implications IJAES 7 121ndash136 In httpwwwatelporgresourcesDocumentsAlipdf

Aacutelvarez Mordf A (1993) On translating metaphor Meta 38(3) 479ndash490Al-Zoubi QM Al-Ali NM amp Ali R Al-H (2007) Cogno-cultural issues in translating meta-

phors Perspectives Studies in Translatology 14(3) 230ndash239Arduini S (1998) Translating metaphors and intercultural communication In TA Sjunnanq

C Dollerup amp M Saraireh (Eds) Issues in Translation (pp 189ndash205) Jordan Deanship of Scientific Research

Arduini S (2002) Metaacutefora y cultura en la traduccioacuten Revista Electroacutenica de Estudios Filoloacutegi-cos 4 In httpwwwumestonosdigitalznum4estudiosmetaforaculturahtm

Ballard M (1997) Creacuteativiteacute et traduction Target 9(1) 85ndash110Barcelona Saacutenchez A (1997) Metaphorical expressions in interlinguistic lexicography A cog-

nitive approachrdquo In R Solas et al (Eds) XVIII Congreso de AEDEAN (pp 83ndash91) Alcalaacute Servicio de Publicaciones

Buchowski M (1996) Metaphor metonymy and cross-cultural translation Semiotica 110(3ndash4) 301ndash314


Chesterman A (2009) The name and nature of Translator Studies Hermes Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42 13ndash22

Cristofoli M Gunhild D and Stage L (1998) Metaphor meaning and translation Hermes Journal of Linguistics 20 165ndash179

Croft W amp Cruse DA (2004) Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge Cambridge University PressCrofts M (1988) Translating metaphors ARAL 22 47ndash53Dagut M (1976) Can metaphor be translated Babel 12(1) 21ndash33Dagut M (1987) More about the translatability of metaphor Babel 33(2) 77ndash83Danks JH Shreve GM Fountain SB amp McBeath M (Eds) (1997) Cognitive Processes in

Translation and Interpreting Sage PublicationsDickins J (2005) Two models for metaphor translation Target 17(2) 217ndash273Dobrynska T (1995) Translating metaphors Problems of meaning Journal of Pragmatics 24

595ndash604Dobrovolrsquoskij D amp Piirainen E (2005) Figurative Language Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguis-

tic Perspectives Amsterdam ElsevierFuertes Olivera P (forthcoming) Translator Studies and the translation of economic discourse

from a cognitive perspective In A Rojo amp Ibarretxe I-Antuntildeano (Eds) Cognitive Lin-guistics and Translation Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications Mouton de Gruyter

Gentzler E (2000) Metaphor and translation In O Classe (Ed) Encyclopedia of Literary Trans-lation into English vol 2 (pp 941ndash945) Fitzroy

Gibbs RW amp Steen G (Eds) (1999a) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics Amsterdam John Benjamins

Gibbs RW amp Steen G (1999b) Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cul-tural world In RW Gibbs amp Steen G (Eds) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp 145ndash166) Amsterdam John Benjamins

Halverson S (2007) A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21 105ndash122

Hermans T (1999) Translation and normativity In Schaeffner C (Ed) Translation and Norms (pp 50ndash71) Multilingual Matters Clevedon England

Hiraga MK (1991) Metaphor and comparative cultures In Fendos PGJr (Ed) Cross-cultural Communication East and West Vol III (pp 149ndash166) Taiwan Trsquoai Chrsquoeng Publishing in Tainan

Jaumlaumlskelaumlinen R (1999) Tapping the Process An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating Joensuu Joen

Kloepfer R (1981) Intra- and Intercultural Translation Poetics Today 2(4) 29ndash37Koumlvecses Z (1999) Metaphor Does it constitute or reflect cultural models In RW Gibbs and

G Steen (Eds) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp 167ndash188) Amsterdam John Ben-jamins

Koumlvecses Z (2005) Metaphor in Culture Universality and Variation Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Kurth E-N (1995) Metaphernuumlbersetzung Frankfurt Peter LangKurth E-N (1999) Altered images cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metaphor translation In

Vandaele Jan (Ed) Translation and the (Re)Location of Meaning Selected Papers of the CE-TRA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1994ndash1996 (pp 97ndash116) Lovaina CETRA


Kussmaul P (2000a) A cognitive framework for looking at creative mental processes In Maeve Olohan (Ed) Intercultural Faultlines Research Models in Translation Studies I Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp 57ndash71) St Jerome Publishing

Kussmaul P (2000b) Types of creative translating In A Chesterman N Gallardo amp Gambier Y (Eds) Translation in Context Selected Contributions from the EST Congress Granada 1998 (pp 117ndash126) Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins

Kussmaul P (2000c) Kreatives Uumlbersetzen Stauffenburg TuumlbingenLakoff G amp Johnson M (1980) Metaphors We Live By Chicago Chicago University PressLakoff G amp Turner M (1989) More than Cool Reason Chicago Chicago University PressLevy J (1967) ldquoTranslation as a decision processrdquo In To Honor Roman Jakobson vol II (pp 1171ndash

1182) The Hague MoutonMaalej Z (2008) Translating metaphor between unrelated cultures A cognitive-pragmatic per-

spective Sayyab Translation Journal (STJ) 1 60ndash82Mandelblit N (1995) The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation the-

ory In M Thelen (Ed) Translation and Meaning Vol 3 (pp 483ndash495) Hogeschool Maas-tricht The Netherlands

Mason K (1982) Metaphor and translation Babel 28(3) 140ndash149McElhanon KA (2006) From simple metaphors to conceptual blending the mapping of ana-

logical concepts and the praxis of translation Journal of Translation 2(1) 31ndash81Menacere M (1992) Arabic metaphor and idiom in translation Meta 37(3) 567ndash572Munday J (2001) Introducing Translation Studies Theories and Applications RoutledgeMuntildeoz Martiacuten R (1995) Linguumliacutestica para traducir Barcelona TeideMuntildeoz Martiacuten R (2007) Traductologiacutea cognitiva y traductologiacutea empiacuterica In G Wotjak (Ed)

Quo Vadis Translatologie (pp 267ndash278) Berlin Franck and TimmeNewmark P (1980) The translation of metaphor Babel 26(2) 93ndash100Newmark P (1988a) Approaches to Translation London Prentice Hall International (1st ed

1981 Pergamon Institute of English)Newmark P (1988b) A Textbook of Translation London Prentice Hall International LimitedNewmark P (1993) Paragraphs on Translation Clevedon Multilingual MattersNida E (1964) Towards a Science of Translating Leiden EJ BrillNord C (2001) Dealing with purposes in intercultural communication Some methodological

considerations Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 14 151ndash166Olohan M (Ed) (2000) Intercultural Faultlines Research Models in Translation Studies St Je-

rome Publishing FirmPisarska A (1989) Creativity of Translators The Translation of Metaphorical Expressions in

Non-literary Texts Poznan UniwersytetRabadaacuten Aacutelvarez R (1991) Equivalencia y traduccioacuten Problemaacutetica de la equivalencia trans-

leacutemica ingleacutes-espantildeol Leoacuten Universidad de LeoacutenRiedemann K amp Dieacuteguez Mordf I (1999) La traduccioacuten de metaacuteforas iquestUn acto de rebeldiacutea per-

manente Onomazein 4 345ndash369Rojo A (2001) Psicologiacutea linguumliacutestica cognitiva y traduccioacuten Revista Canaria de Estudios Ing-

leses 42 309ndash340Saad SM (2001) Estudio analiacutetico de la metaacutefora y su traduccioacuten ejemplificado en Memorial

de Isla Negra de Pablo Neruda DICENDA (Cuadernos de Filologiacutea Hispaacutenica) 19 165ndash178


Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (1995) ldquoLa metaacutefora y los estudios de traduccioacutenrdquo In P Fernaacutendez Ni-stal amp JM Bravo Gozalo (Comp) Perspectivas de la traduccioacuten ingleacutesespantildeol (pp 91ndash118) Valladolid SAE

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (1996) La traduccioacuten de la metaacutefora Valladolid Secretariado de Pub-licaciones de la Universidad de Valladolid

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (2000) Disentildeo y aplicacioacuten de un marco de anaacutelisis de la traduccioacuten de la metaacutefora Alicante PhD Thesis In httpruauaesdspacebitstream1004539891Samaniego20Fernc3a1ndez2c20Evapdf

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (2002) Translatorsrsquo English-Spanish metaphorical competence Im-pact on the Target System Estudios de Linguumliacutestica Inglesa Aplicada (ELIA) 3 203ndash218

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (2007) El impacto de la linguumliacutestica cognitiva en los estudios de tra-duccioacuten In P Fuertes Olivera (Coord) Problemas linguumliacutesticos de la traduccioacuten especial-izada (pp 119ndash154) Universidad de Valladolid Secretariado de Publicaciones

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E (forthcoming) The impact of Cognitive Linguistics on Descriptive Translation Studies novel metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper translation as a case in point In A Rojo amp Ibarretxe I-Antuntildeano (Eds) Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications Mouton de Gruyter

Samaniego Fernaacutendez E Velasco Sacristaacuten M amp Fuertes Olivera P (2005) Translations we live by The impact of metaphor translation on target systems In Pedro Fuertes Olivera (coord) Lengua y Sociedad Investigaciones recientes en Linguumliacutestica Aplicada (pp 61ndash81) Valladolid Servicio de Publicaciones

Saygin AP (2001) Processing figurative language in a multi-lingual task Translation transfer and metaphor In Proceedings of Corpus-Based and Processing Approaches to Figurative Lan-guage Workshop Lancaster University

Schaumlffner C (1997) Metaphor and interdisciplinary analysis Journal of Area Studies 11 57ndash72Schaumlffner C (1998) ldquoMetaphernrdquo In Snell-Hornby M et al (Eds) Handbuch Translation

(pp 280ndash285) Tuumlbingen StauffenburgSchaumlffner C (2004) Metaphor and translation some implications of a cognitive approach Jour-

nal of Pragmatics 36(7) 1253ndash1269Shreve GM (1997) Cognition and the evolution of translation competence In JH Danks

GM Shreve SB Fountain amp M McBeath (Eds) Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp 120ndash136) Sage Publications

Snell-Hornby M (1988) Translation Studies An Integrated Approach Amsterdam John Ben-jamins Publishing Company

Steen G (2004) Introduction metaphor across languages Journal of Pragmatics 36(7) 1183ndash1188

Stienstra N (1993) YHWH is the Husband of is People Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation Kok Pharos Kampen

Tabakowska E (1993) Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation Tuumlbingen Gunter Narr Verlag

Thelen M (1995) Translating figurative language a discussion of fourth-year translations and corresponding comments In Translation and Meaning Part 3 (pp 507ndash521) Maastricht Universitaire Press

Tirkonnen-Condit S (2001) Metaphors in translation processes and products Quaderns Re-vista de traduccioacute 6 11ndash15


Toury G (1985) A rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies In T Hermans (Ed) The Ma-nipulation of Literature (pp 16ndash41) Sydney Croom amp Helm

Toury G (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond AmsterdamPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Van Besien F amp Pelsmaeckers K (1988) The translation of metaphor In Nekeman (Ed) Trans-lation Our Future Proceedings of the XIth World Congress of FIT (pp 140ndash146) Maas-tricht Euroterm

Van Den Broeck R (1981) The limits of translatability exemplified by metaphor translation Poetics Today 2(4) 73ndash87

Vinay JP amp Darbelnet J (1958) Stylistique Compareacutee du Franccedilais et de LrsquoAnglais Meacutethode de traduction Paris Didier

Walther W (1986) Neue Aspekte der Uumlbersetzung von Metaphern in Journalistischen Texten Fremdsprachen 30 162ndash166

Yan D Noumlel D amp Wolf H-G (2010) Patterns in metaphor translation Translating FEAR metaphors between English and Chinese In R Xiao (Ed) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp 40ndash61) Newcastle upon Tyne Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Zabalbeascoa P (2001) Un marco para el anaacutelisis de la traduccioacuten de la metaacutefora In A Barr et al (Coords) Uacuteltimas corrientes teoacutericas en los Estudios de Traduccioacuten y sus aplicaciones (pp 858ndash866) Salamanca Universidad de Salamanca

Zanotto MS Cameron L amp Cavalcanti MC (Eds) (2008) Confronting Metaphor in Use An Applied Linguistic Approach Amsterdam John Benjamins

Authorrsquos address

Eva Samaniego FernaacutendezDpto de Filologiacuteas Extranjeras y sus LinguumliacutesticasAvda Senda del Rey sn28040 Madrid Spain

esamaniegoflogunedes

About the author

Eva Samaniego Fernaacutendez is Assistant Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Educacioacuten a Distancia (UNED) Spain Her research as well as her teaching experience deals mostly with Translation Studies ESP Legal English and Text Linguistics She has taught courses both at graduate and postgraduate level (PhD courses and MAs) and is author or co-author of six books and more than 30 articles and book chapters on translation the translation of metaphor legal English legal Spanish and legal translation She has also given plenary lectures and more than 25 papers and workshops in international conferences and seminars To date she has taken part in 6 funded research projects and is currently a member of 2 funded research projects As a sworn legal translator she has taught legal English and Spanish -as well as legal and sworn translation- both at graduate and postgraduate level for more than fifteen years in several universities She is also part of the teaching team of the legal English international courses orga-nized yearly by the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary since 2003 and is part of the Euro-pean Judicial Training Network (EJTN) within the Project ldquoLanguage training on judicial coop-eration in criminal mattersrdquo (httpejtnnetnewslanguage-training-projectpage-launched)


procedures Back in 1981 Van den Broeck had already established these two is-sues ldquo[TS] may content itself with (hellip) laying bare some of the hidden mecha-nisms governing the translation of metaphor and their theoretic degree of translat-abilityrdquo (76)

As early as 1976 Dagut (p 32) had remarked on the inadequacy of ldquoa single generalization about the translatability of metaphorrdquo pointing out that such a gen-eralization would fail to do justice to the great complexity of the factors determin-ing the ontology of metaphor Mason (1982 p 140) had also noticed the futility of a prescriptive approach to metaphor translation trying to establish a theory of the translation of metaphor is not ldquoa happy project in which to engagerdquo Each case remarked the author must be treated on its own merits and thus ldquothere cannot be a theory of the translation of metaphor there can only be a theory of translationrdquo (Mason 1982 p 149) Touryrsquos remark (1985) on this issue is also well-known we cannot generalize about the translation of metaphor without being specula-tive For Van den Broeck however to admit the inadequacy of generalizations about the translatability of metaphor would be to admit that translation theory as a whole is an absurd undertaking ldquosince it then should be incapable of account-ing for the translation of one of the most frequent phenomena in language use (hellip)rdquo The proper task of translation theory would not be to specify how metaphor should be translated but to describe and account for actual renderings of meta-phors (cf Samaniego Fernaacutendez forthcoming) For Van Den Broeck it is possible to make generalizations on metaphor translation since otherwise the applicability of translation theory would be invalidated (1981 p 84)

(hellip) translatability keeps an inverse proportion with the quantity of information manifested by the metaphor and the degree to which this information is struc-tured in a text The less the quantity of information conveyed by a metaphor and the less complex the structural relations into which it enters in a text the more translatable this metaphor will be and vice versa

According to Dagut (1976 p 25) there are two diametrically opposed views on the problem of translating metaphor at one extreme it is held that there is no solution (ie metaphor is untranslatable) and at the other that there is no problem (ie metaphor can be quite lsquosimplyrsquo translated word by word) Van Besien and Pels-maekers (1988 p 144) discriminate between the lsquotraditionalrsquo approach that tends to produce normative statements about how metaphors ought to be translated (cf Aacutelvarez 1993) and a lsquonewerrsquo approach that sets up models for the description of actual metaphor translation

However when the different views on metaphor in TS are contrasted three basic positions can actually be observed (1) metaphors are untranslatable (Nida 1964 Vinay and Darbelnet 1958 Dagut 1976 1987) (2) metaphors are fully














































3 Conclusion










Notes




References

















































































About the author















































3 Conclusion










Notes




References

















































































About the author









Notes




References

















































































About the author








































































About the author
