ISSN 1798-4769

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 530-535, May 2013
© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.530-535

Cultural Functions in the Translation of Metaphor

Lulu Wang
Canvard Co llege, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China

Abstract—Metaphor has been studied for over two thousand years. Modern science has broadened the field of
metaphorical study. This thesis attempts to probe into the translation of metaphor from a cultural perspective
by analyzing and identifying its cultural connotations so that we could possibly seek for appropriate
translation strategies.

Index Terms—cultural function, metaphor, translation

I. INT RODUCTION
Translating is a complex and fascinating task. I. A. Richards (1953) once claimed that translating is probably the
most co mplex type o event in the h istory of the cosmos. This is because, as a cross -cultural co mmunicat ion event, it
involves not only two languages but also two cultures. Although on the surface it seems to be interlingual
transformation, it is actually conveyance across cultures. This common understanding has already been reached in th e
translation circle, for people’s attentions have been shifted fro m emphasis on linguistic transfer towards mo re emphasis
on cultural transfer. Metaphor has been studied for over two thousand years. However, tradit ionally it was confined to
rhetoric and regarded as a kind of linguistic decoration. Modern science has broadened the field of metaphorical study.
Lakoff’s study from the angle of cognition has opened up a new wo rld for the study of metaphor. Under the in fluence of
culture, the translation of metaphors becomes the most important particular problem (Newmark, 2001).

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The theoretical study of metaphor, running a long course fro m ancient Greek age to the p resent, may be d ivided into
the following three periods on the whole:
1) the period of rhetorical study of metaphor, fro m Aristotle to Richards, or fro m 300 BC to the 1930s, treat ing
metaphor merely as a rhetorical phenomenon in most cases;
2) the period of semantic study of the metaphor, fro m the beginning of th e 20th century to the 1970s making semantic
study of metaphor fro m different angles like linguistics, logic and philosophy;
3) the period of interdisplinary study of metaphor, fro m the 1970s to this day, doing mu ltilevel and mu lti -dimensional
research into metaphor fro m angles of cognitive psychology, philosophy, pragmatics, semiot ics and hermeneutics.
Seen fro m the above, the theoretical study of metaphor has been constantly developing and deepening, especially in
the 20th century.
As early as the fourth century BC, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato was adept at applying metaphor; however he
just regarded metaphor as “ostentatious ornament”. His pupil Aristotle was first to study metaphor seriously. Aristotle
devoted a lot of space to metaphor in his Poetics and his Rhetoric. He thought, “The greatest thing by far is to have a
command of metaphor”, and “Everyone uses metaphor in conversation”. His defin ition of metaphor was a broad
one-giving the thing a name that belongs to something else. As to the nature of metaphor, he pointed out that being god
at creating metaphor was being good at making comparison between seemingly unlike things to find out resemblance.
His view influenced the following two thousand years and more.
In the 1930, the coming out of Richards’ The Philosophy of Rhetoric ended the domination of Aristotle’s theory of
metaphor. Richards broke through the confinement of trad itional rhetoric to lexical level by treating metaphor as a
semantic phenomenon and studying it at sentence level, and first advanced the concepts of “tenor” and “vehicle” and
the view of interaction. Richards’ expositions proclaimed the beginning of semantic study of metaphor.
As Searle said, Aristotle’s view of co mparison and Richards’ view of interaction were the two major schools of
metaphor theory before the 1970s.
The French semiotician Pau l Ricoeur, in his The Rule of Metaphor which was published in 1975, applied semiotic
and semantic theory to push forward the study of metaphor fro m lexical level to sentence level an d to discourse level.
The philosopher John R. Searle, in his monography Expression and Meaning, studied metaphor fro m the angle of
speech act theory. He thought metaphor was not merely a lexical or syntactic phenomenon, but also a discourse
phenomenon, and the metaphorical meaning should be sought in broad linguistic environment.
Experts in prag matics believed metaphor, seen fro m its nature, partly belonged to pragmatics.
In the 1980s, systematic functional linguistics joined the study of metaphor. M. A. K. Halliday, in h is An Introduction
to Functional Grammar, proposed the new concept of grammat ical metaphor, which widened the field of metaphor.
The most outstanding characteristic of the modern study of metaphor is breaking through the restriction of rheto ric

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 531

and making interdisciplinary research on metaphor, it is generally acknowledged that metaphor is not merely a
rhetorical device, what is more important, it is a universal mode of thought and cognitive means. In 1980, G. Lakoff and
M. Johnson, in their joint work Metaphor We Live By, raised the significance of metaphor to a new height. They
advanced a new op inion—metaphorical concept system, according to which metaphorical concepts of human were
systematic, thereby people could understand an experience in terms of another. In the late 1980s, E. F. Kittay’s
Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure pointed out that a lot of human action were constructed on the
basis of metaphorical concepts, which meant metaphor had cognitive significance —in fact, it was metaphor that
provided possibility for cognitive activit ies to transform into language; and not only in language, but also in dance,
painting, music, movie and other art istic fo rms existed metaphor. Then in the n ineties, B. Indurlhya published his
Metaphor and Cognition, with the subtitle An Interactionist Approach, in which he supplemented and developed the
Interaction Theory.
In recent years, more and more western linguists are fitting metaphor into study of thought and cognition, and
numerous monographs on metaphor and thought or on metaphor and cognition have come out one after another.
Metaphor now has been the matter of co mmon interest not merely to rhetoricians but also to psychologists, philosophers,
semioticians, etc.
The enthusiasm of studying metaphor reached the climax in the late 1970s, particularly in the Un ited States. No
wonder M. Johnson and other people called it in jest a metaphormania.
In the late 20th century, this metaphormania spread to Chinese linguistic field, wh ich were lagging far behind the
western academic circle in the interdisciplinary study of metaphor. Many Chinese scholars have paid close attention to
metaphor and articles on metaphor have appeared in publications in succession.
Shu Dingfang, a young scholar, has distinguished himself by his papers on metaphor, which respectively exp lore the
nature and semantic features of metaphor, analyze the cognitive, psychological and linguistic causes of the product of
metaphor, and introduce comprehensively the objective, met hods and tasks of modern metaphorical research. Other
researchers such as Zhao Yanfang, Hu Zhuanglin and Lin Shuwu, etc, also make their own contribution to modern
metaphorical study in China. But there is still a long way for Ch inese scholars to catch up with their western
companions in the study of metaphor.

III. PURPOSE AND M ETHODS

This thesis discusses metaphor, a co mmonly used rhetorical device in both English and Ch inese, and its translation
by exp loring the definition, classification, intercultural co mparison and translation methods.
The study of metaphor has revealed that metaphor is not merely a linguistic phenomenon, but basically a cognitive
phenomenon, a thinking mode; its production is thought to be the result of the limitation s of human thinking ability at
primeval stage and later the result of people’s active use for better co mmunicat ive effect or for the sake of cognition.
While language is the carrier o f culture, metaphor reflects culture.
According to the purpose of translation, t ranslators may flexibly apply the basic approaches, considering the specific
context and paying attention to the pitfalls in translation.
The research methods involved in writing this thesis are mainly : analysis, classification, exemp lification, co mparison,
contrast, etc.

IV. ON M ETAPHOR
A. Definition of Metaphor
Metaphor was defined earliest by Aristotle as “Metaphor is the application to one thing of a name to belonging to
another thing.” Metaphor, or the means by which one thing is described in terms of something else, has been described
as a central tool of our cognitive apparatus. It is central to our understanding of how language, thought and discourse
are structured.
B. Classification of Metaphor
Lakoff d ivided metaphors into three types: orientational metaphors(方位隐喻), ontological metaphors (实体隐喻)
and structural metaphor(结构隐喻).
Orientational metaphors were that concrete orientation concepts such as up -down, in-out, front-back, on-off,
deep-shallow and central-peripheral, were metaphorically based to express abstract concepts as feeling, mood, state of
health, informat ion quantity, social status and values.
e.g. Health and life are up. Sickness and death are down.
(1) He’s in top shape. (2) He feels ill.
(3) 小姑娘的身体一天天好起来。(4) 他终于病倒了。
Orientaion concepts are widely applied to ob jects with orientation; this is the main character of o rientational
metaphors.
e.g. (1) Do you follow my point. (2) 法律面前人人平等。
Ontological metaphors were that to understand and experience concepts abstract, ambiguous and not easy to e xp lain

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

532 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

through concrete, visible and obvious substance.

e.g. The mind is a machine
1) My mind just isn’t operating today.
2) 开动脑筋，丢掉包袱，轻装上阵。
In container metaphors which were part of ontological metaphors, all things could be considered containers, having
edge, inside and outside.
e.g. States are containers
(1) He is in love. (2) 他陷入沉思。
Structural metaphors are cases where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another.
e.g. Time is money
(1) I spend much time in read ing. 花时间
(2) You’re wasting my precious time. 浪费宝贵的时间
Structural metaphors have a strong cultural and emerge naturally in structures. Not only are they grounded in our
physical and cultural experience; they also influence our experience and our actions.
C. Functions of Metaphor
Metaphor plays a great role in the field of rhetoric, language and cognition.
In the field of rhetoric, the apply of metaphor makes the exp ression more concise, viv id, enlightening, euphemistic
and so on.
Linguistic metaphor is the reflection of conceptual metaphor in language. That is to say, we metaphorize one
category into another at first, then there is the phenomenon of metaphorizing one word into another in language. For
instance, “high” originally represents a spatial concept opposite to “low” o r protruding over a level; when it is
metaphorized into speed domain, we have the concept “high speed”, if it metaphorized into scientific and technological
domain, we have the concept “high technology”.
When people cognate and describe things formerly unknown, they often depend upon concepts and expressions know
to increase their knowledge and learning about things unfamiliar, and metaphor is the core of the process of giving the
rein to imagination and association and linking unusually two things that seem to have no relation with each other,
fro m simp le to co mplicate, fro m abstract to concrete, fro m familiar to strange and fro m one thing to another.

V. LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

What is language? What is culture? What is the relat ionship between culture and language? These fundamental
questions are the ones to which a translator must give a priority before undertaking any translation task.
Today, it is generally accepted that language, as “a system of sounds, words, patterns, etc. used by huma ns to
communicate thoughts and feelings” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s English -Chinese Dict ionary, 1997:878), or as “a
semiotic system of exp ressing thought”, is a crystallization o f the total experience of a people’s life and work. If
language is taken into account in the broad background of human society, it is found that it is a product of culture and
also a carrier of culture, for language reflects and records a nation’s history, natural geographic conditions, economy,
social system, religion, and folk cus toms and so on. It is no exaggeration to say that languages are integrated with
cultures.
Co mpared with language, culture has a much broader meaning. It reflects the total pattern of beliefs, customs,
institutions, objects, and techniques that characterize the life of a hu man commun ity. And it is an integrated system of
learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not the result of biological
inheritance. We can understand culture fro m the following aspects: F irst, cu lture is a social inheritance that was created
through long-time hard work. Second, culture consists of not only non -material things such as beliefs, value concepts,
custom knowledge, as well as material things. Third, cu lture is the guide of people’s action and provides methods for us
to solve the problems. Fourth, culture is not innate, it is learned. Lastly, different cultures can be distinguished by their
core value concepts.
Language and culture are t win sisters. Language is a part of culture and plays a very important role in it. So me social
scientists consider it as the keystone of culture. Without language, they maintain, culture would not be possible. On the
other hand, language was influenced and shaped by culture; it reflects culture. In t he broadest sense, language is the
symbolic representation of a people, and it co mprises their historical and cultural backg rounds as well as their approach
to life and their ways of living and thinking. ( Deng Yanchang, 1991) Language and culture are, of course, inextricably
lin ked, so that learning language means learning cu lture and v ice versa. Every society has its own cu lture. The Chinese
culture, which has been influenced by Confucian ism, Tao ism and Buddhism for nearly three thousand years, is
obviously different fro m the European culture, which consists of Greek myth and Ch ristianity. For examp le, in Ch inese,
“孔雀” is a symbol of auspiciousness, while in Eng lish “peacock” is a derogatory term which means “proud”, “flaunt”,
“be puffed up” and so on. The phase “as proud as a peacock” means “像孔雀那样骄傲。” So it is hard to use language
correctly without understanding its relevant culture.

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 533

VI. INT ERCULT URAL COMPARISON OF METAPHORS

A. The Generality of Metaphorical Concepts in Chinese and English
1. Metaphorical concepts related to human body
Metaphorical concepts related to human body contain metaphors t aking parts of human body as vehicles, those taking
human body as referring planes those treating human body as containers and those of human feelings expressed by
physiological reaction of human body to outside stimu li. In both Ch inese and English, there are lots of such expressions
as, a leg of table chair’s back, which embody metaphorical concepts. The words like “leg” “back” indicate parts of
human or animal body, when used to metaphorize other objects, they form v ivid expressions easy to understand and
accept. These names are established in language and these metaphorical concepts naturally become part of cultural
generality. As human have the same senses and interlinked emot ional react ion is basically the same among nations.
2. Metaphorical concepts related to nature
All hu man live on the same earth and the environment is generally alike; therefore, when applying objects in nature
to metaphorize abstract concepts or those difficu lt to describe directly, different nations may adopt the same vehicles.
e.g. In both Chinese and English, flowers are used to indicate beauties: 这闺女真是一朵花。/Oh, my love is a red,
red rose.
B. The Differences of Metaphorical Concepts
The Chinese and the British and American peoples, thanks to the influence of various factors such as living regions,
climates, ecological environments, history, relig ion and color of skin, have different cultures, wh ich directly result in the
dissimilarit ies of people’s thinking mode and value orientation, and thus become the majo r cause for the differences of
metaphorical concepts.
1. Influence of relig ion and mythology
In the west, as a result of the wide spread of Christianity, people universally have the sense of salvation and original
sin, and they believe God is the only deity; wh ile in ch ina, Buddhism. Taois m, and Confusianism coexist over a long
period of t ime and there are hundreds of divinit ies, showing the harmon ious and all-embracing nature if Ch inese culture
which influences the production of metaphorical concepts.
归西 V. Jupiter’s arro w
2. Influence of aesthetic standards and customs
The Chinese people and the British and American peoples belong to different races and have different cultures, thus
the aesthetic standards and customs are dissimilar. The Chinese belong to the yello w race and consider black hair, black
eyes and fair co mp lexion to be beautiful; wh ile the most of the British and Americans are wh ite people who consider
golden hair and blue eyes to be beautiful.
3. Influence of literature on metaphorical concepts
Classics are an important source of metaphors in various national languages. Metaphors fro m classics appear
repeatedly in language and some gradually merge into people’s thought which become concepts and lose the original
mean ings.
e.g. 刘姥姥进大观园
Ro meo and Juliet are the symbol of pure love, and their names may ind icate respectively young men and w omen in
love.
4. Influence of region and history
Traditionally, agriculture had been dominating in ch ina since the ancient time, feudalism existed over two thousand
years. While in tradit ion the chief liv ing means of the British was fishing and hunting, En gland was the first
industrialized country, it was powerful at sea and once possessed broad colony,. The marked regional and historical
differences between the two nations have great influence on the thought, language and national character, which is
expressed remarkably in the figures of speech and metaphorical concepts.

VII. TRANSLAT ION OF M ETAPHOR

Scholars agree that metaphor has been sadly neglected in translation theory. This chapter is a brief discussion of
metaphor translation in the light of oits possible translation procedures and translation methods.
Generally speaking, the criteria of translation are “faithfulness” “smoothness” and “elegance”. In order to achieve
these three principles, the following methods should be applied to translate metaphors.
A. Literal Translation Approach
Literal translation is generally regarded as the most important translation method in China. Professor Liu Chongde
defines literal translation as follows: “In the process of translation, literal transla tion takes sentences as basic units and
at the same time takes the whole passage into consideration; a translator who attaches great importance to literal
translation does his or her best to reproduce the ideas and writing style of the orig inal work, retain ing as many rhetorical
devices and sentence structures as possible.”
Literal translation is thought by some scholars to be the most essential and the most commonly used method for

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

534 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH

translating metaphors. As long as the original meaning is not impaired, it is essential to give priority to literal translation,
for it is able to maintain the basic structure of the original sentence and also the reproduce its artistic conception, image
and intended meaning.
For examp le:
Breakfast without orange juice is a day without sunshine. (橙汁广告)
没有橙汁的早晨是没有阳光的日子。
以眼还眼，以牙还牙
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
Newmark said: It is necessary to reproduce the same image in the TL provided the image has comparable frequency
and currency in the appropriate register. Obviously, this procedure is identical to literal translation.
B. Vehicle-converted Translation Approach
Every nation has its own distinctive ways of expression. As a result, metaphors formed in a particu lar nation are
inevitably marked with the national color. To be more specific, distinct national characteristics can usually be detected
fro m vehicles in metaphors. Therefore, when we meet those metaphors that can hardly be translated literally, it is
necessary to convert the vehicles, that is, to resort to conversion translation approach to convert the images.
你这是孤注一掷。You are putting all your eggs in one basket.
To me, it’s only a p iece of cake. 对我而言，这只是小菜一碟。
The conversion translation approach is employed to convert images and vehicles in order to translate the same
intended meaning and to render the version faithful and easily understandable. This translation method respects the
national individuality, national cultural differences and language individuality, and takes the acceptability of the
translated versions into consideration.
C. Free Translation Approach
Free t ranslation is supplementary to literal translation. Free t ranslation is emp loyed for the purpose of expressing the
original meaning instead of reproducing the original sentence structure and rhetorical d evice. Only when literal
translation is not suitable to use in a certain case, can the translator resort to free translation.
Free t ranslation of metaphors means giving up the o rig inal image or vehicle and making effort to find an appropriate
way to express the intended meaning of the original metaphor.
e.g. Don’t cross the bridge till you get to it. 不要自寻烦恼。不要过早担忧。
D. Translation with Addition
While translating metaphors, some t imes we need to add some words to the translated version in accordance with the
context in order to render the intended mean ing clear-cut and co mplete, or to make the version conform to the id io matic
usage of the TL.
A. Translation of metaphor by simile, retain ing the image
e.g. Speaking without thinking is shooting without aiming.
说话不经考虑， 犹如射箭不用瞄准。
B. Translation of metaphor into simile p lus sense. (or occasionally a metaphor p lus sense)
e.g. Sorrow for a husband is a pain in the elbow
丈夫的悼亡，就象肘部的一阵剧痛，剧烈却短暂。
E. Literal Translation plus Free Translation
Some English metaphors are suitable to be translated both literally and freely.
e.g. Today a man, tomo rrow a mouse.
Literal translation: 今天是一个人，明天是一头鼠。
Free translation: 今天得志，明天落魄。
To provided the above metaphor with both literal and free translation helps the learners to grasp the hidden meaning
through the literal mean ing and then to master the essence.
Among the five method, literal translation is the most commonly used one; conversion translation is suitable for
translating the metaphors that can not be translated literally but the vehicles or images of wh ich can be converted in the
TL; free translation is employed only when neither literal translation nor conversion translation is applicable; translation
with addition is a supplementary method; whether to provide two versions of both literal and free translation depends on
the particular situation.

VIII. CONCLUSION
As metaphor becomes a frontier subject correlated with various disciplines, people’s understanding on metaphor is
getting profound. Metaphor is widely used in English and Chinese. By intercultural co mparison, we can see there are
general characters and differences in Chinese and English metaphors.

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 535

This thesis is an initial exp loration of the definition, classification, function and translation of metaphors. It aims at
helping Eng lish learners in china appreciate, apply and translate metaphor better.

REFERENCES
[1] Deignan, A. (2001). M etaphor. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[2] Deng Yanchang, Liu Runqing. (2001). Language and Culture. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3] Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M . (1980). M etaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[4] Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
[5] Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
[6] Nida, E. A. (2001). Language, Culture, and Translating. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[7] Richards, I. A. (1953). Toward a Theory of Translating. In Arthur F. Wright (Ed.), Studies in Chinese Thought (vol. 55).
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 75.
[8] Shu Dingfang. (2000). Studies in M etaphor. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[9] Zhang Peiji, Yu Yungen. (1980). A Course in English-Chinese Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education
Press.

Lulu Wang was born in Beipiao, Liaoning, China in 1980. She received her M .A degree in English Language and Literature from
China University of Petroleum in 2006.
She is currently a lecturer in Canvard College, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, China. Her research interests
include translation theory & practice, English teaching and linguistics.

© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER