Interpretation strategies
We have seen some of the features of the text type, a speech. Different text types call for different interpretation strategies. Bülow–Møller et al. use a scale ranging from free, as in adaptations, to faithful, as in a word-for-word transference. The scale is not hierarchical, but rather a possibility of making conscious choices when working with problem solving in the field of translation and interpretation (1998:114).
CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND INTERPRETATION 37
Bülow-Møller et al. (1998:110):
In speeches, the highly frequent rhetorical features call for a functional interpretation, or at least an idiomatic interpretation. Bülow-Møller et al. defines a functional interpretation as follows: ―the utterance that would be used as preferred choice in the target culture in the same situation.‖ The idiomatic translation is defined as ―idiomatically correct utterances that would come natural in the target language‖. The interpretive translation is a choice of ‗explaining, glossing or substituting something that would not otherwise make sense to the reader‘ (1998:111). This solution can also be used when interpreting linguistic metaphors, when nothing better is possible. Literal translations of linguistic metaphors should be done with caution, as they may render the text at best amusing and ridiculous - at worst nonsensical.
As stated in the chapter on function, the main function of the Obama speech is to persuade the American voters to vote for Obama, mainly by getting a good response from the audience in Berlin.
In order to get the requested response, the interpretation which would be understood best, is a functional interpretation, as it is the preferred choice in the target language. However, when
Source text bias Formal (or structural) orientation
●literal translation
●idiomatic translation
●functional translation
●interpretive translation
●adaptation
Target text bias: Pragmatic (or communicative) orientation
CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND INTERPRETATION 38
interpreting linguistic metaphors this might pose problems, because, sometimes, there does not exist an equivalent preferred choice in the target language.
Procedure for translation of metaphors
Peter Newmark (1981) has listed seven procedures for translation of (linguistic, ed.) metaphors in his book Approaches to Translation, which is quoted very frequently in studies on translation of metaphors. The following are a summarized outline of Newmark‘s procedures in order of his preference:1. To reproduce the same image in the TL.
2. To replace the image in the SL with a standard TL image.
3. To translate the metaphor by use of a simile retaining the image.
4. To translate by use of a simile and sense.
5. Conversion of metaphor to sense.
6. Delete the metaphor.
7. Use the same metaphor combined with sense.
These strategies are normative in that the intention has been to provide translators with strategies for translating what Newmark refers to as ―stock metaphors‖ (ibid: 84). Newmark‘s scale does not provide specific methods, which makes it compatible with the CMIS.
In this thesis, the normative scale which goes from SL bias to TL bias, as described previously, will be applied in the analyses. When using this scale, functionality and idiomaticity must be viewed as important criteria in conveying the Obama message. Functionality and idiomaticity will be tested in the analysis via frequency tests.
CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND INTERPRETATION 39
However, the listed Newmark procedures will be used descriptive, and as such they will serve as a tool for grouping the various interpreted realizations of the conceptual metaphors. The Newmark procedures provide the most complete account of procedures which I have seen yet, and I believe they form the basis of tools, which translators and interpreters have to choose from when translating linguistic metaphors. The procedures provide a common ground and a language regarding
translation and interpretation of linguistic metaphors. When it is clear from the data analyses that the respondents are using a Newmark strategy 1, it can be taken as an indication that they are using the CMIS.
Introduction to the analyses
The realizations of the linguistic metaphors have been pre-coded by the author of this thesis. Inorder to locate them in the written transcription of the Obama speech, the criteria for being a realization of conceptual metaphors was used8. In particular, the authors knowledge on the conceptual metaphors the CONTAINER and LIFE IS A JOURNEY were helpful, but also an openness towards, and a willingness to investigate anything which created a picture in the mind.
Personifications are easily identified, as you frequently have a verb of action and more specific, human action, combined with a non-human subject. The first conceptual metaphor Which was identified was the personification: A world(subject) that stands(verb) as one.
Conceptual metaphors can also be located by looking for vocabulary from one concept used in another. Lakoff and Johnson uses the ARGUMENT IS WAR conceptual metaphor to exemplify this, for instance in the realization: his criticisms were right on target. Apparently, we use warfare
terminology about arguing. Therefore it makes sense to look for terminology, which has been
8These criteria are defined in the chapter on the conceptual metaphor theory
CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND INTERPRETATION 40
‗borrowed‘ from other concepts. In the Obama speech this could be in e.g. the linguistic metaphor 25. The odds were stacked against success. In this case, terminology has been borrowed from the concept of gambling in order to describe the situation in the most precise way, and according to Lakoff and Johnson, This is the ‗ordinary‘ way (1980:3-6)9.
The orthographic transcriptions
.
The recorded interpretations have been transcribed orthographically by the author. During thetranscription process, hesitations, false starts, repetitions, grammatical errors and so on have also been transcribed. Below you will find a list with the symbols, which were used.
% = no solution - = hesitation .. = false start … = text left out
Every unit has been listened to at least twice, before the transcription was completed. Standard language rules have been applied, but in order to avoid interferences with the oral text, capital letters at the beginning of sentences, and punctuation has not been applied. This is a standardized way of performing transcriptions, which seen in retrospect is probably unnecessary for this analyses. However, when launching into a project such as this, it is not possible to predict the precise nature or direction of the study. Furthermore, the nature of the linguistic realizations might, make the transcriptions useful to other scholars, and therefore the material has been prepared in a manner which makes it exploitable to other scholars.