Newmark believed that taking from among the schemes to interpret metaphors is strongly contingent upon their types. Therefore, he taxonomized different types of metaphors on the footing of their originality and daring. Harmonizing to Newmark ( 1988 ) metaphors can be grouped under six caputs ; viz. , dead, clichaˆs , criterion or stock, adapted, recent and original. What comes below is an account about his taxonomy every bit good as a speedy position on his suggested schemes to interpret each type of metaphor.

Dead metaphor is the 1 whose image is forgotten through heavy usage. A great figure of ordinary vocabulary in any linguistic communication are dead metaphors. Wordss such as oral cavity, circle, bead, autumn, rise, arm, infinite, field, line top, underside and pes are really among the dead metaphors of the English linguistic communication. The word ‘foot ‘ in ‘at the pes of the hill ‘ is a dead metaphor. Metaphors of this type can be classified into three groups. The first group includes the 1s which provokethe metaphoric image in head to some extent ( e.g. ‘reflect ‘ as ‘think ‘ ) . The 2nd groupincludes metonyms ( e.g. ‘worm ‘ as ‘screw ‘ and ‘crown ‘ as ‘kingdom ‘ ) . Ahd eventually, the 3rd group includes the non-technical words ( e.g. oral cavity and pes ) which can alter to a interlingual rendition crisis point when using in combination with other words. For illustration:

It is out of my deepness.

the arm of the chair

square the circle

It is a affair of life and decease.

The metaphors in the concluding group are in close relation with our day-to-day life.

Clichaˆs metaphors stand between dead metaphors and standard metaphors. They normally appear in two constructions: nonliteral adjectival + actual noun ( e.g. foul boodle ) and nonliteral verb = actual noun ( e.g. research all avenues, leave no rock unturned, lodge out a stat mi ) . Newmark ( 1988 ) believed that clichaˆs metaphors normally replace the clear and obvious idea which are frequently emotional. So, they should be upheld in vocative texts while in the enlightening texts such as public proclamations, instructions and propogations the transcriber can acquire rid of them in any proper manner. The chief duty of the transcribers when confronting clichaˆs metaphors is to replace it with its cultural equivalent in the TL. However, it can be replaced by a simile or even a dead metaphor when it has no suited cultural equivalent.

Standard or stock metaphors are really near to clichaˆs metaphors so that one normally can non happen any clear differentiation between them. Possibly the lone noticeable difference between these two types of metaphors is the manner of the text within which they are applied. Standard metaphors are normally used in the informal texts as a manner of showing a mental or physical state of affairs in brief. For illustration:

He is on the Eve of acquiring married.

Keep the pot boiling.

The most common manner of interpreting standard metaphors is to bring forth the SL image in the TL. However, other ways of rendering this type of metaphor to the TL such as cut downing it to feel ( which will ensue in the add-on or the skip of some parts and will accordingly act upon the affectional force of the metaphor ) or interpreting it to simile plus sense are besides possible.

Adapted metaphors include Proverbss. The transcribers normally take great strivings to make their best in the interlingual rendition of this peculiar type of metaphor due to its brilliant cultural function in the TL.

Recent metaphors include the newly-made words or phrases which use to mention to the things and entities that have already had a name ( e.g. ‘pissed ‘ intending ‘drunk ‘ and ‘Greenback ‘ significance ‘dollar measure ‘ ) .

Original metaphor is the one which is invented by the author. Actual interlingual rendition is the best pick for the interlingual rendition of original metaphors because: a ) original metaphors present the of import attitudes of the author and reflect his personality and worldview, B ) original metaphors are considered as good picks to enrich the TL. Examples for original metaphors are:

And I can hear ‘the clear sound of purdah, gap and shutting its window ‘ .

Let ‘s burden the dark of a villiage, the sleep of a gazelle.

Where the Norweyen streamers flout the sky, and fan our people cold.

In general, Newmark ( 1988, p. 107 ) presented seven schemes to interpret metaphors as follows:

1. Reproducing the same image in the TL

2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does non collide with the TL civilization

3. Translation of metaphor by simile, retaining the image

4. Translation of metaphor ( or simile ) by simile plus sense, or on occasion metaphor plus sense

5. Conversion of metaphor to feel

6. Omission. If the metaphor is excess or serves no practical intent, there is a instance for its omission, together with its sense constituent

7. Translation of metaphor by the same metaphor combined with sense. The add-on of a rubric or an account by the transcriber is to guarantee that the metaphor will be understood

4.2. The cognitive attack to metaphor

Harmonizing to the cognitive semanticians, the impression of metaphor bases for the acknowledgment or look of abstract constructs in the signifier of empirical 1s. Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) believed that the nature of metaphor is to understand one thing on the footing of another. Possibly this attitude towards metaphor is a reaction to oppugning the manner we represent or understand the issues such as love, justness, clip or the thoughts which belong to the abstract domains.

Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) claimed that the conceptual system of adult male ‘s head is based on a restricted set of empirical impressions which root in our experiences. These empirical impressions include spacial orientations ( up-down, in-out, front-back, on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral ) , physical constructs about universe ( objects and containers ) and a set of experiences and cardinal behaviours ( eat, walk, slumber and the similar ) . For illustration:

Spatial orientations

Happy is up ; sad is down.

Conscious is up ; unconscious is down.

Health and life are up ; illness and decease are down.

Having control or force is up ; being capable to coerce or command is down.

More is up ; less is down.

Good is up ; bad is down.

Rational is up ; emotional is down.

Physical constructs about universe

It ‘s hard to set my thoughts into words.

Try to pack more thought into fewer words.

His words carry small significance.

You ca n’t merely stuff thoughts into a sentence any old manner.

Your words seem hollow.

Cardinal behaviours

Do n’t walk on my nervousnesss.

He ate his word.

He does nil but kiping on the instance.

Harmonizing to this attack, those experiences which do non straight root in our physical experiences should be metaphoric in nature. Lakoff has besides stated that such metaphoric or abstract constructs are structured and understood through the metaphoric function of a restricted set of empirical impressions in our head.

To convey another informant to the above-named claim, Lakoff has stated that we normally use metaphors to talk about the abstract spheres and in our manner of utilizing metaphors we use the impressions belonging to the empirical sphere to talk of the abstract entities. Consequently, it appears that there is a consistently metaphoric relation between the abstract sphere and the empirical one.

On the footing of this attack, metaphor ( unlike what Aristotle believed ) should non be simply considered as something belonging to languageand at the degree of the words. The chief claim in this attack is that the reactions of human head are basically metaphoric ; that is to state, the conceptual system of adult male ‘s head is formed and defined on the footing of metaphors. As a effect, what makes a metaphor to work as a lingual look is the fact that metaphors root in the conceptual system of adult male ‘s head. Therefore, any survey over the metaphoric look can take us to non merely understanding the metaphoric constructs but acknowledging the metaphoric nature of adult male ‘s behaviours.

To throw visible radiation over the fact that ‘concept ‘ is metaphoric and ‘metaphoric construct ‘ regulates our day-to-day behaviour, allow ‘s see the metaphor ‘Argument is war ‘ and its influences on the construct of ‘argument ‘ in our day-to-day linguistic communication.

Your claims are untenable.

He attacked every weak point in my statement.

His unfavorable judgments were right on mark.

I demolished his statement.

I ‘ve ne’er won an statement with him.

You disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that scheme, he ‘ll pass over you out.

He shot down all of my statements.

As it can be viewed in speaking approximately statement as war, we win or lose statements, onslaught 1s place or defend ours, win or lose land, alter our line of onslaught and many other instances in the same class.

To sum up, Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) have showed that metaphors are non simply the decorations belonging to literature or linguistic communication itself ; they govern on our head and modulate our day-to-day behaviour. Harmonizing to Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) the conceptual system of adult male ‘s head which control the manner we think and the manner we behave is metaphoric in nature. They considered metaphor as a device to organize an abstract experience on the footing of an empirical one. Therefore, there are two facets in each metaphor: beginning and finish. In the metaphor ‘You are heartily welcomed ‘ , the beginning is ‘sense of touch ‘ and the finish is ‘friendship ‘ .

Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) believed that metaphors help us both to talk about entities and to believe about them. In fact, metaphor is the representation of a cardinal rule in cognitive linguistics based on which linguistic communication and idea are extremely interrelated.

4.3. Metaphor as a cultural construct

The Encyclopedia Britannica ( 1983, vol. 4, p. 657 ) defined the term civilization as “ that complex whole, which includes cognition, belief, art, ethical motives, jurisprudence, imposts, and their capablenesss and wonts acquired by the adult male as a member of society ” . On the other manus, Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980, p. 12 ) believed that “ a civilization may be thought of as providing, among other things, a pool of available metaphors for doing sense of world ” ; “ to populate by a metaphor is to hold your world structured by that metaphor and to establish your perceptual experiences and actions upon that structuring of world ” ( ibid ) . Consequently, metaphors root in the civilization of a state and reflect their cultural believes and values. Therefore, the interlingual rendition of metaphors between two different linguistic communications ( e.g. English and Persian ) which use to gestate the world in different ways is non an easy undertaking. In order to acknowledge the extent of this hardness, we merely necessitate to see that the two civilizations benefit from different traditions, life conditions, methods of stand foring the experience and symbols. Consequently, it can be concluded that metaphors are culture-specific due to the fact that different civilizations conceptualize the universe in different ways.

Dagut ( 1976, p. 32 ) believed that there is no simplistic general manner to interpret metaphors and the translatability of a metaphor in the SL is contingent upon two critical points: a ) the peculiar cultural experiences and semantic associations exploited by it, B ) the extent to which these can, or can non, be produced non-anomalously into the TL, depending on the grade of convergence in each peculiar instance. Dagut ( 1976, p. 28 ) even went beyond that and stated “ what determines the translatability of a SL metaphor is non its ‘boldness ‘ or ‘originality ‘ , but instead the extent to which the cultural experience and semantic associations on which it draws are shared by talkers of the peculiar TL ” . Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) believed that the trouble of the translationof the SL metaphor is non the deficiency of lexical equivalent in the TL but the diverseness of cultural conceptualisation of an indistinguishable entity or word in the SL and TL. Snell-Hornby ( 1995, p. 41 ) stated that “ the extent to which a text is translatable varies with the grade to which it is embedded in its ain specific civilization, besides with the distance that separates the cultural background of the beginning text and the mark audience in footings of clip and infinite.

4.4. Cognitive theoretical accounts for the interlingual rendition of metaphors

Katan ( 1999 ) believed that what we really do in a cognitive attack towards civilization is to analyze and depict what people have in head every bit good as their theoretical account of comprehending entities. Consequently in the interlingual rendition of a metaphor from the SL, the transcriber needs to hold a sufficient cognition of both the forms of thought and moving in his ain civilization every bit good as the TL ‘s cultural theoretical accounts of world.

Nida ( 1964 ) believed that the best interlingual rendition is the one which can arouse the same response of the SL reader when reading the SL text in the TL reader. Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) criticized Nida ‘s attitude sing the best interlingual rendition and called it practically impossible ; nevertheless, he besides stated that we can near it to some extent but under two conditions: a ) the transcriber should cognize the manner the TL readers perceive the universe and construction their experiences, B ) the transcriber should make his/her best to suit the text to the experience of the TL reader every bit good as the manner it is recorded in the TL.

In the cognitive attack, metaphors are non simply considered as lingual entities. In fact, they present the manner people conceptualize and record their experience. Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980 ) defined metaphor as a device to understand mark sphere experience on the footing of a familiar one ( beginning sphere ) . As it can be viewed, this definition entails a comparing between an bing entity and another entity which is assumed to be.

Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980, p. 3 ) believed that “ metaphor is permeant in mundane life, non merely in linguistic communication but in idea and action ” , and that “ ordinary conceptual system is basically metaphorical in nature ” . Therefore, it can be concluded that in the cognitive position to metaphor, the accent is made on the psychological every bit good as sociocultural and lingual facet ( Al-Hasnawi, 2007 ) .

On the footing of the cognitive attack, Mandelblit ( 1995 ) presented his ‘Cognitive Translation Hypothesis ‘ and considered two strategies for the interlingual rendition of metaphors:

a ) Similar function conditions

B ) Different function conditions

Harmonizing to Mandelblit ( 1995 ) , the interlingual rendition of a metaphor with a similar function status in the SL and TL is less time-consuming and simple. On the other manus, the interlingual rendition of the SL metaphor with a different function conditions can be reproduced in the TL while the transcriber can take from among the following schemes to render the SL metaphor into the TL: rendering the metaphor to simile, a paraphrasis, a footer, an account and -in the last resort- skip.

Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) added one strategy to Mandelblit ‘s Cognitive Translation Hypothesis and considered three strategies for the interlingual rendition of metaphors as follows:

a ) Metaphors of similar function conditions

B ) Metaphors holding similar function conditions but lexically implemented otherwise

degree Celsius ) Metaphors of different function conditions

Harmonizing to Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) the first set includes ‘the cultural cosmopolitan SL metaphors derived from shared human experience ‘ . The 2nd set includes the metaphors which are merely lexically different due to the ethical system in the TL and SL. And eventually, the 3rd set includes the culture-bound SL metaphors.

4.5. The present attitude in subtitling metaphors

Based on what has been stated so far, it can be concluded that the taxonomy of metaphors presented by Newmark ( 1988 ) makes the interlingual rendition of this figure of address overcomplicated. The dividing lines that he considered between different types of metaphors are sometimes so blur and obscure that even the English native talkers face with troubles to separate between them. Besides, this type of sorting metaphors may non be of great aid to interlingual rendition. As Dagut ( 1976, p. 28 ) proposed “ what determines the translatability of a SL metaphor is non its ‘boldness ‘ or ‘originality ‘ but instead the extent to which the cultural experience and semantic association on which it draws are shared by talkers of the peculiar TL. ”

In the visible radiation of ‘Cognitive Translation Hypothesis ‘ , Mandelblit ( 1995 ) presented two strategies of cognitive function conditions:

a ) Similar function conditions

B ) Different mapping conditions ( which indicate the manner the SL and TL talkers conceptualize the universe through metaphors )

Consequently, Mandelblit ( 1995 ) believed that when the SL and TL portion similar function conditions the interlingual rendition of the SL metaphor will be merely done by taking an tantamount TL metaphor or ( in the worst conditions ) a TL simile. However, if the SL follows different mapping conditions compared to that of the TL, the interlingual rendition of metaphor will be more debatable and accordingly time-consuming. In this instance, the transcriber should render the SL metaphor through taking a TL simile, or by a paraphrasis, a footer, an account or skip.

Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) added one more strategy to mandelblit ‘s as follow:

a ) Metaphors of similar function conditions

B ) Metaphors holding similar function conditions but lexically implemented otherwise

degree Celsius ) Metaphors of different function conditions

Al-Hasnawi ( 2007 ) has peculiarly considered two points about metaphors ; viz. , metaphor function conditions and the words used in the metaphor construction.

In the visible radiation of the cognitive rules regulating Mandelblit ‘s proposed strategies and through concentrating on Al-Hasnawi ‘s points of concern in the interlingual rendition of metaphors, the present research considers 6 strategies for rendering metaphors from the SL ( English ) to the TL ( Persian ) as follows:

Scheme one – the SL metaphor does non be in the TL ( the SL talkers use to gestate an individuality in the metaphoric linguistic communication while the TL talkers use the actual linguistic communication ) . For illustration:

He is a late bloomer.

Iranian talkers do non hold any metaphor in their linguistic communication which can be considered as an equivalent for this metaphor ; alternatively, they use the actual linguistic communication to explicate its significance. Therefore, the best scheme for subtitling this type of metaphors ( from among the schemes suggested by Newmark ) is Conversion of metaphor to sense. Although, interlingual rendition of metaphor by the same metaphor combined with sense can besides be considered as a pick which preserve the affectional burden every bit good as the enlightening burden of the SL metaphor ; but due to the alone restraints of subtitling ( i.e. infinite and clip ) it is non recommended as the best pick.

Scheme two – the SL and TL portion similar function conditions. For illustration:

I ‘d wish to stand on my ain two pess.

In Persian, this sentence can be subtitled as:

( Actual Translation: I ‘d wish to stand on my ain pess )

This type of metaphor can be best subtitled by reproducing the same image in the TL.

Scheme three – the SL and the TL metaphors have similar function conditions but lexically implemented otherwise. For illustration:

He criticized me repeatedly, but I took it on the mentum.

In Persian, it is subtitled as:

( Actual interlingual rendition: He criticized me repeatedly, but I let it go through under my mustache )

The best scheme to subtitle this type of metaphor is replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does non collide with the TL civilization.

Scheme four – the SL and the TL metaphors have similar word execution but ( instead ) different function conditions. For illustration:

He calls his instructor by his first name.

Iranian talkers do hold such a construction in their linguistic communication:

( Actual Translation: He calls his instructor by his first name )

As it can be viewed, both metaphors include rather the same words but the constructs which lie behind these apparently indistinguishable metaphors are different. ‘He calls his instructor by his first name ‘ for the English native talkers means ‘He has a friendly relation with his instructor ; while the Iranian talkers use to construe the same metaphor as ‘He is a ill-mannered individual ‘ .

In order to subtitle these types of metaphors, transition of metaphor to sense is the best pick ; nevertheless, interlingual rendition of metaphor by the same metaphor combined with sense can besides be considered as another option: although, it can non be the best due to the alone restraints in subtitling ( i.e. infinite and clip ) .

Scheme five – the SL and TL metaphors have different function conditions. For Example:

Person acquire the bastard outa here.

Iranian subtitlers translate this metaphor as:

( Actual Translation: Person acquire the stick outa here )

The usage of metaphors which are constructed fundamentally by sexual footings is something common in the American English ( peculiarly in the film duologues ) . For illustration, the term ‘asshole ‘ is a really common term in the American films which indicates on ‘a worthless and raging individual ‘ ; nevertheless, Iranian talkers prefer to utilize the metaphors which are constructed based on non-sexual footings.

The preferred schemes for rendering this type of metaphors are interlingual rendition of metaphor by simile and transition of metaphor to sense.

Scheme six – the TL metaphor does non be in the SL ( the TL talkers use to gestate a certain individuality in the metaphoric linguistic communication while the SL talkers use the actual linguistic communication ) .

On the surface, this strategy is no more than a theoretic possibility which has nil to make with our instance of interpreting metaphors from the SL to the TL. In other words, the deficiency of a metaphor in the SL can ne’er be considered as debatable while we translate from the SL to the TL. But the fact is that the present strategy can be the beginning of great aid to subtitlers who suffer the most from the alone restraints of this peculiar type of interlingual rendition ; viz. , infinite and clip. Metaphor is the shrunk signifier of a instead drawn-out thought in the actual linguistic communication. Therefore, a subtitler can utilize the TL metaphor for the interlingual rendition of the SL actual statement ( with respect to the cultural experience and semantic associations ) non merely to salvage on infinite and clip but to assist the viewing audiences to better bask the film with more TL-oriented captions.

Despite the afore-mentioned schemes, the subtitler can besides utilize skip. If the metaphor is excess or serves no practical intent, there is a instance for its omission together with its sense constituent ( Newmark, 1988 ) .

In the terminal and before discoursing the collected information, it is of critical virtue to observe that taking from among the presented schemes is extremely influenced by the parametric quantities of subtitling ( Pedersen, 2005 ) , the regulations and ordinances of subtitling ( Karamitroglou, 1998 ) and the peculiar restraints ( i.e. infinite and clip ) of this type of interlingual rendition.