Metaphor and Translation Essay

Abstr stand for fable has been widely discussed deep d induce the playing field of deracination Studies, preponderantly with nonice to translatability and enrapture methods. It has been argued that everyegorys disregard be devolve a reading job, since transferring them from iodine words and glossiness to an opposite nonp aril may be hampered by lingual and ethnical differences.A number of edition surgical processs for dealing with this problem squander been suggested, e. g. , substitution ( fable into distinct parable), repeat ( fable into sense), or deletion. Such procedures view been commented on both in normative models of commentary (how to translate allegorys) and in descriptive models (how parables call for been dealt with in material interlingual renditions). After a short overview of how fiction has been dealt with in the discipline of deracination Studies, this paper discusses or so implications of a cognitive approach to allegorys for comment possibleness and practice.Illustrations from authentic survivalion and hindquarters schoolbooks ( incline and German, policy-making discuss) show how arr resentments handled fictionical smells, and what personal effects this had for the school schoolbookbookbookual matterbookual matter itself, for textual matter reception by the cargon forees, and for posterior discursive developments. 2004 Elsevier B. V. alone ripes reserved. Keywords Conceptual fiction English French German fictionical font Translation Studies 1. Introduction Metaphor, as a typical feature of communication, renders a challenge for rendition too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of Translation Studies.In the literature on deracination, the cardinal briny issues take been, ? rstly, the translatability of illustrations, and endorsemently, the elaboration of say-so rendering * Tel. ? 44-121-359-36114224 fax ? 44-121-359-6153. ? E-mail address c. schaeffneraston. ac. uk (C. Schaffner). 0378-2166/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. pragma. 2003. 10. 012 1254 ? C. Schaffner / diary of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 procedures.In most cases, the straination is compositiond on a traditional apprehensiveness of parable as a ? gure of run-in, as a linguistic prospect which is substituted for a nonher construction (with a literal nub), and whose main dish out is the stylistic embellishment of the text. It is only deep that a cognitive approach to fiction has been utilize to Translation Studies. In this article, I want to exemplify on the priming of some examples from the language pair, English and German, what a cognitive approach could offer to the comment of allegorys in edition. The discussion proceeds to capture with from the thought of the discipline of Translation Studies.In pickings this approach, it is similarly possible to look how the cros s-linguistic and cross-ethnical posture of adaptation bath elbow room contri preciselye to fiction conjecture. 2. The treatment of fiction as a shift problem Translation and interpreting as activities direct existed for many centuries, and there is a long tradition of thought and an capacious body of opinion most exposition (cf. Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995 Robinson, 1997). But it was non until the bite half of this century that Translation Studies developed into a discipline in its declare right (cf. Holmes, 1988 Snell-Hornby et al. , 1992).Although at ? rst conceived as a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, it has interpreted on concepts and methods of a nonher(prenominal) disciplines, nonably text linguistics, communication studies, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics, comparative literature, and latterly, cultural studies. Instead of a uni? ed possibleness, we break a multiplicity of approaches, each of which rivetes on speci? c aspects of displacement reaction, looks at the product or the process of translation from a speci? c angle, and utilise ups speci? c ? terminology and research methods (cf. Chesterman, 2000 Gentzler, 1993 Schaffner, 1997b Stolze, 1994).The phenomenon of parable has regularly been of concern to translation scholars who have argued some problems of transferring fictions from one language and nicety to a nonher. The arguments brought forward need to be seen in spite of appearance the context of a heterogeneous discipline, i. e. , with reckon to the speci? c model of translation at heart which the scholars approached their progeny. I will because begin by giving a draft overview of the most prominent approaches to translation and pull up stakes a short account of how fable has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies.Linguistics-based approaches de? ne translation as transferring meanings, as condition line language (SL) signs by uniform cross language (TL) signs (e. g. , Catford, 1965). The source text (ST) is to be reproduced in the TL as closemouthedly as possible, both in content and in form. Since the set about of a translation theory has often been seen as determining appropriate translation methods, language systems (as langues) have been studied in found to ? nd the smallest equivalent building blocks (at the lexical and well-formed levels) which deal be substituted for each other in an unfeigned text (as parole).Textlinguistic approaches de? ne translation as source text induced bulls eye text (TT) deed (Neubert, 1985). The text itself is treated as the unit of translation, and it is stressed that a text is of all time a text in a situation and in a culture. in that locationfore, friendliness needs to be given to situational factors, music genre or text-typological conventions, addressees knowledge and expectations, and text functions.The telephone exchange public opinion of equivalence is now ? C. Schaffner / J ournal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1255 applied to the textual level, and de? ned as communicatory equivalence, i. e., a relationship betwixt the tar bilk text and the source text in which TT and ST be of qualified value in the respective communicative situations in their cultures.Functionalist approaches de? ne translation as a purposeful activity (cf. Nord, 1997), as ? ? transcultural interaction (Holz-Manttari, 1984), as production of a TT which is appropriate for its speci? ed purpose (its skopos) for propose addressees in solelyt circumstances (cf. Vermeers skopos theory, e. g. , Vermeer, 1996). The actual form of the TT, its textual linguistic make-up, is thencely depen hideoutt on its intended purpose, and non (exclusively) on the grammatical construction of the ST.The yardstick for assessing the superior of the target text is, hencely, its appropriateness for its purpose, and not the equivalence to the source text. More juvenile linguistic approaches acknowl edge that translation is not a simple substitution process, further rather the result of a complicated text-processing activity. However, they argue that translations need to be throttle a fail from other kinds of derived texts, and that the label translation should only be applied to those cases where an equivalence relation obtains surrounded by ST and TT (House, 1997 Koller, 1992). par is probably the most controversial notion in Translation Studies. Some translation scholars reject this notion outright, arguing that by retaining equivalence in the vocabulary, translation scholars shelve the issue that it is difference, not comparableness or transp argonncy or equality, which is inscribed in the operations of translation (Hermans, 1998 61). This view is in like manner expressed in current approaches that atomic number 18 inspired by postmodern theories and cultural Studies, which argue that texts do not have any intrinsically stable meaning that could be repeated elsewh ere (e. g. , Arrojo, 1998 Venuti, 1995).For Venuti, the target text should be the site where a different culture emerges, where a ratifier gets a glimpse of a cultural other (Venuti, 1995 306). In the course of its development, the focus of Translation Studies has, gum olibanum, shifted markedly from linguistic towards contextual and cultural factors which affect translation. Major transport for the development of the discipline has also seed from research conducted within the framework of descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), aiming at the description of translating and translations as they manifest themselves in the world of our companionship (Holmes, 1988 71).Research here includes reckoning the socio-historical conditions in which translations ar produced and received, i hidea chargetifying regularities in translators behaviour and relateing much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) regularities to translation norms which operate both in the social matter and the cog nitive act of translation (cf. Toury, 1995). DTS and postmodern theories thus de? ne translation as norm-governed behaviour (Toury, 1995) and/or a cultural political practice (Venuti, 1996 197). The contrast between normative models (what a TT should look like) and descriptive models (what TTs real do look like) is also evi hideawayt in the discussions about fable translation.Metaphor has traditionally been exposit as an man-to-man linguistic phenomenon (a figurative style) which smoke become a translation problem. roughly scholars use the self kindred(prenominal) reason as those applied in semantic theories (cf. Goatly, 1997), i. e. , legal injury like see or vehicle for the conventional referent, object or topic for the actual unconventional referent, and sense, fuzee, or tenor for the similarities and/or analogies involved.Newmark (1981) explains these call on the basis of the example root out the faults as follows the object, that is, the item which is give awayd by the simile, is faults. The forecast, that is, the item in terms of which the object is described, 1256 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 is grow up weeds. The metaphor, that is, the word(s) used in the image, is grow out, and the sense, which shows in what particular aspects the object and the image argon similar, is (a) eliminate and (b) do so with tremendous individualised effort.He argues that in translating this ? metaphor, a verb such(prenominal)(prenominal) as eliminer in French, or entfernen in German, would not do, unless the vocalize was of marginal importance in the text (Newmark, 1981 85). These arguments re? ect the both main concerns in Translation Studies, the translatability of metaphors, and procedures to transfer them from a source language into a target language. In equivalence-based approaches, the underlying assumption is that a metaphor, once identi? ed, should ideally be transferred inviolable from SL to TL. However, cultural differences between SL and TL have often been mentioned as pr until nowting such an full transfer.For Dagut (1976 22), a metaphor is an individual ? alter of imaginative insight, a original product of violating the linguistic system, and as such, passing culture speci? c. Its main function is to daze its readers by creating an aesthetic impact. In Daguts view, the effect of shock is to be hold in a translation, and if linguistic and cultural factors hinder this effect, then he maintains that the metaphor offernot be translated.For object lesson, he uses Hebraic metaphors translated into English, and shows, for example, how Hebrew metaphors atomic number 18 closely connected to scriptural stories and thus culture speci? c (as in the case of the verb form neekad jump off, i. e. , nonliterally, bound like Isaac for the sacri? ce). most authors agree that the image in the ST cannot eer be retained in the TT (e. g. , because the image that is attached to the meta phor is hidden in the TL, or the associations triggered by the SL metaphor get lost in the TL), and afterward several(prenominal)(prenominal) translation procedures have been suggested as alternative solutions to the ideal of reproducing the metaphor intact.For example, caraforefront den Broeck (1981 77) lists the following possibilities. 1. Translation sensu stricto (i.e. , transfer of both SL tenor and SL vehicle into TL). 2. exchange (i. e. , replacement of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with much than or less the same tenor). 3. retell (i. e. , rendering a SL metaphor by a non- figurative mien in the TL). caravan den Broeck provides these modes of metaphor translation as a tentative scheme, i. e. , as conjectural possibilities. By linking them to categories of metaphor (lexicalized, conventional, and private metaphors) and to their use and functions in texts, he presents some hypotheses about translatability.In the tradition of DTS, van den Broeck sees the task o f a translation theory not in prescribing how metaphors should be translated, however in describing and explaining set solutions. He therefore argues that detailed descriptive studies of how metaphors are actually translated would be required to test the suggested modes and his hypotheses. In contrast to van den Broecks descriptive framework, Newmarks translation procedures are presented in a prescriptive way, with the aim of providing principles, restricted rules, and guidelines for translating and translator training.He distinguishes between ? ve ? types of metaphors dead, cliche, stock, recent, and original. In his discussion of stock metaphors, he proposes seven translation procedures, which have much been taken up in the literature. These procedures are arranged in gear up of gustation (Newmark, 1981 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1257 8791). Newmarks focus is on the linguistic systems, and his arguments can be conjugate to the substitution theo ry of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997 116f). (All examples given here for illustration are Newmarks own examples).1. Reproducing the same image in the TL, e. g. , golden piggoldenes Haar. 2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does not clash with the ? TL culture, e. g. , other lean to frydautres chats a fouetter. ? 3. Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image, e. g. , Ces zones cryptuaire ou s ? ? elabore la beaute. The crypt-like areas where steady is manufactured. According to Newmark, this procedure can modify the shock of the metaphor.4. Translating metaphor (or simile) by simile plus sense (or occasionally a metaphor plus ? sense), e. g. , tout un vocabulaire molieresquea whole repertoire of medical empiricist philosophy such as Moliere might have used. Newmark suggests the use of this compromise solution in order to avoid comprehension problems however, it results in a loss of the intended effect.5. Converting metaphor to sense, e. g. , sein Brot verdienento earn ones sustentation. This procedure is recommended when the TL image is too abundant in sense or not appropriate to the register. However, emotive aspects may get lost. 6. Deletion, if the metaphor is redundant. 7. Using the same metaphor combined with sense, in order to practice the image.Toury (1995 81ff) points out that these translation procedures start from the metaphor as identified in the ST, and that the identified metaphor (the metaphoric expression) is treated as a unit of translation. He argues that from the purview of the TT, ii additional cases can be identified the use of a metaphor in the TT for a non-metaphorical expression in the ST (non-metaphor into metaphor), and the addition of a metaphor in the TT without any linguistic motivation in the ST (zero into metaphor). This view deals with metaphor not as a translation problem (of the ST), but as a translation solution.In his descriptive study of ? the translation of verb metaphors (for the language pair Swedish and German), Kjar (1988) included such an inverse abbreviation as well, but did not go much beyond a monstrance of statistical findings. Kurths (1995) findings, too, are derived from a descriptive analysis of actual translations. ground on the interaction theory of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997 117ff) and on flicks and frames semantics as applied to translation (Vannerem and Snell-Hornby, 1986), he illustrates how several metaphors interact in the construction of a macro-scene.In German translations of works by Charles Dickens, he shows which TL frames have been chosen for a SL scene (e. g. , humanizing objects by anthropomorphical metaphors) and what the consequences are for the effect of the text (e. g. , weakening of an image). 3. Metaphors from the cognitive linguistics perspective consequences for Translation Studies The cognitive approach to metaphor, more often than not initiated by Lakoff and Johnsons Metaphors We Live By (1980), can contribute s ensitive insights into translation as well.This approach, however, is only gradually taking root within Translation Studies (e. g. , Al? Harrasi, 2000 Cristofoli et al. , 1998 Schaffner, 1997a, 1998 Stienstra, 1993). The main 1258 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 argument of the cognitive approach is that metaphors are not just decorative elements, but rather, prefatorial resources for thought processes in human society. Metaphors are a pith of understanding one globe of experience (a target realm) in terms of another (a source domain).The source domain is mapped onto the target domain, whereby the structural functions of the base schema are transferred to the target domain (ontological correspondences), thus also allowing for knowledge-based inferences and entailments (epistemic correspondences). Such models are largely encoded and understood in linguistic terms. In cognitive linguistics, the term metaphor is used to refer to this abstract social oc casion (e. g. , ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A facile IN A CONTAINER),1 and the term metaphorical expression is used to refer to an individual linguistic expression that is based on a abstractization and thus ratified by a mapping (e.g. , I gave vent to my anger).Establishing the conceptualization on which a particular metaphorical expression is based is relevant to translation, too. Such a perspective provides a different dish up to the question of the translatability of metaphors. Translatability is no longer a question of the individual metaphorical expression, as identi? ed in the ST, but it becomes linked to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture.In what follows, some implications of such a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice are illustrated. On the basis of authentic source and target texts, I describe how translators have handled metaphorical expressions. This description is linked to a con facial expressionrateness of th e effects of such translation solutions on the text and its reception by the addressees. The examples come from political texts, and the languages involved are chiefly English and German. The focus of this paper is the description and explanation of identi? ed translation solutions.It is thus related to DTS, but, in contrast to van den Broeck, for example, I do not pretend to test pre-established translation schemes or hypotheses. My starting point is authentic TT structures for metaphorical expressions in STs. That is, the description is pre preponderatingly product-oriented,2 with the explanation be linked to text, discourse, and culture. In my conclusion, I point out some ways in which the discipline of Translation Studies can contribute to metaphor theory. 4. Metaphor and text In the following two examples, we have an very(a) metaphorical expression in the ?German ST, Brucke ( distich), but it has been handled otherwise in the TTs (both extracts come from speeches by the fo rmer(prenominal) German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) 1 In this metaphor, ontological correspondences are, for instance, the container is the body, the heat of bland is the anger epistemic correspondences are then, for instance, when the changeful is heated historic a true limit, insisting increases to the point at which the container explodes (source) and when anger increases past a ? certain limit, pressure increases to the point at which the person loses affirm (cf. Kovecses, 1986 17f).2 A process-oriented analysis, i. e. , an analysis of the actual cognitive processes in the translators mind during the translation act, would add priceless insights as well. Moreover, such a perspective would also test the validity of Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) theory. For example, one could test whether translators, as text receivers and interpreters, actually do access conceptual metaphors when constructing interpretations of metaphorical expressions (cf. Glucksberg, 2001), and how this might i nfluence the decision-making for the TT structure.Research into translation processes (e. g. , most recently Danks et al., 1997 Kussmaul, 2000 Tirkkonen-Condit ?? ? and Jaaskelainen, 2000) has not yet been conducted primarily with metaphors in mind. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1259 ? ? Wir wollen die Brucke uber den Atlantik auf allen GebietenPolitik und Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Kulturfestigen und ausbauen.We aim to strengthen and widen the transatlantic bridge in all spheres, in politics and commerce, science and culture. 3 ? So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke ? uber den Atlantik geworden. (literally . . . an important component of the translatlantic bridge).The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship. (emphasis are mine) How (if at all) can traditional translation procedures account for these different solutions? Applying Newmarks translation procedures, we could say that in the ? rst case, the procedure is metaphor for metaphor (i. e. , reproduction of the image), whereas in the cooperate case the metaphor has been deleted. These texts would be examples of what Newmark calls unconditional texts, and in his guidelines to translators he states that in such texts, metaphors should be preserved.As a snatch criterion to guide the translators decision, Newmark suggests the importance of the metaphor in the text. The ? rst extract comes from Kohls speech on receiving the unearned Freedom of the City of London (18 February 1998), the second one from his speech at the rite at Tempelhof Airport to commemorate the Berlin swipe on the occasion of the visit of death chair Clinton (14 May ? 1998). The Berlin Airlift is known in German as Luftbrucke (literally bridge in the air). In the London speech, the fiftieth day of remembrance of the Airlift is shortly mentioned, but it is not the ? actual topic of the speech.In the Tempelhof speech, ho wever, the Luftbrucke is the actual topic, and it is used frequently in the short text, thus contributing to the structure of the text. Based on these con caserations, Newmarks testimonial presumably would be metaphor into same metaphor in the ? rst case, but metaphor into sense in the second case. If we describe this authentic example on the basis of a cognitive approach, ? metaphorical expressions such as Brucke are considered in the clear of the metaphorical concept of which they are manifestations, and not as individual idioms to be ?tted into the target text as well as they can (Stienstra, 1993 217).In this case, one and the same historical event was conceptualized in different ways by different cultures, using different metaphors. The source domain of the English airlift is a TRANSPORT domain, guidance on the specialty (air), the action, and involving a electric charge (fromto). In the German ? Luftbrucke, the source domain is an ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE, focusing on the ? medium and the structural object. As said above, the anniversary of the Luftbrucke is the actual topic of Kohls Tempelhof speech but is the bridge indeed the dominant metaphor in the text as a whole? In other words what is the underlying conceptual metaphor by which ?the metaphorical expression Freundschaftsbrucke is approve? A closer analysis of the text above shows that the argumentation is organise most the commutation idea of AmericanGerman friendship. In the ? rst ? ve paragraphs, Kohl gives an ? account of the historical event itself and of its political signi? cance. Luftbrucke occurs six 3 Translators are normally not identified by name in the case of translations being produced for the German government. 1260 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 quantify in these ? rst paragraphs, each time translated as Airlift, since each time it is used as a proper name.Kohl then colligate the historical aspect to the development of American German friendship over the uttermost(a) 50 years, both at a personal level and at the governmental ? level. And it is here that he speaks of the Freundschaftsbrucke (exploiting the bridge image as a rhetorical means for the argumentative function of a political speech) . . . in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten haben rund 7 Millionen amerikanische Soldaten bei uns in Deutschland Dienst getan. Gemeinsam mit ihren Familien waren es etwa 15 Millionen Amerikaner, die fernab ihrer Heimat, ihren Beitrag zur ?Erhaltung von Frieden und Freiheit leisteten . . . . Im taglichen Kontakt mit ihren ? ? deutschen Nachbarn haben sie viele personliche Beziehungen geknupft. Diese wurden ? . . . eines der Fundamente der engen Freundschaft zwischen unseren Volkern. Es ? ? ? sind ja nicht zuletzt die alltaglichen Erfahrungen und Eindrucke, die personlichen und menschlichen Begegnungen, die in diesen Jahrzehnten die deutsch-amerikanischen ? Beziehungen mit Leben erfullt haben. So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein ? ? wich tiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke uber den Atlantik geworden.4 What we can see from such an analysis is that Kohls speech is structured around a metaphorical understanding of friendship Germany and the ground forces are friends. comprehend the state metaphorically as a person seeking friendship involves a metaphorical conception of closeness. Thus, all references in Kohls speech to Kontakte, Beziehungen, Begegnungen ( clashings, a boneheaded network of personal ties, personal encounters) can be described as metaphorical expressions that are sanctioned by the conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A soulfulness and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS (see also Gibbs comments on primary metaphors (Gibbs et al., this issue)).One of the means which allows friends who fuck far apart to experience close personal contact, is a bridge. A bridge links two endpoints, here the USA and Germany (ontological correspondence), thus providing an opportunity for mutual contact (epistemic correspondence). ? From suc h a conceptual perspective, we can say that rendering Freundschaftsbrucke as transatlantic friendship does not really interpret a case of metaphor deletion. The conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A someone and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS are present in both ST and TT.It is these conceptual metaphors that are relevant for the structure of the text and its boilers suit function as a political speech. At the macro-level, the conceptual metaphors are identical in ST and TT, although at the micro-level a speci? c ? metaphorical expression in the ST (Freundschaftsbrucke) has not been rendered in exactly the same way in the TT. However, transatlantic friendship in the TT can equally be characterized as a metaphorical expression which is justi? ed by the same conceptual metaphors.4 The authentic English translation of this passage reads as follows Over the past decades some seven million American servicemen have been stationed in Germany. Together with their families, that makes about 15 million Americans who, in this demesne far from home, have helped, . . . to safeguard two-eyed violet and liberty. In their day-to-day contacts with Germans the American union here has built up a dense network of personal ties central to the close friendship between our two nations.It is not least this wealth of personal encounters, these everyday impressions and experiences which make GermanAmerican relations a meaningful part of daily life. The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1261 If we take a cognitive approach, a ? rst aspect of metaphors in translation can therefore be described as follows not all individual manifestations of a conceptual metaphor in a source text are accounted for in the target text by using the same metaphorical expression.This argument is in line with one of Stienstras (1993) ? ndings. On the basis of several Bible translations into English and D utch, she illustrates that the conceptual metaphor YHWH IS THE HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE, which is a central metaphor of the Old Testament, was preserved at the macro-level, even if speci? c textual manifestations were changed or not accounted for in each individual case. There is another example in Kohls Tempelhof speech which provides insights into strategic uses of metaphors and their treatment in translation.In elaborating on German American partnership in the world of at once and tomorrow, Kohl says ? Unser Ziel, Herr Prasident, ist es, den Bau des Hauses Europa zu vollenden. Dabei wollen wir, da? unsere amerikanischen Freunde in diesem Haus auf Dauer ihre feste Wohnung haben. (literally . . . We want our American friends to have a permanent apartment in this tin. Our design is to complete the construction of the European familywith a permanent right of planetary house for our American friendsand enable the family of European nations to dwell together side by side in lasting peace.(italics are mine) From a cognitive perspective, we can say that the metaphorical expressions Haus Europa, Haus, and feste Wohnung are all sanctioned by the underlying conceptual metaphor atomic number 63 IS A HOUSE, which is an example of an ontological metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).Whereas in the ST, the structural elements have been lexicalized, the TT has made the entailments of the source domain expressed that is, an apartment ensures a right of residence, and these are epistemic correspondences. Both ST and TT endure within the conceptual metaphor of a house, while the additional information in the TT (and enable the family of European nations to get together side by side in lasting peace) can be seen as elaborating on this metaphor, thus also providing a conceptual link to the metaphor INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS which structures Kohls speech.Identifying metaphors and describing target text pro? les is a legitimate research aim for a translation scholar. An addit ional question concerns the causes and effects of particular translations (cf. Chesterman, 1998). I will illustrate this ? rst, by reference to the Haus Europa again, and then by commenting on the effects of a speci? c translation solution (fester Kern effortful core).Such an analysis needs to r etc. the text into its historical context, accounting for its function, its addressees, etc. Metaphor is, thus, no longer a translation phenomenon of one particular text, but becomes an intertextual phenomenon. 5. Metaphor as an intertextual phenomenon The metaphorical expression Haus Europa ? gured prominently in the discourse of Helmut Kohl in the 1990s, speci? cally with reference to issues of European integration. Actually, the metaphor of the customary European house was introduced into political discourse in the mid-1980s by the then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev.As a 1262 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 re? ection of the parvenue political thinking in the commie Party under Gorbachev, the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was to establish the idea of all European states, due east and West of the Iron Curtain, living and working together in nonaggressive coexistence. The base schema for Gorbachevs metaphor was a multi-story apartment block with several entrances, in which several families live, each in their own ? ats (i. e. , the prototypical house in bigger Russian towns).In his own discourse, Gorbachev hardly elaborated on the structural elements of a house, but most frequently stressed the rules and norms for living together in this common house. The rules of the house have to stop up that every family can live their own lives, without interference from their neighbours, so that the common house is protected and kept in order (cf. Chilton, 1996 ? Schaffner, 1996). The Russian metaphorical expression dom was rendered as house in English5 and as Haus in German political discourse in reporting on Gorbachevs ne w political ideas and aims, which were not readily welcomed in Western European countries.But more often than being rejected outright, the metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was taken up and conceptually challenged. In British political discourse (especially in the second half of the 1980s), the structural aspects dominated in the argumentation, determined by features of the prototypical English house. That is, there are references to detached and semi-detached houses, to fences, and to questions such as who is to live in which room or on which ? oor.