Metaphor and Political Discourse

8/12/2019 Metaphor and Political Discourse

1/83

Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English-language Translation

Petr Dvok

Translating Metaphors

within Political Discourse:

The Case of EU

Masters Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenick, Ph.D.

2011


2/83

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.


3/83

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr. Renata

Kamenick,Ph.D., for her patient guidance and immense help throughout the

creation of this thesis. I would also like to thank my family for the support which

made my studies possible.


4/83

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Remarks on the scope and aims of the thesis ......................................... 3

2. Area of interest and the research questions ................................................... 4

3. Method ........................................................................................................... 7

4. Metaphor as an issue in translation studies ................................................. 10

4.1 Prescription versus Description .............................................................. 10

4.2 Two main issues .................................................................................... 10

4.3 Translatability ......................................................................................... 12

4.3 Classical versus conceptual perspective ............................................... 13

4.4 Translatability revisited .......................................................................... 16

4.5 Types of metaphors and strategies of translation .................................. 19

5. Metaphors in political discourse. Context and challenges ............................ 24

5.1 Agenda setting and persuasion .............................................................. 26

5.2 Concepts and transitivity in politics ........................................................ 28

5.3 Intercultural communication ................................................................... 30

5.4 Specifics of the EU ................................................................................. 32

6. The Corpus .................................................................................................. 34

6.1 Selection procedure ............................................................................... 37

6.2 Time range ............................................................................................. 38

7. Qualitative analysis of metaphors ................................................................ 39

7.1 General information on metaphors ......................................................... 40

7.2 Nature and type of metaphors ................................................................ 44

7.2.1 Unlexicalised metaphors proper ..................................................... 45


5/83

7.2.2 Lexicalised metaphors proper ......................................................... 48

7.2.3 Metonymy and synecdoche ............................................................ 51

7.3 Translation strategies ............................................................................. 54

7.4 Concepts and intercultural communication ............................................ 58

7.4.1 Concepts changed by translation .................................................... 61

8. Discussion. Avenues for future research ...................................................... 64

9. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 66

10. Sources and works cited ............................................................................ 69

List of schemata and tables ............................................................................. 74

Abstract ............................................................................................................ 75

Length of the text: about 115,400 characters


6/83

List of abbreviations

SL (L1) Source language

ST Source text

TL (L2) Target language

TT Target text

EN English

CS Czech

UK United Kingdom

CZ Czech Republic

EU European Union

EP European Parliament

CE Council of the European Union

MEP Member of the European Parliament

MIP Metaphor Identification Procedure

TS Translation studies

Subcorpora:

PRES Speeches and texts of highest representatives of the Council

DOC Texts and press releases from the Presidency of the Council

EP Speeches from the floor and texts from the European Parliament


7/83

Motto

And this is the office of the supreme Figure of all: Metaphor. If Genius, & therefore

Learning, consists in connecting remote Notions & finding Similitude in things

dissimilar, then Metaphor, the most acute and farfetched among Tropes, is the only one

capable of producing Wonder, which gives birth to Pleasure, as do changes of scene in

the theater. And if the Pleasure produced by Figures derives from learning new things

without effort & many things in small volume, then Metaphor, setting our mind to flying

betwixt one Genus & another, allows us to discern in a single Word more than one

Object.

Umberto Eco: The Island of the Day Before


8/83

1

1. Introduction

Metaphor is a highly important tool of communication and quite a difficult phenomenon

to study. It often does not allow fully equivalent translation; it therefore provokes

important questions about its nature and possible transferability across languages and

cultures. These questions are being handled in many different ways by various scholarly

approaches, where most of them do not offer more than partial explanations and a

considerably limited scope of operation. For that reason, translation of metaphors will

be always seen as problematic no matter which approach to metaphor is chosen

(Olivera 1998: 5 as cited in Fernndez 2003: 66).

Moreover, metaphor is a topic where growing interest can be perceived, which is

given for one thing by the increasing importance of non-literary texts and the

implications of using English as lingua franca (Stlhammar 2006), for another by

increasing heterogeneity and multidimensionality of scholarly disciplinessince

metaphor as such and particularly its practical use is a topic located on the borderline of

more fields, including linguistics, social science, anthropology, and philosophy.

However, this masters thesis does not aspire to cover the topic in its entirety and

complexity. It primarily employs the viewpoint of translation studies and it focuses

mainly on the practical perspective of everyday translation process within one particular

context, namely European Union, and more specifically between two different

languages, English and Czech. The thesis shall empirically analyse the features of

metaphors and the strategies of their translation in these settings. Knowledge of ways of

treatment of metaphors and creative language in general within EU (and possible

detection what the obvious priorities are) could tell us something about typical features

of intercultural communication within this peculiar entity.


9/83

2

The positive contribution of the thesis to TS should ideally consist in adding

some modest yet tangible results to the list of works dealing with the phenomenon in a

rather practical way. It seems that analytic papers of this kind are rather rare in terms of

quantity. Moreover, in my humble opinion, they rarely offer in-depth analysis of

complex features. These articles which are not openly theoretical often do not go

beyond the level of pure description of metaphorical concepts used by a particular actor.

These works which would dare to directly apply another, translation-related layer of

questions, such as the question of equivalence or interculturality, are truly sporadic.

This is, of course, no surprise with regard to the procession of problems which are

connected to the phenomenon and which tend to emerge during any serious analysis of

it.

Therefore, specifying the outline and desired practical outcomes of the research

was not an easy task. Having done an initial research of existing resources, I am of the

opinion that there currently is no such methodological tool available which would be

universal, clear-cut and robust enough to product results directly comparable with other

similar analyses.

This analysis focuses on both novel and older metaphors within political

communication, particularly such ones which bear some kind of metaphorical tension

and could be thus used strategically to provoke an intentional semantic shock or to

portray a particular concept in a desired way.

The thesis is divided into four logical parts:

I. Introductory part (covering aims and methods): chapters 13


10/83

3

II. Theoretical part (covering relevant concepts and specifics of the material analysed):

chapters 45

III. Information on corpus: chapter 6

IV. Results and conclusions: chapters 79

1.1 Remarks on the scope and aims of the thesis

Firstly, I would like to point out that the aim of this thesis is to apply selected

tools to one particular discourse in an attempt to explore the details discussed only

sporadically so far; in other words, the thesis should focus on a relatively narrowly-

specified area and it has no far-reaching theoretical or meta-theoretical goals. The

questions dealt with tend to open deeper epistemological and ontological problems, but

these are at any case beyond the frame of this text. The thesis does not lay a claim to

define general explanatory laws, and the results of the work should be interpreted as

such.

Secondly, the topic of metaphors raises the problem of multidisciplinarity. One

cannot escape the socio-political and socio-cultural factors which need to be addressed

when the analysis is to be carried out. This analysis of metaphor draws on the

perspective of linguistics while staying open to the perspective of social science, so the

conclusions of the analysis shall not be strictly limited to a single scholarly fielda

certain overlap is expected.

Thirdly, the thesis also explores themes located on the borderline of approaches,

some of them having direct links to political reality, particular world views, social-

scientific agendas and so forth. Not only for this reason should the strategy of the


11/83

4

argumentation be neutral, compatible with multiple scholarly disciplines, and

descriptive and empirical rather than prescriptive and normative. The search for the

essence of metaphor can even make researchers take extreme philosophical or political

positionssomething undesirable in the world of research. I personally have no

attachment to one particular approach, strategy, or even ideological interpretation.

2. Area of interest and the research questions

Metaphor is, without doubt, a practical challenge to a translator, as well as a theoretical

problem of translation and therefore a phenomenon worth studying, since transferring

metaphors across languages and culture systems is not a simple, straightforward

process.

At the same time, metaphor is literally ubiquitous: For instance, the analysis

carried out by Steen et al. (2010) discovered that one in about every seven and a half

lexical units in the British National Corpus is related to a metaphorical mapping

structure. Impressive as this figure may seem, it is of course not my intention to explore

that deep levels of language. The underlying problem is that a large part of our

communication has originated in metaphors, yet this is more a subject-matter for

theoretical linguistics than for translation scholars. Analysing the basis of the

phenomenon would require immensely intricate research, well beyond the framework of

this study.


12/83

5

To carry out a modeststudy, it is therefore crucial to define a portion of the

problem to look at. In this case, this tip of the iceberg (metaphorical pun intended)

shall be represented particularly by those metaphors used within political discourse

which may have pragmatic or strategic effect on general audience. These metaphors

may be novel (unlexicalised) and also older (lexicalised), provided their effect can be

interpreted as contextually relevant in political discourse.1In other words, bearing the

inevitable risk of including even ambiguous cases, I will try to pick up those metaphors

which are capable of provoking intentional or unintentional effect or those that can be

regarded as strategic tools within the discourse. The analysis is thus focusing on such

language tools which constitute the figurative, creative layer of communication which

can have other, less known consequences in political environment.

Moreover, when picking up the metaphors to analyse, the complementary,

equally important criterionapart from relevance to political discourse and persuasive

strategiesshall be the interestingness for real translation processes within the

European institutions, as metaphorical expressions are specific and can pose a challenge

to a translator who is supposed to transfer the meaning paying attention to various

traditions and intercultural differences. The European Union is classed as an entity

where distortion of culturally-specific message can be a real risk. The analysis of

metaphor is a good way to look at this problem, since some metaphors can be easily

regarded as conceptualizations of culture-bound phenomena or memes.

The phenomenon of metaphor translation can be studied from various points of

view, for example that of traditional linguistics (Is the metaphor equivalent as closely

1See the terminology explanation and typology outlines in chapters 5 and 7.


13/83

6

as possible?) or functionalism (Does this strategy fulfil the intended function in the

text?). This thesis shall adopt the empirical and descriptive approach, paying attention

to both mentioned aspects.

The general key issue of the thesis is how important metaphorical constructions

are used in political discourse in EU. What are the specifics of metaphors used here and

what are the biggest perks and perils of their translation? Should a translator working

for EU be concerned about a specific set of problems? More specifically:

Is there any profound difference in applying metaphors and their strategic use

(see chapter 5) between the official (supposedly neutral) EU bodies and the

broad political actors representing European voters?

If so, do the translators tend to preserve the differences by adopting different

translation strategies? Which metaphor types, patterns, and translation strategies

are most common?

Which conceptual patterns are most common? Can any particular transitive

structures (structures describing types of relations between concepts) be

identified?

Is there a tendency to get rid of metaphors in EP altogether?2

Is the approach to translation of figurative tropes within EU ad-hocor rather

uniform?

How are cultural differences tackled?3

2There may be a tendency in case of simultaneous interpreting (used in EP) to kill [sic] metaphors,

owing to the effort for minimising the risks and (unlike the typical translation of texts) limitedness ofresources available in this particular type of inter-lingual mediation (SpinoloGarwood 2010 as cited inPrandi 2010: 305).3Cultural differences have often been mentioned as obstacles to successful translation of metaphorical

expressions. The strategy used by a translator should probably reflect the difference of associations, the


14/83

7

Are there any particular high-risk areas to be identified?

The analysis should allow setting and comparing variables dependent on input

parameters and even their combinations. The results should be straightforward enough

to allow comparison with ease. The aim to bear in mind is to focus on typical patterns

and to find the most widely used types and strategies.

3. Method

My thesis shall make use of an empirical, descriptive approach integrating several

established approaches to the phenomenon of metaphors. I am going to create a research

material of my own, namely a parallel bilingual corpus compiled exclusively for the

purpose of this work (for the composition of the corpus, see chapter 6). Using this

corpus, I am going to perform an analysis of the metaphors found. This research process

should allow me to gain complex information about the types of metaphors used within

the corpus, the underlying conceptual metaphors, and strategies of translation.

The method of the thesis is largely inspired by the approach of Christine

Schffner (2004), who argues in favour of applying cognitive approach (drawing from

Lakoff and Johnsons theory) to the field of descriptive translation studies. In her

analysis of the treatment of metaphors (Schffner 2004: 1258 ff.), she used authentic ST

unfamiliarity of the concept to a foreign reader etc. (Schffner 2004: 1264). A plethora of other variableshas been mentioned as well (Fernndez 2003: 66), where most of them, I presume, could be assigned tosub-topics of either cultural or language differences (the other ones being related to problems of contextor translators competence).


15/83

8

and TT pairs to analyse and describe the strategies to handle metaphorical expressions

with regard to both cross-linguistic and cross-cultural featuresmaking use of the

cognitive approach to compare possible effects of particular expressions on a reader.

Likewise, this thesis shall make use of the orientation of the research which she

describes as product-oriented, i.e. focused on functions of metaphors as agents in the

texts, with the explanation being linked to text, discourse, and culture(ibid.).4

Moreover, the thesis shall make use of Lakoff and Johnsons famous concept to

examine the metaphors analysed in terms of conceptual metaphors used (see chapter

4.3). I am convinced that this aspect of metaphors in use is one of the common

denominators of translation studies and other scholarly fields.

Throughout the thesis, such metaphors are discussed which do not pass

unnoticed when the text is readi.e. dead metaphors hidden in the literal expression

which cannot cause any kind of tension were usually unnoticed. The corpus shall be

searched for these interesting cases of metaphors and their translations, the metaphors

will be manually marked and analysed for (typical) conceptual patterns and translation

strategies using the procedure which has been inspired by the Metaphor Identification

Procedure (MIP) developed by the Pragglejaz Group (see Steen et al. 2010: 769 ff.),

which, according to its coordinator, provides an operational way of finding all

conventional metaphor in actual message(ibid.: 770).

The original MIP was developed over several years and tested by the Group on

various texts. It was an attempt to construct an explicit and systematic inductive 5tool of

4The other side of the problem (not to be discussed here) is process-oriented part of analysis (focusingon cognitive processes in translators mind).5In this respect, inductiverefers to the analysis moving from the linguistic structures towards conceptual

ones (first, a word or phrase is found, then tagged and assigned). The opposite way of analysis, deductive,would start with a set of metaphorical concepts which would be searched in the text analysed (the set of


16/83

9

metaphor identification. I will follow the basic logic behind the MIP, albeit with

regard to the obvious limits of resourcesnot in the same depth as the Praggejaz Group

did. The (rather simplified) MIP can be summed up as follows:

1. Reading the text in its entirety,

2. Determining lexical units,

3. Establishing meaning and meaning connections,

4. Deciding about the existence of contextual contrast (such contrast can be used

both directly and indirectly)in my case, including the judgment about a

possible strategic and contextual effect from the point of view of political

discourse.

The metaphorical expressions marked will be then recorded along with their possible

metaphorical concepts and other data related to their use (possible transitive relations,

remarks on context, possible shift in meaning, cultural issues etc.). To sum up, the

resulting information on each metaphor should contain its nature and type, strategy (see

chapter 4.5), conceptual frame and perhaps transitive relations (see chapter 4.3 and 5.2),

and, if justified, a note on context. It is quite clear that the weakest spot in this strategy

is the identification of the expression itself. There are inevitable risks of ambiguity,

omission, or misinterpretation. Nevertheless, I cannot think of a better way of creating

the corpus, given the current circumstances.

possible metaphors would be defined even before reading the text). See Steen et al. 2010: 768 for moredetails.


17/83

10

4. Metaphor as an issue in translation studies

4.1 Prescription versus Description

The problem of translating metaphors can be addressed both by prescriptive (as

advocated by e.g. Nida, van den Broeck, Newmark) and descriptive (Toury, Snell-

Hornby, and Baker) approaches (Fernndez et al. 2003: 61). Those approaches seeking

ST faithfulness have been increasingly disregarded in favour of target-oriented studies,

which had an impact on the concept of equivalence. Translemic equivalence thus does

notpursue perfect but rather acceptable renderings (Rabadn lvarez1991: 45 as

cited in ibid.), and the whole concept of faithfulness has become increasingly relaxed

there are authors who tend to see previously condemned choices as rather innovative.

4.2 Two main issues

So far, with regard to the phenomenon of metaphors, translation studies has been

concerned with two main questions (cf. Schffner 2004: 1256), namely

1. The problem of translatability(which somewhat resonates with the question

of equivalence). This is a question of the very nature of the metaphor as a figure,

as a part of communication, and as a tool used (in semantic and pragmatic sense)

with a particular purposeall of this in different systems (be it grammar, langue

/ parole, culture etc.). In short, there is a problem of equivalence versussystemic

difference. The important thing to realise is that the transfer of such a

complicated entity as a metaphor cannot be simple by definition.


18/83

11

2. The problem of procedure, strategy of translation.Once we admit that there

is a way to recreate the semantic entity (or purpose) of a metaphor in a target

text (depending on the approach one prefers), a myriad of other, practical

difficulties appear. Is there a general way to deal with the translation of

metaphors, based on their nature, type, or function in the text, or is this an ad-

hocprocess? Can a typology of strategies be constructed, or is it a foolish vanity

to try to capture such an individual flash of imaginative insight(Dagut 1976:

22 as cited in Schffner 2004: 1256)? For more information on translation

procedures, see chapter 4.5.

Both questions can be addressed from significantly different scholar positions.

Schffner herself (2004: 1254) warns that arguments brought forward need to be seen

within the context of a heterogenous disciplinewhich translation studies indisputably

is. As for the first question, among possible sub-disciplines of translation studies

preoccupied with the problem of equivalence (ibid., 1254 ff.) are:

Linguistics:Preoccupied with translation as transferring meaning. The notion of

equivalence: Transfer of a text should be as faithful as possible, both in content

and form.

Text linguistics:Metaphor as a unit of translation. Treating source text and

target text in context of situational factors, conventions, text functions etc.

Equivalence is of communicational nature.

Functionalism:Translation as trans-cultural interaction, translation strategy is

dependent on appropriateness to purpose (in other words, importance of

equivalence is reduced).


19/83

12

The whole sub-domain is further complicated by the fact that no universally accepted

notion of equivalence exists, especially if various post-modern and cultural approaches

are to be incorporated to the discussion in their entirety and with all consequences.

4.3 Translatability

With regard to translatability, three or four main positions have crystallised inside TS

(according to Fernndez 2003: 67 ff.):

1. Metaphors are untranslatable(as argued by Nida (1964) or Dagut (1967), i.e.

any translation of metaphor brings about a different metaphor;

2. Metaphors are fully translatable(e.g. Kloepfer (1981) or Mason (1982)), i.e.

there cannot be a theory of metaphor as such, just a theory of translation applied

to metaphors;

3. Metaphors are translatable with a considerable degree of interlinguistic

inequivalence(e.g. van den Broeck (1981), Toury (1995) and Newmark

(1988));

4. Fernndez lists as a distinct fourth typeso called Conciliatory approach

proposed by Snell-Hornby (1988), who claims that the range of renderings will

depend on the type of text and ad-hocfactors.

I reckon that for our purposes, this could be regarded as a variation of the third type

(depending on the strictness of definition of equivalence, which is, after all, not a

primary issue here).


20/83

13

As we can see, no universal definition of equivalence (and therefore no simple means of

measurement of it) has been provided so far (cf. Lotfipour-Saedi 1990). Also, we are

always dependent on which approach we take, as each theory focusing on one issue is

condemned to be partial or inadequate (cf. Prandi 2010).

As for the question of translatability seen from the point of view of metaphor

types (see chapter 4.5), Newmark (1988: 48-49 in Fernndez 2003: 68) argues that

metaphors most translatable are the deadones, whereas the translatability of stock

and originalones is proportional to the proximity of the two polysystems involved. Van

den Broeck (1981: 73 in ibid.) suggests that not all metaphors pose the same risks, and

their translatability thus depends on their communicative function and cultural bounds

the larger the quantity of information and the degree to which this information is

structured in the text, the lower the translatability.

For the purpose of this thesis, lets assume that approaches No. 3 and 4 (lets call

this position metaphors are carefully translatable with important reservations) are

valid and that both are a part of the empirically-constructed model which is going to be

applied here.

4.3 Classical versus conceptual perspective

General study of metaphors is drawing on two equally important sources, that of the

classical and the conceptual approach. Whereas the principles of the two approaches are

fundamentally different, various attempts have been done during quite a lively debate in


21/83

14

the recent decades to combine and mutually inspire these two traditions. What are

their main features?

First of all, metaphor can be defined in various ways, among the particularly

interesting being textual interpretation of a conflictual complex meaning, or putting

strange concepts into interaction etc. (Prandi 2010: 305). If we yield to a certain level

of simplification, one of perhaps the most general and often quoted definitions is

Aristotles definition of metaphor as a transfer of a word into a strange domain

(ibid.).

See the chart below featuring the same concept described by various terms and

points of view, none of them being truly universal (cf. SlingerlandBlanchardBoyd-

Judson 2007; Prandi 2010). Each of the four pairs comprises a term of its own:

Fig. 1: The principle of metaphor

Metaphor / Frame / Transfer / Interaction

1. Tenor2. Subsidiary subject3. Strange domain4. Extension

1. Focus2. Vehicle

3. Word4. Meaning


22/83

15

In the classical view, metaphor has been primarily seen as a rhetorical figure or as a

device to add interest to the text. At the same time, metaphor has been treated as

something albeit interesting, yet rather peripheral and difficult to study, as an object in

realm of poetics rather than empirical analysis.

Nonetheless, the traditional understanding of metaphor as a figure of speech

(whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of a text) has been recently replaced

with a more complex conceptual, cognitive6approach (Schffner 2004: 1254) which

tends to see this phenomenon in context of broader aspects of communication. Whereas

this shift is very interesting, it inevitably leads to further methodological confusion.

With publication of Lakoff and JohnsonsMetaphors We Live By(1980), the

whole world of study of communication was once again significantly moved. In recent

years, the new conceptual paradigm has been, according to e.g. Schffner (2004: 1257-

1258) taking root also in translation studies as such. In their remarkable work, Lakoff

and Johnson argue that metaphors are nothing less than demonstrations of the whole

system of experience and thought of human societyin other words, that metaphors

permeate and pervade both language and thought(Fernndez 2003: 65).

From this point of view, each metaphor is an expression of conceptual mapping

(from the sourcevehicle to a targettenor conceptual domain). Whereas this

may terminologically resemble the classical view, the crucial importance is that

metaphorical mapping is not regarded as a finite object. It is only a surface

demonstration of a relation existing on a much deeper level, firmly set in the

experiential system of human beings who are capable to seeor understand one

domain by means of another. This changes the whole perspective.

6Schffner is among those scholars who use the term cognitive to describe the conceptual approach.


23/83

16

Moreover, the conceptual approach does not regard metaphors as optional

linguistic tools or language devices that may be easily replaced by other means (as had

been tended to in older, classical times)instead, they are ubiquitous signs of the

ways people think just demonstratedthrough linguistic means (cf. Slingerland

BlanchardBoyd-Judson 2007: 55-57; McElhanon 2006: 37; Chaban et al. 2007: 81),

they are absolutely central to ordinary language(Lakoff 1993: 203 in Candel 2005:

10).

Common utterances seen from this point of view become the expressions of

underlying conceptual models. From this perspective, even completely novel, original

metaphors have to be compatible with already established concepts in order to be

comprehensible for a receiver of information (Because, after all, each metaphor ever

used is only a surface demonstration of a more abstract concept which lies somewhere

much deeper; SlingerlandBlanchardBoyd-Judson 2007: 57).

4.4 Translatability revisited

If true, this brings immense consequences for the problem of translatability of

metaphors. As Schffner (2004: 1258) argues, [t]ranslatability is no longer a question

of the individual metaphorical expression, as identified by the ST, but it becomes linked

to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture.

As I see it, this revolutionary shift may imply that at least older (such as

stock or recent, see chapter 4.5) and a considerable part of original or novel

metaphors are translatable (conceptually transferable), not because of the relative

closeness of the SL and TL, but because basic human experiential concepts are


24/83

17

universal (as proclaimed by Lakoff and Johnson). The remaining ones might perhaps be

reproducible provided a certain level of compatibility between cultures can be

found (which is, after all, not incompatible with both Newmarks and van den Broecks

notions mentioned in chapter 4.3). In this context, different types of metaphors should

be identified with regard to the level of their universality / specificity (cf. Stienstra 1993

in Schffner 2004: 1264) for instance, one could expect the metaphors based on

human body to be universally understandable, whereas metaphors originated in local

traditions as specific.7

This actualised approach is rather optimistic with regard to the question of

possibility of intercultural communication. It can also serve as an intermediate position

between the extreme points of view on the problem of translatability of metaphors, as

represented by the debate every metaphor is translatable versus metaphor cannot be

translatable implicitly.

Prandi (2010: 305 ff.) nevertheless warns against simplified solutions. She notes

that no strategy to tackle the translation of metaphors can be universal. She rather

argues for a much more complex and differentiated approach where the final decision is

dependent on the kind of metaphor used (for instance, consistent versus conflictual,

openness to substitution, coincidence to lexical versus textual interpretation etc.). For

her, metaphors in general have the same originconceptual interactionbut many

7McElhanon (2006: 45-47), inspired by Kvecses (2005 in ibid.), proposes using three elementarymodels of translation of image-schemas and conceptual metaphors:1. Universalism: Translate a metaphor that reflects a universal, human conceptual process so as topreserve the underlying image-schema structure. (This principle reflects Lakoffs invariance hypothesis i.e. image-schematic elements and structure of the metaphor should be preserved.)2. Human physiology: Translate a metaphor that reflects common human physiological processes so asto preserve the sense of a psychological basis.3. Experiential cultural models: Translate a metaphor that has an underlying cultural model with asimilar model ensuring that the coherence and integrity of the underlying translation model is notcompromised.


25/83

18

possible outcomes. Also, a mere co-existence of different concepts (signalled by putting

a word into a strange domain) does not automatically mean that a true metaphor is

present unless a real conceptual interaction (with an identifiable conceptual balanceof

the result) is proven.

For Prandi, there are 1. consistent metaphorsthat are integrated in our ways of

thinking and there are 2. conflictual,living metaphors containing an overt conceptual

conflict (Prandi 2010: 311). The difference might be summed up as follows: Whereas

consistent metaphors are used automatically and we are not aware of them unless we

focus on them, conflictual metaphors have a striking effect, they attract attention.

Prandis underlying argument is that each theory focusing only on chosen aspects is

therefore condemned to be partial and inadequate, and it would also be problematic to

come up with such definitions which would cover such different phenomena as these

two kinds of metaphor, whose cores actually directly oppose each other.8

This distinction between metaphors has also highly relevant consequences for

translation (Prandi 2010: 318 ff.): Whereas a conflicting expression may actually be

translated immediately and it is almost impossible to kill it,9a metaphorical sense of a

(highly language-specific) polysemous word or an idiom is notit cannot be.

Therefore, as Prandi states, it is actually not a novel metaphor which is challenging for a

translator; it is the consistent and conventional one.

8It should be noted that Prandis terms should not be mistaken with Newmarks. For Prandi, the

difference is given by the distance between particular concepts; for Newmark, the difference is based ontemporal dimension. Whereas Prandi sees some metaphors as inherently conflictual on, say,psychological grounds, for Newmark, all metaphors could eventually become dead after some timethequestion of their effect is dependent mainly on the time they have been used. Prandis approach to originsof metaphor is listed here as complementary theory.9The only real risk being the usual engagement in over-interpretation and explicitation; cf. e.g. Blum-

Kulka (1986) as cited by Prandi (2010: 321).


26/83

19

On a side note, as has been stated earlier, metaphors are truly ubiquitous. Modern

languages in their use are constructed by sediment, petrified, metaphors, including those

which are already dead (i.e. not perceived as metaphorical expressions at all). There are

scholars who take the discussion one step further and argue that there actually cannot be

such a thing as a proper distinction between literal and figurative language at all

everything we perceive as literal had in fact roots in metaphorical nature, and words

commonly used are in fact troped, i.e. lacking one exclusive meaning.10If metaphors

are indeed everywhere, if they []cannot generally be regarded as something

literary or creative and they [exist]rather in clines and also include expressions

whose metaphorical meaning can be found in a dictionary(Mller 2005: 55), the

resulting complexity of this perspective is truly overwhelming and one has to be

extremely careful when drawing general conclusions. The fact that there could be

interference between all concepts mentioned above and the way whole language

systems work is a real possibility.

4.5 Types of metaphors and strategies of translation

As for types of metaphors, the criterion of time, or in other words, novelty or originality

of expressions proposed by Newmark has been often applied. At one hand, there are

non-lexicalised (i.e. newer) metaphors which are absolutely or relatively novel and

creative, at the other hand, there is a whole world of lexicalised (i.e. older) metaphors

10One of the first things that a student of etymology [] discovers for himself is that every modern

language [] is apparently nothing, from beginning to end, but an unconscionable tissue of dead, orpetrified metaphors. [] If we trace the meanings of a great many words [] about as far back asetymology can take us, we are at once made to realize that an overwhelming proportion, if not all, of

them referred in earlier days to one of these two solid thingsa solid, sensible object, or some animal(probably human) activity.(Barfield 1928: 63 as cited by Kntsson 2008)


27/83

20

whose metaphorical nature is still apparent but which are already established in the

language.11

The Newmarks (1981, 1988) typology of metaphors is as follows:

Newmarks typologyof metaphors

(Newmark

1981)

Dead Clich Stock Recent Original

(Newmark

1998)

Dead Stock Recent Adapted Original

Lexicalised metaphors Non-lexicalised

metaphors

Table No. 1

The meanings of the typology categories as described by Newmark (1988: 196 ff. as

cited by Dickins 2005: 16-18 including examples) are:

11On a side note, Dagut (1976: 23 in Candel 2005: 10) strongly opposes this view and argues that allmetaphors are new and unique creations by definition. For him, solely Newmarks original metaphorswould qualify as proper metaphors at all. The discussion has evidently been complicated, not only across

different paradigms but also in the scope of particular approaches. All attempts to deal with the topic thushave to be partial and limited, no universal tool to classify procedures is at hand.


28/83

21

Newmarks typology of metaphors explained

Type Description Examples

Dead Metaphors where one ishardly conscious of the

image; universal terms of

space and time etc.

space, field, top, bottom,arm, fall, rise...

Clich Metaphors that havetemporarily outlived their

usefulness; substitute to

clear thought

[schools] traditionswillhelp and it may well

become ajewel in the

crownin the countrys

education.

Stock Established metaphors; in

informal context

referentially and

pragmatically efficient

oil the wheels

Recent Metaphorical neologisms

which have spread rapidly

in language

groovyas good,skintas

without money

Adapted Metaphors which involve

an adaptation of an existing

(stock) metaphor

the ball is a little in theircourt(R. Reagan)

Original Non-lexicalised and non-

adapted metaphors

Table No. 2

A similar principle in a less rigorous way is noted by Mller (2005: 55), who argues: a

procedure of metaphor identification has to differentiate between rather conventional


29/83

22

metaphors and creative metaphors which occasionally exploit the principles of

conceptual mappings.However, as Mller points out, drawing real distinctions

between these types is not an easy task. This problem therefore calls for establishing a

set of criteria which could be used during the process of determination and

classification.

Along with Mller, I suppose that creative metaphors in political discourse are

those that [depend] on deviation from what might be expected in a given situation or

[challenge] discursive or linguistic norms (ibid., 56), with regard to appropriateness

and usefulness, and strategic value of the term used. This is relevant for the analysis

of discourse, where even an established, say, stock metaphor can have a shocking effect

if used creatively and/or with attention to the context.

The thesis shall make use of Newmarks typology (especially with regard to the

distinction between unlexicalised and lexicalised expressions) but will pay attention to

Mllers pragmatic criterion as well. Lexicalized and unlexicalized metaphors will be

analysed separately. I shall search for possibly all cases of non-lexicalised metaphors

and, at the same time, for those cases of lexicalised metaphors which can be

contextually (or pragmatically) relevant in political discourse. As a rule, dead metaphors

without any relevant function in the text will be omitted. It is, of course, expected, that

lexicalised metaphors in the corpus will be much more common than the other type.12

12It remains an inconvenient truth that the distinction cannot be always clear-cut, which holds true for the

issue of typology as well as strategy. There is no easy way to solve this problem. In doubtful cases, notesor short in dataset are provided in the dataset.


30/83

23

As for the question of technique, procedure, or strategy of translation applicable to

metaphors, relatively many strategy typologies based on ideal-typical models exist. 13

Perhaps the most frequently cited among the source oriented14approaches are:

1. A descriptive approachelaborated by van den Broeck (1981: 77 in Schffner

2004: 1256 ff.) operating with three possible strategies:

a. Translationsensu stricto(both SL tenor and vehicle are transferred

into TL)

b. Substitution (replacement of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with

the same tenor)

c. Paraphrase (rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical expression

in the TL)

2. A prescriptive approachadvocated by Newmark (1981: 87-91 in ibid.; 1985 in

McElhanon 2006: 35)15(English-German and English-French examples taken

from Schffner 2004). Newmarks typology is one of the most comprehensive

ones and it was applied in this thesis.

a. Reproducing the same image in TL

golden hair // goldenes Haar

b. Replacing the SL image with a standard TL image (which is compatible

with TL culture)

13It should be noted that whereas these typologies have been largely constructed as a part of prescriptive-

based works, I mention them in order to use them just in an empirical, descriptive wayI am not tryingto favour any of them.14

As for target-oriented perspective, Toury (1995: 81 ff) adds two other scenarios, namely (1) Use of ametaphor in a TT for a non-metaphorical expression in a ST, and (2) Addition of a metaphor in a TTwithout any linguistic motivation in a ST. In this respect, Toury is clearly interested in viewing metaphornot only as a translation problem, but also as a translationsolution. As this thesis is inherently source-oriented, thus focused on ways of translating already existing tropes, this additional set of strategies is

mentioned only for the purpose of context.15In Newmarks work, the term objectcorresponds to topic, imageto vehicle, andsenseto grounds.


31/83

24

other fish to fry // dautres chats fouetter

c. Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image (Effect: metaphors

shock possibly modified)

Ces zones cryptuaire o s labore la beaut // The crypt-like

areas where beauty is manufactured

d. Translating metaphor (simile) by simile plus sense (simile plus sense

statement) (Effect: loss of shock, compromise solution)

tout un vocabulaire moliresque // a whole repertoire of medical

quackery such as Molire might have used

e. Converting metaphor into its sense (Effect: possible loss of emotive

aspects)

sein Brot verdienen // to earn ones living

f. Deletion (if metaphor is redundant)

g. Using the same metaphor combined with sense (Effect: enforcing the

image)

5. Metaphors in political discourse. Context and

challenges

To some extent, political discourse is driven by underlying conceptual metaphors. These

metaphors are, on the other hand, partially rooted in ideologies and cultural models.

Simple examples of such metaphors include the conceptual dualisms such as right and


32/83

25

left,progressive and conservative,and other everyday terms, such asgreen orpolitical

spectrum.There is a myriad of various terms from the scope of war, sports etc. In fact,

each political commentary in the newspaper is a noteworthy aggregate of political

metaphors. Also, it is not uncommon that a simple metaphor becomes a meme, a

shorthand term for a complex social phenomenon. Such term can then become a

standard term of its own. When performing the analysis of the political discourse,

pragmatic aspects should be taken into consideration and the analysis has to be of

critical nature, exploring the intentions of a speaker and the strategies they use to win in

the never-ending negotiations.

In general, metaphors are absolutely central to our understanding of many

political concepts, which are usually too abstract, remote, and complex to grasp to an

average voter. The more distant the object, the more important vehicle of understanding

and comforting ones mind metaphor is. In my opinion, metaphor, regardless if novel or

established, then bears the function ofprejudice,i.e. of the tool to deconstruct and

internalise reality.16

As we can see, the issue of expressions typical of political discourse is complex

and has been approached from various perspectives. Mtt (2007: 168), making use of

Foucaults (1969) insights, defines the goal of [political] discourse analysis as to

determine why a certain fragment of discourse (statement or nonc) and no other has

appeared in a given place in a given time. This Foucaltian and pragmatic perspective

makes the reader pay attention to the subtle yet omnipresent variables of contextual

meaning, ideology, relations of power and coercion, audience-specificity, and so forth.

16On a side note, this is one of the reasons why deliberate, participatory democracy has empirical limits

and cannot be employed successfully in real conditions.


33/83

26

All utterances need to be looked at with regard to their role in vast networks of concept,

meanings, and desired aims.

Following Foulcaltian logics, we could define analyzing metaphors as a

particular method of discourse analysis, which in turn would be a method of analyzing

either likely intentions of the players in the political system (which is the case of this

text) or political ideology in general (which would require a much more sophisticated

analysis).

In the context of EU, this is particularly relevant with regard to the fact that the

Union is a relatively young17and still evolving entity. It is a project still in the making.

There is an ongoing debate whether its future lies in converting the Union into a

somewhat integrated, centralised supranational project or rather going back to the

intergovernmental, loosely-federated approach. Recall past employing and successful

introducing (i.e. lexicalizing) of such metaphors as Common European house, Three

Pillars of the European Communities, two-speed Europe, democratic deficit and so

forth, which undoubtedly influenced the way EU has been portrayed in the media and

thought over by political actors as well as voters (cf. e.g. Chaban et al. 2007, Hlsse

2006).

5.1 Agenda setting and persuasion

In 1946, in his famous essayPolitics and the English Language,George Orwell

noted: By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at

17Despite having roots as far as in the 1950s, EU in its current form and subjectivity has been in existence

only since 1993.


34/83

27

the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself.

(Orwell 1968: 134 as cited by Mller 2005: 54).

For Orwell, the term stale was primarily a question of style. He viewed using

vague language and clichs as a sign of decay of English rhetorics, not as rudimental

presence of the change of foundations of public politics which can be traced back to

these times. On the other hand, as Mller interestingly points out, Orwells definition go

against the traditional view of metaphors as a mere stylistic ornament, for his

conception is also connected to the condition of mental efforts and ethics of a

speaker. This might have been a nodal point in the evolution of understanding of

metaphor.

Since WWII, an increasing attention has been given to the problems of

persuasion, strategies, self-portraying, and targeted use of concepts in political

communication. Nowadays, hardly anyone questions the fact that political discourse is

characterized by its predominantly persuasive function and argumentative, often

market-oriented style. Under typical circumstances of a democratic political system,

language used within political discourse is a strategic tool directly employed in political

battle. This has never been so much true as now, in the gold age of political marketing.

All utterances should be regarded as possibly strategically chosen ways of setting and

promoting the agenda. Use of metaphor in political discourse is a fundamentally

persuasive discourse act (Charteris-Black 2004: 13 as cited in Candel 2005: 16).

In the agenda setting theory (see e.g. McCombs 2009), strategic framing18

refers to intentional emphasizing of those elements of a problem which are considered

18In this thesis, strategic use of framing is strictly called strategic framing. This is not always the case in

theoretical works. This choice is motivated by the effort for terminological charity (strategic framing is a


35/83

28

as important by an actor, or those definitions and views of the problem which are

strategically advantageous, particularly using media. The aim is making such solutions

or topics salient, i.e. widely discussed and perceived as important (e.g. McCombs 2009:

133). Using metaphors is one of the way of persuasion. By highlighting some aspects,

and ignoring others, conceptual metaphors located in media discourses are claimed to

form cognitive models which organize thought and action(Gozzi 1999: 10 as cited

by Chaban et al. 2007: 88).

Strategic framing usually works with direct, intentional linkage of source and

target concepts, thus creating a metaphor which can be used to make a particular socio-

political issue salient or, alternatively, to portray the speaker as an agent capable of

resolving the problem perceived. Hypothetical examples include conceptual frames

such as TERRORISM IS A DISEASE +CANDIDATE IS CURE;or POLITICAL OPPONENT IS A

CRIMINAL +CANDIDATE IS A GUARDIANetc. Metaphor may play a key role in addressing

a voter because it can be used as a shortcut for delivering a message using a concept

familiar to the voter.19

5.2 Concepts and transitivity in politics

If the validity of the conceptual (cognitive) model is accepted, one could also argue that

important societal changes are accompanied by large shifts in conceptual sets (and vice

versa). In this respect, it might come in handy to recall George Orwells 1984and all

pragmatic act, portrayingwith the help of concepts, whereas framing (without an attribute) is a generalor theoretical term referring to working with concepts.19On the other hand, the notion that metaphor is an undoubtedly effective tool of persuasion has notremained uncontested and needs to be viewed as a qualified hypothesis rather than a fact. There were also

scholars who argued that metaphor-free speech was more persuasive than the other kind. Both parties hadempirical proofs of their position (cf. Mller 2005: 55).


36/83

29

sorts of wag-the-dog remarks. Societal discourse and power structure are clearly

interconnected systems. I am far from saying Change the meaning of words and

empires will fall, I just want to remind the reader of the ever-faster changes in public

discourse and the nature of the power relations which we have been seeing since the 2 nd

half of the 20thcentury. As Lakoff (2004: xv in Helln Garca 2010: 59) indicates: In

politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we conform to carry

th[ese]policies. To change our frame is to change all of this. Reframing is social

change.

Metaphor plays a prominent role especially in the post-modern approach to

political and societal reality. As Hlsse (2006: 397) sums up, [m]etaphors are a means

of imagining and by the same token constructing social reality. This has to do with their

very logic of operation: they project the meanings of a familiar issue onto a less

familiar and abstract one, thus constituting the unknown in terms of the known.

Analyzing discourse of a particular political actor thus touches upon the belief and

conceptual constructions hidden in their expressions. By decoding and interpreting

metaphorical concept, we may arrive at finding out the speakers intentions.

Accepting Lakoff & Johnsons theory of conceptual systems in its entirety, we

can assume that metaphors, once said, work also subconsciously, thus making the

message accessible on multiple levels simultaneously. A clever use of metaphors may

thus enable an informed political actor to kill twoor possibly morebirds with one

stone.

Possible use of conceptual metaphors may also include working with transitive

relations as defined by Systemic Functional Grammar of English (Halliday 2004). The

distribution and mixture of different process types gives a particular flavour to a text


37/83

30

and contributes to determining the text typeand the discourse genreto which it

pertains. In addition, the transitivity grammar construes a particular world view

specific to the text in question (Halliday 2004: 174, 283): it inscribes the text within a

particular discourse typeby encoding ideologies in the textual grammar. (Mtt

2007: 169-170). A general idea of types of relations used in metaphors can help to

discover which values are presented in speeches and texts, and how the political issues

are constructed by various speakers.

5.3 Intercultural communication

Let us not forget the other side of the equationthe acceptability and comprehensibility

of the message. Clearly, even most unusual metaphors must be compatible with the

established conceptual system if they are to be decoded by the receiver of the

communication.

Thats where the factor of shared culture, context, experience, and translation

across different cultures comes into consideration. All metaphors, whether novel or not,

must be used in accordance with the (long established) conceptual system in order to be

recognized and interpreted appropriately. One can assume that this does not pose a big

problem in case when the speaker and receiver live in the same cultural system.

However, what happens if the strategic, subtle, conceptually salient, and politically

important metaphor needs to be translated to someone coming from a completely

different background? A failure in transfer may have a number of dramatic

consequences, form unnatural feel to logical incomprehensibility to misinterpretation of

speakers intention.


38/83

31

The role of language and translation and interpreting in international politics is

therefore crucial and cannot be overestimated. Negotiations take place under

circumstances with a great scope for misunderstanding, and different conceptualisations

of the world are inevitable (Sharifian 2007: 413-414). That is why the role of translators

as mediators is so important in this field.

The relationship between translation studies and political discourse has not been

widely discussed yet. Most analyses have focused on textual or (critical) discourse

analysis. The role of a translator has been largely seen as mediatory in the process of

intercultural (contextual) communication (Lande 2010; Xiaoqian 2005: 85). There is a

shared belief among the scholars that broader societal and political framework in

which such discourse is embedded has to be taken into consideration(Schffner 1997:

119 as cited in Lande 2010.). In the recent years, there has also been a growing

appreciation of usefulness of the models of cognitive science for the fields such as

political science or international relations (SlingerlandBlanchardBoyd-Judson

2007: 57).

In the last decades, such an approach to translation in the context of

interculturality has prevailed that translation is always connected to interpretation, or

that translation means cross-cultural understanding(RubelRosman 2004: 1 as

cited by Shore 2005). As Shore correctly points out, this shorthand definition is

somewhat idealised and does not touch upon serious problems of intercultural

interpretation. The main issue is the risk of misinterpretation and meaning lost in

translation due to the inevitable ambiguity of cross-cultural references and the lack of a

universally understood language system. The impacts are crucial because there are

examples when questions of war and peace depend on which language version one


39/83

32

reads. And, of course, in our increasingly globalised and multi-cultural world, the risks

are more and more common (ibid.: 13-14).

5.4 Specifics of the EU

The EU project accounts for an environment sui generis unparalleled anywhere in the

world, today or in history. On one hand, it is a conglomerate of many (often

fundamentally) different cultures and languages. One the other hand, a process of

creating sharedpolitical institutions and political lite has quite advanced in the last

decades and the todays Union may thus be considered to be an entity with many

features typical of a common western polity.

European Union is worth analysing for several important reasons: I believe that

EU is a good example of a novel socio-political structure where the processes of

intercultural communication play a key role. Moreover, the questions and rules

discussed are of political nature, thus inherently dealing with relations of power,

economics, international security, and so on. The importance of translations of such

discussions and documents cannot be questioned. Last but not least, the discourse

originating inside and among European institutions inevitably influences discourse in

other fields and in other levels.

The highly complex system of internal translation in EU itself, with 23 official

languages possessing (formally) the same status, is unique in the world and should be

thus studied from various scholarly perspectives. The costs of translation and the

logistic complexity of the system are extraordinary. The number of language

combinations and types of communication is so high and the incidence of high-risk


40/83

33

areas and sensitive topics so common that the system is prone to having issues of inter-

cultural misinterpretation and ambiguity. This is the case not only from the theoretical

point of viewthe problems can be documented by a number of translation blunders

and misinterpretations: Hence, the metaphors of the Tower of Babel and a game of

Chinese whispers (Shore 2005: 17) are indeed pertinent.

From the intercultural point of view, there are three working languages (English,

French, and German), which are used primarily within the European institutions such as

in the Commission, and enjoy a special status. As the website of the Department

(Directorate-General) for Translation states,

[...]the only documents produced in all 23 official languages are pieces of

legislation and policy documents of major public importanceaccounting for

about a third of our work. [...]Internal documents are all written in (and

sometimes translated into) English, French and German. Similarly, incoming

documentswhich may be drafted in any languageare translated into one

of these three languages so they can be generally understood within the

Commission.(DG Translation 2011).

This (technically certainly understandable) custom creates a possible imbalance within

EU and may contribute to the predominance of the cultural perspective of chosen big

European countries, which may shape the discourse and lead to the additional cultural

gaps between the big players and those countries with non-dominant languages.


41/83

34

6. The Corpus

One of the most difficult tasks when dealing with given research questions is securing

available material, i.e. finding suitable (i.e. political, non-legal) texts from a rather

narrowly specified area which would be available in both English and Czech. I tried to

create such a corpus which would possibly contain at least traces of creative

communication, persuasion, and other features typical of political discourse. Out of

question thus were purely or predominantly technical and procedural materials (laws,

notes, memos); priority was given to such texts where higher occurrence of tropes was

assumed.

As a rule, not all potentially interesting material could have been used due to a

simple fact that the amount of material translated into Czech is substantially limited. A

surprisingly acute problem was that the suitable textual materials produced in EU are

really scarce. For instance, a significant part of documents is being produced only in

widespread working languages, i.e. French, English, and German. On a similar note,

absolutely out of the question did prove to be political manifestos and platforms of the

party fractions existing in EPthe primary political materials where most metaphors

can be expectedthe reason being simply non-existence of their translations to minor

languages such as Czech.20

The final, compromise version of the corpus contains two sets of texts:

20With no doubt, declarations and electoral manifestos of political fractions would fulfil the criteria of

political discourse like no other comparable material, but these were unfortunately not available in Czechat all. Also, it has been tried to add other, not purely translated texts (Schffner (2004): In order to findout more about universal, culture-overlapping, and culture-specific metaphors, the analysis oftranslations can also be of use. A potentially good source for empirical analyses are multilingual

documents that have come into being in a text production process, involving a combination ofmultilingual negotiations. However, these are extremely difficult to obtain as well.


42/83

35

1. Official press-releases from top European institutions,21as available from the

official internet portal of the EU [http://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.do].

Unlike legislation, press-releases are expected to contain at least traces of

figurative language and creatively used metaphors. When building up the text

bank of press releases, two criteria were applied:

An institution must offer a significant part of its press releases in Czech,

Priority must be given to (quasi)political institutions (such as the

Commission) over those of purely technical nature (such as European

Personnel Selection Office).

With regard to the nature of the material published from particular institutions

and availability of its translations, two types of texts were taken into account, 22

namely (in the EU jargon):

a. Presidency of the Council of the European Union(DOC) 11 pairs

(i.e. all available texts from the term which fulfilled the criteria). Texts

from this domain have been published by the Commission and usually

resume the outputs of what the particular session of the Commission:

what was debated and what conclusions and recommendations were

achieved. In each DOC text, an introductory (preamble) chapter plus one

randomly selected chapter from the paper itself was analysed. As the

initial pre-research revealed certain stylistic uniformity of these texts and

21In case of official press releases, the original source language of the documents cannot be determined.

Although the English source texts are presumably prevalent (as traceable from the variety of texts nottranslated), another possibility cannot be ruled out that certain texts were originally formulated in in otherlanguage (usually French). This is implied by the nature of practice of the European institutions.22The selection of the EU institutions is rather narrow because typical press releases of most offices arein fact based in journalistic discourse rather than political (which is no surprise after all), PESC press

releases are rather public memos and statements on various happenings in the world at large, and CJEtexts are full of uninteresting legal jargon.
http://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.dohttp://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.dohttp://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.dohttp://europa.eu/rapid/searchAction.do


43/83

36

a relatively lower incidence of tropes, it has been decided that the

analysis of the texts in their entirety was not necessary.

b. Council of the European union(PRES) [sic]8 pairs. These texts

contain the speeches, conference opening remarks, published opinion

and so forth by the highest EU representatives. In other words, this part

of the text bank contains the press releases of the European Council

including the occasional semi-political declarations of the highest

representatives of the Union, the President of the EC Mr van Rompuy

(up to 7 pairs) and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign

Affairs and Security Policy, baroness Ashton (1 pair).

2. Selected plenary speeches from the floor of the European parliament.

Exclusively British and Czech representatives were selected. As a rule, these

speeches tend to be semi-prepared; traces of expressive language and a certain

level of lively discussion, thus a larger role of figurative tropes are to be

expected. The speeches are available on the EP website

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language

=EN]. There are seven British and four Czech fractions in the current term. The

speeches from the whole period were selected, with regard to length and the type

of speech. If possible, speeches marked as Explanations of vote were not

preferred (a decision based on their shorter form and technical nature), but had

to be taken into account in cases of less active MEPs in whose profiles no proper

speeches were at hand. In case the randomly selected text was not long enough,

the next suitable one on the list was chosen.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=ENhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=ENhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=ENhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=ENhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=ENhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=EN


44/83

37

1. As for the British MEPs, speeches of members from five fractions (S&D,

ALDE, G-EFA, ECR, EFD) plus one solitary member from the

remaining fraction (GUE-NGL) were taken into consideration.

Unattached members (NI) were ignored. That makes a total of 11 people.

2. As for Czech MEPs, an analogous procedure was carried out. In this

case, the speeches of nine members from three fractions (S&D, ECR,

GUE-NGL) plus two members of one remaining fraction (EPP) were

analysed, which makes us arrive at the same result, 11 people.

As a presupposed rule, Czech representatives tended to formulate their speeches

and written answers in Czech. This part of the corpus can thus be practically

considered as a bilingual corpus of a mixed nature23where L1 is Czech and L2

English. The same (vice versa, needless to say) holds true for the British

members.24

6.1 Selection procedure

The selection of the official press releases was as follows:

1. Select the press releases available from chosen institutions in both languages.

2. Apply random sample selection (only applicable for PRES; in case of DOC, all

11 text pairs were taken).

23Most texts are transcribed speeches, however, some texts are provided in writing and the ratio of both

types varies from person to person.24It should be noted that the number of MEPs analysed is too small to allow full statistical analysistheaim of the selection procedure is to have a balanced corpus rather than trying to reach statistically

significant results for all groups. Moreover, the distribution of members across groups in both parties isby definition irregular.


45/83

38

The selection of the parliament speeches was as follows:

1. Select the UK and CZ MEP group in the chosen term (7thEP)

2. Select all fractions except from Non-attained representatives (NI).

3. Select two (UK) or three (CZ) most active representatives of each fraction. If

there are not so many representatives in a particular fraction, take all and skip.

(For obvious reasons, disregard those MEPs whose contributions are largely

technical, typically the chairmen of EP committees.)

4. Apply random sample selection of those texts which have been translated to L2.

(In order to sort out too short and technical questions: If the text is not at least

two paragraphs long, skip it and select another article in the queue.)

6.2 Time range

After consideration, I decided to analyse solely the material from the current EP term,

which effectively started on 14 July 2009 and has been continuing till today. The final

time range covers the period between July 2009 and September 2011, i.e. about 2 years.

Whereas it would be most interesting to extend the time range to more terms, the

differences in composition of the EP would make the complexity of the corpus too high

and, consequently, the analysis rather unfeasible.


46/83

39

7. Qualitative analysis of metaphors

First of all, the results and other information on the research stated in following

subchapters deserve several notes: As outlined in the text above, it was not the aim of

the analysis to capture all metaphors in the corpus (this effort would be, after all, futile

due to the pervasiveness of metaphors in language) but to arbitrarily pick up those

which bear the semantic or pragmatic tension with regard to the functions of political

discourse. The same set of criteria has been applied to all three subcorpora, so the

difference between the numbers of metaphors in all three sets really should correspond

to the differences in nature and discourse.

The dataset contained living (i.e. not dead) metaphors whose tension was

implicit along with usually less interesting, dead metaphors recorded solely due to their

potentially important conceptual frame or contextual relevance. If a metaphor was not

likely to bear either of these two kinds of tension, it was usually not recorded. This was

the case particularly for the sedimented expressions which currently are either dead or

established as technical terms (provided they did not bear any contextual significance)

at any case, not perceived as figurative very much. Examples of real cases of tropes

(metaphors, metonymy, synecdoche) found in the corpus and usually deliberately

omitted from the analysis include:

In English:We have important work ahead; We focused our debate; Tailored to

one's own needs; The way forvard; Third-country nationals; Frozen conflict;

Collapse of the banking system / Soviet Union etc.; Sister parties; In the light of

progress made; Play a key role; Arab world; Schengen


47/83

40

In Czech: as uke / dozrl; Krok k vt ochran spotebitel; Vyslat signl

spolenosti; Boj proti nsil na ench; Transparence financovn; Rozpotov

krty; Legislativn rmec; Sttn pokladna; Pd berlnsk zdi; Sametov

revoluce

The metaphors have been recorded using the ST perspective. Whereas the source texts

were scanned through in their entirety, target texts were read only selectively. That

means that solely those metaphors found in the source text have been compared to their

translated counterparts in the L2 version. Even when an inverse case of translation was

found (lexical language translated as figurative, for example have double standards //

mit dvojm metrem), these cases were omitted.

Perhaps needless to say, the terms metaphor, metaphorical expression etc. in

all following subchapters refer solely to those terms which have been found interesting

enough and subsequently recorded to the dataset and analysed, even if, for the sake of

simplicity, the text refers to features of texts and EU practices in general. In other

words, the data and conclusions presented are related to metaphors bearing pragmatic or

conceptual significance, not all metaphors in the corpus.

7.1 General information on metaphors

The analysis of the corpus showed that metaphors really are widely used in various

types of political texts within EU. That means that figurative tropes and expressions

presenting conceptual relations indeed are a real issue of communication, which means

that translators have to deal with them on a daily basis.


48/83

41

As has been already mentioned, the corpus comprised three parts or subcorpora

of texts: PRES, the texts presented by Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton on

various occasions; DOC, the press releases of the Councilof EU; and EP, the texts

and speeches from the floor of the European Parliament. In a simplified way, PRES and

DOC are texts published by the executive, supposedly neutral EU bodies, and EP texts

come from the only (quasi-)legislative body EU has. Whereas PRES and DOC

subcorpora were unidirectional (EN-CS), the EP part contained the same number of

Czech-to-English and English-to-Czech translations. The length, number of texts, and

general number of expressions recorded are summarised in the table (all figures are

related to the L1 version of the subcorpora):

Information on corpus

Subcorpus Number of

texts

Total length Average length

of a text

Number of

expressions

PRES (Van

Rompuy,

Ashton)

8 35,371

characters

(19.7 pages)

4,421

characters (2.5

pages)

46

DOC (Council

of EU)

11 58,320

characters

(32.4 pages)

5,301

characters (2.9

pages)

69

EP (European

Parliament)

215 243,147

characters (135

pages)

1,130

characters

(0.63 page)

181

Total 234 336,838

characters (187

pages)

302

Table No. 3


49/83

42

As already partially apparent from the table, the presence of metaphors was uneven and

not uniform. In the texts published by the executive bodies, about 2.2 metaphorical

expressions per page were found (2.33 and 2.1 respectively); in the EP part, it was only

1.34 metaphors per page. The last figure is slightly misleading because it ignores the

considerably higher heterogeneity of EP texts (with regard to length, purpose, and

individual style): the differences in general use of language among individual

representatives were fundamental (and naturally so). 110 out of 215 texts analyzed did

contain no metaphor at all. If we take them away and focus only on those texts

containing at least one metaphorical expression, the incidence increases to 2.6

metaphors per page. In other words, those texts which did not lack figurative language

altogether were considerably richer in metaphors than those produced by the

(stylistically rather uniform) executive bodies. As for possible differences between the

CS-EN and EN-CS texts in the EP subcorpus, both parts proved to be exceptionally

similar, with 93 expressions distributed across 108 texts and 88 expressions across 107

texts respectively.

Overall, only a part of the texts included in the corpus could have been marked

as typical, recognizable political discourse which was to be expected in these settings.

There were considerable differences in the styles of usage of metaphors among different

representatives, which follows from different personal styles of expression, and

seemingly from the differences between spoken and written communication in EP. It

probably goes without surprise that several representatives even did not use political

discourseproperand confined themselves to general or technical discourse featuring

technical terms and jargonese, yet no creative and figurative lexical units. This was the

case primarily among those MEPs with higher percentage of answers provided in


50/83

43

writing, i.e. so called explanations of vote,25and particularly relevant in case of those

MEPs not very much active on the floor at all. Consider the following example taken

from one of the explanations of vote and note the distinctive technical style, overly

complicated structure and the obscurity of the actual message:

Nemn dleit je vzva Komisi ke zven potencilu strukturlnch fond

zjednoduenm a zlepenm postup a prunosti s drazem na dimenzi sociln

integrace s clem pomoci lenskm sttm optimalizovat vsledky sociln

politiky a politiky zamstnanosti a dosaen udritelnho rstu. // No less

important is the Commissions call to boost the potential of structural funds by

simplifying and improving approaches and flexibility, with an emphasis on the

dimension of social integration, in order to help Member States optimise the

results of social policy and employment policy and achievesustainable growth.

Speeches on the EP floor were relatively less technical and also richer in metaphors

than answers provided in writing which lacked tropes or pragmatic markers. The nature

of discourse in both types of communication is different. Another thing to mention is

the natural difference among individual styles. Even in cases where all texts were likely

delivered on the floor, there were MEPs whose using metaphorical expression was

rather an exception in the stream of factual or technical speech. On the other hand, for

some of the MEPs, using tropes was a frequent strategy or a common way of

expression.

25The types of texts were not known and thus not recorded for the purposes of statistical enquiry but werequite noticeable nonetheless, because explanations of vote differed considerably from speeches in terms

of style as well as in structure and different choice of expressions (I decided to vote for this billbecause).


51/83

44

7.2 Nature and type of metaphors

As outlined in the methodological chapter (4.5), Newmarks typology was used to

examine the kinds of metaphors in the texts. The most important distinction was drawn

between older, lexicalised (LEX) expressions and newer, unlexicalised ones (UNL).26

When in doubt whether a metaphor was lexicalised or not, British National Corpus27

was consulted.

Whereas the borderline between lexicalised and unlexicalised is comparatively

easy to draw, assignment to specific subcategories is more problematic and involves a

certain degree of risk. Several cases were possible to assign to more subcategories than

one, contextual meaning had to be taken into consideration and in some cases, and the

rules had to be specified in an arbitrary way. For example, when discussing economy,

the term The wayto recoveryis a relatively established and common, thus classified

as stock metaphor, whereas the economy infected by the crisisis a metaphor

reintroduced not so long ago and shaping current discourse relatively strongly, hence

classified as recent. When in doubt which particular category to assign, a borderline

category X/Y was planned. This is no surprise due to the impressionistic nature of

Newmarks categories and the dynamics in the metaphors evolution. (On the other

hand, just one transitional category type, namely STOCK / RECENT, had to be

established in the end.)

Summary of metaphor types found in the corpus:

26In the dataset, this variable is referred to as Nature.

27BNC Interface: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk


52/83

45

Metaphor types in the corpus

Unlexicalised Lexicalised Synecdoche,

metonymy

Total

Subcorpus Adapted Original Dead Clich Clich /

Stock

Stock Recent

PRES (Van

Rompuy,

Ashton)

4 0 1 3 3 17 6 12 46

DOC

(EuropeanCouncil)

0 0 12 0 8 31 5 13 69

EP

(European

Parliament)

12 19 19 10

Documents

Metaphor and Political Discourse