associations on which it draws are shared by speakers of the particular
target language"
(1976).
Snell-Hornby takes metaphor translation in the light of the integrated
approach. She says that
The sense of the metaphor is frequently culture-specific, [...] Whether
a metaphor is
’translatable’ (i.e. whether a literal translation could recreate identical
dimensions), how
difficult it is to translate, how it can be translated and whether it should
be translated at all
cannot be decided by a set of abstract rules, but must depend on the structure
and function of
the particular metaphor within the text concerned ". (1988: 56-9)
van den Broeck conceives the treatment of metaphors as a functional relevancy
to the communicative situation (1981). Mary Fung also considers translating
metaphor as a communicative event which is both interlingual and intercultural
Different from the semantic, cultural and functional perspectives mentioned
above, Newmark holds a more pragmatic approach. Drawing on his practical
experience, he proposes several procedures for translating metaphor: (1)
Reproducing the same image in the target language; (2)
Replacing the SL image with another established TL image; (3) Replacing
the metaphor by simile; (4) Retaining the metaphor and adding the sense;
(5) Converting the metaphor to sense; (6) Omitting the metaphor if it is
redundant.
Discussions of the subject, especially those written in Chinese, are also
pragmatic rather than theoretical. In E-C Translation Coursebook (1980
) which is the most widely used translation textbook in China, Zhang Peiji
(张培基) and his co-compilers summarized three popular methods for translating
metaphors: (1) Literal translation (similar to Newmark’s first procedure);