Metaphor and Translation Essay

Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed deep down the make up of rendering Stu s ofts, predominantly with respect to translatability and transfer methods. It has been argued that fictions send packing bring into being a exposition problem, since transferring them from adept voice communication and tillage to an new(prenominal) one may be hampered by linguistic and cultural differences.A number of transmutation procedures for traffic with this problem have been suggested, e. g., substitution ( fiction into divergent illustration), paraphrase (allegory into sense), or deletion. such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) procedures have been commented on two in normative models of displacement (how to interpret fables) and in descriptive models (how illustrations have been dealt with in essential readings). After a short overview of how illustration has been dealt with in the discipline of transmutation Studies, this composition discusses both(prenominal) i mplications of a cognitive approach to similes for interpretation surmise and practice.Illustrations from real root system and shoot for textual matterual matterbooks (English and German, political dialogue) show how translators handled figurative sorts, and what soulal make this had for the text itself, for text reception by the addressees, and for subsequent discursive developments. 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. Keywords Conceptual metaphor English French German Metaphorical sort interlingual rendition Studies 1. ledger entry Metaphor, as a typical feature of communication, presents a challenge for interpretation too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of rendition Studies.In the literature on explanation, the two main issues have been, ? rstly, the translatability of metaphors, and indorsemently, the elaboration of potential drop comment * Tel. ? 44-121-359-36114224 fax ? 44-121-359-6153. ? E-mail address c. schaeffneraston. ac. uk (C. Schaffner). 0378-2166/$ see front proposition 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. pragma. 2003. 10. 012 1254 ? C. Schaffner / daybook of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 procedures.In most fictitious characters, the business is based on a traditional down the stairsstanding of metaphor as a ?gure of speech, as a linguistic facial gesture which is substituted for an other(prenominal) vista (with a literal meaning), and whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of the text. It is nevertheless recently that a cognitive approach to metaphor has been use to interlingual rendition Studies. In this article, I want to illustrate on the basis of constrictive to examples from the language pair, English and German, what a cognitive approach could offer to the interpretation of metaphors in adaptation. The discussion proceeds primarily from the position of the discipline of Translation Studies.In taking this approach, i t is as well possible to explore how the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective of translation cig arette contri neverthelesse to metaphor guess. 2. The treatment of metaphor as a translation problem Translation and interpreting as activities have existed for many centuries, and thither is a long tradition of perspective and an enormous eubstance of opinion around translation (cf. Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995 Robinson, 1997). But it was non until the second half of this century that Translation Studies developed into a discipline in its own right (cf. Holmes, 1988 Snell-Hornby et al., 1992).Although at ? rst conceived as a subdiscipline of employ philology, it has interpreted on concepts and methods of other disciplines, notably text linguistics, communication studies, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics, proportional literature, and recently, cultural studies. Instead of a uni? ed theory, we have a numerousness of approaches, to each one of which di gestes on speci? c aspects of translation, odors at the product or the operation of translation from a speci? c angle, and uses speci? c ? terminology and research methods (cf. Chesterman, 2000 Gentzler, 1993 Schaffner,1997b Stolze, 1994).The phenomenon of metaphor has regularly been of concern to translation scholars who have argued about problems of transferring metaphors from one language and culture to another. The affirmations brought forward need to be seen within the context of a heterogeneous discipline, i. e. , with respect to the speci? c model of translation within which the scholars approached their content. I will therefore begin by giving a brief overview of the most prominent approaches to translation and provide a short business relationship of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies.Linguistics-based approaches de? ne translation as transferring meanings, as substituting origination language (SL) signs by equivalent range la nguage (TL) signs (e. g. , Catford, 1965). The seed text (ST) is to be reproduced in the TL as closely as possible, both in content and in form. Since the induce of a translation theory has often been seen as determining assume translation methods, language systems (as langues) have been studied in order to ? nd the smallest equivalent units (at the lexical and grammatical directs) which stern be substituted for each other in an actual text (as parole).Textlinguistic approaches de? ne translation as source text induced tar stupefy text (TT) production (Neubert, 1985). The text itself is handle as the unit of translation, and it is stressed that a text is always a text in a situation and in a culture. Therefore, rumination needs to be given to situational factors, genre or text-typological con wall plugions, addressees knowledge and expectations, and text functions.The primal notion of equivalence is now ? C. Schaffner / daybook of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1255 applied to the textual level, and de? ned as communicative equivalence, i. e., a relationship between the stooge text and the source text in which TT and ST ar of advert value in the respective communicative situations in their cultures.Functionalist approaches de? ne translation as a placeful 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 stone pit addressees in invest circumstances (cf. Vermeers skopos theory, e. g. , Vermeer, 1996). The actual form of the TT, its textual linguistic make-up, is therefore dependent on its intend purpose, and not (exclusively) on the structure of the ST.The yardstick for assessing the quality of the target text is, therefrom, its appropriateness for its purpose, and not the equivalence to the source text. More modern linguistic approaches acknowledge that translation is not a simple substitution process, but rather the result of a complex text-processing activity. However, they argue that translations need to be set aside from other kinds of derived texts, and that the label translation should only be applied to those trips where an equivalence relation obtains between ST and TT (House, 1997 Koller, 1992).Equivalence 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 sidestep the issue that it is difference, not uniformness or transpargonncy or equality, which is inscribed in the operations of translation (Hermans, 1998 61). This view is also evince in current approaches that are inspired by postmodern theories and heathen Studies, which argue that texts do not have any intrinsically perpetual meaning that could be repeated elsewhere (e. g. , Arrojo, 1998 Venuti, 1995).For Venuti, the target text should be the site where a different culture emerges, wher e a reader gets a glimpse of a cultural other (Venuti, 1995 306). In the course of its development, the focus of Translation Studies has, thus, shifted markedly from linguistic towards contextual and cultural factors which affect translation. study inspiration for the development of the discipline has also begin from research conducted within the framework of Descriptive Translation Studies (delirium tremens), marking at the description of translating and translations as they unmingled themselves in the ground of our experience (Holmes, 1988 71).Research here includes studying the socio-historical conditions in which translations are produced and received, identifying regularities in translators behaviour and linking such regularities to translation norms which operate both in the social event and the cognitive 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 actually do look like) is also evident in the discussions about metaphor translation.Metaphor has traditionally been exposit as an individual linguistic phenomenon (a nonliteral expression) which outhouse become a translation problem. Most scholars use the uniform terms as those applied in semantic theories (cf. Goatly, 1997), i. e. , terms like image or fomite for the conventional reachent, object or topic for the actual unconventional referent, and sense, ground, or tenor for the similarities and/or analogies involved.Newmark (1981) explains these terms on the basis of the example rooting out the faults as follows the object, that is, the item which is observed by the metaphor, is faults. The image, that is, the item in terms of which the object is described, 1256 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 is rooting up weeds. The metaphor, t hat is, the word(s) apply in the image, is rooting out, and the sense, which shows in what peculiar(a) aspects the object and the image are similar, is (a) eliminate and (b) do so with terrific personalised effort.He argues that in translating this ?metaphor, a verb such as eliminer in French, or entfernen in German, would not do, unless the phrase was of marginal importance in the text (Newmark, 1981 85). These arguments re? ect the two 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 moodlly be transferred constitutional from SL to TL. However, cultural differences between SL and TL have often been mentioned as preventing such an intact transfer.For Dagut (1976 22), a metaphor is an individual ? ash of imaginative appreciation, a creative product of violating the linguisti c system, and as such, highly culture speci? c. Its main function is to shock its readers by creating an aesthetic impact. In Daguts view, the effect of shock is to be retained in a translation, and if linguistic and cultural factors hinder this effect, then he maintains that the metaphor cannot be translated.For illustration, he uses Hebrew metaphors translated into English, and shows, for example, how Hebrew metaphors are closely connected to Biblical stories and thus culture speci?c (as in the case of the verb form neekad squinch, i. e. , metaphorically, bound like Isaac for the sacri? ce). Most authors agree that the image in the ST cannot always be retained in the TT (e. g. , because the image that is connected to the metaphor is unknown in the TL, or the associations triggered by the SL metaphor get lost in the TL), and subsequently most(prenominal) translation procedures have been suggested as alternative closures to the ideal of reproducing the metaphor intact.For exampl e, van 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. Substitution (i. e. , replacement of SL vehicle by a different TL vehicle with more or less the same tenor). 3. Paraphrase (i. e. , rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical expression in the TL). Van den Broeck provides these modes of metaphor translation as a tentative scheme, i. e. , as theoretical 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 of a translation theory not in prescribing how metaphors should be translated, but in describing and explaining identified solutions. He therefore argues that detailed descriptive studies of how metaphors are actually translated would be undeniable to test the suggested modes and h is 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, melody, recent, and original. In his discussion of stock metaphors, he proposes seven translation procedures, which have frequently been taken up in the literature. These procedures are arranged in order of preference (Newmark, 1981 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1257 8791). Newmarks focus is on the linguistic systems, and his arguments can be link up to the substitution theory 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 hairgoldenes Haar. 2. Replacing the image in the SL with a measuring stick TL image which does not clash with the ? TL culture, e. g. , other slant 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 beauty 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 quackery such as Moliere might have employ. Newmark suggests the use of this compromise solution in order to avoid comprehension problems however, it results in a sacking of the intended effect.5. Converting metaphor to sense, e. g. , sein Brot verdienento earn ones biography. This procedure is recommended when the TL image is too broad 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 enforce 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 metaphorical expression) is treated as a unit of translation. He argues that from the perspective of the TT, two accompanimental 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 motif 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 analysis as well, but did not go much(prenominal) beyond a presentation 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 photos and frames semantics as applied to translation (Vannerem and Snell-Hornby, 1986), he illustrates how some(prenominal) metaphors interact in the construction of a macro-scene.In German translations of whole kit and boodle 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, largely initiated by Lakoff and Johnsons Metaphors We Live By (1980), can contribute new 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 Pragmatic s 36 (2004) 12531269 argument of the cognitive approach is that metaphors are not just decorative elements, but rather, basic resources for thought processes in human society. Metaphors are a means of understanding one theatre of operations of experience (a target reality) in terms of another (a source domain).The source domain is mapped onto the target domain, whereby the structural components of the base schema are transferred to the target domain (ontological correspondences), thus also allowing for knowledge-based inferences and entailments (epistemic correspondences). much(prenominal) models are largely encoded and mum in linguistic terms. In cognitive linguistics, the term metaphor is used to refer to this abstract mapping (e. g. , ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A swimming IN A CONTAINER),1 and the term metaphorical expression is used to refer to an individual linguistic expression that is based on a conceptualization and thus sanctioned by a mapping (e.g. , I gave vent to my a ngriness).Establishing the conceptualization on which a busy metaphorical expression is based is relevant to translation, too. Such a perspective provides a different answer 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 ofsuch 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 consideration of the 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 primarily English and German. The focus of this paper is the description and explanation of identi? ed translation sol utions.It is thus related to DTS, but, in contrast to van den Broeck, for example, I do not take 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 predominantly product-oriented,2 with the explanation being 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 identical metaphorical expression in the ?German ST, Brucke (bridge), but it has been handled differently in the TTs (both condenses come from speeches by the former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) 1 In this metaphor, ontological correspondences are, for instance, the container is the body, the heat of fluid is the anger epistemic correspondences are then, for instance, when the fluid is modify past a certain limit, pressure increases to th e 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 control (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 valuable 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 glide path conceptual metaphors when constructing interpretations of metaphorical expressions (cf. Glucksberg, 2001), and how this might influence 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) 12531 269 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 authorized component of the translatlantic bridge).The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic acquaintance. (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 second case the metaphor has been deleted. These texts would be examples of what Newmark calls authoritative texts, and in his guidelines to translators he states that in suc h texts, metaphors should be preserved.As a second step 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 Honorary Freedom of the City of capital of the United Kingdom (18 February 1998), the second one from his speech at the ceremony at Tempelhof airport to commemorate the Berlin Airlift on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton (14 may ? 1998). The Berlin Airlift is known in German as Luftbrucke (literally bridge in the air). In the London speech, the 50th anniversary of the Airlift is curtly mentioned, but it is not the ? actual topic of the speech.In the Tempelhof speech, however, 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 considerations, Newmarks recommendation 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 light 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 rustle is a TRANSPORT domain, focusing on the medium (air), the action, and involving a program line (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 Freund schaftsbrucke is sanctioned? A closer analysis of the text above shows that the production line is structured or so the central 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 times in these ? rst paragraphs, each time translated as Airlift, since each time it is used as a proper name.Kohl then associate the historical aspect to the development of American German friendship over the last 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 litigious function of a political speech) . . . in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten haben rund 7 Millionen ame rikanische 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 ? ? wichtiger 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 USA are friends. comprehend the state metaphorically as a person seeking friendship involves a metaphorical conce ption of closeness. Thus, all references in Kohls speech to Kontakte, Beziehungen, Begegnungen ( come homes, a dense network of personal ties, personal encounters) can be described as metaphorical expressions that are sanctioned by the conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and social occasion IS CLOSENESS (see also Gibbs comments on primary metaphors (Gibbs et al., this issue)).One of the means which allows friends who raging 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 such a conceptual perspective, we can say that rendering Freundschaftsbrucke as transatlantic friendship does not really constitute a case of metaphor deletion. The conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS are present in both ST and TT.It is these conceptual metaphors that are relevant for the structure o f the text and its overall 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 country far from home, have helped, . . . to protection pause and liberty. In their day-to-day contacts with Germans the American community here has make 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 everyd ay impressions andexperiences 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(prenominal) Bible translations into English and Dutch, 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 i nsights into strategic uses of metaphors and their treatment in translation.In elaborating on German American partnership in the world of today 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 house. Our goal is to sub the construction of the European housewith a permanent right of dwelling for our American friendsand enable the family of European nations to live 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 EUROPE 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, t he TT has made the entailments of the source domain explicit that is, an apartment ensures a right of residence, and these are epistemic correspondences. two ST and TT remain within the conceptual metaphor of a house, dapple the additional information in the TT(and enable the family of European nations to live 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 additional 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 Kernhard core).Such an analysis needs to put the text into its historical context, accounting for its function, its addres sees, and so on 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 common European house was introduced into political discourse in the mid-1980s by the then attractor of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev.As a 1262 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 re? ection of the new political thinking in the Communist Party under Gorbachev, the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was to represent the idea of all European states, East and West of the Iron Curtain, living and working together in peaceful 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 ? at s (i. e. , the prototypical house in larger 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 guarantee 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 new 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 Engl ish 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.