A Model of Translation Based on Proverbs and Their Metaphors: A Cognitive Descriptive Approach
By Freeda C. Wilson,
Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC, Canada
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that representation of translation by way of a model is possible. As a corpus,
proverbs offer a vast and reliable source of previously translated metaphors, in this case, French to
English. Proverbs and their metaphors constitute a sign with inherent components that include, but are
not limited to, message, meaning(s), connotations, and syntactic structure, as well as information
derived from sources such as the text or an individual's personal knowledge. Such components are
essential and interdependent elements of translation. However, the extent of the role of each of the
components that constitute the overall process of translation varies. In other words, the makeup of
each proverb and its metaphor varies. Thus, a translation model must be flexible in order to
accommodate these variances, a task accomplished by this model through cognitive mapping strategies
and the view that translation involves both how it occurs and what occurs.
Keywords: translation, proverb, metaphor, linguistics, mapping, conceptual, attribute, relational, model,
cognitive
Introduction
In this reprint of A Model of Translation Based on Proverbs and their Metaphors: A Cognitive Descriptive
Approach (LACUS XXXV), I propose that a model of translation is possible, and I present such a model in
a form that I derived from an analysis of a corpus of French to English translations of proverbs and their
metaphors (Wilson 2009 passim). Proverbs and their metaphors serve as an excellent corpus on which
to draw translation data for analysis, and subsequently for formulating a model of translation, for
several reasons. The main advantage is that a large body of accepted translations for proverbs exists
between various languages, thus removing any question of validity on a specific translation example. A
second, equally important, reason is that proverbs generally include metaphors and thus provide a body
of culturally accepted metaphor translations. Furthermore, as they are heavily embedded in culture and
reveal conceptual thinking, proverbs provide insight into a language group's way of thinking. This insight
is reciprocal, in that it can provide a guide to the translation of texts not previously translated.
The model of translation proposed (hereafter Wilson's model) draws on specific conceptualizations of
the main components of the concept (sign) that the translator must address: message, meanings,
context, connotations, and linguistic structure, as well as certain mapping processes and cognitive
behaviors. The process of translation, as represented by this model, simultaneously treats the whole of
the sign, i.e., the proverb in its understood form, with the sum of its parts. In other words, the proverb is
neither an indivisible whole nor a set of components, rather it is simultaneously both. To accommodate
this view, the model encompasses both how translation occurs and what occurs, and, with a
multidisciplinary viewpoint, relies on the culmination of a critical examination of the most contemporary
and most relevant theories, mainly on cognitive science, translation, semiotics, and comparative
linguistics (Wilson 2009 passim).
1. Components of Wilson's Model
To begin with, Wilson's model relies on a fundamental concept of translation, as well as on specific
views of message and meaning. The basic premise underpinning translation is that, when translating,
the translator undergoes a set of cognitive behaviors (analyze, interpret, reformulate) in which a
proverb (the message) transfers from the source language to the target language, as evident in Figure I.
The message involves, at the least, the concept and its vehicle, and it exists in terms of Saussure's sign
(2004:65), translatable by rules and processes as presented in Holmes' model of translation (1988:83).
Thus, proverbs are treated as signs in this paper; a total concept in the mind, comprising a signifier
(Richards' vehicle (1965:100); Vinay and Darbelnet's linguistic unit (1995:37) and a signified, the concept
carried or delivered by the signifier.
Figure 1. Basic Concept of Translation
The proverb's signifier exists as two entities, linguistic meaning and linguistic structure, in terms of the
duality that Eugene Nida specifies for linguistic meaning.
Linguistic meaning must be carefully distinguished from other types of meaning, for the linguistic
signification of a form does not refer to anything outside of the language itself, as does referential or
emotive meaning, but rather to the meaningful relationships which exist within the language. On the
other hand, linguistic meaning is similar to referential and emotive meanings, for all types of meaning
are derived essentially from the signaling of a relationship. (Nida 1964:57)
For example, beggars can't be choosers has a linguistic structure with nouns, verb, and negation, each of
these components having a role and a meaning of its own, and together providing a physical component
for the message. However, this proverb also has a linguistic meaning, 'people who beg do not have
choices', which functions as one of the meanings in the message. The linguistic structure plays a
linguistic role and provides a linguistic vehicle for the message while the linguistic meaning contributes a
meaning to the message. As each message comprises both linguistic meaning and linguistic structure,
the translator must attend to both in translating the message from the source language to the target
language.
Furthermore, linguistic meaning is not the only meaning which contributes to the sign. In the following
excerpt, Roland Barthes makes several claims about interpreting a text. His main argument, which
serves as an integral element of the thesis supporting Wilson's model, is that a text has multiple
components (plurality), and is not distinguishable simply as a singular concept, such as a meaning. He
contends that no one component outweighs the whole of the group of components, but neither does
the text as a whole, nor the components as a group.
To interpret a text is not to give it a (more or less justified, more or less free) meaning, but on the
contrary to appreciate what plural constitutes it ... this text is a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of
signifieds, it has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain access to it by several entrances, none of which
can be authoritatively declared to be the main one; the codes it mobilizes extend as far as the eye can
reach ... the systems of meaning can take over this absolutely plural text, but their numbers are never
closed, based as it is on the infinity of language ... the text must simultaneously be distinguished from its
exterior and from its totality. All of which comes down to saying that for the plural text, there cannot be
a narrative structure, a grammar, or a logic; thus, if one or another of these are sometimes permitted to
come forward, it is in proportion (giving this expression its full quantitative value) as we are dealing with
incompletely plural texts, texts whose plural is more or less parsimonious. (Barthes 1974:5-6)
Just as the translator attends to both linguistic meaning and linguistic structure, he or she must also
ensure that the plurality of the meanings for a given signified is maintained. Examine the proverb you
can't be in two places at once. Several meanings are evident: you have to make a choice. Being in one
place means not being in another place, and you want both options, in addition to the linguistic meaning
(you cannot be in two places at once). All of these meanings are relevant to the translation of this
proverb. Other factors, such as context and connotations, affect these meanings and, in turn, contribute
to the signified as well. In other words, a text evokes more entities than the message and meaning(s),
none of which entities exists in isolation from the others and must be accounted for in the targetlanguage text.
With set concepts of translation, message, and meaning(s) in place, other relevant components of
Wilson's model, specifically connotations and context, fall into place. Connotative values are those that
reflect human factors. Due to the proverb's reliance on axiological values, connotations are a prevalent
element in the translation of proverbs; therefore, the model treats connotation as one of the important
components of translation, one which must be accounted for separately, although connotations would
generally fall under the umbrella of context.
The value of connotations rests on the particular nature of the signified, namely:
its belonging to a specific level of language or type of discourse;
its affective value;
its axiological value;
the associated image;
Certain additional semantic values become manifested through diverse associative mechanisms (effects
of polysemy, collocations, allusion, etc.) (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1977:90 [Trans. by Wilson])
Connotations vary in type and intensity and, per Kerbrat-Orecchioni, lie in the attributes of the specific
signified. Language is designated according to levels or types of discourse, such as slang (yeah!) versus
formal (yes, Sir!). Such distinctions convey human values like respect for authority, or conversely, lack of
it. Affective values convey emotion, such as disappointment or anger. Compare the difference between
the news upset him, the news devastated him, and the news reached him. Each of these statements
conveys the fact that someone received news, but the diversity in word choice communicates different
emotions, even the absence of emotion, as in the neutral verb reached, as well as various levels of
intensity, as in upset versus devastated. Similarly, axiological values, or value judgements such as good,
bad, etc., convey the speaker's value system. Connotations add to linguistic meaning; however, many
factors affect the connotations of a linguistic unit, such as culture and other human capabilities, i.e.,
logic and creativity, and these aspects themselves, in turn, affect the makeup of the proverb and its
metaphor. A key factor in understanding proverbs and their subsequent translation lies in understanding
the balance that exists between and within individual proverbs regarding connotations, as well as the
other components of the message. Connotations generally map from the source language to the target
language directly. Thus, for example, greed in the source language would reveal itself as greed in the
target language.
Connotations are indeed a type of context, as the most comprehensive concept of context treats it as a
psychological factor:
The set of premises used in interpreting an utterance (apart from the premise that the utterance in
question has been produced) constitutes what is generally known as the context. A context is a
psychological construct, a subset of the hearer's assumptions about the world. It is these assumptions,
of course, rather than the actual state of the world, that affect the interpretation of an utterance. A
context in this sense is not limited to information about the immediate physical environment or the
immediately preceding utterances: expectations about the future, scientific hypotheses or religious
beliefs, anecdotal memories, general cultural assumptions, beliefs about the mental state of the
speaker, may all play a role in interpretation. (Sperber and Wilson 1986:15-16)
Therefore, all the factors that affect the human mind in the conceptualization of a proverb constitute its
context, including, according to this definition, connotations. In addition to connotations, logic, linguistic
meaning, and situation (from the linguistic structure and from the text) are types of context which tend
to be prevalent in proverb metaphors. For example, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush relies on
context that reflects human logic, i.e. the value of two as opposed to the value of one, but also that one
guaranteed is better than two possibilities. The situation evident in the linguistic structure is that a
caught bird is better than two free birds. A typical text; however, is unlikely to focus on the subject of
birds but will instead convey a situation in which one guaranteed outcome is compared to multiple
outcomes that may not transpire; basically, it will constitute an analogue of the linguistic situation. The
concept of situation as context is important to the translation of proverbs, due in particular to their
analogous nature.
To summarize, the act of translation is a process in which a source text becomes a target text, and
fundamental to the entire process is that translation is a cognitive activity comprising multiple processes
that are sequential, simultaneous, and interdependent. The components and processes vary in their
presence and strength from one sign to the next, and from one translation situation to another. As a
source text passes through a set of processes that transfers the sign and its components into the target
language, the goal of translation is to maintain as many of the components as possible, as evident in
Figure 1. These components --- message, meaning(s), connotations, context, and linguistic structure --are mapped from one language to the other. The ultimate goal of a translation is equivalence, an event
that occurs when as many of the components of the message as possible do match between the two
languages.
Figure 2. Cognitive Behaviors
2. Cognitive Behaviors
how. Translation as an act is two-fold, in that the components and processes (mappings) are different,
yet simultaneous, aspects of the translation model from the behaviors of the translator. Basically, how
translation occurs is the cumulative cognitive behaviors of the translator and what is the transition of
the sign and its components from the source language to the target language. Wilson's translation
model accounts for what happens in that it draws on Wolfram Wilss' (1994 passim) cognitive behaviors,
as they present the most accurate portrayal of this aspect of the translation process for the translation
model. Wilson's model represents the sum of the translator's behaviors as "analyze, interpret,
reformulate" with the assumption that they exist in the same terms depicted in Figure 2 and under the
assumption that they occur at all levels of the model. This set of behaviors is not a closed set, and as
such, forms a flexible group that is dependent upon the translator, the translation material and the
translation situation; i.e., what is the goal, who is the target reader, etc.
At a minimum, translation involves cognitive functions such as problem-solving and decision-making.
Linguistic skills in two languages are not sufficient, as translation is a complex cognitive function that
extends beyond linguistic skills. Therefore, any approach to producing or analyzing a process of
translation, such as Wilson's model, must view translation as such.
If we decide to describe and explain translation processes by means of a cognitive framework of
representation and legitimation, this has meaning only if we are prepared to investigate these processes
in accordance with operational concepts. Such concepts are action, behavior, problem solving, decisionmaking, creativity, intuition, and the strategies, methods, techniques, and routines of translation. (Wilss
1990:21)
Wilson's translation model places Wilss' operational concepts under the umbrella of three general tasks
(analyze, interpret and reformulate), considering them together as a set of processes that occur
simultaneous with the structural transition, and as applying to all aspects of the model. These tasks may
be independent or co-dependent, may occur simultaneously or successively, and they may occur once
or repetitively, depending on the nature of the translation text and the translator's skills. As indicated in
Figure 2, all the behaviors performed by the translator fall into the realm of operational concepts.
3. Mapping
what. The translation model represents the what of translation by way of mapping, in the mathematical
sense. That is, an equivalence relation holds between the source text and the target text. The sign as a
whole is mapped (the sign/message); however, also mapped are meanings, connotations, linguistic
structure, and context. Thus, mappings are processes while meanings, connotations, linguistic structure,
and context are components. Some mapping occurs directly between languages, such as connotative
values, while other mappings take place in the form of mapping strategies.
Examples of mapping strategies include: relational mapping (Gentner & Kurtz 2005: passim), in which a
relationship is mapped between the two languages, such as the concept that 2 > 1 or that one action is
exclusive of another [exclusive(action1, action2)]; attribute mapping (Gentner 1983: passim), in which
attributes are mapped, such as fire (smoke) or action1 (evacuate); and conceptual mapping (Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980: passim), which reflects conceptual thinking and organization such as good is up or ideas
are plants.
As an example, Figure 3 examines the French proverb qui ne dit mot consent, for which the English
equivalent would be silence gives consent. For the English translation to be equivalent, it must convey as
many of the components as possible of the French proverb, including:
(1)
Message: not voicing one's opinion implicitly gives consent.
a. Meaning(s): not to say a word is to be silent, to be silent is to not have a voice or opinion, no
voice equates to not having a defence, no defence equates to guilt.
b. Connotations: affective connotations—acquiescence, submission; axiological connotation—lack
of defence implies guilt.
c. Context: someone is remaining silent (linguistic structure), in the text we would expect to find
an individual or group who is not speaking up and the implied consequence would be guilt.
d. Linguistic meaning: who says no word consents.
Figure 3. Model of a Translated Proverb (accepted translation)
Many of the components of this proverb map directly between the two languages, such as the
connotations and the textual context. Components such as linguistic meaning, however, rely on
mapping strategies in order to transfer from the source language to the target language. The
relationship consequence(action1, action2) conveys the concept that the consequence of one action is
another action and is a relationship that is mapped from French to English, in this case as the
consequence of not speaking up is the assumption of guilt. This mapping delivers both meaning and
linguistic structure to the target language, while the attributes that are mapped from French to English,
[action(not speaking)] and [action(consent)] also contribute to the linguistic meaning and linguistic
structure in the target language. The remaining components, the message and any other relevant
meanings, as well as the connotations and the textual context, are simultaneously mapped directly to
the target language.
4. Comparative Linguistics
Finally, no discussion of Wilson's model is complete without addressing the role of comparative
linguistics. Itself a mapping of structure from one language to another, the linguistic structure, or
vehicle, for the message functions in the model mainly from the perspective of comparative linguistics.
Vinay & Darbelnet's approach to French and English stem from a concept of planes of expression
(1995:54) to which they apply procedures (1977:55) in order to reconcile the differences between the
French and English, with a focus on lexicon and syntax. They categorize seven specific procedures to
identify structural differences that facilitate translation: emprunt 'borrowing', calque 'loan translation',
traduction littérale 'literal translation', transposition, modulation, equivalence, and adaptation
(1995:55). Vinay & Darbelnet distinguish between direct translation (borrowing, calques, and literal
translation) and oblique translation (transposition, modulation, equivalence, and adaptation) in order to
account for the translations that appear to be word-for-word as opposed to those which are not. Having
made this distinction, they are then able to address the lexical and syntactic aspects of translation from
the perspective of each of these two categories. The seven procedures explained by Vinay & Darbelnet
are not necessarily applied in isolation from each other. As cognitive processes, they operate
concurrently and consecutively, as they undergo analysis, interpretation and reformulation in the same
manner as other processes that are part of the translation model. Wilson's model of translation relies on
Vinay & Darbelnet's work to address the issues of translation that reside at the level of linguistic
structures. Such work is not so freely available for other language pairs; however, this does not prevent
Wilson's model from incorporating comparative linguistics as an active process in the model.
Furthermore, comparative linguistics as a function of the model relies heavily on translator knowledge
and experience, especially in cases where Vinay & Darbelnet's type of research is not readily available as
a reference.
5. Translating A Proverb
Given the histories of the French and English languages, many proverbs have accepted translations. One
of the translator's roles is to know when a new proverb is necessary and acceptable in the target
language. If, for example, the translator creates a proverb in a situation in which a commonly
understood proverb exists, the reader of the resulting text will feel as if something is not quite right with
the text. Therefore, the translator should be aware of existing equivalents, yet have the skill to create
one when necessary. Thus, the test for Wilson's model is how the model applies to a proverb without a
previous translation, as shown in Figure 5.
Extensive research did not reveal an English equivalent for the French proverb in (2):
(2)
a. Proverb: L'honneur fleurit sur la fosse.
b. Literal translation: Honor flowers [flourishes] on the grave.
c. Message: True recognition occurs only after death.
From the point of view of mapping, this proverb turns out to be an ideal example. It is evident is that the
key metaphor fleurit has an equivalent in English (flourish). While the semantic field of fleurit also
encompasses to flower and to bloom, it is the meaning of to grow or to prosper that needs to remain
present, as in flourish. Mapping L'honneur fleurit sur la fosse reveals that all three mapping strategies
function for this proverb:
(3)
a. Relational mapping: [flourish (honor, grave)]
b. Attribute mapping: honor, grave
c. Conceptual mapping: PEOPLE ARE PLANTS—flower/flourish; CONTAINER—the grave is a container;
GOOD IS UP—honor is above (higher than) the person; GESTALT—whole part structure: honorisn't
separate from the person, as it resides at the gravesite with the person.
Given the similarities between French and English cultures regarding the traditions surrounding death
ceremonies, i.e. burial sites, flowers on the gravesite, etc., an English equivalent that expresses most, if
not all, of the mapping found in the French proverb should be possible. The conceptual mapping that is
evident in the source proverb is also representative of the English language as described by Lakoff &
Johnson (1980 passim), which further supports this likelihood, as well as the possibility that many of the
patterns described in conceptual theory apply to the French language. As a result, one would expect to
see a similar proverb in English in terms of linguistic meaning, especially if the other components of the
model, such as context, are mapped accordingly.
The French proverb reflects a context in which there is a concern about receiving credit for a deed, with
the overall implication that honor and recognition are not the motivating factors for one's actions.
Posthumous recognition is a practice known to both cultures, thus an analogy based on this practice is
reasonable in the target language. Therefore, one possibility is that a literal translation will serve as an
equivalent in this case: "honor flowers on the grave." This option maps the context and the
connotations of humility and benevolence directly. Analysis reveals that the source proverb's multiple
meanings can be represented in the English translation "honor flowers on the grave."






honor flourishes on the grave (literal meaning)
recognition comes after death
flowers flourish in soil
flowers are put on graves
honorable behavior does not demand immediate recognition
honoris born on the grave (a flower is a birth)
At this point most of the criteria of the model are met; however, an examination of one last aspect of
the model, comparative linguistics, provides an way to ensure that the translation feels right for the
English speaker. As for word choices, the word honor not only conveys the concept of recognition, but
also that of virtue in both languages and is a good fit. Conversely, to flower poses a problem. While
flowers is satisfactory, there may be a better choice that represents both the concept of flourish and of
the recentness of the event, i.e. after the grave is created. Fleurir can mean 'to blossom, to bloom' as
well as 'to flower, to flourish'; however, the use of this word to mean 'bloom' is specific to flowers. In
French, figurative blossoming requires the verb s'épanouir 'to open out or to light up', but this does not
convey the same image of plants. In English, although flower and flourish convey similar concepts and
are also used figuratively, blossom is a better choice due to its additional connotation of spring and
birth, as well as the underlying concept of the onetime event of an individual blossom, as compared to
the concept of flowering, which can be one time, continuous, or iterative. The goal of the model in this
case is to reinforce the underlying concept that honoris born on the grave. Finally, in this case the
structural differences between the two languages are of minor importance, as the model's translation is
neither awkward nor disjointed. However, two possible structural changes are given in (4).
(4)
a) It's on the grave that honor blossoms.
The English prevalence of it-transposition of the subject
b) Honor only blossoms on the grave.
English preference to be more specific, indicating that honor cannot occur before the grave exists.
6. Conclusion
Wilson's model does not address every question regarding translation. For example, how does the brain
accomplish mapping components, in what form do components exist, etc. The functioning of the brain is
still a developing science. However, the model does move in the direction of a fuller understanding of
areas of language such as translation, language learning, cultural studies, natural language processing,
and so on.
Figure 4. The Translation Model
Despite the model's sophistication, competency and knowledge on the translator's part are still
required. Therefore, specific information, for example that the meaning of kick the bucket is a message
similar to that of the infinitive to die, must be known by or available to the translator, as meanings and
messages are entrenched in culture. Basically, aspects such as connotations or context are not always
easily derived from the source text, and they require further investigation on the part of the translator.
At certain points, the model indicates a need for certain information and this is a signal to the translator
for such input. The result is the flexibility that allows for novel translations, such as the previous
example, and the additional example demonstrated in model form in Figure 5.
Consequently, the model of translation serves as a reference point for translators, for assistance in both
evaluating previously existing translations and producing new or previously nonexistent translations,
and as an explication of the process of translation, but not as a replacement for the knowledge or skill of
the translator.
Figure 5. Model of a (Novel) Proverb Translation
Works Cited
1. Barthes, Roland. 1970. S/Z. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
2. ---.1974. S/Z. Trans. by Richard Miller. Paris: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, Inc.
3. De Saussure, Ferdinand. 1983 [1915] Course in General Linguistics. Ed. by Charles Bally and
Albert Sechehaye. Trans. By Roy Harris. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
4. Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive
Science 7.2: 155-170.
5. --- & KENNETH KURTZ. 2005. Relational categories. In Categorization inside and outside the lab,
Ed. by W.K. Ahn, R.L. Goldstone, B.C. Love, A.B. Markman & P.W. Wolff, 151-175. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
6. Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated! Papers on literary translation and translational studies.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
7. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1977. La connotation. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
8. Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
9. Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill.
10. Richards, I. A. 1965. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Sperber, Dan, & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
12. Vinay, Jean-Paul, & Jean Darbelnet. 1977. Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais:
Méthode de traduction. 2nd edition. Paris: Didier.
13. Vinay, Jean-Paul, & Jean Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A
methodology for translation. Trans. by Juan C. Sager & M. J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
14. Wilson, Freeda. 2009. A model for translating metaphors in proverbs (French to English): A
cognitive descriptive approach. MA thesis UBC Okanagan, Kelowna. Electronic Theses and
Dissertations. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/12923. Accessed 26, September 2009.
15. Wilss, Wolfram. 1990. Cognitive aspects of the translation process. Trans. by Roger C. Norton.
Language and Communication: An Interdisciplinary Journal 10.1: 19-36.
Appendix
Published - January 2011