Processing Figurative Language in a Multi-Lingual Task:

Translation, Transfer and Metaphor

 

Ayse Pinar Saygin

Department of Cognitive Science

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093-0515

saygin@crl.ucsd.edu

 

One of the active areas in modern cognitive science and linguistics is the study of metaphor. Recent research on metaphor has emphasized the psychological aspects of metaphor as well as social, cultural and linguistic ones (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Murphy, 1997; Verbrugge, 1984). Although more work needs to be done, cross-cultural and cross-linguistic studies of metaphor and other figurative aspects of language have also received attention (Buchowski, 1996; Souto Silva, 2000; Van Brabant, 1986).

This paper studies metaphor comprehension and production in a multi-lingual setting using a translation task. The outcome examined is linguistic transfer (see, Gass, 1996; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Ritchie & Bhatia, 1996). There are few articles focusing on semantic, pragmatic and figurative aspects of second language comprehension and production (Francis, 1996; Kirstein, 1972; Opoku, 1987; Souto Silva, 2000). Translation of metaphors across languages has been studied within the context of poetry, literature and religion, but a processing account has not been provided. Linguistic transfer of figurative aspects of language is clearly an area open for further exploration.

Ten native speakers of Turkish, aged 21-31, participated in this study. These subjects were chosen to represent native speakers of Turkish (henceforth L1) who are competent enough in English (their second language, henceforth L2) for the purposes of the translation task. None were bilingual and none had professional translation experience or training. The sentences for translation were taken from a text on “Istanbul’s Coffee Houses” originally written in Turkish and  translated professionally into English. These texts are taken from Turkish Airlines’ Skylife magazine. 10 pairs of sentences were chosen from the texts. Two stimuli sets were composed by dividing up the pairs of sentences so that each set contained 5 Turkish, 5 English sentences. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the stimulus sets. Therefore, each subject translated 5 sentences from English to Turkish and 5 from English to Turkish.

Analysis was carried out to measure, across items and across the two target languages, whether there was transfer of metaphors during translation. In doing so, the availability of the metaphor in the target language was taken into consideration. The results indicate that there was a significant amount of transfer while subjects translated from their L2 to their L1, namely from English to Turkish (p<0.005).

In our native language, we are capable of understanding the meanings of metaphorical utterances effortlessly. In most cases, we do not even have to consciously process the underlying metaphors; the surface form seems to be translated into meaning almost instantly. However, priming and sentence processing research indicates that multiple interpretations are often activated even though it is clear from the context which meaning is intended. Therefore during translation, upon encountering a metaphorical usage, both the underlying metaphor and the literal meaning are likely to be active. Given that processing is faster and more robust in the native language, in L1, the activation caused by the literal meaning is likely to be much smaller and to “die out” quickly. Thus, the priming effect of the literal meaning will be much bigger for a translation into L1 than for a translation into L2. We must also note the differences in production between L1 and L2. Naturally, people are able to use their native language more comfortably than they use their L2. In particular, in composing sentences in L2 it is conceivable that they may be less confident that a metaphorical usage is appropriate in that language, even though, conceptually, they might have the metaphor available to them. In L1, however, they should be able to make use of conceptual metaphors in their linguistic output.

Given this context, an activation-based account is provided to explain the outcome of the study: When translation is from L1 to L2, we may assume that subjects have a good understanding of the original sentence. Now, their task is to explain the meaning in L2. Since subjects’ sentence production in L2 is not as comfortable as it is in their L1, they may choose to provide the meaning of the sentence using a literal and rather direct style. Given a solid understanding of the underlying meaning of the sentence to be translated, and the assumption that the literal meaning of the original metaphor is not significantly active, producing a sentence that has metaphorical usages in it will put more effort on the production system. The path of least resistance is to ‘take it from there’ and not add stylistic elements to it.

Metaphor transfer occurs significantly while translating from L2 to L1. A similar activation-based explanation can be made for this. For metaphors that were provided originally in L2, we hypothesized that the literal meaning could still be priming the translation. In comprehending L2, people presumably make use of all the cues they can get. The underlying metaphor can aid comprehension, especially if a similar metaphor exists in L1. This can partly explain metaphor transfer from L2 to L1. Moreover, the priming caused by the literal meaning of the metaphor can activate related concepts in L1. The activated literal meanings in L1 can in turn, activate related metaphors in L1, which may both aid production and facilitate, or even cause, the comprehension of the original metaphor. Even if the original metaphor does not have a counterpart in the second language, the literal meanings can activate related concepts and this might give rise to “analogy making on the fly”, which might, in turn, activate some metaphorical usage in L1.

As can be seen, within the framework of an activation-based theory, we can account for both lack of transfer from L1 to L2 and the transfer from L2 to L1. In fact, what might be happening could be complex and dynamic patterns of activation, rather a unidirectional transfer from one language to another.   

The study presented here indicates that work on metaphor in multi-lingual environments and tasks can shed more light on theories of figurative language processing, as well as of bilingualism and second language learning. In previous research, cross-linguistic studies of metaphor have mostly been carried out within the context of sociological linguistics, metaphor theory, or machine translation. Looking at the processing of metaphors  in multi-lingual environments is an area calling for further attention.

 

References:

Istanbul’s Coffee Houses, by Nevin Sungur, Skylife, February 1999. http://www.thy.com.tr/skylife/0299/s5.htm

 

Istanbul’un Kahvehaneleri, by Nevin Sungur, Skylife, February 1999. http://www.thy.com.tr/tskylife/0299/s5.htm

Buchowski, M. (1996). Metaphor, Metonymy, and Cross-Cultural Translation. Semiotica, 110(3-4), 301-310.

Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In E. William C. Ritchie, E. Tej K. Bhatia, & et al. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. (pp. 317-345): San Diego, CA, USA.

Jones, S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In E. Ann Matsuhashi & et al. (Eds.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes. (pp. 34-57): Norwood, NJ, USA.

Kirstein, B. H. (1972). Reducing Negative Transfer: Two Suggestions for the Use of Translation. Modern Language Journal, 56(2).

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacWhinney, B. (1992). Transfer and Competition in second language learning. In E. Richard Jackson Harris & et al. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals. (pp. 371-390): Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62(1).

Opoku, J. Y. (1987). Second language proficiency differences in the learning of semantically equivalent bilingual sentences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(1).

Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of second language acquisition: San Diego, CA, USA.

Souto Silva, R. (2000). Pragmatics, bilingualism, and the native speaker. Language & Communication, 20(2).

Van Brabant, K. (1986). The cross-cultural study of metaphor: Towards a theoretical and practical analysis of figurative speech. Communication & Cognition, 19(3-4).

Verbrugge, R. R. (1984). The role of metaphor in our perception of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 433.