THE LINGUISTIC AND TRANSLATIONAL NATURE OF METAPHOR: A COGNITIVE AND CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE.
Keywords:
metaphor, conceptual metaphor theory, cognitive linguistics, translation studies, cross-cultural communication, Lakoff and Johnson, embodied cognition, metaphor universality.Abstract
Metaphor is a fundamental mechanism of human cognition and language, extending far beyond its traditional role as a literary device. This article investigates the linguistic and translational dimensions of metaphor from cognitive and cross-cultural perspectives, drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) as proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The study examines how metaphors are conceptually structured, culturally embedded, and linguistically realized across different languages, with particular attention to the challenges these features pose for translators. Through a comparative analysis of metaphorical expressions in English, Uzbek, and Russian, the article demonstrates that while some conceptual metaphors exhibit cross-linguistic universality rooted in shared embodied experience, others are deeply culture-specific and resist direct translation. The findings reveal that translators must navigate not only lexical equivalence but also cognitive and cultural mapping in order to preserve metaphorical meaning. This paper argues that an adequate approach to metaphor translation requires a framework that integrates cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, and intercultural communication. The implications of this research extend to translation pedagogy, lexicography, and the broader field of applied linguistics
References
Aristotle. (1987). Poetics (R. Janko, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work composed ca. 335 BCE)
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Herrmann, J. B., Woll, N., & Dorst, A. G. (2012). Linguistic metaphor identification in translation. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 117–142). De Gruyter.
Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Schaffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins Publishing.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
Yu, N. (1995). Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese: A cognitive and cultural analysis. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1002_1
