above. Because it is not simply relatable to existing linguistic or cultural conventions
The lexicalized and non-lexicalized metaphors have many distinctions, especially about the vehicle and the ground or the sense of the metaphor. Here is
the summary of the differences between lexicalized and non-lexicalized metaphor. Table 1: The comparison between lexicalized and non-lexicalized metaphor.
36
Lexicalized metaphor Non lexicalized metaphor
Vehicle Is denotative,
Providing basic definition as likeness relationship
Is connotative, suggesting that there is a likeness relationship
Ground Are sub denotative, further
defining nature of likeness relationship
Are not properly operative, secondary sense function as equivalent to ground
It is clear from the above presentation that Dickins‟s approach reflects the lexicological scale in which the dictionary has a decisive role to make a clear cut
between the two categories, and this approach will be used in this research.
5. Metaphor and Metonymy
Metonymy is important in relation to the study of metaphor. Same as metaphor, metonymy is an important kind of non-literal language. It involves
part-and-whole relations and associations. The word for a part of something is used to refer to the whole, or else the whole is referred to in terms of something
36
Anonymous, “Two Model for Metaphor Translation”, Paper Based on Chapter Eleven of
Thinking Arabic Translation 2004, June 07, 2004. http:usir.salford.ac.uk1343
, p. 12
associated with it.
37
Alice Deignan and Liz Potter mentioned in his journal and stated that “metonymy is generally understood as a transference within a single
semantic field rather than two fields, the metonymy being one aspect of an entity which is used to refer to its whole
.”
38
A word sometimes can stand for both metaphor and metonymy. Some of these interaction can be expressed as metonymy within metaphor, where „„a
metonymically used entity is embedded within a complex metaphorical expression‟‟.
39
The example of this is the expression “bite one‟s tongue off”. Here the tongue is used metonymically to stand for speech, and the expression as a
whole is used metaphorically to mean „deprive oneself of the facility of speech‟.
The difference can also be seen by comparing the use of head in sixty head of cattle
and the head of the organization. The first is a metonym where
whole cattle are referred to their a body part. Heads and cattle are part of the same entity. The second is a metaphor, relating to a metaphorical analogy between an
organization and a body: organizations and bodies are separate kinds of entity.
40
It
is possible to say the head of an organization „is like‟ the head of a body, but it
would be meaningless to say
heads of cattle „are like‟ cattle: rather, we would simply say
heads of cattle „stand for‟ cattle. B.
Translation
1. The Definiton of Translation
37
Murray Knowles and Rosamund Moon 2005, op. cit. p. 6.
38
Alice Deignan and Lizz Potter, “A Corpus Study of Metaphors and Metonyms in English and
Italian ”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol 36 2004, October 8, 2003, p. 1242.
39
Ibid
40
Murray Knowles and Rosamund Moon 2005, op. cit. p. 40
The term of translation has several meanings; it can refer to the general subject field, the product or the process. The process of translation between two
different languages involves the translator changing an original the source.
41
Nida and Taber stated that “ translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in
terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style”.
42
Roman Jakobson described three categories of translation as follows:
43
a. Intralingual translation or rewording; an interpretation of verbal signs
by means of other signs of the same language b.
Interlingual translation, or translation proper; an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language
c. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation; an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign system. Bell recognizes the distinction between translation as process, product, and
concept:
44
a. Translating is the process to translate; the activity rather than the
tangible object. b.
A translation is the product of the process of translating i.e. the translated text.
41
Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 4
42
Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation Leiden: E.J Brill, 1982, p. 12
43
Jeremy Munday 2001, op. cit. p. 5
44
Anna Trosborg, “Translation Studies: Some Recent Developments”, Journal of Linguistics, No. 12 1994. http:download2.hermes.asb.dkarchivedownloadH12, p. 10
c. Translation is the abstract concept that encompasses both the process of
translating and the product of that process. According to it types, there are two types of translations as mentioned by
Larson. He classified translation into form based and meaning based translation. The first type attempts to follow the form of the SL, while the second type
attempts to communicate the meaning of SL. Form based translation is also called literal translation, and meaning based translation is called idiomatic translation.
45
2. Types of Metaphor Translation
