هدا الجزء الاول من مشروع التخرج تبعي واريد منكم المساعدة والنصيحة ساعدوني


1. Metaphor
1.1Definitions of metaphor;
According to Hassan Ghazala metaphor defined as an expression of language which is meant to be used and understood in an indirect, non-literal way. and he states that metaphor is a figure of speech which aims at achieving a kind of resemblance between two objects, without stating the similarity in full terms, or using either article, “like “or “as”. A metaphor is the application of a word to a usage to which, in original import, it cannot be put (white, 1996: 9). more often than not it is used to include any use of a word or a sentence to convey something other than its literal meaning. such a meaning is regarded as metaphorical according to the moderyn tendency of the usage of the term and to an early traditional definition (cooper, 1986: 12-13) .
In (Oxford advance learner’s dictionary, 2010, p. 965) metaphor defined as a word or phrase used to describe something else, in a way that is different from its normal use, in order to show that the two things have the same qualities and to make the description more powerful’.
metaphor has been viewed as the most important form of figurative language use. metaphor has been regarded as a special phenomenon of language since the term was coined in ancient Greece. Gillian lazar explains metaphor involves “a carrying a cross of meaning from one object to another and identification is made between two apparently dissimilar things, so that some of characteristics of the one are carried over to the other.”
The other definition is explained by John I Saeed, he explained that metaphor is “ like simile that involves the identification of resemblance, but metaphor goes further causing transference, where properties are transferred from one concept to another.”
Dickin states that metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is used in non basic-sense and it is suggesting a likeness or analogy with another more basic of the same word or phrase.” metaphor is using language that refers to something other than it original or what it means .
Antonia Alvarez mentioned in her study of metaphor that it involves “Any identification of one thing with another, any replacement of the more usual word or phrase by another.”
(Brooke-Rose. In Avarez, 1993 : 481) Menacheim Dagut (1987) also states that “An individual creative flash of imagination fusing disparate categories of experience in a powerfully semantic anomaly.” (Dagut. In Avarez, op. cit : 480)
Based on those definitions metaphor is a linguistic device stands to conveyance of some kind of change, where one thing used to describe another thing .more simply, it means describe something by referring to something else which has the similar characteristics
1.2 Components of metaphor:
Linguists differ to determine the components of metaphor . Hasan Ghazala states that each metaphor has the following components :
e.g. sunny smile
a).Image: the source of the metaphor .(i.e. the sun)
b)Object: the idea ,thing ,or person described.(I.e. smile)
c)Sense: the direct meaning of the metaphor .(i.e. the brilliance of the smile which resembles the brilliance of the shining sun)
d)Metaphor: the figurative word used in the expres​sion(i.e. sunny).
1.3 Types of metaphor
There are many types of metaphor classified by western linguists .But in this paper we will use dickens’s typology which characterized by two stages: the First stage the dead and the live metaphor. The Second stage, metaphor is characterized into lexicalized and non-lexicalized metaphor. He suggests the dead metaphors “are the kind of things which are recognizably metaphorical, but which are included as sense of words in dictionaries. by contrast, live metaphor may be similarly crudely characterized as the kind of things which are recognizably metaphorical but which are not included as senses of words in dictionaries” (1998: 261-62). the lexical scale is implicitly applied in this classification. in the second stage, the lexical scale is clearly adopted when he divides metaphors into lexicalized and non-lexicalized. he believes “the importance of this distinction between lexicalized and non-lexicalized metaphors is not that it should be absolutely true, but that it provides a reasonable way in the great majority of cases of distinguishing two major classes of metaphor which…typically require rather different treatment in translation” (2002: 148).

1.3.1 lexicalized metaphors: these categories are the “uses of language which are recognizably metaphorical, but whose meaning in a particular language is relatively clearly fixed… we may say that lexicalized metaphors are metaphors whose meanings are given in dictionaries” (2002: 147); such as ‘rat’ for a person who deserts his friends. this category includes three types of metaphors.
A- Dead Metaphor is one which can not normally be recognized as a metaphor. According to Newmark, a dead metaphor is “where one is hardly conscious of the image” (1988: 106). He adds that this kind of metaphor frequently relays on the universal terms used to describe space and time such as field, line, top, bottom, foot, mouth, and arm .

B- Stock metaphor is one that is widely used as an idiom. It is “an established metaphor which in an informal context is an efficient and concise method of covering a physical and/or mental situation both referentially and pragmatically” (Newmark 1985: 108), such as:

-Keep the pot boiling.
-A wooden face.
-All that glitters is not gold.
-I can read him like a book.
-A sunny smile
c- Recent metaphor is a metaphorical neologism. (Dickins 2002: 149). It is a metaphorical neologism often ‘anonymously’ coined, which has spread rapidly in the SL” (Newmark 1988: 111), such as ‘pissed’ for ‘drunk’, ‘groovy’ for ‘good’, ‘spastic’ for ‘stupid’.

1.3.2 Non-lexicalized metaphors: in this category of metaphor, “the metaphorical meaning is not clearly fixed, but will vary from context to context, and has to be worked out by the reader on particular occasions” (Dickins 2002: 147); thus, “a man is a tree” which may have different meanings according to different contexts. this category is consisted of conventionalized and original metaphors.
a- Conventionalized metaphors: this category consists of metaphors “which are not lexicalized (and not therefore be given in dictionaries), but do draw on either cultural or linguistic conventions” (2002: 149). examples include ‘battle of wits’, ‘attack’, ‘lash out’ and so on.
b- Original metaphors: this kind of metaphors, outcome of the creativity of poets and writers exemplifies in such as “‘tom is a tree’… because they are not simply relatable to existing linguistic or cultural conventions. original metaphors are difficult to interpret. more specifically, it is necessary to establish the ground from the context” (Dickins et al 2002: 150).
This kind of metaphor contains “the core of an important writer’s message, his personality, and his comment on life” (1988: 112). Newmark deems such metaphors to be a source of enrichment in the target language.
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. in terms of qualification, Dickins finds that some explanations of metaphor propose “quite complex divisions between types of This metaphor”. it seems that the source of this complexity is due to the diversity of scales adopted such as mental, multidimensional and lexical .


2.Translation
2.1 The definition of translation:
There are several opinions about what translation is and this word is sometimes used improperly. Translation is the process in which a written communication or a text in a first language is produced as the written communication or text in the second language interpreting the same meaning. Here the text in the first language is the "source text" and the equivalent text that communicates the same message is the "target text" or "translated text". Initially translation has been a manual activity. Today, together with manual translation, there is also automatic translation of natural-language texts, which is referred to as machine translation or computer-assisted translation which use computers as an aid to translation. Translation is one way to bring the world closer.
According to Brislin (1976: 1) translation is a general term referring to the transfer of thoughts and ideas from one language to another, whether the language is in written or oral form, whether the languages have established orthographies or not; or whether one or both languages is based on signs, as with signs of the deaf. Newmark (1991: 27) defines the act of translating very briefly. It is the act of transferring meaning of a stretch or a unit of language, the whole or a part, from one language to another.

Another expert, Wilss (1982: 3), states that translation is a transfer process which aims at the transformation of a written source language text (SLT) into an optimally equivalent target language text (TLT), and which requires the syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic understanding and analytical processing of the source text. Syntactic understanding is related to style and meaning. Understanding of semantics is meaning related activity. Finally, pragmatic understanding is related to the message or implication of a sentence. This definition does not states what is transferred. Rather, it states the requirement of the process.
Nida and Taber (1982: 12) see translating as a process of 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. In other words,
translation is a transfer of meaning, message, and style from one SLT to the TLT. In the order of priority, style is put the last. Here the things to reproduce (transfer) is stated, message.
2.2 Translating metaphor
The uniqueness of metaphors appears to be the one thing translation theorists can agree upon, and it seems a bit conceited to maintain that translating a phenomenon held to be so exceptional represents no challenge at all, and can be done by a simple word-for-word rendition. Nevertheless, the view that metaphors are untranslatable also seems a bit too extremist, and my above-mentioned example ("and pigs/donkeys can fly") appears to contradict this fact. I readily admit that the words "pig" and "donkey" have different connotations, but in this context, the meaning the metaphor conveys ought to be more or less the same. As Newmark notes: "I think the first purpose of metaphor is to describe something more comprehensively, economically and usually more forcefully than is possible in literal language (1998:111). Dagut seems to agree when he says: "The truth is that the resemblances underlying metaphor (…) are largely "created" by the observing and classifying mind of the speaker, and are therefore as infinite as they are unpredictable" (1976:27).
The functions of metaphor are basically twofold: one is its rhetorical function, while the other is its cognitive function (Newmark, 1995). They are pointed out in particular not because other types of language do not have these functions, but because in metaphor they perform differently, On the one hand, metaphor, as a powerful rhetorical device, is employed to compare one concept to another with shared features or properties so as to appeal to the senses. In other words, metaphor, considered as a decorative addition to ordinary plain language, is used at certain times to achieve an aesthetic effect (Newmark, 1981b, 1995).
On the other hand, metaphor functions as a device of language formation whose purpose is to describe a concept, an action or an object more comprehensively and accurately than is possible by using literal or physical language. In this case, it is the denotation rather than the connotation of the metaphor that addresses the receptor, hence highlighting its cognitive function (Newmark, 1981b, 1995).
In a good metaphor, the two functions fuse like content and form. Yet the cognitive function is likely to dominate in a textbook, while the rhetorical function is often reinforced by sound-effect in an advertisement, popular journalism, an art-for-art's sake work or a pop song (Newmark,1995).
It seems apparent that the solution must lie somewhere in between the two opposed views, and Newmark's diagram underpins this notion. In my opinion, language is so contextual that maintaining any view as to how something ought to be translated is futile. You must judge each utterance separately, and in its proper context before you can make a decision. Every use of language is unique.
3. Basic translation techniques for metaphor
The following procedures can be regarded as the most typical for translating the various categories of metaphors which we have discussed above.
3.1 Dead metaphors
Since the metaphorical element in these is very week, it can normally be ignored in the translation and some appropriate TL form sought. Sometimes the obvious form will involve the same or virtually the same or vehicle in the same TT as in the ST. Thus ارتفاع is the standard Arabic word for “rise” in the sense of a rise in the prices . sometimes , the TT vehicle will appear in a slightly different form ;so على يدvs. “at the hand of” .sometimes, the TT will use a different metaphor from the ST; thus عقرب الساعة vs. “hand” (of clock).sometimes the ST metaphor will be best translated by a non-metaphorical TT term ;thus لزم الفراش "he took to his bed “,قام من المرض “he recovered from the illness”.
Where an ST dead metaphor is being translated by a TT metaphor ,the translator should bear in mind whether the TT metaphor is as dead as the ST :in some context it would be inappropriate to use a metaphor with more metaphorical force than the ST one; in others, this may be acceptable or even desirable.
3.2 Stock metaphors
The following the techniques are suggested for translating stock metaphors (cf. Newmark 1988:108-11).
1- The stock SL metaphor can be retained as a stock metaphor having the same or nearly the same vehicle in the TL. such as {شاهدة على} ‘{witnessed} .
2- The stock SL metaphor can be replaced with a stock TL metaphor having a different vehicle . This is appropriate where the vehicle in SL and TL have roughly equal frequencywithin the register in question . such as
{حوله يحوم} as{to hang around}.
3- A stock SL metaphor can be converted to a TL simile, such as “يكسوه حزنا” {as if clothed in sadness” .It can be also reduced to ground ,but it will involves losing the metaphor altogether, and the emotional effect associated with it .such as دون أن يستبد به النعاس “without feeling sleepy”.
3.3Recent metaphor
Dickins suggests that in the translation of recent metaphor into Arabic one is likely to reduce them to “stock metaphors, or perhaps to grounds . In translating into English , recent metaphors could be used where general requirements of register make them appropriate.
3.4 Non-lexicalized (conventionalized and original )metaphors
The following techniques are suggested for translating conventionalized metaphors which fall under general cultural or linguistic patterns of metaphor organization in the SL.
1-The conventionalized metaphor can be retained as non-lexicalized metaphor having the same vehicle in TL ,such asغزو الكهرباء “the invasion of electricity”.
2-The conventionalized metaphor can also be replaced with a non-lexicalized metaphor having a different vehicle”, such asلم تبرد نارها حتى الآن) ) “the flames of which have not yet died out”.
Among the other techniques ,it is appropriate to replace the non-lexicalized metaphor with a stock metaphor in TL ,such as (البؤرة الملتهبة) “flash point”;(في هذه المنطقة البركانية القلقة) “in this explosive and unhappy region”. This technique used for the case of metaphor does not have a strong emotional impact.
If the source metaphor corresponds more or less directly to the target metaphor in English ,with addition of the topic .such as (الإعصار) “whirlwind of violence” .
The following techniques are suggested for translating original metaphors
An SL metaphor can be converted to a simile, such asيشعر بأنه جورب عتيق “making him feels like an old discarded stock”. It can be “reduced to grounds”, such asشعب مصر العربي الذي يشعر نحو سوريا بأنها قطعة من قلبها “the Arab people of Egypt feel a strong affinity and deep affection”.
An original metaphor can also be “retained in TL or translating with the same vehicle ,but with the addition of the grounds on the topic , such as وقد انتظر طويلا أن تبزغ فوق صحرائه أنثى “he has been waiting for a long time for a woman to dawn over the desert of his life”.
Dickins believes that its translation “by a stock metaphor in TL will destroy the sense of originality, and therefore lessen the emotional force .It may be more appropriate to translate it by a non-lexicalized metaphor in TL having a different vehicle”. And for that purpose he suggests the previous techniques.