JAITS

ArticleA Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation: A Study on the Translations of Haruki Murakami’s Jerusalem Prize
Acceptance Speech
TOSHIOKA Saeka(Osaka University)

This paper studies two translations of Haruki Murakami’s Jerusalem Prizeacceptance speech in 2009. Murakami originally wrote the draft of the speech inJapanese, and later had it translated into English by Jay Rubin. The transcript of
his actual speech was translated into Japanese by Hiroshi Hosokawa. The twotranslators differ in terms of their intentions while translating Murakami’s speech.
Drawing on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, this study analyzes how the twotranslators dealt with the linguistic metaphors used in the speech. It argues thatthe two translators’ intentions while translating seem to have affected theirtranslations of the linguistic

metaphors, and accordingly,

theconceptual

metaphors coined by Murakami. It also shows that Hosokawa’s translation, inparticular, influences the audience’s view on the core content of Murakami’s
speech by explicitly explaining one idea conveyed by a conceptual metaphor
regarding Murakami’s criticism of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.

1. Introduction
The translation of metaphorical expressions has been discussed in literature ontranslation (Nida, 1964; Snell-Hornby, 1988; Hatim and Mason, 1997). Newmark(1988) maintains that some metaphorical expressions used in an expressive or
authoritative statement, in particular, should be neatly translated because they
convey the core of the speaker’s message (122). Taking the translation of
metaphorical expressions used in such texts as a case study, the present paper
analyzes two translations of Haruki Murakami’s Jerusalem Prize acceptance speech,
which was given in English at the Jerusalem International Book Fair on February
15, 2009.

TOSHIOKA Saeka, “ A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation: A Study on theTranslations of Haruki Murakami’s Jerusalem Prize Acceptance Speech,” Interpreting andTranslation Studies, No.12, 2012. pages 229-247. © by the Japan Association for Interpreting
and Translation Studies.

229

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Murakami originally wrote the draft of the speech in Japanese, had it
translated into English by Jay Rubin, and then read the English translation at thebook fair (Murakami, 2009c). Rubin translated several of Murakami’s works
including Norwegian Wood and The Elephant Vanishes (UNESCO, 2011). Rubin
was also a guest speaker at an international symposium on Murakami, “A Wild
Haruki Chase: How the World is Reading and Translating Murakami,” held inJapan in March 2006 (Shibata et al., 2006: 69–98). Murakami’s acceptance speech
was then recorded and transcribed by Kenji Hasegawa, a reporter for the Jerusalem
branch of Kyodo News (47News, 2009). The transcript was then translated into
Japanese by Hiroshi Hosokawa, who was also a reporter for Kyodo News (ibid.).
The transcript of Murakami’s actual speech, Hosokawa’s Japanese translation of
the transcript and commentary on the speech were published on 47News, a newssite that publishes news reported by Kyodo News and those from 52 other news
agencies across Japan.
To examine the ideas conveyed by metaphorical expressions, the present
study draws on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory for analyzing how the twotranslators—Rubin and Hosokawa—dealt with the metaphorical expressions used in
Murakami’s speech. Accordingly, it argues that the two translators’ intentions
while translating seems to have affected their approach to the metaphoricalexpressions, and that Hosokawa’s translation, in particular, has influenced theaudience’s interpretation of the ideas conveyed by the expressions.
This study considers intention as a factor that decides whether and howtranslators present themselves to the audience. Intention can be formed through atranslator’s personal thought on the original text. Accordingly, what Hermans(2007) calls attitudes of a translator, for instance, whether s/he adopts a
disapproving, critical, neutral, or supportive attitude to the original text, caninfluence his/her intention while translating. Intention can also reflect the social
expectation of the translator’s role in a certain communicative situation. In thisregard, what Vermeer (2004) calls “skopos,” which is a certain purpose of thetranslation in a communicative situation in which the translation is carried out(228), can influence the translator’s intention while translating. Thus, considering
the translator’s intention will allow us to comprehensively examine both the socialrole expected of a translator in a certain communicative situation and his/her
personal thoughts on the original text.
The psychology of translation processes is yet to be thoroughly explored(Pym, 2010: 166). Thus, this case study on the translation of metaphoricalexpressions used in Murakami’s speech aims to contribute to the literature. It also
attempts to provide some insights into the study of interpreting, because in some230

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

cases, as will be argued later, the intention of translators of speeches and that ofinterpreters can be discussed on the same ground.
Section 2 of the present paper will explain the tenets of the Conceptual
Metaphor Theory. In section 3, how Rubin and Hosokawa dealt with themetaphorical expressions used in Murakami’s speech will be analyzed. Section 4
will argue that the two translators’ intentions while translating affect theirselective translation of metaphorical expressions.
2. Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation
The translation of metaphorical expressions has been discussed in literature ontranslation because they require careful consideration from the translators. The
difficulty in translating metaphors may emanate from cultural differences; forinstance, Nida (1964), a translator of the Bible, states that the particular extensionsof meaning associated with a metaphor ordinarily have no direct equivalents in thereceptor language (220). The esthetic quality of metaphors may also cause
difficulty when translating literary texts in particular. Snell-Hornby (1988)
discusses the importance of preserving the esthetic appeal of a metaphor and thesense of the word when translating literary texts (62).
The use of metaphorical expressions is also known to reflect the intention of
the writer. Hatim and Mason (1997) explains that metaphorical expressions are a“dynamic use of language” (30). In other words, they are a marked use of languagethat mirrors a particular intention of the writer, and therefore, may need special
attention from the translators (ibid.: 30–31). Similarly, Hatim and Mason (1990)
asserts that the occurrences of metaphors have “a cumulative effect, whichsuggests a particular perception of reality, and this is what the translator seeks tocapture” (4).
One such intention of writers would be to express their ideas to theaudiences by using metaphorical expressions. This is the case when a writer
employs original metaphors that are “created or quoted by the writer” (Newmark,1988: 122). Newmark (1988) maintains that original metaphors used in an
expressive or authoritative statement should “contain the core of an important
writer’s message, his personality, his comment on life,” and although they may
have more or less cultural elements, such metaphors have to be neatly translated(ibid.). This seems to apply to some of the metaphorical expressions used in
Murakami’s speech.
To take the ideas that are conveyed by metaphorical expressions into
consideration, this study draws on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which views
the metaphorical function as an innate nature of human cognition (Lakoff and231

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Turner, 1989). Regardless of the text
types within which metaphorical expressions appear, the metaphorical use oflanguages is considered to reflect how people perceive the world around them. As
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) states, the system of human cognition is fundamentally
metaphorical, and this enables us to use metaphorical linguistic expressions (6-7).
For instance, as Lakoff and Turner (1989) shows, we cannot articulate our views
on abstract daily concepts including life, death, and time without using
metaphorical expressions in English because our reasoning on such concepts is
metaphorical (50-51).
The metaphorical function underlying the metaphorical use of language iscalled conceptual metaphor, which is described as mappings between two
conceptual domains: source domain and target domain (Lakoff, 1987: 276). The
conceptual metaphor “ A IS B ” refers to the conceptual mapping between the source
domain B and the target domain A (Lakoff and Turner, 1989: 59). For instance,groups of metaphorical linguistic expressions employed for talking about abstract
daily concepts realize underlying conceptual metaphors such as LIFE IS A JOURNEY ,DEATH IS SLEEP ,or TIME IS A CHANGER (ibid.: 52). The forms of metaphoricallinguistic expressions that realize such conceptual metaphors can vary (Steen,
1999; Cameron, 1999). For instance, an underlying conceptual metaphor may berealized not only in the form of a simile but also in the form of extended metaphors.
Conventional metaphorical expressions realize conceptual metaphors, on
which our daily reasoning of abstract concepts is based, whereas unconventional
metaphorical expressions coined by a speaker may introduce new conceptual
metaphors to the audience. That is, through the use of unconventional metaphoricalexpressions, speakers/writers can introduce new ways of perceiving the reality or aparticular topic to the audience (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 145). A listener’sinterpreting process of different linguistic metaphors may also vary depending onwhether the expression is conventional or novel. The interpretation of the highly
conventionalized metaphorical expressions may not require the activation of two
conceptual domains, whereas the interpretation of unconventional metaphoricalexpressions would require it (Steen, 1994: 8).
In the following section, this paper analyzes how Rubin and Hosokawa
translated the metaphorical expressions used in Murakami’s speech. Murakami
seems to have employed linguistic metaphors in his speech for three reasons: tointroduce his idea to the audience, to emphasize his point, and to concisely convey
his thoughts. Using the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, this paper will particularly
show that Murakami employed novel metaphorical expressions in his speech to
introduce his ideas to the audience. The remainder of the study employs232

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation“metaphor” to refer to conceptual metaphors and “linguistic metaphor” to linguistic
expressions that are based on such conceptual metaphors.
3. Translation of Linguistic Metaphors Used in Murakami’s Speech
3.1. Rubin’s Translation of Linguistic Metaphors
Murakami uses a novel linguistic metaphor when he expresses his stance as awriter:1. “もしここに硬い大きな壁があり、そこにぶつかって割れる卵があったとしたら、私は常に卵の側に立ちます。そう、どれほど壁が正しく、卵が間違っていたとしても、それでもなお
私は卵の側に立ちます。 ([author’s translation] If there is a high solid wall and an

egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg. Yes, nomatter how right the wall is and how wrong the egg is, I will still stand on theside of the egg.)” (Murakami, 2009d: 161)
Murakami explains that the linguistic metaphor used in the citation above has twomeanings. One is that “[author’s translation] bombers, tanks, rockets, white
phosphorus shells, and machine guns are the high solid wall. The egg is theunarmed civilian who is crushed, burned, and shot by them” (ibid.: 161). Anotherconnotation is that the egg is an individual and the wall is “the System.”
The linguistic metaphor introduces a conceptual metaphor which iscomprised of the source domain— AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL —and thetarget domain— AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM .” The two meaningsof the linguistic metaphor explained by Murakami seem to have been derived fromthis conceptual metaphor, because the military equipment such as bombers andtanks are metonyms of “the System,” and therefore, the civilians killed by themshould be understood as the metonym of the target domain: AN INDIVIDUAL
SUPPRESSED BY“ THE S YSTEM .” Thus, the conceptual metaphor AN INDIVIDUAL

SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL would leadthe audience to regard the lifeless solid “System” as a threat against living, fragile
human beings. As a result, this conceptual metaphor might function to persuade theaudience to support Murakami’s statement in the speech that “[author’s translation]
we must not allow the System to exploit us. We must not allow the System to be
independent. The System did not make us. We made the System” (ibid.: 163).
Moreover, there seems to be another idea conveyed by the conceptual
metaphor— AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKINGAGAINST A WALL . It appears to express that Murakami is critical of Israel’s attackon the Gaza Strip, which was launched in December 2008. Murakami, in his speech,233

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

described the bombardment as follows: “more than a thousand people had lost theirlives in the blockaded city of Gaza, many of them unarmed citizens—children andold people.” (Murakami, 2009b) Although he did not explicitly criticize the attack
itself, the conceptual metaphor could have allowed the audience to interpret
Murakami’s speech as being critical of Israel’s attack. For instance, an article on
Murakami’s speech published on Jpost.com, which is the online edition of
Jerusalem post, seems to confirm this. In the article titled “Murakami, in
Trademark Obscurity, Explains Why He Accepted Jerusalem Award,” the authorcomments on Murakami’s speech: “Israel is not the egg. Confused? This might be
the only explanation we will ever hear from the Japanese bestselling author Haruki
Murakami—and in true Murakami style, even it will be somewhat vague” (Loney,2009). This description suggests that the actual attack can be understood as ametonymy of the target domain— AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ”—
as shown in the article published on Jpost.com.
Rubintranslated

the

novel

linguistic

metaphorthat

introducesAN

INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL

such that it reproduces the conceptual metaphor, as follows:
2. “Between a high solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always standon the side of the egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong
the egg, I will stand with the egg.” (Murakami, 2009a: 167)
In addition, Murakami introduced two conceptual metaphors that express hisview on the task of novelists: NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS and NOVELISTS AREGUARDS . First, in the following citation, the novelists’ commitment to the truth isdescribed:
3. “小説家はうまい嘘をつくことによって、本当のように見える虚構を創り出すことによって、真実を別の場所に引っ張り出し、その姿に別の光をあてることができるからです。真実をそのままのかたちで捉え、正確に描写することは多くの場合ほとんど不可能です。だから
こそ我々は、真実をおびき出して虚構の場所に移動させ、虚構のかたちに置き換えること に よ っ て 、 真 実 の 尻 尾 を つ か ま え よ う と す る の で す 。 ([author’s translation] By

telling skillful lies, by creating fiction that looks like reality, novelists can bring
the truth to another place, and shine another light on it. In many cases, it isalmost impossible to see the truth as it is and describe the truth accurately. This
is why we try to catch the tail of the truth by luring the truth to a fictional place
and replacing it with a fictional form.)” (Murakami, 2009d: 159)

234

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

There seems to be a conceptual metaphor invoked by these linguistic metaphorsthat consist of the source domain, HUNTERS , and the target domain, NOVELISTS ,although they are not explicitly lexicalized. As the speech unfolds, the networks oflinguistic metaphors, which are underlined in the citation above, develop thecorrespondences between the two domains of the conceptual metaphor. Therefore,
as they read the draft of the speech, the audience would learn to perceive the target
domain, NOVELISTS , in terms of the source domain, HUNTERS . The conceptual
metaphor allows the audience to view novelists writing fictions and clarifying
some aspects of truth as being similar to hunters chasing after their games, and insome cases, risking their lives.
Another set of linguistic metaphors are employed when Murakami expresses
his view on novels’ role in protecting the value of individuals:
4. “私が小説を書く理由は、煎じ詰めればただひとつです。個人の魂の尊厳を浮かび上がらせ、そこに光を当てるためです。我々の魂がシステムに絡め取られ、貶められることのないように、常にそこに光を当て、警鐘を鳴らす、それこそが物語の役目です。

([author’s translation] The reason why I write novels boils down to one reason.
To bring the dignity of the individual’s soul to the surface and shine a light on it.
To keep shining a light on it and sound an alarm, to save our souls from being
tangled and despised by “the System.” This is the very role of novels.)”(Murakami, 2009d: 161; 163)
The linguistic metaphors, which are underlined in the citation above, invoke a
conceptual metaphor that consists of the source domain, GUARDS , and the target
domain, NOVELISTS . Again, the network of the linguistic metaphors in the citation
would develop the correspondences between the two domains of the conceptual
metaphor as the speech unfolds. By means of this conceptual metaphor, theaudience would be introduced to Murakami’s view on novelists as in the positionof saving the dignity of individuals from the threat of “the System.”Thus, the two conceptual metaphors that have the target domains of
NOVELISTS would provide the audience with a new perception of novelists. In otherwords, novelists are engaged in the critical job of fighting for the truth andhumanity, rather than just creating fictions for their own pleasure.
Rubin translated the linguistic metaphors that realize the two conceptual
metaphors, NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS , as follows:
5. “[N]amely, that by telling skilful lies—which is to say, by making up fictions
that appear to be true—the novelist can bring a truth out to a new location and235

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truthin its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tailby luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location
and replacing it with a fictional form.” (Murakami, 2009a: 165)
6. “I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of theindividual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is
to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent itfrom tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them.” (ibid.: 167; 169)
Rubin’s translations above show that he rendered these novel linguistic
metaphors such that they reproduce the two conceptual metaphors in his translation.
On the other hand, there are linguistic metaphors that are employed toemphasize Murakami’s point, rather than introduce his ideas to the audience. Theinterpretation of such metaphors might not require the activation of the twoconceptual domains because these linguistic metaphors are relatively conventional.
Murakami seems to have employed a linguistic metaphor “どれほどの逆風が吹いたとしても ([author’s translation] no matter how strong the head wind blows)”
for the purpose of emphasizing his point:
7. “なぜなら小説家というものは、どれほどの逆風が吹いたとしても、自分の目で実際に見た物事や、自分の手で実際に触った物事しか心からは信用できない種族だからです。

([author’s translation] Because novelists are the tribe who cannot believe
anything other than what they actually see with their eyes or what they touchwith their hands, no matter how strong the head wind blows.)” (Murakami,
2009d: 161)
This metaphor emphasizes novelists’ stubbornness in believing only what they see
and feel.
Similarly, the linguistic metaphor “煎じ詰めれば([author’s translation] boil
down to)” in the citation below also seems to emphasize his point:
8. “私が小 説を書く理由は、煎じ詰めればただひとつです 。([author’s translation] The
reason why I write novels boils down to one reason.)” (ibid.)
The above linguistic metaphor draws the audience’s attention to the statement that
follows, in which Murakami explains his ultimate reason for writing novels.

236

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

Rubin omitted the two linguistic metaphors: “どれほどの逆風が吹いたとしても ([author’s translation] no matter how strong the head wind blows)” and “煎じ詰めれば([author’s translation] boils down to)” in his translations, as shown below:
9. “Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they havenot seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.” (Murakami,
2009a: 167)
10. “I have only one reason to write novels.” (ibid.)
The omission of these expressions seems to have made the translation relatively
straightforward.
In addition, there is the case in which Murakami uses a conventional
linguistic metaphor in quotes. As shown in the following citation, he uses theconventional expression “ へ そ 曲 が り ([author’s translation] devil’s advocate)” inquotes to describe the nature of novelists:
11. “小説家の多くがそうであるように、私は一種の「へそ曲がり」であるのかもしれません。
([author’s translation] Like many novelists, I am probably a kind of ‘devil’s
advocate’).” (Murakami, 2009d: 161)
The interpretation of this linguistic metaphor would not require the activation of
the two conceptual domains because it is a conventional expression. However,
Murakami used it to add a meaning that is specific to this context. The expression
is originally used for negatively describing someone who does the opposite of whats/he is told. Being quoted in the speech, however, the negative connotation of theexpression seems to be lost. It seems that Murakami used this conventional
linguistic metaphor in quotes to concisely express his view that he positively
evaluates such a nature of novelists, although it may not be considered by many
people as a virtue.
Rubin translated the linguistic metaphor “ へそ曲がり ([author’s translation]
devil’s advocate)” in an explanatory manner as follows:
12. “Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I
am told.” (Murakami, 2009a: 167)
This explanatory translation seems to have made the translation clearer in meaning,although the connotation that Murakami conveyed while quoting the conventional
expression seems to have been lost.

237

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

In summary, Murakami employed linguistic metaphors in his speech to
introduce his idea to the audience, emphasize his point, and concisely convey histhoughts. Rubin omitted or altered the linguistic metaphors except for those that
introduce new conceptual metaphors to the audience. There are three conceptual
metaphors introduced by Murakami to express his ideas to the audience: AN
INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL ,NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS , and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS . Rubin preserved the novel

linguistic metaphors, and consequently, reproduced the three conceptual metaphorsrealized by them. On the other hand, Rubin omitted or altered conventional
linguistic metaphors that Murakami employed to emphasize his point and concisely
convey his thoughts.
3.2. Hosokawa’s Translation of Linguistic Metaphors
There are three sets of novel linguistic metaphors that Hosokawa is yet to deal withand that realize three conceptual metaphors: AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE
S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL , NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS , andNOVELISTS ARE GUARDS .

Hosokawa rendered the linguistic metaphors that realize AN INDIVIDUAL
SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL such that theconceptual metaphor would be preserved in the translation:
13. The transcript of the speech: “[I]t goes something like this: Between a highsolid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side ofthe egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will
stand with the egg.” (Murakami, 2009b)
Hosokawa’s translation: “「高くて、固い壁があり、それにぶつかって壊れる卵があるとしたら、私は常に卵側に立つ」ということです。そうなんです。その壁がいくら正しく、卵が正しくないとしても、私は卵サイドに立ちます。 ([author’s translation] That is, if there

is a high solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on theside of the egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall is and how not right the egg is,I will stand on the side of the egg.)” (Murakami, 2009e)
On the other hand, he altered the linguistic metaphors that realize the othertwo conceptual metaphors: NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS .
First, he rendered “the novelist can bring a truth out to a new place” as “小説 家 は 真 実 を 暴 き ([author’s translation] the novelist can expose a truth),” andomitted “try to grab its tail”:

238

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

14. The transcript of the speech: “[T]he novelist can bring a truth out to a newplace and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible tograsp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to
grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional
location, and replacing it with a fictional form.” (Murakami, 2009b)
Hosokawa’s translation: “上手な嘘をつく、いってみれば、作り話を現実にすることによって、小説家は真実を暴き、新たな光でそれを照らすことができるのです。多くの場合、真実の本来の姿を把握し、正確に表現することは事実上不可能です。だからこそ、私たちは真実を隠れた場所からおびき出し、架空の場所へと運び、小説の形に置き換えるのです。 ([author’s translation] By telling skillful lies, which is to say by making

fictions real, novelists can expose a truth and shine a new light on it. In mostcases, it is in fact impossible to grasp the original form of truth and depict it
accurately. That is why we lure the truth from its hiding place, transfer it to a
fictional place, and replace it with the novel form).” (Murakami, 2009e)
The omission of “we try to grab its tail” could weaken the function of the linguistic
metaphors of invoking the source domain, HUNTERS , in comparison with theoriginal that should enable the audience to imagine novelists writing stories as
hunters chasing after their games. In addition, the alteration of “bring a truth out toa new place” to “ 真 実 を 暴 き ([author’s translation] expose a truth)” reflects
Hosokawa’s interpretation of the original text. Such omission and alterationsuggest that Hosokawa chose to explain what Murakami intended to convey,
instead of explicitly translating the original linguistic metaphors into Japanese.
Second, Hosokawa rendered “to keep a light trained on the System” as “ 注
意を向けさせること ([author’s translation] draw attention to the System).”

15. The transcript of the speech: “The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, tokeep a light trained on the System in order to prevent it from tangling our soulsin its web and demeaning them.” (Murakami, 2009b)
Hosokawa’s translation: “小説を書く目的は、「システム」の網の目に私たちの魂がからめ捕られ、傷つけられることを防ぐために、「システム」に対する警戒警報を鳴らし、注意を向けさせることです。 ([author’s translation] The purpose of writing a story is

to sound a preliminary warning and draw attention to the System in order toprevent our souls from being tangled in the mesh of the System and beinghurt).” (Murakami, 2009e)
The alteration of “to keep the trained light on the System” to “注意をむけさせること([author’s translation] draw attention to the System)” would have weakened the239

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

function of linguistic metaphors to trigger the source domain, GUARDS , incomparison to the original, which should enable the audience to imagine a novelist
as someone who protects valuables by using lighting equipments.
In summary, Hosokawa rendered the linguistic metaphor that realize AN
INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL

such that the conceptual metaphor would be reproduced in his translation. On theother hand, some of the linguistic metaphors that realize the two conceptual
metaphors, NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS , are notpreserved in Hosokawa’s translation.
4. The Translators’ Intentions and Selective Translations of Linguistic
Metaphors
The analysis above shows that Rubin and Hosokawa either selected linguistic
metaphors that were to be preserved so that they would reproduce a conceptual
metaphor, or altered or omitted linguistic metaphors. This section will discuss how
the translators’ intentions while translating seem to affect their selective
translation of linguistic metaphors. The study regards intention as a factor that
decides whether and how translators present themselves to the audiences.
Intention may be formed through a translator’s personal thoughts on the
text they are translating. In this regard, what Hermans (2007) calls attitudes of atranslator, for instance, whether s/he adopts a disapproving, critical, neutral, or
supportive attitude to the original text, can influence his/her intentions whiletranslating. As Hermans (2007) argues, such attitudes may be expressed in thenotes or annotations (55). Translators’ attitudes can also be found from theirinterventions in the texts. As Munday (2009) explains, shifts in the translation suchas additions, omissions, and alterations would indicate the translator’s intervention(17). One of the reasons that motivate these shifts is the translators’ preferredtranslation strategies (ibid.). For instance, the translators and interpretersstrengthen or undermine particular aspects of the narratives elaborated in the texts
by a translation strategy called “selective appropriation of textual material” (Baker
2006: 114). Baker (2006) explains that translators may strategically suppress or
accentuate a particular aspect of the source texts while translating them, andthrough this, they contribute to the elaboration of a particular narrative encoded in
the original texts (ibid.). Thus, the translators’ attitudes expressed in the notes orannotations or suggested in textual features of the translation may indicate theirintentions while translating.
In addition, intention can reflect the social expectation of the translator’srole in a certain communicative situation. In this sense, what Vermeer (2004) calls240

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation“skopos,” which is a certain purpose of the translation regarding a communicative
situation in which the translation is carried out (228), can affect the translator’s
intention while translating. When translating public speeches, there are two
possible roles for translators. Firstly, translators generally render a draft of the
speech into the language of the target audience before the speaker delivers it.
Secondly, once the speaker has delivered the speech, translators render them into
different languages that can be published on news sites, newspapers, or in somecases, in a book, therefore tapping into a wide range of global audiences. The tworoles of translators described above are relevant to the analysis of the twotranslators, Rubin and Hosokawa, who were engaged in the translation of
Murakami’s speech. These general social expectations of their roles could haveinfluenced their intentions while translating.
4.1 Rubin’s Intention while Translating
Rubin’s presence was not revealed to the audience at the book fair. When
Murakami gave the speech, there was neither reference to the translator (Rubin)
nor to the fact that the original draft of the speech was in Japanese. That is, theaudience did not know that Murakami had written the draft of the speech inJapanese and what they were listening to was Rubin’s English translation of it. In
fact, the presence of the translator (Rubin) was not revealed until an interview with
Murakami was published in the April 2009 issue of Bungeishunju (文芸春秋), in
which Murakami revealed that he had originally written the draft in Japanese.
Murakami’s original Japanese draft of the speech and Rubin’s English translation
were also published with the interview.
In this regard, it seems that a description about interpreters in Riccardi(2002), that “[i]nterpreters have a clear role to perform, but the less their presence
is felt, the better they are at carrying out their task” (86), seems to apply Rubin. In
the same fashion as how the interpreter’s presence needs to be less felt by theaudience, Rubin’s presence has to be less felt by the audience who listened to
Murakami’s speech at the book fair.
Moreover, Riccardi (2002) argues that interpretation targets a limited
audience involved in the ongoing communicative situation, while translation can beperceived by anybody who comes across the texts (84). This also seems to apply to
Rubin. Having been asked by Murakami himself, Rubin seems to have translated
the text keeping the audience at the Jerusalem book fair in mind. That is, like aninterpretation, Rubin’s translation targeted the limited audience at the book fair.
For instance, the textual features of Rubin’s translation suggest that the translation
was produced such that it functions as a speech delivered in Jerusalem. In the241

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)speech, Murakami illustrated that his acceptance of the prize raised concerns
regarding Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip, which was launched in December 2008:“私はイスラエルに来て、このエルサレム賞を受けることについて、「受賞を断ったほうが良い 」 と い う 忠 告 を 少 な か ら ざ る 人 々 か ら 受 け 取 り ま し た 。 ([author’s translation] I was

about to come to Israel to accept the Jerusalem Prize, when I was advised by not afew people that I should decline the acceptance of the prize)” (Murakami, 2009d:
159). Rubin changed “Israel” to “here” and added “in Japan” as follows: “In Japan,
a fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize”(Murakami, 2009a: 165).
The tendency observed in Rubin’s translation of linguistic metaphors also
reflects Rubin’s intention, which was similar to that of interpreters. As analyzed
previously, Rubin preserved the novel linguistic metaphors, and consequently,
reproduced the three conceptual metaphors they realized: AN INDIVIDUAL
SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL , NOVELISTSAREHUNTERS ,and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS , while he omitted or alteredconventional linguistic metaphors that Murakami employed to emphasize his pointand concisely convey his thoughts. Such tendency in translations of the linguistic
metaphors suggest that Rubin made the translation as straightforward and clear inmeaning as possible to prevent the audience’s misunderstanding of what Murakami
actually meant. Again, this strategy seems to share features of interpretation.
Riccardi (2002) argues that the interpreters’ main objective is to facilitate theeffective communication among the users of different languages (87). Therefore,
they may change the style and registers, add explanations, or omit a portion of atext, if they believe these interventions are necessary; this seems to explain
Rubin’s translation of linguistic metaphors.
Thus, how the translation is presented to the audience and the textual
features of the translation suggest that Rubin’s intention while translating the draft
seem to be much closer to those of interpreters, as described in Riccardi (2002). It
can be assumed that in rendering the speech, Rubin needed to be cautious of not
imposing his presence in the translation because the audience will consider thetranslation as the words of the speaker. His translations of linguistic metaphorsalso reflect his intention of being closer to interpreters, in terms of how heattempted to facilitate the effective communication between the speaker and theaudience through his intervention in the translation.
4.2 Hosokawa’s Intention while Translating
Hosokawa’s translation and the transcription of Murakami’s actual speech were
published together. Therefore, the audience would have been fully aware that the242

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translationtranslation is not exactly the words of the speaker, because as Hermans (1996)
argues, a translation “never coincides with its source, it is not identical orequivalent in any formal or straightforward sense” (24). The fact that the original
English transcript of the speech was published together with the translation evensuggests that Hosokawa’s translation can be recognized by the audience as being
subordinate to the original text. That is, it can never replace the original. In thisregard, Hosokawa’s translation contrasts Rubin’s translation, which was accepted
as Murakami’s own words by the audience at the book fair.
The textual features of Hosokawa’s translation show that he applied ageneral translation strategy particularly used by news translators, as described in
Bielsa and Bassnett (2009). Hosokawa omitted repetitive words while translating
the transcript into Japanese. For instance, he rendered “[p]lease do allow me todeliver a message, one very personal message” as “非常に個人的なメッセージをお話
し す る こ と を お 許 し く だ さ い ([author’s translation] please allow me to deliver a

personal message),” omitting “a message.” This seems to be a translation strategy
called “summarizing information,” by means of which the lengthy parts of theoriginal texts that are no longer fully relevant to the target readers are reduced(Bielsa and Bassnett, 2009: 64). Although repetition can be effective when it isused in the actual speech, it may feel redundant when it is written in news texts.
This would be the reason why repetition is reduced in Hosokawa’s translation.
His translation of linguistic metaphors also suggests that he summarized
the ideas they conveyed. As described previously, Hosokawa rendered the
linguistic metaphors that realize AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS
AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL such that the conceptual metaphor would be

reproduced in his translation, while he altered some of the linguistic metaphorsthat realize the two conceptual metaphors NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS and NOVELISTSARE GUARDS . The translations of the linguistic metaphors concerning the latter two

conceptual metaphors suggest that Hosokawa summarized what Murakami seems tohave meant, instead of accurately reproducing how he said it.
There is another feature of news translation discussed in Bielsa andBassnett (2009) that also applies, to a certain extent, to Hosokawa’s translation.
They maintain that news translators may “change the prevalent news angle or pointof view from which events are narrated,” so that the translation can function more
effectively as news for a different public (93). Hosokawa expressed his approval of
Murakami’s speech in the commentary, and by doing so, led the audience’s
attention toward the environment in which the speech was delivered. He expressedthat the speech was “[author’s translation] relatively critical of Israel, which has‘overwhelming military power’” (Hosokawa, 2009), and that Murakami’s decision243

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

to give such a speech in Jerusalem should be considered as brave. Hosokawa also
illustrates his view on the city of Jerusalem in his commentary: “[author’stranslation] Jerusalem is entangled with religion and politics. It often experiences
terrorist attacks as well as conflicts between the Jews and Palestinians” and “there
is a great deal of tension in the city” (ibid.). According to the emails received fromthe editorial department of 47News in reply to the author’s inquiry, Hosokawa
lived in Jerusalem as a reporter for the Jerusalem branch of Kyodo News. Hence his
description of the city could have been based on his own experience, which may
also have strengthened the persuasiveness of his view that Murakami’s decision todeliver the speech was brave.
In short, Hosokawa’s intention while translating seems to be shared withnews translators, who are expected to provide information of an event in a concise
and clear way rather than accurately reproduce styles of the source text (Bielsa andBassnett, 2009: 65). His selective translation of linguistic metaphors seems toshow the same tendency. In addition, Hosokawa expressed his approval of the
speech in his commentary, and thus explicitly showed the audience that
Murakami’s speech is critical of Israel’s attack. In other words, Hosokawa, in his
commentary, explicitly explained that the idea conveyed by the conceptual
metaphor, AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ” IS AN EGG BREAKINGAGAINST A WALL is that Murakami is critical of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip. It

might have been possible for the audience to interpret the conceptual metaphor inthis way, even if no such explicit explanation had been given in the commentary.
However, the fact that Hosokawa explicitly explained this in his commentary canleave a rather strong impression on the audience that this critical message toward
Israel is the main point of Murakami’s speech.
5. Conclusion
This study conducted a case study of the translation of metaphorical expressions
used in Murakami’s speech. Applying the Conceptual Metaphor Theory to theanalysis of metaphor translation enabled us to analyze not only how the translators
have dealt with the surface form of linguistic metaphors, but also how they havedealt with ideas conveyed by conceptual metaphors in Murakami’s speech. The
study suggested that the translation of linguistic metaphors used in the speech canbe influenced by the translators’ intentions while translating. The present study
considers intention as a factor that decides whether and how translators present
themselves to the audiences. Focusing on translators’ intentions allowed us tocomprehensively consider the social role expected of the translator in a certain
communicative situation and his/her personal thoughts on the text.

244

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

Rubin’s intention was similar to that of interpreters. His intention seems to
be formed through the social expectation of his role as a translator of a speech
draft. Rubin translated the novel linguistic metaphors such that the three
conceptual metaphors were preserved in the translation, while omitted or alteredrelatively conventional linguistic metaphors used for emphasizing Murakami’s
point or concisely conveying his thoughts. This seems to be also the result of his
intention, which is similar to interpreters, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity as muchas possible so that Murakami’s message would be conveyed to the audience
without being misunderstood.
On the other hand, Hosokawa’s intention was formed through the social
expectation of his role, which is similar to news translators in general, and his
personal thoughts on Murakami’s speech. In his translation, he altered and omitted
some of the linguistic metaphors that realize the two conceptual metaphors, namely
NOVELISTS ARE HUNTERS

and NOVELISTS ARE GUARDS , while he preserved the

linguistic metaphors that reproduce AN INDIVIDUAL SUPPRESSED BY “ THE S YSTEM ”
IS AN EGG BREAKING AGAINST A WALL . Hosokawa summarized the ideas conveyed

by the former two conceptual metaphors, instead of reproducing how Murakami
said them. This seems to reflect his intention that is similar to news translators ingeneral. It seems that Hosokawa also influenced the audience’s view on the coremessage of Murakami’s speech by explicitly explaining the idea conveyed by theconceptual metaphor, that is, Murakami’s criticism of Israel’s attack on the Gaza
Strip.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ms. Mika Funakoshi at the editorial department of 47News
for the valuable information.
..................................................
About the Author
歳岡冴香 (TOSHIOKA Saeka) 大阪大学大学院言語文化研究科修士課程修了。University
College London MA in Translation Theory and Practice 修了。大阪大学大学院言語文化研
究科博士後期課程在学中。関西大学非常勤講師。
...................................................
Primary Sources
English Sources245

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Murakami, H. (2009a). Of Walls and Eggs. (J. Rubin, Trans.)文芸春秋(4), pp. 165-169.
Tokyo.
Murakami, H. (2009b). “Jerusalem Prize” Remarks. 47News. [Online]
http://www.47news.jp/47topics/e/93880.php?page=all (March 6, 2011).
Loney, S. L. (2009). Murakami, in Trademark Obscurity, Explains Why He Accepted
Jerusalem Award. J.post.com[Online]http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Books/Article.aspx?id=132970(August 25, 2011).
Japanese sources
47News.

(2009).

Introductory

Note.

47News.

[Online]http://www.47news.jp/

47topics/e/93880.php?page=all (March 6, 2011).
Murakami, H. (2009c). 僕はなぜエルサレムに行ったのか (Why I Went to Jerusalem). 文芸
春秋, (4), pp.156-168. Tokyo.
Murakami, H. (2009d). 壁と卵 (An Wall and an Egg). 文芸春秋, (4), pp.159-163. Tokyo.
Murakami, H. (2009e). 村 上 春 樹 エ ル サ レ ム 賞 ス ピ ー チ 全 文 日 本 語 訳 (An Unabridged
Japanese Translation of Haruki Murakami’s Jerusalem Prize Acceptance Speech). (H.
Hosokawa, Trans.) 47News. [Online]
http://www.47news.jp/47topics/e/93925.php (March 6, 2011).
Secondary sources
English sources
Baker, M. (2006). Translation and Conflict. Oxson: Routledge.
Bielsa, E. and Bassnett, S. (2009). Translation in Global News. Oxson: Routledge.
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising “Metaphor” for Applied Linguistic Research. In G.
Low & L. Cameron(Eds.),

ResearchingandApplying

Metaphor (pp.3-28).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. Oxson: Routledge.
Hermans, T. (1996). The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative. Target, 8 (1): 23–48.
Hermans, T. (2007). The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about theMind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic
Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

246

A Cognitive Approach to Metaphor Translation

Munday, J. (2009). Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American Writing in English.
Oxson: Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1998). A Textbook on Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: with Special Reference to Principles
and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill Archive.
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. Oxson: Routledge.
Riccardi, A. (2002). Translation and Interpretation. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation
Studies Perspective on an Emerging Discipline (pp. 75-91). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Steen, G. (1994). Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach.
London: Longman.
Steen, G. (1999). Metaphor and Discourse Towards a Linguistic Checklist for Metaphor
Analysis. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor (pp.
81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
UNESCO.

(2011).

Index

Translationum.

[Online]http://portal.unesco.org/

culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7810&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION =201.html(September 2, 2011).
Vermeer, Hans J. (2004). Skopos and Commission in Translation Theory. A. Chesterman(Trans.), In L.Venuti (Ed.), Translation Studies Reader (2nd ed., pp. 227-238). New
York: Routledge. (Original work published 1989).
Japanese Source
Shibata, M., Numano, M., Fujii, S., & Yomoda, I. (Eds.), (2006). A Wild Haruki Chase 世
界 は 村 上 春 樹 を ど う 読 む か (A Wild Haruki Chase: Reading Murakami Around theWorld). Tokyo: Bungeishunju.

247

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)248