Metaphor and Translation Essay

Abstract Metaphor has been widely discussed within the guinea pig of Translation Stu throttles, predominantly with respect to translatability and transfer methods. It has been argued that similes mint become a displacement reaction problem, since transferring them from one language and farming to a nonher one may be hampered by linguistic and cultural differences.A number of translation procedures for relations with this problem pick out been suggested, e. g., substitution ( altogetheregory into different metaphor), paraphrase (metaphor into sense), or deletion. Such procedures arrive at been commented on twain in normative models of translation (how to translate metaphors) and in diethylstilbesterolcriptive models (how metaphors have been dealt with in actual translations). After a short oerview of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies, this paper discusses some implications of a cognitive overture to metaphors for translation theory an d practice.Illustrations from authentic source and target schoolbooks ( side of meat and German, policy-making discourse) show how translators handled figurative formulations, and what effects this had for the text itself, for text reception by the addressees, and for accompanying discursive developments. 2004 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved. Keywords Conceptual metaphor side French German Metaphorical expression Translation Studies 1. Introduction Metaphor, as a typical feature of speech of intercourse, presents a challenge for translation too, both for the practising translator and for its treatment in the discipline of Translation Studies.In the literature on translation, the two main anesthetizes have been, ? rstly, the translatability of metaphors, and secondly, the elaboration of potential translation * Tel. ? 44-121-359-36114224 fax ? 44-121-359-6153. ? E-mail address c. schaeffneraston. ac. uk (C. Schaffner). 0378-2166/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B. V. Al l rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. pragma. 2003. 10. 012 1254 ? C. Schaffner / diary of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 procedures.In most(prenominal) cases, the parameter is establish on a traditional understanding of metaphor as a ?gure of speech, as a linguistic expression which is substituted for a nonher expression (with a literal meaning), and whose main function is the stylistic embellishment of the text. It is only recently that a cognitive approach to metaphor has been applied to Translation Studies. In this article, I want to illustrate on the basis of some examples from the language pair, English and German, what a cognitive approach could offer to the description of metaphors in translation. The word of honor proceeds primarily from the locating of the discipline of Translation Studies.In taking this approach, it is also possible to explore how the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective of translation advise contribute to metaphor theory. 2. The treatment of metaphor as a translation problem Translation and interpreting as activities have existed for many centuries, and there is a long tradition of thought and an enormous body of opinion about translation (cf. Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995 Robinson, 1997). But it was non until the second half of this century that Translation Studies substantial into a discipline in its take in right (cf. Holmes, 1988 Snell-Hornby et al., 1992).Although at ? rst conceived as a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, it has wantn on concepts and methods of other disciplines, notably text linguistics, communication studies, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics, comparative literature, and recently, cultural studies. Instead of a uni? ed theory, we have a multiplicity of approaches, all(prenominal) of which focuses on speci? c aspects of translation, looks at the product or the extremity of translation from a speci? c angle, and uses speci? c ? terminology and interrogation methods (cf. Chest erman, 2000 Gentzler, 1993 Schaffner,1997b Stolze, 1994).The phenomenon of metaphor has regularly been of concern to translation scholars who have argued about problems of transferring metaphors from one language and culture to another. The personal line of credits brought forward need to be seen within the context of a heterogeneous discipline, i. e. , with respect to the speci? c model of translation within which the scholars approached their topic. I will thence begin by giving a brief overview of the most prominent approaches to translation and provide a short account of how metaphor has been dealt with in the discipline of Translation Studies.Linguistics-based approaches de? ne translation as transferring meanings, as substituting source language (SL) signs by equivalent target language (TL) signs (e. g. , Catford, 1965). The source text (ST) is to be reproduced in the TL as closely as possible, both in content and in form. Since the aim of a translation theory has often been seen as determining appropriate translation methods, language systems (as langues) have been studied in order to ? nd the smallest equivalent units (at the lexical and grammatical levels) which can be substituted for each other in an actual text (as parole).Textlinguistic approaches de? ne translation as source text induced target text (TT) production (Neubert, 1985). The text itself is case-hardened as the unit of translation, and it is stressed that a text is always a text in a situation and in a culture. Therefore, consideration necessitate to be given to situational factors, genre or text-typological conventions, addressees knowledge and expectations, and text functions.The central notion of equivalence is now ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1255 applied to the textual level, and de? ned as communicative equivalence, i. e., a relationship between the target text and the source text in which TT and ST ar of equal value in the various(prenominal) com municative situations in their cultures.Functionalist approaches de? ne translation as a purposeful activity (cf. Nord, 1997), as ? ? transcultural fundamental interaction (Holz-Manttari, 1984), as production of a TT which is appropriate for its speci? ed purpose (its skopos) for target addressees in target circumstances (cf. Vermeers skopos theory, e. g. , Vermeer, 1996). The actual form of the TT, its textual linguistic make-up, is therefore reliant on its intended purpose, and not (exclusively) on the structure of the ST.The yardstick for assessing the quality of the target text is, thus, its appropriateness for its purpose, and not the equivalence to the source text. More advanced(a) linguistic approaches acknowledge that translation is not a simple substitution process, but rather the result of a complex text-processing activity. However, they argue that translations need to be set apart from other kinds of derived texts, and that the label translation should only be applied to those cases where an equivalence relation obtains between ST and TT (House, 1997 Koller, 1992).Equivalence is probably the most controversial notion in Translation Studies. Some translation scholars reject this notion outright, arguing that by retaining equivalence in the vocabulary, translation scholars sidestep the issue that it is difference, not sameness or transp bency or equality, which is inscribed in the operations of translation (Hermans, 1998 61). This view is also expressed in current approaches that atomic number 18 inspired by postmodern theories and Cultural Studies, which argue that texts do not have any intrinsically stable meaning that could be repeated elsewhere (e. g. , Arrojo, 1998 Venuti, 1995).For Venuti, the target text should be the site where a different culture emerges, where a reader gets a glimpse of a cultural other (Venuti, 1995 306). In the course of its development, the focus of Translation Studies has, thus, shifted markedly from linguistic towa rds contextual and cultural factors which affect translation. Major inspiration for the development of the discipline has also come from research conducted within the framework of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), aiming at the description of translating and translations as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience (Holmes, 1988 71). look into here includes studying the socio-historical conditions in which translations atomic number 18 produced and received, identifying regularities in translators behaviour and pertaining such regularities to translation norms which operate both in the social re declaration and the cognitive act of translation (cf. Toury, 1995). DTS and postmodern theories thus de? ne translation as norm-governed behaviour (Toury, 1995) and/or a cultural political practice (Venuti, 1996 197). The contrast between normative models (what a TT should look like) and descriptive models(what TTs actually do look like) is also evident in the discussio ns about metaphor translation.Metaphor has traditionally been mentiond as an soulfulness linguistic phenomenon (a metaphorical expression) which can become a translation problem. Most scholars use the same term as those applied in semantic theories (cf. Goatly, 1997), i. e. , equipment casualty like image or vehicle for the conventional referent, object or topic for the actual unconventional referent, and sense, ground, or tenor for the similarities and/or analogies involved.Newmark (1981) explains these terms on the basis of the example rooting out the faults as follows the object, that is, the item which is depict by the metaphor, is faults. The image, that is, the item in terms of which the object is described, 1256 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 is rooting up weeds. The metaphor, that is, the word(s) used in the image, is rooting out, and the sense, which shows in what particular aspects the object and the image ar similar, is (a) eliminate and ( b) do so with horrific personal effort.He argues that in translating this ?metaphor, a verb such as eliminer in French, or entfernen in German, would not do, unless the phrase was of marginal importance in the text (Newmark, 1981 85). These arguments re? ect the two main concerns in Translation Studies, the translatability of metaphors, and procedures to transfer them from a source language into a target language. In equivalence-based approaches, the underlying assumption is that a metaphor, once identi? ed, should ideally be transferred intact from SL to TL. However, cultural differences between SL and TL have often been mentioned as preventing such an intact transfer.For Dagut (1976 22), a metaphor is an individual ? ash of imaginative insight, a creative product of violating the linguistic system, and as such, highly culture speci? c. Its main function is to shock its readers by creating an aesthetic impact. In Daguts view, the effect of shock is to be retained in a translation , and if linguistic and cultural factors hinder this effect, then he maintains that the metaphor cannot be translated.For illustration, he uses Hebrew metaphors translated into English, and shows, for example, how Hebrew metaphors are closely connected to Biblical stories and thus culture speci?c (as in the case of the verb form neekadbound, i. e. , metaphorically, bound like Isaac for the sacri? ce). Most authors agree that the image in the ST cannot always be retained in the TT (e. g. , because the image that is attached to the metaphor is unknown in the TL, or the associations triggered by the SL metaphor get lost in the TL), and subsequently several translation procedures have been suggested as resource solutions to the ideal of reproducing the metaphor intact.For example, van den Broeck (1981 77) lists the following possibilities. 1. Translation sensu stricto (i.e. , transfer of both SL tenor and SL vehicle into TL). 2. Substitution (i. e. , replacement of SL vehicle by a dif ferent TL vehicle with more or less the same tenor). 3. Paraphrase (i. e. , rendering a SL metaphor by a non-metaphorical expression in the TL). Van den Broeck provides these modes of metaphor translation as a tentative scheme, i. e. , as theoretical possibilities. By linking them to categories of metaphor (lexicalized, conventional, and private metaphors) and to their use and functions in texts, he presents some hypotheses about translatability.In the tradition of DTS, van den Broeck sees the task of a translation theory not in prescribing how metaphors should be translated, but in describing and explaining identified solutions. He therefore argues that detailed descriptive studies of how metaphors are actually translated would be required to quiz the suggested modes and his hypotheses. In contrast to van den Broecks descriptive framework, Newmarks translation procedures are presented in a prescriptive way, with the aim of providing principles, restricted rules, and guidelines for translating and translator training.He distinguishes between ? ve ? types of metaphors dead, cliche, acquit, recent, and original. In his discussion of stock metaphors, he proposes seven translation procedures, which have frequently been taken up in the literature. These procedures are arranged in order of preference (Newmark, 1981 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1257 8791). Newmarks focus is on the linguistic systems, and his arguments can be cogitate to the substitution theory of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997 116f). (All examples given here for illustration are Newmarks own examples).1. Reproducing the same image in the TL, e. g. , golden hairgoldenes Haar. 2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does not clash with the ? TL culture, e. g. , other fish to frydautres chats a fouetter. ? 3. Translating metaphor by simile, retaining the image, e. g. , Ces zones cryptuaire ou s ? ? elabore la beaute. The crypt-like areas where beauty is manufactured. According to Newmark, this procedure can modify the shock of the metaphor.4. Translating metaphor (or simile) by simile plus sense (or occasionally a metaphor plus ? sense), e. g., tout un vocabulaire molieresquea whole repertory of medical quackery such as Moliere might have used. Newmark suggests the use of this compromise solution in order to avoid comprehension problems however, it results in a loss of the intended effect.5. Converting metaphor to sense, e. g. , sein Brot verdienento earn ones living. This procedure is recommended when the TL image is too broad in sense or not appropriate to the register. However, emotive aspects may get lost. 6. Deletion, if the metaphor is redundant. 7. Using the same metaphor combined with sense, in order to enforce the image.Toury (1995 81ff) points out that these translation procedures start out from the metaphor as identified in the ST, and that the identified metaphor (the metaphorical expression) is treated as a unit o f translation. He argues that from the perspective of the TT, two additional cases can be identified the use of a metaphor in the TT for a non-metaphorical expression in the ST (non-metaphor into metaphor), and the addition of a metaphor in the TT without any linguistic motivation in the ST (zero into metaphor). This view deals with metaphor not as a translation problem (of the ST), but as a translation solution.In his descriptive study of ? the translation of verb metaphors (for the language pair Swedish and German), Kjar (1988) included such an inverse abridgment as well, but did not go much beyond a presentation of statistical findings. Kurths (1995) findings, too, are derived from a descriptive analysis of actual translations. establish on the interaction theory of metaphor (cf. Goatly, 1997 117ff) and on scenes and frames semantics as applied to translation (Vannerem and Snell-Hornby, 1986), he illustrates how several metaphors interact in the construction of a macro-scene.In German translations of plant by Charles Dickens, he shows which TL frames have been chosen for a SL scene (e. g. , humanizing objects by anthropomorphical metaphors) and what the consequences are for the effect of the text (e. g. , weakening of an image). 3. Metaphors from the cognitive linguistics perspective consequences for Translation Studies The cognitive approach to metaphor, largely initiated by Lakoff and Johnsons Metaphors We Live By (1980), can contribute new insights into translation as well.This approach, however, is only little by little taking root within Translation Studies (e. g. , Al? Harrasi, 2000 Cristofoli et al. , 1998 Schaffner, 1997a, 1998 Stienstra, 1993). The main 1258 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 argument of the cognitive approach is that metaphors are not just decorative elements, but rather, basic resources for thought processes in human society. Metaphors are a means of understanding one domain of experience (a target dom ain) in terms of another (a source domain).The source domain is mapped onto the target domain, whereby the structural components of the base schema are transferred to the target domain (ontological correspondences), thus also allowing for knowledge-based inferences and entailments (epistemic correspondences). Such models are largely encoded and understood in linguistic terms. In cognitive linguistics, the term metaphor is used to refer to this conceptual mapping (e. g. , ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER),1 and the term metaphorical expression is used to refer to an individual linguistic expression that is based on a conceptualization and thus sanctioned by a mapping (e.g. , I gave vent to my anger).Establishing the conceptualization on which a particular metaphorical expression is based is relevant to translation, too. Such a perspective provides a different answer to the enquire of the translatability of metaphors. Translatability is no longer a question of the individu al metaphorical expression, as identi? ed in the ST, but it becomes think to the level of conceptual systems in source and target culture.In what follows, some implications ofsuch a cognitive approach to metaphors for translation theory and practice are illustrated. On the basis of authentic source and target texts, I describe how translators have handled metaphorical expressions. This description is linked to a consideration of the effects of such translation solutions on the text and its reception by the addressees. The examples come from political texts, and the languages involved are primarily English and German. The focus of this paper is the description and explanation of identi? ed translation solutions.It is thus related to DTS, but, in contrast to van den Broeck, for example, I do not pretend to test pre-established translation schemes or hypotheses. My starting point is authentic TT structures for metaphorical expressions in STs. That is, the description is predominantly product-oriented,2 with the explanation being linked to text, discourse, and culture. In my conclusion, I point out some ways in which the discipline of Translation Studies can contribute to metaphor theory. 4. Metaphor and text In the following two examples, we have an identical metaphorical expression in the ?German ST, Brucke (bridge), but it has been handled differently in the TTs (both extracts come from speeches by the former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) 1 In this metaphor, ontological correspondences are, for instance, the container is the body, the heat of fluid is the anger epistemic correspondences are then, for instance, when the fluid is heated past a authoritative limit, pressure increases to the point at which the container explodes (source) and when anger increases past a ? certain limit, pressure increases to the point at which the person loses control (cf. Kovecses, 1986 17f).2 A process-oriented analysis, i. e. , an analysis of the actual cognitive processes in the translators mind during the translation act, would add valuable insights as well. Moreover, such a perspective would also test the validity of Lakoff and Johnsons (1980) theory. For example, one could test whether translators, as text receivers and interpreters, actually do access conceptual metaphors when constructing interpretations of metaphorical expressions (cf. Glucksberg, 2001), and how this might influence the decision-making for the TT structure.Research into translation processes (e. g. , most recently Danks et al., 1997 Kussmaul, 2000 Tirkkonen-Condit ? and Jaaskelainen, 2000) has not yet been conducted primarily with metaphors in mind. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1259 ? ? Wir wollen die Brucke uber den Atlantik auf allen GebietenPolitik und Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Kulturfestigen und ausbauen.We aim to strengthen and widen the transatlantic bridge in all spheres, in politics and commerce, science and culture. 3 ? So sind die amerika nischen Soldaten ein wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke ? uber den Atlantik geworden. (literally . . . an important component of the translatlantic bridge).The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendly relationship. (emphasis are mine) How (if at all) can traditional translation procedures account for these different solutions? Applying Newmarks translation procedures, we could say that in the ? rst case, the procedure is metaphor for metaphor (i. e. , reproduction of the image), whereas in the second case the metaphor has been deleted. These texts would be examples of what Newmark calls authoritative texts, and in his guidelines to translators he states that in such texts, metaphors should be preserved.As a second criterion to guide the translators decision, Newmark suggests the importance of the metaphor in the text. The ? rst extract comes from Kohls speech on receiving the unearned Freedom of the City of London (18 February 1998), the second one from his speech at the ceremony at Tempelhof Airport to commemorate the Berlin pinch on the occasion of the ensure of President Clinton (14 May ? 1998). The Berlin Airlift is known in German as Luftbrucke (literally bridge in the air). In the London speech, the 50th day of remembrance of the Airlift is shortly mentioned, but it is not the ? actual topic of the speech.In the Tempelhof speech, however, the Luftbrucke is the actual topic, and it is used frequently in the short text, thus contributing to the structure of the text. Based on these considerations, Newmarks recommendation presumably would be metaphor into same metaphor in the ? rst case, but metaphor into sense in the second case. If we describe this authentic example on the basis of a cognitive approach, ? metaphorical expressions such as Brucke are considered in the light of the metaphorical concept of which they are manifestations, and not as individual idioms to be ?tted into the target text as well as they can (Stienstra, 1993 217).In this case, one and the same historical event was conceptualized in different ways by different cultures, using different metaphors. The source domain of the English airlift is a TRANSPORT domain, focusing on the medium (air), the action, and involving a direction (fromto). In the German ? Luftbrucke, the source domain is an ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE, focusing on the ? medium and the structural object. As said above, the anniversary of the Luftbrucke is the actual topic of Kohls Tempelhof speech but is the bridge indeed the dominant metaphor in the text as a whole? In other words what is the underlying conceptual metaphor by which ?the metaphorical expression Freundschaftsbrucke is sanctioned? A closer analysis of the text above shows that the argumentation is incorporated around the central idea of AmericanGerman friendship. In the ? rst ? ve paragraphs, Kohl gives an ? account of the historical event itself and of its political signi? cance. Luftbru cke occurs six 3 Translators are ordinarily not identified by name in the case of translations being produced for the German government. 1260 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 times in these ? rst paragraphs, each time translated as Airlift, since each time it is used as a proper name.Kohl then links the historical aspect to the development of American German friendship over the last 50 years, both at a personal level and at the governmental ? level. And it is here that he speaks of the Freundschaftsbrucke (exploiting the bridge image as a rhetorical means for the argumentative function of a political speech) . . . in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten haben rund 7 Millionen amerikanische Soldaten bei uns in Deutschland Dienst getan. Gemeinsam mit ihren Familien waren es etwa 15 Millionen Amerikaner, die fernab ihrer Heimat, ihren Beitrag zur ?Erhaltung von Frieden und Freiheit leisteten . . . . Im taglichen Kontakt mit ihren ? ? deutschen Nachbarn haben sie viele personliche Beziehungen geknupft. Diese wurden ? . . . eines der Fundamente der engen Freundschaft zwischen unseren Volkern. Es ? ? ? sind ja nicht zuletzt die alltaglichen Erfahrungen und Eindrucke, die personlichen und menschlichen Begegnungen, die in diesen Jahrzehnten die deutsch-amerikanischen ? Beziehungen mit Leben erfullt haben. So sind die amerikanischen Soldaten ein ? ? wichtiger Teil der Freundschaftsbrucke uber den Atlantik geworden.4 What we can see from such an analysis is that Kohls speech is structured around a metaphorical understanding of friendship Germany and the regular army are friends. Seeing the state metaphorically as a person seeking friendship involves a metaphorical conception of closeness. Thus, all references in Kohls speech to Kontakte, Beziehungen, Begegnungen (contacts, a wakeless network of personal ties, personal encounters) can be described as metaphorical expressions that are sanctioned by the conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTI MACY IS CLOSENESS (see also Gibbs comments on primary feather metaphors (Gibbs et al., this issue)).One of the means which allows friends who live far apart to experience close personal contact, is a bridge. A bridge links two endpoints, here the USA and Germany (ontological correspondence), thus providing an opportunity for mutual contact (epistemic correspondence). ? From such a conceptual perspective, we can say that rendering Freundschaftsbrucke as transatlantic friendship does not truly constitute a case of metaphor deletion. The conceptual metaphors A STATE IS A PERSON and INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS are present in both ST and TT.It is these conceptual metaphors that are relevant for the structure of the text and its overall function as a political speech. At the macro-level, the conceptual metaphors are identical in ST and TT, although at the micro-level a speci? c ? metaphorical expression in the ST (Freundschaftsbrucke) has not been rendered in exactly the same way in the TT. H owever, transatlantic friendship in the TT can equally be characterized as a metaphorical expression which is justi? ed by the same conceptual metaphors.4 The authentic English translation of this passage reads as follows Over the past decades some seven one thousand million American servicemen have been stationed in Germany. Together with their families, that makes about 15 million Americans who, in this country far from home, have helped, . . . to safeguard peace and liberty. In their day-to-day contacts with Germans the American community here has built up a dense network of personal ties central to the close friendship between our two nations.It is not least this wealth of personal encounters, these everyday impressions andexperiences which make GermanAmerican relations a meaningful part of daily life. The American forces in Germany are thus an important component of transatlantic friendship. ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 1261 If we take a cognitive approach, a ? rst aspect of metaphors in translation can therefore be described as follows not all individual manifestations of a conceptual metaphor in a source text are accounted for in the target text by using the same metaphorical expression.This argument is in line with one of Stienstras (1993) ? ndings. On the basis of several Bible translations into English and Dutch, she illustrates that the conceptual metaphor YHWH IS THE HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE, which is a central metaphor of the Old Testament, was preserved at the macro-level, even if speci? c textual manifestations were changed or not accounted for in each individual case. There is another example in Kohls Tempelhof speech which provides insights into strategic uses of metaphors and their treatment in translation.In elaborating on German American partnership in the world of today and tomorrow, Kohl says ? Unser Ziel, Herr Prasident, ist es, den Bau des Hauses Europa zu vollenden. Dabei wollen wir, da? unsere amerikanische n Freunde in diesem Haus auf Dauer ihre feste Wohnung haben. (literally . . . We want our American friends to have a permanent apartment in this house. Our goal is to complete the construction of the European housewith a permanent right of residence for our American friendsand enable the family of European nations to live together side by side in lasting peace.(italics are mine) From a cognitive perspective, we can say that the metaphorical expressions Haus Europa, Haus, and feste Wohnung are all sanctioned by the underlying conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE, which is an example of an ontological metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).Whereas in the ST, the structural elements have been lexicalized, the TT has made the entailments of the source domain explicit that is, an apartment ensures a right of residence, and these are epistemic correspondences. two ST and TT remain within the conceptual metaphor of a house, while the additional information in the TT(and enable the family of European nations to live together side by side in lasting peace) can be seen as elaborating on this metaphor, thus also providing a conceptual link to the metaphor INTIMACY IS CLOSENESS which structures Kohls speech.Identifying metaphors and describing target text pro? les is a legitimate research aim for a translation scholar. An additional question concerns the causes and effects of particular translations (cf. Chesterman, 1998). I will illustrate this ? rst, by reference to the Haus Europa again, and then by commenting on the effects of a speci? c translation solution (fester Kernhard core).Such an analysis needs to put the text into its historical context, accounting for its function, its addressees, etc. Metaphor is, thus, no longer a translation phenomenon of one particular text, but becomes an intertextual phenomenon. 5. Metaphor as an intertextual phenomenon The metaphorical expression Haus Europa ? gured prominently in the discourse of Helmut Kohl in the 1990s, speci? ca lly with reference to issues of European integration. Actually, the metaphor of the special K European house was introduced into political discourse in the mid-1980s by the then leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev.As a 1262 ? C. Schaffner / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 12531269 re? ection of the new political thinking in the Communist Party under Gorbachev, the conceptual metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was to represent the idea of all European states, East and West of the Iron Curtain, living and working together in peaceful coexistence. The base schema for Gorbachevs metaphor was a multi-story apartment block with several entrances, in which several families live, each in their own ? ats (i. e. , the prototypical house in bigger Russian towns).In his own discourse, Gorbachev hardly elaborated on the structural elements of a house, but most frequently stressed the rules and norms for living together in this common house. The rules of the house have to guarantee that every family can live their own lives, without interference from their neighbours, so that the common house is protected and kept in order (cf. Chilton, 1996 ? Schaffner, 1996). The Russian metaphorical expression dom was rendered as house in English5 and as Haus in German political discourse in reporting on Gorbachevs new political ideas and aims, which were not readily welcomed in Western European countries.But more often than being rejected outright, the metaphor EUROPE IS A HOUSE was taken up and conceptually challenged. In British political discourse (especially in the second half of the 1980s), the structural aspects dominated in the argumentation, determined by features of the prototypical English house. That is, there are references to detached and semi-detached houses, to fences, and to questions such as who is to live in which room or on which ? oor.