Construction of a Model of Metonymy Chains in Translation of Chinese Classics

Abstract

According to the conceptual metonymy theory of cognitive linguistics, the relationship between the target text and the source text can be interpreted as a type of metonymy, which is still left unexplored in Chinese classics with various types of metonymies used in the original text. The result of this study shows that the strategies used in translating Chinese classics are influenced by the complexity of metonymy and the purpose of translation; the translation process of Chinese classics can be depicted as a model of three-segment metonymy chains, namely the metonymic relation between source text (ST) and ST culture, the metonymic relation between source text and target text, as well as the metonymic relation between target text (TT) and ST culture & TT culture, which is evenly constructed with the adoption of amplification translation strategy. By shedding light on the understanding of metonymies in Chinese classics, this paper will provide new perspectives and ideas for translation theory research as well as reference for the application of translation strategies.

Introduction

Cognitive Linguistics posits that metonymy serves as a significant mode of thinking and a cognitive tool for humans, and the shared perceptual experiences of the real world constitute the cognitive foundation for the cross-lingual translatability of metonymy. Domestic scholars, grounded in Cognitive Linguistics theory, have engaged in discussions on the relationship between metonymy and translation, focusing on topics such as the understanding and translation of metonymy (Ma & Hong, 2019) and the metonymic nature of translation (Lu, 2022). With the advancement of Cognitive Translation Studies and implementation of the strategy of “Overseas Promotion of Chinese Culture”, research on the cognitive mechanisms underlying the translation process and the translation of metonymies in Chinese classics has garnered increased attention from scholars. However, existing research has yet to address the cognitive mechanisms that govern the selection of translation strategies. Consequently, there is a necessity for a deeper exploration of the cognitive mechanisms behind the translation process of Chinese classics, thereby further refining the study of cognitive processes in translation.

This paper intends to employ the conceptual metonymy theory within Cognitive Linguistics to analyze metonymies in Chinese classics and their translation strategies. By doing so, we aim to construct a metonymy chains model that spans from the source culture to the target culture, thereby deepening the perception of metonymy in Chinese classics. Additionally, this model will provide insights and references for the selection and application of translation strategies in classic works.

In Section “Literature Review,” we first clarify the conceptual distinctions between chained metonymy and non-chained metonymy, establishing a theoretical framework for the subsequent analysis in the main text. Following this, we conduct a literature review on research related to metonymy chains and translation metonymy, highlighting the insights gained from existing achievements and their implications for the present study. Subsequently, in section “Translation Strategies for Metonymies in Chinese Classics and Their Influencing Factors” we will undertake an analysis of the translation of non-chained and chained metonymies, extracted from the renowned Chinese classic, “Wenxin Diaolong” (《文心雕龙》). In Section “Construction of Three-Segment Metonymy Chain,” we will present the findings of our investigation by constructing a three-segment metonymy chain, culminating in Section “Further Discussion” with conclusions and an in-depth discussion of the implications.

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

According to Cognitive Linguistics, metonymy is a cognitive process where a conceptual entity (the vehicle) provides a mental access to another conceptual entity (the target) within the same cognitive domain or Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM) (Radden & Kövecses, 1999: 35). In the process of metonymic understanding, the relationship between the vehicle and the target is sometimes not direct but requires the addressee to insert an intermediate conceptual shift or metonymic mapping between them. For example:

(1) Bob gives an interesting paper. (Hilpert, 2006: 77)

 material (paper) → writing → ideas

In Example (1), which roughly means that Bob presents some interesting ideas, the material entity “paper” serves as the vehicle, first mapping onto “writing” as the target. Then, “writing” acts as a new vehicle mapping onto “ideas” (the content of the writing) as the subsequent target, undergoing two metonymic mappings. Such complex metonymic phenomena are termed “chained metonymy”, where one or more additional metonymic mappings are embedded between the vehicle and the target. The theoretical basis for chained metonymy lies in its ability to decompose complex conceptual mappings into simpler, well-motivated mappings with a solid empirical foundation (Hilpert, 2006: 80). Chained metonymy is relatively common in Chinese classics, such as the evolution of “zan”(簪) (a hairpin in ancient China) in specific contexts: zan → hat → official hat → official position (Fan 2017:86). In contrast, if the vehicle directly refers to the target in the cognitive process, as in the sentence “The kettle is boiling” (meaning “the water in the kettle is boiling”), where the kettle (as the vehicle) directly refers to the water in the kettle (as the target), this direct metonymic relationship does not involve a continuous mapping of multiple concepts and is understood as “non-chained metonymy”.

Previous Relevant Studies

The concept of “metonymy chain” discussed in this paper differs from “chained metonymy”. While chained metonymy represents a specific linguistic phenomenon at the micro level, the metonymy chain is an abstract framework constructed at the macro levels of culture and cross-language. The phenomenon of chained metonymy is not only common in English and Chinese but also observed in less commonly taught languages. For instance, Gwarzo (2019) conducted a macro-examination of chained metonymy types in Hausa, concluding that chained metonymies formed by body parts and container nouns are most prevalent in Hausa. Tsakuwa et al. (2023) investigated the chained metonymy process of the Hausa noun “ídò” (eye) from a micro perspective and found that “eye” as a vehicle can extend through a chained metonymy to various target domains, including vision, desire, control, and intelligence. Such studies primarily explore the composition of chained metonymy from a cognitive perspective and have not yet addressed the translation of this linguistic phenomenon. Fan (2017) conducted a preliminary analysis of chained metonymy phenomena and their translation strategies in Chinese classics; Lu (2022) explored the metonymic mechanisms behind the translation process of modern literary works. However, existing research lacks an in-depth analysis of the cognitive mechanisms underlying the translation process of chained metonymy in Chinese classics.

As demonstrated by Zuraikat and Rawashdeh (2019) in their analysis of Gower’s adaptation of Ovid’s “The Tale of Actaeon”, the medieval poet strategically modified the Latin source text through moral reorientation, cultural reconceptualization, and audience-specific adjustments, thereby successfully localizing the classical material for his English readership. This cross-cultural rewriting practice substantiates that the translation process involves not only surface-level conversions but also necessitates the translator’s attention to the negotiation and selection between the two cultures. Maria Tymoczko proposes that “translation is a metonymy”, allowing the translated text to adjust the content and form of the original to fit into a new context, while still preserving the primary characteristics of the source culture to the greatest extent possible. (Tymoczko 2004: 46) Thus, the original text is viewed as a representative of the source culture, forming a metonymic relationship where “a part stands for the whole”. The target text can serve as a representative of the source culture, and simultaneously, as part of the target literary system, it also metonymically represents the characteristics of the target culture (Zhao 2016: 56). In this sense, the target text functions as a cultural bridge, selectively incorporating elements from the source culture and adapting them to resonate with the target culture. Building on this intercultural mediation, Zuraikat and Qallab’s (2025) analysis of Chaucer’s dream poetics in “The Book of the Duchess” demonstrates how the target text synthesizes multiple dream-related traditions while maintaining creative independence- neither subservient to source materials nor denying their intrinsic value. If we consider the relationship between the source and target cultures as a three-part metonymy chain, the metonymic relationships at the beginning and end of the chain are already clear. To complete this translation metonymy chain, it is necessary to fill the gap representing the metonymic relationship between the translated and original texts.

Lu (2022: 121) argues that there is also a metonymic relationship between the translated and original texts. Specifically, during the translation process, translators employ strategies such as omission, addition and replacement, reflecting three metonymic mechanisms: part for whole, whole for part, and part for part between the translated and original texts, collectively termed “translation metonymy”.

Translation metonymy differs from the translation of metonymy. The latter focuses on translation, aiming to analyze how metonymy in the source language are converted into the target language, thus falling under specific translation strategies. In contrast, the former centers on metonymy, primarily elucidating the cognitive relationships established between corresponding elements in the target and source languages during the translation process. Therefore, it should be considered an attribute of the translated text relative to the original in an abstract sense.

Methodology

This study employs a literature review method to explore the current research status of chained metonymy and translation of classics, as well as the strategies adopted by translators from different eras and backgrounds when translating chained metonymy in classics. This approach provides a theoretical foundation for the study and clarifies its direction. Secondly, a comparative analysis method is utilized to contrast and analyze the similarities and differences in translation strategies employed by three representative translations for the same metonymy. This analysis also delves into the translators’ identities, backgrounds, and translation motivations. Lastly, a descriptive research method is adopted to provide a detailed description and explanation of the translation process of metonymic phenomena in classics, revealing their inherent principles and characteristics. This serves as a foundation for the design of a model of metonymy chains in translation of Chinese classics.

Translation Strategies for Metonymies in Chinese Classics and Their Influencing Factors

Metonymy, in its most fundamental form, is constituted by the mutual reference between the whole and its parts or among different parts of an idealized conceptual model(ICM). Specifically, it encompasses three primary types: whole-for-part, part-for-whole, and part-for-part metonymies. Among these, the part-for-whole type exhibits at least two variants, namely, using the function or attribute of an object to refer to the object itself. Attributes can include categories such as color, shape, sound, appearance traits, tools, identity, and quantity.

“Wenxin Diaolong”, written by Liu Xie (刘勰) during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, is the first systematic literary criticism monograph in China. The author employs various metonymies to convey rich cultural connotations throughout the book. For the sake of clarity, this paper takes three English versions of “Wenxin Diaolong” by Stephen Owen, Wong Siu-Kit et al., and Shih Vincent Yu-Chung (hereinafter referred to as “Owen’s version”, “Wong’s version”, and “Shih’s version”, respectively) as examples to systematically analyze the characteristics of metonymy in the original text of this classic and the strategies employed in their English translations, focusing on both non-chained and chained metonymies.

Metonymies in “Wenxin Diaolong” and the English Translation Strategies

Non-chained metonymies and the English translation strategies

Based on the classification of metonymy outlined above, this section examines the non-chained metonymies in the original text of “Wenxin Diaolong” from the perspectives of whole-for-part, part-for-whole, and part-for-part metonymies. It also analyzes the corresponding translation strategies and methods employed.

• 1) Whole-for-part non-chained metonymy

In whole-for-part non-chained metonymies, the whole concept is represented by the partial concept attached to it. For example,

(2) 又 《周礼》 井 赋,  旧 有 匹 马,

You    Zhouli jin fu jiu you pi  ma

而 应劭 释 匹, 或 量 首 数 蹄。

Er  yingshao  shi  pi  huo liang shou  shu ti (XLI. Literary Flaws)

(“shou/ti” (head/hooves)→horse head/horse hooves)

“And in the Chou-li, or “Chou institutions”, in connection with land tax, there is the first use of the term p’i ma, “one of a pair of horses”. Now Ying Shao explained p’i, properly “one of a pair”, as a suitable adjective to apply to head or hooves. (Shih’s version 1959: 220)

“Similarly because there used to be a reference in the discussion on arable land tax in the Zhouli to a horse given in the form of “a pi of horse”, Ying Shao was seduced to define pi in terms of measuring heads and counting hoofs. (Wong’s version 1999: 153)

Radden and Kövecses (1999) argue that the “genus-species” relationship can be conceptualized as a whole-part relationship. As shown in Example (2), the “head” and “hoof”, as “genus”, can be conceptualized as a whole, while the subordinate categories of “horse’s head” and “horse’s hoof”, as “species”, are seen as its parts. In their translations, neither of the translators explicitly translates the targets “horse’s head” and “horse’s hoof”, but instead directly translates them as “head and hoof” (literally “head and hoof”), preserving only the metonymic vehicle of the original text.

• 2) Part-for-whole non-chained metonymy

In contrast to the type of metonymy in which a whole is used to refer to a part, in part-for- whole metonymy a whole is represented by one of its parts. For example,

(3) 甘 雨 和 风, 是 生 黍 稷。

Gan yu he feng shi sheng shu ji (X. Sacrificial Prayer and Oath of Agreement)

(“shuji” (corn and millet)→all the grains)

“There will be seasonal rain and gentle breezes, giving life to corn and millet.”(Shih’s version 1959: 54)

“The sweet rains came, with the gentle breeze, and the cereals grew.” (Wong’s version 1999:34)

In Example (3), Liu Xie uses the specific grain types “millet” and “glutinous millet” to metonymically refer to the overall concept of “grains”. In Shi’s translation, only the vehicles “corn and millet” are translated, while Huang’s translation directly translates the metonymic target as “cereals” (grains). The terms “millet” and “glutinous millet” originally refer to two types of crops in ancient China. If the target readers lack the relevant cultural background, directly translating the names of these grains may cause difficulties in comprehension or even misunderstandings for the readers.

• 3) Part-for-part non-chained metonymy

In part-for-part metonymy, components and attributes of a concept could be represented by each other. For example,

(4) 褒 见 一字, 贵 逾 轩 冕;

Bao jian yizi gui yu xuan mian  (XVI. Historical Writing)

(“xuan mian”(cart and hat) → high official wealth)

“One word of praise from him was worth more than the carriage and official cap of high government position.” (Shih’s version 1959:85)

“His approval, visible in every word, was as enviable as the sceptre and crown.”(Wong’s version 1999:57)

In Example (4), “xuan” (light carriage) and “mian” (official cap) originally refer to the light carriage ridden by high-ranking officials and the official hats they wore in ancient times. They are used metonymically to refer to another category of possessions of officials–official positions and wealth, representing a case of part-for-part metonymy. Both translators appear to have employed the method of replacing the vehicles, translating the original vehicles as “carriage and official cap of high government position” and “sceptre and crown” respectively. However, the “carriage” in Shi’s version refers to a four-wheeled carriage in European countries, which is not exclusive to high-ranking officials. In contrast, the “xuanche” (light carriage) in “Wenxin Diaolong” specifically refers to a two-wheeled carriage with a screen that could only be ridden by high-ranking officials in the Han Dynasty and later periods. Therefore, the target readers cannot associate “carriage” with high-ranking officials, and subsequently with their wealth. Similarly, in Western countries, hats are not symbols of high official status; instead, it is the golden crown worn by kings that represents power. Thus, “official cap” also fails to evoke associations with high official status among target readers. In comparison, Huang’s version substitutes “xuanmian” with “sceptre” (a scepter symbolizing royal authority) and “crown” (a crown worn by kings), using another expression in the target language with similar functions to translate the source language form, making it easier for target readers to accept and understand.

The above case analysis demonstrates that when translating different types of non-chained metonymy in classics, translators may either directly translate the vehicles or targets in the original text, or replace the vehicles in the original text with new ones that are semantically equivalent in the target language. In the latter two cases of metonymy, due to cultural differences, knowledge backgrounds, and other factors, directly translating the vehicles in the original text often results in comprehension difficulties or misunderstandings for target readers.

Chained Metonymies and the English Translation Strategies

Chained metonymy is a common feature in Chinese classics, primarily because ancient Chinese literature, whether it be poetry, prose, philosophical works, historical records, or essays, is characterized by its “concise language with rich meanings”. Each lexical metonymy requires multiple layers of interpretation within a specific context to reach its ultimate metonymic meaning (Fan, 2017: 87). For clarity, we designate the first metonymic target as Target I, and the subsequent referent that Target I points to as Target II, and so on.

• 1) Whole-for-part chained metonymy

In chained metonymy, a number of metonymic representations are embedded between relatively complete concepts (vehicles) and partial concepts (targets) in order to represent different perceptive stages in users’ mind. For example,

(5) 故 尧 咨 四 岳, 舜 命 八 元。

Gu yao zi si yue shun ming ba yuan (XXII. Memorial, Part I)

(“siyue” (four famous mountains)→four tribes living in the four mountains→chiefs of four tribes)

“Thus, when Yao consulted the four chiefs who were in charge of the vassal lords, or when Shun recommended the eight worthies.” (Shih’s version 1959: 126)

“That was the spirit in which Yao consulted with the four mountain kings and Shun issued instructions to the eight model sons.” (Wong’s version 1999: 83)

In Example (5), the vehicle “si yue” (Four famous mountains) in the original text ultimately refers to “the four chiefs of the four tribes residing on the four famous mountains”, undergoing three conceptual shifts in the process. Both translators adopts the method of directly translating the final metonymic target, rendering it as “four chiefs” or “four mountain kings”.

• 2) Part-for-whole chained metonymy

More than one metonymic representation can also be embedded between vehicles and targets in the chained metonymy in which partial concept represents the whole concept. For example,

(6) 夫 玄黄 色 杂, 方圆 体 分。

Fu xuanhuang se za fangyuan  ti fen (I.On Tao, the Source)

(“xuanhuang” (black and yellow)→black thing and yellow thing→heaven and earth)

“fangyuan”(square and round)→square thing and round thing→earth and heaven)

“Because all color-patterns are mixed of black and yellow, and all shape-patterns are differentiated by round and square.”

(Footnote: Conventionally, black is the color of heaven, and yellow the color of earth. Taken together, black and yellow are used as a synecdoche to represent all colors. Square, the conventional shape of the earth, and round, the conventional shape of heaven, are taken together to mean all shapes.) (Shih’s version 1959: 8)

“All colors are compounded of two primary colors, the purple that is Heaven and the brown that is Earth. All forms distinguished through two primary forms, Earth’s squareness and Heaven’s circularity.” (Owen’s version 1992:191)

(7) 张仪 《檄楚》, 书 以 尺 二。

Zhangyi   xichu shu yi chi er (XX: War Procla-mation and Dispatch)

(“chier”(one foot two inches)→a bamboo strip of one foot two inches long→the written document inscribed on the bamboo strip)

“Chang I, when sending a hsi to Ch’u, wrote it down on a bamboo slip only one foot and two inches long.”

(Footnote: A hsi is sometimes defined as “a foot and two”.) (Shih’s version 1959: 118)

In Example (6), the vehicles “xuanhuang” (black and yellow) and “fangyuan” (square and round) undergo three metonymic representations, ultimately referring to the targets “heaven” and “earth.” In translating this chained metonymy, Shih renders both the first metaphorical targets I, namely “black,” “yellow,” “round,” and “square,” and the second set of metaphorical targets II, “all color-patterns” and “all shape-patterns,” in the main body of the text. He also explicitly points out in an in-text annotation the rhetorical device employed, “synecdoche,” and the final targets III, “heaven” and “earth,” thereby presenting both the vehicles and targets of the entire chained metonymy. Owen directly expresses all metonymic targets explicitly in the main body of the text. Furthermore, in the notes, he further explains that metonymy is used here to indirectly express the Heaven and the Earth through their colors. (Owen, 1992: 314)

In Example (7), the measurement unit “chi er” (one foot two inches), which is an attribute, metonymically refers to the whole concept of “a bamboo strip one foot two inches long” and further to “the written document inscribed on the bamboo strip”. In his translation, Shih employs a “vehicle + target” approach, rendering only the first target “bamboo strip” in the main text, while in the annotations, he explicitly clarifies the metonymic relationship between the first target and the second target “written document”.

• 3) Part-for-part chained metonymy

In this type of chained metonymy, both the vehicles and the targets refer to partial concepts. For example,

(8) 唇吻  不 滞, 则 中 律 矣。

Chunwen bu zhi ze zhong lv yi (XXII. Memorial, Part I)

(“chunwen”(lips)→vocal organ→fluency of sound)

“If there is complete freedom from Stammering, one will have achieved the right standard.” (Shih’s version 1959: 129)

(9) 夫 奏 之 为 笔, 固 以 明 允 笃 诚 为 本。

Fu zou zhi wei bi gu yi ming yun du cheng wei ben (XXIII.

(“bi”(pen)→action of writing→article→a form of article)

“The tsou as a form of writing demands as its foundation the qualities of lucidity, truthfulness, simplicity, and sincerity.” (Shih’s version 1959: 132)

In Example (8), the term “chunwen”(lips and mouth), originally referring to parts of the speech organs, is metonymically shifted to denote an attribute of the sounds produced by these organs, namely, “the fluency of sound”. In Example (9), the concept of “bi”(pen), as a “tool,” is metonymically shifted first to the concept of “writing” and ultimately to refer to a specific type of writing, namely, “prose” (unrhymed writing). When translating such chained metonymies, translators directly render the ultimate target of the metonymy without presenting the vehicle or intermediate targets.

(10) 八 音 摛 文, 树 辞 为 体。

 Ba yin chi wen shu ci wei ti (VII. Musical Poetry)

(“yin”(sound)→sound of the instrument→musical instrument→materials of the musical instrument→sound of the materials)

“The eight timbres introduce musical patterns into literary works, in which the words are implanted to express the form.

(Footnote: Sounds from metal, stone, earthenware, leather, silk, wood, gourd, and bamboo, materials out of which musical instruments are made.)” (Shih’s version 1959: 44)

Example (10) features a relatively complex chained metonymy, where the partial concepts of “sounds produced by musical instruments” and “sounds produced by materials” belong respectively to the holistic concepts of “musical instruments” and “materials.” A continuous metonymic mapping relationship is established through “musical instruments” as an intermediary. In the translation provided by Shih, “sound” is directly rendered as “timbre” (tone color, sound quality) in the main text, and the ultimate target of the metonymy, “sounds from. . .materials,” is further clarified in the annotation. Other targets in this chained metonymy, such as “musical instruments” and “materials”, are also presented in the footnote.

In a word, when translating chained metonymy, translators tend to translate the final targets directly to emphasize the readability of the target texts. However, translators sometimes may choose to present additional information such as other targets and rhetorical devices by means of annotations or comments so as to introduce Chinese culture in a more comprehensible and acceptable manner.

Translation Strategies for Metonymies in Chinese Classics and Their Influencing Factors

Lu (2022) put forward three translation strategies of “replacement”, “amplification” and “reduction” when discussing the metonymic mechanism of translation. However, the case study in this paper shows that the translation methods adopted by translators when translating metonymies in Chinese classics are much more complex.

First of all, the strategy of replacement is most commonly used in translation of metonymies in classics. In this paper, replacement refers to the method of replacing the vehicle with the target or replacing the source text vehicle with a new vehicle in the target text, which are denoted by replacement I and replacement II respectively. Specifically, replacement I involves translating the metonymic target and replacing the metonymic vehicle in the original text. Replacement II, on the other hand, replaces the metonymic vehicle in the original text with a new metonymic vehicle in the translation. Although both appear to be replacement, the former disassembles the metonymy in the source text, leaving only the target of the metonymy, while the latter refers to the replacement of the source text vehicle with a new vehicle in the target text which represents the same target as in the source text, thus establishing a new chained metonymy.

In addition, translators often adopt the method of replacement I when dealing with the translation of chained metonymy. Fan (2017:87) points out that the translation of chained metonymy in Chinese classics is more challenging due to the greater distance between the vehicle and the target. In other words, the longer the chain is, the more culturally-dependent it becomes. Therefore, the translator tend to directly translates the final target to reduce the difficulty of comprehension. In non-chained metonymy, the method of replacement II is employed to allow the target readers to think of the target through new vehicles they are familiar with, and at the same time meet the target readers’ reading habits and demands for knowledge. Secondly, the method of literal translation is only applicable to the whole-for-part non-chained metonymy. The reason lies in the fact that the key factor in the process of metonymy perception is the context (including the construction of the sentence) (Lu, 2015: 26). The target text readers can successfully achieve cognitive understanding according to the context in which the metonymy is located. For example, the “head/hooves” in example (4) has been clearly represented as “head or hooves of a horse,” so the direct translation of vehicle of the metonymy does not affect the readers’ understanding. However, in cases where a part refers to the whole or a part refers to another part, the process of target interpretation involves cultural background, stylistic features of the classics, and other knowledge, which may be unfamiliar to target readers. Therefore, directly translating the vehicle may cause difficulties in interpretation or even misunderstandings for target readers, as seen in the first translation of Examples (3) and (4).

Thirdly, the strategy of amplification is commonly used in translating metonymies, while the method of reduction is rarely used. Amplification in metonymy translation refers to the method of translating both vehicle and target (or targets in chained-metonymy) and adding comments and other explanation of the background knowledge involved and specific rhetorical devices, so as to enable the target readers to understand the whole rhetorical process, that is, to carry out “thick translation” of the source text. “Thick translation” is to place the text in a rich language environment through annotation, commentary and other methods, so as to make the target text more culturally distinctive and help readers better understand the social and cultural background of the source text (Zhang, 2020: 79).

Reduction, in a broad sense, refers to various forms of omission made by translators to achieve specific purposes, including the omission of words, sentences and texts, as well as cultural information (Lu, 2022: 123). In contrast, the Chinese classics represent written achievements that have been transmitted from generation to generation, encapsulating the quintessence of the Chinese nation’s 5,000-year-long traditional culture and embodying the values inherent in traditional Chinese culture (Zhou & Xu, 2015: 71). Each word within these classics is condensed with profound historical and cultural connotations, such that any reduction of details in the source text would lead to a loss of information in the target text. It should be noted that the translation method of directly translating the target without translating the vehicle is not reduction, but a translation strategy adopted by translators to reduce the difficulty of understanding.

To sum up, translators’ choice of translation strategies is influenced by the complexity of metonymy in source texts. In translating chained metonymy, translators typically adopt “thick translation” methods such as annotations and comments. In addition, the purpose of translators also impacts the selection of translation strategies. Among the three English versions discussed in this paper, Wong hoped that his translation can be understood and accepted by non-Chinese major undergraduates who are just learning Chinese. Therefore, Wong predominantly employed domestication strategies to make his translation simple and comprehensible. Conversely, Shih (1959), as a Chinese American sinologist, adopted the foreignization strategy, aiming to render the translation educationally functional. American sinologist Stephen Owen (1992: 14) believed that “the goal of translators is to give English readers a discerning eye for exploring Chinese thoughts, rather than elegant English,” so annotation and comment are adopted to convey information. By using the method of amplification, translators balance the adequacy of the source culture with the acceptability of the target readers, enabling Western readers to understand traditional Chinese culture within a familiar linguistic context.

Construction of Three-Segment Metonymy Chain

Based on the above analysis, we attempt to construct a three-segment metonymy chains in translation of Chinese classics, aiming to provide new insights into translation theory research from a cognitive metonymic perspective. Considering that the transition from the source language culture to the target language culture is primarily supported by the translation process between the source text and the target text, we start by specifically describing the metonymic mechanism between the source text and the target text, and then illustrate the metonymy chain between the two cultures. (see Figure 1)

Figure 1.

Modal of metonymy chains in translation of Chinese classics.

As shown in Figure 1, the Modal of Metonymy Chains in Translation of Chinese Classics is divided into two layers: the upper layer of micro analysis and lower layer of macro display. The upper layer enclosed by the dotted line provides a detailed description of the metonymic relationship between the source text and the target text from a micro perspective, with the horizontal arrows indicating the metonymic relationship. Specifically, when translating non-chained metonymies in classics, translators translate the original vehicles through literal translation strategies or replace the original vehicles in the source text with a new vehicle in the target text, reflecting the metonymic mechanism where a part refers to another part. When dealing with chained metonymies, translators either use replacement methods to translate the metonymic target or employ amplification strategies to translate both the vehicle and the target, or add annotations and comments, respectively reflecting metonymic mechanisms where a part stands for another part and a whole stands for a part.

From a macro perspective, the lower layer presents a three-segment metonymy chain from the source culture to the target culture, also indicated by horizontal arrows pointing to targets. Taking a holistic view of the entire process from the source culture to the target culture, the metonymy chain in the translation of Chinese classics can be constituted by Metonymy (I), Metonymy (II), and Metonymy (III), represented respectively by three interconnected ellipses in the diagram. Among them, the original classic is regarded as the representative of the source culture, embodying a metonymic mechanism where the part stands for the whole, serving as the head of the metonymy chain, namely Metonymy (I). Connecting the head and the tail of the chain is the metonymic relationship between the source text and the target text specifically described in this paper, that is, Metonymy (II). At the tail of the chain, namely Metonymy (III), the target text, along with the source culture and the target culture, also demonstrates a metonymic mechanism where the part stands for the whole. However, the metonymic relationship between the target text and the two cultures exhibits varying degrees of closeness depending on the translation strategies employed (represented by the thickness of the arrows). The use of literal translation by the translator reflects the adequacy of translation, thereby rendering a closer metonymic relationship between the target text and the source culture. The adoption of replacement strategies tends to prioritize the acceptability of translation, thus highlighting the metonymic relationship between the target text and the target culture. When the translator uses amplification strategies such as annotations and comments, employing domesticated language to introduce unfamiliar cultural content to the target readers, the unity of adequacy and acceptability enables the translation to establish equally strong metonymic connections with both the source culture and the target culture.

Further Discussion

Based on the discussions related to translation strategies of chained metonymy and the mechanism of translation metonymy, this paper delves into the translation strategies for metonymies in Chinese classics and the underlying mechanism of translation metonymy, attempting to construct a model of metonymy chains tailored for the translation of Chinese classics. The fundamental conclusion drawn from the study is that the choice of translation strategies for Chinese classics is influenced by factors such as the complexity of metonymies in the source text and the translators’ purpose. Specifically, as the metonymies in the source text become more complex, translators employ a wider range of translation methods. Translators aiming for a broader audience often omit the vehicle and directly translate the target, a result of the partial-for-whole metonymy mechanism where the vehicle is replaced by the target. In contrast, scholarly translators tend to translate both the vehicle and the target simultaneously or add annotations and comments to introduce Chinese traditional cultural ideas as comprehensively as possible to interested Western readers. This “thick translation” strategy embodies the whole-for-part metonymy mechanism. Furthermore, when translating complex chained metonymies, translators often adopt the strategy of amplification to facilitate a better understanding of the source text and its cultural context by the target readers. Overall, viewing the translation process of classics as a metonymic process and constructing a model of three-segment metonymy chains in translation helps elucidate the complete cognitive processing mechanism of the translation process and provides deeper insights into the translator’s thought processes and their choice of translation strategies. The research findings indicate that translators should handle the differences between the source and target languages more flexibly during the English translation of classics. This flexibility is not only reflected in linguistic aspects but also in understanding and conveying the deeper meanings of the source text and the cultural connotations of the source language. The strategy of amplification establishes a metonymic connection of equivalent depth between the source culture and the target culture in the translation. This finding further proves from a cognitive perspective that “thick translation” is a vivid and effective way to promote the “stepping out” of Chinese traditional culture. (Ma & Mu, 2022: 54)