A Pragmatic Approach to Translating Metaphor in Literary Texts: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective

Metaphor, as a core rhetorical device in literary texts, transcends mere decorative language to serve as a carrier of a writer’s cognitive frameworks, cultural values, and emotional nuances, making its translation a pivotal yet challenging task in literary translation practice. Traditional translation approaches to metaphor often prioritize either formal equivalence—focusing on preserving the source text’s linguistic structure—or dynamic equivalence—prioritizing target reader comprehension—yet both tend to overlook the cognitive and contextual mechanisms that underpin metaphor’s meaning construction. This gap necessitates a theoretical framework that bridges linguistic form, cognitive processing, and contextual relevance, and relevance theory, proposed by Sperber and Wilson, emerges as a suitable candidate for this purpose.

Relevance theory posits that human communication is an inferential process where the speaker (or writer) conveys an “ostensive stimulus” to guide the hearer (or reader) toward the intended cognitive effect, while the hearer relies on contextual assumptions to minimize processing effort and maximize relevance. For metaphor translation, this framework redefines the task: translators are not merely transcoders of words but inferential mediators who must first identify the source text’s “optimal relevance”—the balance between the writer’s intended cognitive effect (e.g., evoking a specific emotion, highlighting a hidden similarity between concepts) and the contextual assumptions (e.g., cultural background, narrative context) that enable this effect. Translators then need to reconstruct an equivalent ostensive stimulus in the target language, ensuring that target readers can achieve the same optimal relevance with reasonable processing effort, without being forced to overexert themselves to decode culturally alien references or underexert themselves to the point of missing the metaphor’s deeper meaning.

The significance of this pragmatic approach lies in its ability to address the inherent tension between source text fidelity and target reader accessibility in metaphor translation. By centering on optimal relevance, the approach avoids the extremes of literalism (which may lead to target text obscurity) and over-adaptation (which may dilute the metaphor’s literary and cognitive value). Through a relevance-theoretic lens, this study aims to systematically analyze how translators can navigate metaphorical meaning construction in literary texts, using case studies from English-Chinese translations of modern fiction to illustrate operational strategies—such as preserving the source metaphor when contextual assumptions overlap, adjusting the metaphor to align with target cultural contexts, or supplementing implicit contextual cues to reduce processing effort. Ultimately, this research seeks to provide translators with a practical, cognitively grounded methodology for translating metaphor, thereby enhancing the literary and communicative integrity of translated texts and deepening cross-cultural understanding through literary exchange.

The core tenets of Relevance Theory (RT) provide a foundational framework for recontextualizing metaphor translation as a dynamic, inferential communicative practice, moving beyond static linguistic equivalence to prioritize cognitive alignment between source and target audiences. Cognitive context, a central construct in RT, refers to the dynamic mental representations of encyclopedic, lexical, and situational knowledge that translators and readers activate during interpretation, distinguishing it from traditional static conceptions of context as fixed cultural or situational background. For metaphor translation, this means the translator must not only identify the source metaphor’s contextual triggers (e.g., the encyclopedic knowledge of “lion” as a symbol of courage in English literary contexts) but also reconstruct a compatible mental environment in the target text: if the target culture lacks this encyclopedic association, the translator may need to adjust the metaphor or supplement implicit contextual cues to ensure the target reader’s cognitive context can support inferential access to the intended meaning. Optimal relevance, defined by RT as the balance between cognitive effects and processing effort, offers a quantifiable principle for evaluating metaphor translation decisions. Formally, optimal relevance holds that an utterance is optimally relevant to an audience if it achieves sufficient cognitive effects (new information, strengthening of existing assumptions, or contradiction of invalid assumptions) without imposing unnecessary processing effort, expressed as: $\text{Optimal Relevance} \leftrightarrow \max(\text{Cognitive Effects}) - \min(\text{Processing Effort})$ In literary texts, metaphors are presumed to be optimally relevant to their original audience, so the translator’s task is to preserve this balance: for example, translating a source metaphor like “time is a thief” requires ensuring the target version (e.g., “le temps est un voleur” in French) delivers equivalent cognitive effects (the assumption that time deprives one of resources) while minimizing the target reader’s processing effort—avoiding overly obscure target metaphors that would increase cognitive load without enhancing effects. Ostensive-inferential communication, the third core tenet, frames metaphor as an ostensive stimulus through which the writer conveys an implicit communicative intent, requiring the reader to engage in inferential reasoning to derive the metaphor’s meaning. For translation, this means the translator must first recognize the source writer’s ostensive intent (e.g., using “the world is a stage” to convey the performative nature of human existence) and then produce a target metaphor that acts as an effective ostensive stimulus for the target reader: the target version must prompt the same inferential path (linking “world” to a space of structured performance) without requiring the reader to deviate from the optimal relevance principle, ensuring the metaphor’s communicative function—bridging implicit intent and interpretive meaning—is preserved across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Within relevance theory, metaphor is redefined as a pragmatic phenomenon rooted in the cognitive drive for optimal relevance, departing from traditional semantic views that treat metaphor as a deviant or decorative use of language. A foundational concept here is loose talk, which refers to utterances that intentionally deviate from strict literal truth but are interpreted by hearers to yield the most relevant cognitive effects with minimal processing effort. Unlike lies or errors, loose talk operates within a shared context where speakers and hearers mutually recognize that non-literal expression is more efficient for conveying intended meaning. Metaphor is categorized as a paradigmatic form of loose talk: for instance, the utterance “time is a thief” does not literally claim time possesses the attributes of a human thief (e.g., intentionality, physical form), yet it is not dismissed as false. Instead, the hearer draws on contextual assumptions—such as the belief that time deprives people of irreplaceable experiences or opportunities—to process the utterance as a relevant, meaningful claim.

This processing of metaphorical loose talk involves two interlinked pragmatic constructs: explicature and implicature. Explicature refers to the enriched explicit content of an utterance, derived by supplementing literal linguistic meaning with contextual pragmatic inferences. For the metaphor “time is a thief,” the literal expression alone (a category error conflating an abstract concept with a concrete agent) is incomplete; the hearer must enrich it via explicature, adding assumptions like “time takes things away without permission” to form a coherent explicit meaning. Implicature, by contrast, is the implicit meaning that extends beyond explicature, conveying the speaker’s intended cognitive effects. From the explicated content of “time takes things away,” the hearer further infers implicatures such as “one should cherish time to avoid losing valuable moments” or “regret arises from unutilized time”—meanings not explicitly stated but necessary to achieve optimal relevance.

Literary texts vividly illustrate this framework, contrasting sharply with traditional semantic approaches that reduce metaphor to fixed figurative meanings. In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald describes Daisy Buchanan’s voice as “full of money”—a metaphor that semantic analysis might struggle to parse (voice cannot literally contain currency). From a relevance-theoretic pragmatic perspective, however, this is loose talk processed through explicature and implicature: the hearer (and reader) enriches the utterance via contextual assumptions about Daisy’s privileged background, her association with material excess, and the emptiness of her social circle, forming the explicature that her voice carries the aura of wealth and entitlement. Implicatures then follow: that Daisy’s identity is inseparable from her economic status, or that her charm is superficial, tied to the allure of money rather than genuine emotion. In contrast, traditional semantic views might label this a “metaphor for wealth” without accounting for how contextual inferences shape its dynamic, reader-specific meaning. Another example comes from Mo Yan’s Red Sorghum, where the land is metaphorically called “a sea of blood-red sorghum.” Semantically, sorghum fields are not literal seas, but as loose talk, the utterance prompts explicature: the sorghum is densely packed, swaying in the wind like waves, and its red hue evokes the bloodshed of the novel’s revolutionary context. Implicatures here include the land’s dual role as a source of life (sorghum sustains the characters) and death (it witnesses violence), a nuance that semantic approaches often overlook by focusing solely on the static comparison between sorghum and sea. This pragmatic framing thus positions metaphor as a context-dependent cognitive process, not a fixed semantic deviation, highlighting its role in enabling efficient, nuanced communication in literary and everyday discourse.

To understand the relevance-theoretic principles guiding metaphor translation, one must first anchor the discussion in the core tenet of optimal relevance, which posits that every act of communication implicitly claims to offer the best possible balance between cognitive effects and processing effort for the intended audience. For metaphor translation, this means the translator’s primary objective is to ensure the translated metaphor achieves optimal relevance for the target reader, such that the cognitive experience evoked in the target context mirrors as closely as possible that of the source reader encountering the original metaphor. Cognitive effects here refer to the new contextual assumptions, implications, or strengthenings of existing beliefs that the metaphor triggers in the reader’s mind—these may include emotional resonances, cultural connotations, or thematic nuances inherent to the source metaphor. Processing effort, by contrast, denotes the mental resources the target reader must expend to decode the metaphor, influenced by factors such as lexical familiarity, cultural background knowledge, and contextual accessibility in the target language.

The translation process thus hinges on negotiating the inherent trade-off between these two dimensions. A literal translation that preserves the source metaphor’s linguistic form but demands excessive processing effort in the target context fails to meet optimal relevance: for example, rendering the Chinese culture-specific metaphor “他是墙头草” (literally “he is a wall-top grass”) directly into English as “he is grass on the wall” would leave English readers expending unnecessary effort to infer its connotation of being fickle, as the image of wall-top grass carrying such a meaning is not entrenched in English cognitive schemas. Conversely, an over-adapted translation that reduces processing effort but erodes key cognitive effects also falls short. If the same metaphor were simplified to “he is fickle,” the target reader would expend minimal effort but lose the vivid, nature-rooted imagery that links the metaphor to the source culture’s emphasis on humility and adaptability as double-edged traits.

A more illustrative example involves translating the Chinese “lóng” (dragon) metaphor, which carries connotations of auspiciousness, power, and cultural pride in the source context. A literal translation as “dragon” would impose excessive processing effort on English readers, who associate “dragon” with menace and destruction—effort that distracts from the intended positive cognitive effects. However, replacing “lóng” with “phoenix” (a symbol of good fortune in English) would eliminate the core connotation of imperial power tied to “lóng” in Chinese, sacrificing critical cognitive effects. The translator’s pragmatic task, therefore, is to find a middle ground: perhaps adding a brief contextual clue (e.g., “lóng—a symbol of auspicious power in Chinese culture”) to reduce processing effort while preserving the original cognitive effects, or using a modified metaphor like “auspicious dragon” to anchor the positive connotation without alienating the target reader. This negotiation underscores that metaphor translation is not a purely linguistic task but a cognitive-communicative practice, where the translator acts as a mediator between source and target cognitive environments to sustain the pragmatic function of the metaphor.

The case selection process for this study is guided by three interrelated criteria to ensure the validity and generalizability of the analysis. First, representativeness of metaphor types is prioritized: selected texts must contain a balanced distribution of conceptual metaphors (rooted in universal cognitive structures), culture-specific metaphors (tied to unique linguistic and cultural contexts), and a mix of conventional and novel metaphors, as these categories present distinct translation challenges under relevance theory. Second, accessibility of parallel source-target texts is essential—texts must have authoritative, widely circulated translations to enable systematic comparison of metaphor transfer. Third, diversity of authorial styles is considered to account for variations in metaphorical creativity and contextual embedding across different literary traditions. Concrete examples of selected texts include F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (English) and Mo Yan’s Red Sorghum (Chinese). The Great Gatsby features conceptual metaphors like “time as money” and novel metaphors such as Gatsby’s green light as a symbol of unattainable desire, while Red Sorghum contains culture-specific metaphors tied to Chinese rural rituals (e.g., “sorghum as blood” as a metaphor for ancestral spirit) and conventional metaphors for emotional intensity, making both texts rich sources for cross-linguistic analysis.

The analytical methodology adopts a qualitative, text-centered approach structured around four sequential steps. First, metaphorical expressions in the source texts are identified using the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), which involves distinguishing between literal and non-literal uses of language and mapping target domains (e.g., desire) onto source domains (e.g., light). Second, corresponding translations of these metaphorical expressions are extracted from the target texts, with attention to both explicit and implicit shifts in wording. Third, each translation is analyzed through core tenets of relevance theory: cognitive context (the set of assumptions available to source and target readers) is mapped to assess contextual overlap; optimal relevance is evaluated by measuring the balance between cognitive effect (the meaning conveyed) and processing effort (the effort required for target readers to derive that meaning); loose talk (non-literal approximations) and the distinction between explicatures (explicitly stated meaning) and implicatures (inferred meaning) are used to classify translation strategies (e.g., literal translation, adaptation, omission) and their impact on relevance. Fourth, source and target reader cognitive processes are compared via contextual hints (e.g., narrative context, cultural allusions) and hypothetical inference—for each metaphor, the study reconstructs the inferential steps a source reader would take to derive meaning, then assesses whether the target translation preserves or disrupts this inferential path, ensuring that the analysis aligns with relevance theory’s focus on reader-centric communication.

Within the relevance-theoretic framework, metaphor translation strategies are evaluated by their ability to balance the source metaphor’s cognitive effects (e.g., emotional resonance, conceptual insight) and the target reader’s processing effort, with the optimal strategy aligning the translated metaphor with the target audience’s cognitive environment to achieve optimal relevance. Literal translation refers to retaining the source metaphor’s linguistic form while conveying its intended meaning, a strategy typically applied when the source metaphor’s conceptual structure overlaps with that of the target culture. For example, the English conventional metaphor “heart of gold,” which maps the abstract quality of kindness to the concrete image of a precious metal, is literally translated as “jīn xīn” in Chinese; this retains the original metaphorical structure, as Chinese readers share the cognitive association between “gold” and value, allowing them to access the intended cognitive effect (perception of the character’s goodness) with minimal processing effort. Similarly, the Chinese metaphor “bái xuě ái ái” (snow-white) is literally translated as “snow-white” in English, as both cultures associate snow with whiteness and purity, preserving the source’s descriptive and emotional effects without extra cognitive load.

Adaptation involves modifying the source metaphor’s linguistic or conceptual form to fit the target cognitive context, often used for culture-specific metaphors where the source’s image lacks shared relevance in the target culture. The Chinese metaphor “mǎ yǐ cháo” (ant colony), which conveys the idea of a tightly organized, cooperative group rooted in the cultural observation of ant behavior, is adapted to “community” in English; while the original insect image is replaced, the core cognitive effect (collective cohesion) is preserved, and English readers avoid the processing effort of decoding an unfamiliar cultural image. Another example is the translation of the English metaphor “break a leg” (a wish for good luck in performing arts) into Chinese as “hǎo yùn” (good luck) in some contexts, but more effectively adapted to “yǎn chū顺利” (smooth performance) when the performative context is emphasized—this modification aligns the metaphor with Chinese readers’ cognitive association between “smoothness” and successful performances, maintaining the intended encouraging effect while reducing processing effort.

Omission entails deleting the source metaphor entirely, a strategy employed when the source metaphor’s cognitive effects are negligible or when preserving it would impose excessive processing effort on the target reader without corresponding gains. For instance, a region-specific Chinese metaphor “lǎo yā zhuō xiǎo jī” (old crow catches chick), which refers to a local bully exploiting the weak in rural northern China, is omitted in English translations for global audiences; the source’s regional specificity means English readers would struggle to decode its metaphorical meaning, and omitting it avoids unnecessary cognitive load while retaining the core plot information (bullying) through literal description. Similarly, a Russian metaphor “кот в мешке” (cat in a bag), which conveys hidden risk, is sometimes omitted in simplified English translations for children, as the image of a cat in a bag lacks immediate relevance for young readers, and omitting it allows the text to focus on the core narrative without sacrificing key cognitive effects.

Evaluating these strategies reveals preliminary patterns: literal translation is effective for conventional metaphors with shared cross-cultural conceptual mappings, as it preserves both form and cognitive effects with minimal effort. Adaptation is optimal for culture-specific metaphors, as it replaces unfamiliar images with target-relevant ones to maintain cognitive effects while reducing processing effort. Omission is a last resort for region-specific or contextually trivial metaphors, where preserving the metaphor would disrupt optimal relevance by increasing effort without enhancing effects. Together, these strategies demonstrate that metaphor translation decisions are contingent on the overlap between the source and target cognitive environments, with relevance theory providing a systematic lens to assess whether a strategy achieves the delicate balance between preserving the source’s communicative intent and accommodating the target reader’s cognitive capacities.

This study concludes with a synthesis of the relevance-theoretic framework’s application to metaphor translation in literary texts, underscoring its transformative potential for bridging the cognitive and pragmatic gaps between source and target contexts. At its core, relevance theory posits that communication—including translation—operates on the principle of optimal relevance: the translator’s task is to balance the cognitive effort required of the target reader with the contextual effects (e.g., emotional resonance, thematic coherence) derived from the translated metaphor. This principle diverges from traditional equivalence-focused approaches, which often prioritize formal or semantic matching at the expense of the metaphor’s intended communicative function. By centering optimal relevance, the study redefines metaphor translation as a dynamic, reader-oriented practice rather than a static transfer of linguistic forms.

The operational pathway outlined in this research begins with the translator’s cognitive processing of the source metaphor: identifying its explicit lexical meaning, inferring its implicit contextual assumptions (rooted in the source culture’s historical, social, or literary conventions), and mapping these onto the target culture’s cognitive environment. For instance, when translating a Chinese metaphor linking “bamboo” to resilience (tied to Confucian virtues), the translator must assess whether the target reader (e.g., an English speaker) associates bamboo with similar connotations; if not, they might opt for a culturally adapted metaphor (e.g., “oak”) that triggers equivalent contextual effects with minimal cognitive effort. This step is followed by selecting a translation strategy—adaptation, explication, or retention—guided by the goal of preserving the metaphor’s cognitive salience and thematic role. Retention is favored only when the target culture shares the metaphor’s contextual assumptions; explication (e.g., adding a brief cultural note) is used when the metaphor’s relevance depends on unshared background knowledge; adaptation is employed to align the metaphor with the target reader’s existing cognitive schemas.

The practical importance of this approach lies in its ability to enhance the literary translation’s fidelity to the source text’s aesthetic and communicative intent. By prioritizing optimal relevance, translators avoid two common pitfalls: over-explication, which diminishes the metaphor’s poetic ambiguity, and rigid retention, which leaves the target reader confused or disengaged. This framework also addresses the longstanding tension between cultural specificity and universal accessibility in literary translation, offering a systematic method to retain a metaphor’s cultural uniqueness while ensuring it resonates with cross-cultural audiences.

In broader terms, this study contributes to translation studies by integrating cognitive pragmatics into literary metaphor research, providing a empirically grounded alternative to prescriptive translation rules. Future research could extend this framework to other literary devices (e.g., irony, symbolism) or test its efficacy across diverse language pairs, further refining the operational guidelines for reader-centered literary translation. Ultimately, the relevance-theoretic approach empowers translators to act as cognitive mediators, fostering intercultural understanding by making literary metaphors—not just their meanings—accessible to global readers.