<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The paper explores the existence of cognitive linguistics principles in translation of emotion-related metaphorical expressions. Cognitive linguists (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_exell-2017-0008_ref_008_w2aab3b7ab1b6b1ab1ab8Aa">Lakoff &amp; Johnson, 1980</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_exell-2017-0008_ref_009_w2aab3b7ab1b6b1ab1ab9Aa">Lakoff, 1987</xref>) define metaphor as a mechanism used for understanding one conceptual domain, target domain, in terms of another conceptual domain, source domain, through sets of correspondences between these two domains. They also claim that metaphor is omnipresent in ordinary discourse. Cognitive linguists, however, also realized that certain metaphors can be recognized and identified in different languages and cultures whereas some are language- and culture-specific. This paper focuses on similarities and variations in metaphors which have recently become popular within the discipline of Translation Studies. Transferring and translating metaphors from one language to another can represent a challenge for translators due to a multi-faceted process of translation including both linguistic and non-linguistic elements. A number of methods and procedures have been developed to overcome potential difficulties in translating metaphorical expressions, with the most frequent ones being substitution, paraphrase, or deletion. The analysis shows the transformation of metaphorical expressions from one language into another and the procedures involving underlying conceptual metaphors, native speaker competence, and the influence of the source language.</abstract>

Translating emotion-related metaphors: A cognitive approach

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper aims to explore whether some rhetorical questions contain certain linguistic elements or forms which would differentiate them from answer-eliciting and action-eliciting questions, and thereby hint at their rhetorical nature even outside the context. Namely, despite the fact that the same questions can be rhetorical in one context, and answer-eliciting in another, some of them are more likely to be associated with rhetorical or non-rhetorical use. The analysis is based on extensive data (over 1200 examples of rhetorical questions taken from 30 plays by two British and two American writers), and the results are expected to give an insight into whether we can talk about rhetorical questions or just a rhetorical use of questions.</abstract>

Rhetorical questions or rhetorical uses of questions?

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Satire has not been given the humorologists’ attention to an extent that would do justice to the amount of humor satire actually holds. Therefore, the intention of this paper is to shed light on satire as humorous discourse, with an emphasis on counterfactuals. Interestingly enough, counterfactuals oppose the actual state of affairs; rhetorically however, they show potential to reveal the truth. Political satire is an area of conflict between truth and falsehood which is exactly why this type of satire is discussed in this paper. Tools from Cognitive Linguistics – framing and blending – are utilized to show to what extent counterfactuals are actually false and how they essentially contribute to satire. Examples of political satire are selected from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show.</abstract>

Using counterfactuals to display facts – the case of satirical humor

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 11 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Volume 11 (2023): Issue 1 (October 2023)

Volume 10 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 10 (2022): Issue 1 (October 2022)

Volume 9 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 9 (2021): Issue 1 (October 2021)

Volume 8 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 8 (2020): Issue 1 (December 2020)

Volume 7 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 7 (2019): Issue 1 (October 2019)

Volume 6 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 6 (2018): Issue 1 (October 2018)

Volume 5 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)

Volume 5 (2017): Issue 1 (October 2017)

Volume 4 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)

Volume 4 (2016): Issue 1 (October 2016)

Volume 3 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)

Volume 3 (2015): Issue 1 (October 2015)

Volume 2 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)

Volume 2 (2014): Issue 1 (October 2014)

ExELL

 ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics) is an international peer-reviewed electronic journal, published as a joint project of the School of English Studies of the University Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek, Croatia and English Language and Literature Department of Tuzla University from Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The aim of the journal is to promote and facilitate academic exchange in English theoretical and applied linguistics. Our mission is to provide a linguistics journal based on data drawn from the English language that would reflect a wide range of interests and opinions. We want to create opportunities for scholarly communication by encouraging the dissemination of theoretical and research-informed insights using the Internet as a medium in order to make linguistics accessible to the widest possible audience.  The journal offers a wide range of theoretical, methodological, and educational approaches to English. We encourage submission of various topics about the English language and　 linguistics, such as: theoretical and descriptive approaches to English, synchronic and diachronic variability of English, cognitive approaches to English, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, contrastive linguistics, applied linguistics, ELT/TEFL/ESP, second language acquisition, translation studies, the structure of contemporary varieties of English (phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) and other topics related to exploration of English language and linguistics.  The journal is interested in papers which focus on defining new problems for the study of the English language and linguistics, providing new insights into the known problems and developing new methodologies to approach old and new problems.  The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

ExELL

Volume 4 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)

Translating emotion-related metaphors: A cognitive approach

Rhetorical questions or rhetorical uses of questions?

Using counterfactuals to display facts – the case of satirical humor

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal