摘要
概念隐喻翻译是中国对外话语传播的重要环节，现有研究多聚焦于翻译策略的描述与规范，对各类策略如何在目标语受众中实现说服与认同效果的系统阐释尚显不足。论文以国家对外话语中的隐喻翻译为研究对象，借助Pragglejaz Group提出的MIP隐喻识别方法，通过与大语言模型进行多轮交互并人工校对，共提取概念隐喻735例，按照概念隐喻类别（旅程、战争、人体、物体等12类）及翻译策略（保留意象、替换意象、删除意象）进行分类。在此基础上，以概念隐喻理论为认知框架，以伯克修辞认同思想为分析视角，从共同认知基础的构建、受众话语规范的顺应以及话语主体立场的坚守三个维度探讨概念隐喻翻译实现跨文化认同的路径。研究表明，概念隐喻翻译并非单纯的语言转换，而是一种以认同为目标的跨文化修辞实践，译者需在认知等效、表达顺应与立场坚守之间寻求动态平衡。
关键词： 概念隐喻；修辞认同；翻译策略；对外话语
Abstract
Conceptual metaphor translation plays a crucial role in the dissemination of China’s international communication discourse. However, existing research has largely focused on the description and prescription of translation strategies, with insufficient systematic explanation of how various strategies achieve persuasion and identification in the target context. To address this gap, this study focuses on metaphor translation in China’s international communication discourse. Drawing on the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) proposed by the Pragglejaz Group and based on interactions with large language models, a total of 735 metaphors were extracted and classified according to conceptual metaphor categories (12 types, including journey, war, human, object, etc.) and translation strategies (image retention, image substitution, and image deletion). Based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Burke’s rhetorical identification, the paper explores three pathways through which conceptual metaphor translation achieves cross-cultural identification: construction of a shared cognitive foundation, adaptation of target language expressions, and consistency of principled stance. The findings suggest that conceptual metaphor translation is not merely a linguistic transformation, but a cross-cultural rhetorical practice oriented toward audience’s identification, requiring translators to seek a dynamic balance among cognitive equivalence, expression adaptation, and positional integrity.
Key words： Conceptual metaphor; Rhetorical identification; Translation strategies; China’s international communi-cation discourse
参考文献 References
[1] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
[2] 陈小慰. 作为修辞话语的隐喻:汉英差异与翻译[J]. 福州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2014, 28(2):85-89.
[3] 梁娜, 陈大亮. 认知语言学视角下的十九大报告政治隐喻翻译研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020, 42(3): 48-57.
[4] 杨明星, 赵玉倩. “政治等效＋”框架下中国特色外交隐喻翻译策略研究[J]. 中国翻译, 2020, 41(1):151-159+190.
[5] 殷东豪, 李德俊. 具身认知视域下中国政治话语的隐喻英译策略研究[J]. 中国外语, 2024, 21(3):98-105.
[6] Burke, K. A Rhetoric of Motives[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
[7] Pragglejaz Group. MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2007, 22(1), 1-39.
[8] Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation[M]. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
[9] 陈小慰. 翻译与修辞新论[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2013.
[10] 陈小慰. 外宣翻译中“认同”的建立[J]. 中国翻译, 2007, 28(1): 60-65+96.
[11] 项成东, 韩思华. 文化概念化视角下中央文献中的文化隐喻翻译策略研究[J]. 天津外国语大学学报, 2025, 32(5):56-67+112.
[12] Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.)[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
[13] 赵彦春. 关联理论对翻译的解释力[J]. 现代外语, 1999, (3):276-295.
[14] Kovecses, Z. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[15] 丁志斌. 英汉语序的类型学特征[J]. 西安外国语大学学报, 2014, 22(1):20-23.
[16] Fox. B. A., & Thompson, S. A. A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation[J]. Language, 1990, 66(2), 297-316.
[17] 卢卫中. 政治话语排比修辞翻译探析[J]. 外语电化教学, 2022, (3):33-38+107.
[18] 曹德军. 国际政治话语中的叙事隐喻: 情感框定与认知建构[J]. 国际关系研究, 2024, (2):69-91+157.