Evaluation of Two English Translations of Quranic Metaphors Based on Mandelblit’s Cognitive Translation Hypothesis

Introduction

Lakoff and Johnson’s (2003) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) showed how metaphors are universally understood in the human mind and are related to the human processing system. They defined metaphors as understanding and experiencing one thing in terms of another. To them, the metaphor is cognitively ever-present in human life, thought, and action, not just in language, and the human conceptual system is metaphorical. In their CTM, conceptual metaphors are categorized into three groups. Orientational metaphors are related to dimensions such as up-down, and their meanings are derived from human physical and cultural experiences. For instance, up is found in good atmospheres, and down is usually in bad ones.

According to them, our experiences with physical objects (particularly our bodies) are the basis of numerous ontological metaphors that help us understand one abstract concept in terms of another concrete one to refer to something. For example, personification allows us to comprehend countless experiences with nonhuman entities in terms of human characteristics, activities, etc. Their third category is structural metaphors which are products of interrelationships between humans and nature. For example, “Rational argument is war,” helps us to use a structured and delineated concept to structure another. This cognitive understanding of metaphors necessitated new translation procedures for translating conceptual metaphors, especially when we see that metaphor translation is part of a general problem called untranslatability (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003).

Thus, in line with Lakoff and Johnson’s (2003) CMT for metaphor translation, one can incorporate Mandelblit’s (1995) Cognitive Translation Hypothesis (CTH), but this time for a different purpose; translation of Quranic metaphors. She hypothesizes that difficulty in translating metaphors can result from no correlation between metaphorical mappings used in source language (SL) and target language (TL). If two languages use different metaphorical mappings to express the same idea, and mappings are more conceptual than linguistic, then the translation would involve not only a transfer process from one language to another but also from one way of conceptualizing the world into another. Likewise, metaphors take more time and are harder to translate if they use a cognitive domain different from equivalent TL expressions because of translators’ search for another cognitive domain. If they can find a similar TL cognitive domain, their task will be fulfilled successfully and easily. If not, he has to look for the cognitive domain that fits in TL.  When SL and TL use different conventional correspondences to express the same domain of experience, the process of finding target equivalents needs a transfer from one way of conceptualizing the world into another via similes, paraphrases, footnotes, explanations, or omissions (Mandelblit, 1995).

According to her, CTH considers these plans for metaphor translation: (a) similar mapping conditions (SMC) with the same or similar wording in translation, (b) SMC but with different wording in translation, and (c) different mapping conditions (DMC). In an SMC metaphor, SL semantic associations and cultural experiences are shared by TL speakers. Thus, SMC metaphors with the same or similar wording in translation conceptualize experience similarly in both cultures and have similar lexicalization in both SL and TL. For example, "They beat her like an animal", referring to ruthlessness, is rendered into Persian as آن‏ها مثل یک حیوان کتکش می‏زنند"". Although SMC metaphors with different wording in translation have a similar mapping in both SL and TL cultures, they do not have metaphorical equivalents in TL with either the same or similar wording but are realized metaphorically through different TL lexicalization. For example, top stars meaning "famous and successful actors or actresses", is rendered in Persian as "هنرمندتر از اول" and its word-for-word Persian translation is, "first-class artists". Culture-bound DMC metaphors do not have any similar conceptualization in TL and are rendered either literally or through some strategies such as similes, paraphrases, footnotes, explanations, or omissions because translators must replace the SL image with a TL one that does not conflict with the target culture. For example, A big shot meaning "an important or powerful person" is rendered in Persian as "گردن کلفت", and its word-for-word Persian translation is "a thick-neck man" (Taheri-Ardali et al., 2013).

On the other hand, Quranic translators should try to transfer their metaphors to TL using not only Quranic researchers’ sufficient knowledge and commentators’ opinions but also appropriate metaphor translation methods. Accordingly, there are numerous studies on the translation of Quranic metaphors into different languages. Among them, some studies did not adopt a specific theoretical model; for example, Alshehab’s (2015) investigation of metaphors in English Quran translations and literal and non-literal techniques used in them, Gholami and Haji-Khani (2017) review of strengths and weaknesses of translating metaphor methods in Persian Quranic translations, and Nurbayan’s (2019) research about literal and non-literal Indonesian translations of Quranic metaphors.

Most studies on Quranic metaphors adopted Newmark’s (2001) metaphor translation strategies; for example, Ahmadi and Goli (2019), Kaffashzadeh et al. (2021), Diabi (2018), and Elimam (2016). Few researchers also based their studies on other theoretical methods of metaphor translation; for example, Maulla (2011), who used Dickins’ (2005, as cited in Maulla, 2011) models, and Al-Maryani (2011), who utilized Newmark (2001) and Dickins’ (2005, as cited in Al-Maryani, 2011) metaphor translation models. The only study on Quranic metaphor translation based on Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH was Al-Sowaidi et al. (2021). They also used Maalej’s (2008, as cited in Al-Sowaidi et al., 2021) translating metaphor strategies, and Kovecses’ (2005, as cited in Al-Sowaidi et al., 2021) model and concluded that most conceptual metaphors were literal and frequently inaccurately translated, and some Quranic metaphors concepts were lost in translation because of English-Arabic different conceptualizations.

       Considering the above literature review, this research explored the translation of Quranic metaphors along with their English translations, referring to SMC and DMC plans of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH. In other words, there is no research investigating the translation of Quranic metaphors merely based on Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH, particularly Saffardarzadeh’s (2001) interpretive translation and Arberry’s (1955) literal one. Also, the long interval between these two translations makes their translations of Quranic metaphors interesting to research. Hence, the following research questions were formulated:

1. In what plan of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH (SMC or DMC), can Quranic metaphors be placed?
2. Considering Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH, how did Arberry (1995) and Saffarzadeh (2001) translate Quranic metaphors into English?

Research Method

Corpus

The corpus of this content-analysis study is 43 Quranic verses containing a metaphor and their English translations by Saffarzadeh (2001) and Arbery. The researchers tried to choose Quranic metaphors of different Surahs randomly. Then, primarily Sabbagh’s book (2013) titled "Metaphors in the Qur’an" and secondarily some scholarly articles (Abdi-Chari & Hedayati-Azizi, 2020; Ebrahimi et al., 2022; Elimam, 2016; Hejazi et al., 2018; Kaffashzadeh et al., 2021; Kurd-Za‘faranlu-Kambuzia & Hajian, 2010, Zeighami, et al., 2020) were consulted to look at the meaning of the concept of metaphor from the perspective of Islamic studies and to ensure all selected items are metaphors. In other words, those phrases that met the criteria specified for the Quranic metaphors in the above works were assumed to be a corpus of this study, and their meanings were made clear based on these works besides Tayyib’s (1378 SAH) Quranic commentary. This process led to 43 Quranic metaphors and their matching English translations.

Data Collection and Analysis

Based on elements of metaphor by Newmark (2001) (object, sense, and image) as well as scholarly articles on Quranic metaphors and their translation, 43 Quranic metaphors were randomly selected from all Quranic Surahs. Then, they and their TL equivalents were analyzed to be categorized based on plans of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH. This study was also to check the level of correspondence between SL and TL data based on these plans. The unit of analysis in this study was Quranic metaphors, irrespective of their structural forms (single words, phrases, clauses, and sentences).

Results and Findings

To answer the first research question, i.e., to place 43 Quranic metaphors in SMC and DMC plans Mandelblit's (1995) CTH, they were analyzed drawing on their English translations, Shia Quranic commentaries, research articles on the translation of Quranic metaphors, and English dictionaries. To answer the second research question, English translations of Quranic metaphors were analyzed qualitatively based on answers to the first research question to find out whether SMC metaphors were translated with the same, similar, or different wording or literally and how DMC metaphors were rendered into English. Each Quranic metaphor is presented below with its two English translations in italics, followed by its analysis to answer both research questions.

In this verse, Prophet Muhammad’s name was raised by Allah, Who has made people speak highly of him. رفع here means spiritual elevation, greatness, and superiority (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). In line with orientational metaphors, images of geometric space create a new concept and understanding in mind. Thus, SMC or a shared sense of metaphor exists in both SL and TL cultures for this metaphor, and both translators attempted to render   ذکرmetaphorically by using "fame" along with its collocations "raise" and "exalt", and it can be considered similar lexicalization of the metaphor.

This verse refers to believers’ situation in the Ahzab battle in early Islam when disbelievers surrounded them (Tayyib, 1378 SAH), and there is an English expression, saying, My heart leapt into my throat [for fear], so both SL and TL have a common conceptual domain in the last phrase of the above verse وَ بَلَغَتِ الْقُلُوبُ الْحَناجِر, but both translators, perhaps to observe the Quranic formal style, changed the surface structure of this expression, like Saffarzadeh’s (2001) "out of terror", as clarification, so SMC and similar wording are realized here. Likewise, TL shares a similar image with SL for the phrase وَ إِذْ زاغَتِ الْأَبْصار, e.g., horror-fixed eyes and horror-staring eyes. Arberry (1995) rendered it literally where swerve means "turn aside from a straight course", but Saffarzadeh (2001) translated it almost metaphorically and in similar wording.

This verse metaphorically refers to the Quba Mosque, founded by Prophet Muhammad, and the Zirar Mosque, founded by hypocrites‏ (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Interestingly, the English expression being at the brink of something means "a point that is very close to the occurrence of something very bad". Hence, similar lexicalization was realized here, besides SMC. Likewise, crumble down means "a building that falls into ruin". Here again, both SMC and similar wording occur in rendering this metaphor to English.

In line with orientational metaphors, the right hand signifies power in Islamic culture because it is stronger than the left hand, and most people are right-handed (Tabatabai, 1421 AH). Likewise, God’s right hand is a metaphor for His omnipotence in the Old Testament ("Biblegateway", 2023). Hence, this Arabic metaphor enjoys an SMC in SL and TL and was rendered literally by Arberry (1995), while Saffarzadeh (2001) tried to consider its metaphorical aspect.

The English idiom rise from the dead/grave means "to become alive again after having died," so SMC and similar wording exist for this metaphor in both Arab and English cultures and languages. This verse refers to disbelievers’ denial of resurrection when they are resurrected from their graves on Judgment Day (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Also, مَرْقَدِ means "the sleeping place" in Arabic. Arberry (1995) used sleep metaphorically for death; a metaphor used in the Old Testament ("Biblegateway", 2023). Saffarzadeh (2001) also used similar wording in her translation and explicated the metaphor.

In this Quranic verse, Allah portrays a hard-hearted man who looks like a stone in the river, with his heart closed to His guidance (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). As the same expression, the hardened heart is used in the English language and culture, this metaphor can be understood by English readers. In other words, both translators transferred the SMC metaphor in similar wording to convey the metaphorical image and full meaning of the verse.

According to the Quranic verse, the Quran is above and was revealed from above. This orientational metaphor has been formed in SL due to Allah’s up-down sending of the Quran and its superiority. Such an image is missing in TL culture (DMC) because English speakers are unfamiliar with it, its superiority, and top-down revelation, and the metaphor was rendered literally by translators.

According to this verse, the more a person’s religious knowledge and faith increase, the higher he rises spiritually (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). In line with orientational metaphors, the mapping of یرفع is similar in both Arabic and English cultures due to the universality of high position, (SMC). Both translators rendered it literally because they disregarded the spiritual aspect of this elevation in their translations.

In this verse, ختم means "a seal placed at the end of a book and on a letter", and غشاوه means "curtains that cover something".  In this verse, which was revealed about the people rejecting the Islamic faith in early Islam, the metaphor is anything that prevents sources of perception (heart, eyes, and ears) from understanding Islam (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). English culture has the image of covering sources of perception and judgment, but not exclusively about belief in God and spiritual perception. Likewise, the English expression, set/put the seal on something means "to make (something) final or definite", so SL and TL cultures do not have a shared sense of metaphor; it is DMC, and these Quranic metaphors were rendered almost literally by translators.                   

In this verse, the metaphorical phrase اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلالَةَ ِبالْهُدى has a similar sense and mapping of losing something at the price of something valuable, and the expression at the price emphasizes existence of such a metaphor in English (SMC). The people mentioned in the verse have exchanged guidance for error; i.e., they have missed out guidance in return for obtaining error (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Accordingly, both translations, albeit seemingly literal, are metaphorical and come in a lexicalization similar to the TLs.

In this metaphor, faith in Islam conceptually means the straight path or the shortest possible path to guidance (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Its immediacy is the shared image in both SL and TL cultures and can even be considered a structural metaphor but not necessarily about the shortest path to God in TL culture; it is DMC and was rendered literally in English.

This verse is related to the creation of mankind by Allah (Tayyib, 1378 SAH), and a similar mapping (SMC) exists in Christian English culture because "God formed man of the ground dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul", ("Biblegateway", 2023). Although Saffarzadeh (2001) added "from My presence" to the metaphor, its rendering was carried out literally by translators.

As the word key is figuratively used in English culture, meaning "means of achieving something", the metaphor in this verse is shared in both source and target cultures (SMC), and both rendered it metaphorically in similar wording.

Lakoff and Johnson (2003) speak of structural metaphors that enable humans to map one concept onto another via a structure, e.g., temporality. As the universal physical concept of time, one can refer to the observer’s position as a fixed and future phenomenon as moving toward him, going past him, and distancing from him; we understand time through the movement of these phenomena. In this verse, Allah has considered the position of unbelievers the same as the above-mentioned observer’s and fixed Judgment Day as moving toward them in time to prove the inevitability of Judgment Day (Qa’emi-nia, 1399 SAH). Hence, this universal concept has an SMC in both Arabic and English cultures, and both rendered this metaphor via similar lexicalization.

Here, Allah is symbolized as King and His Dominion as Kingdom; the whole universe and all worlds belong to His Kingdom. Like a king, He can exalt or abase whoever He wants (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Thus, this metaphor enjoys an SMC in both Arabic and English cultures and was translated literally by translators. This verse also includes the metaphoric use of the hand for Allah’s control and possession. This metaphor can also be grouped in SMC and similar-lexicalization ones because the English expression be in someone’s hands means "to be in someone's possession or under their control", so it is translated in similar wording to SL by both.

In this verse, "inheritance" is metaphorical and indicates the righteous’ right to Paradise due to their good deeds, not some property inherited from a deceased (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). In Christianity, there is a similar image; as inherit also means "possess or receive something as a right or divine portion, e.g., and everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life, (Mathew, 19:29, Revised Standard Version, as cited in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2023)". Hence, it has an SMC and translators rendered this metaphor through a similar lexicalization to SL’s. Saffarzadeh (2001) also used Quranic commentaries and elaborated on this metaphor in the footnote as personification; a type of ontological metaphor. According to her, a person’s good deeds provide him (heritors of good deeds) with Paradise, while he is still living.

This verse symbolizes the creation of skies and can even lead to inferring gravity’s force from it (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). It can also be considered an orientational metaphor. Besides, raising something means "to build something; e.g., raise a boundary wall and prevent trespassing", (Oxford Learner's Dictionary, 2023). Thus, it has SMC in both Arabic and English culture and was rendered lexically similar in both SL and TL by translators.

This verse refers to Allah’s saving Prophet Noah and his followers from the Flood in Noah’s Ark (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). As the image of rage of the sea, meaning its overflow exists in English culture, the metaphor enjoys SMC in both source and target cultures and was translated in wording similar to SL’s by both. However, besides the explication of "Flood", Saffarzadeh paraphrased this metaphor in brackets to refer to Noah’s Flood and Ark.

This Quranic verse refers to Judgment Day when oppressors are shocked at that day’s terror, with staring eyes (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). As this conceptualization can also be found in English culture, e.g., horror-fixed or horror-staring eyes, an SMC is realized here, and both rendered this metaphor with similar wording.

This verse concerns Satan's seducing and tempting mankind. The phrase بین ایدیهم refers to the worldly wealth in front of a man after his death, من خلفهم refers to his children behind him after his death, ایمانهم عَنْ  refers to Satan's tempting him in religious matters and excesses in them, and شمائلهم عَنْ refers to his sins, (Qurasyhi-Bana’i, 1412 AH). The shared pattern of left and right in both SL and TL cultures can be found in this verse (SMC), and it can even be considered an orientational metaphor. However, no translator paid attention to the profound connotations of these words and they translated them literally.

In this verse, one must not associate any other partner with Allah; otherwise, his standing position (of monotheism) will be taken away from him, and he will be humiliated and seated at the bottom of Hell because of his polytheism (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). This orientational metaphor is formed based on human universal physical experiences; high and low position or up and down. Hence, this Quranic metaphor has SMC or a similar sense of metaphor in both English and Arabic culture, but its rendering by both translations was carried out almost literally. Arberry (1995) emphasized the negative orientational position of sitting through "condemned and forsaken". However, Saffarzadeh (2001) expressed the metaphor’s connotation through "remorseful and despised".

Congruent with orientational metaphors, words left and right have the same connotations in both Arabic and English cultures and languages. For example, Sinister comes from a Latin word meaning "on the left side", and the earliest uses of this word in old English were related to evil, unluckiness, or malevolence. Moreover, English idioms use left to describe an undesirable or unusual situation, e.g., two left feet, referring to "a clumsy dancer". However, right means "good, correct"; the original connotation when referring to the right hand. Among the many idioms suggesting positive connotation is the right-hand man, meaning "someone who helps and supports you the most". Also, from the Latin dextr-, meaning "on the right", English gets the adjective dexterous, meaning "clever, skillful", (The Ups and Downs of Left and Right, 2023). In addition, we read in the Old Testament that the Torah was given with the right hand of God – representing His Mercifulness – while His left hand signified His Attribute of Judgment (Friedman, 2023). Therefore, a shared metaphorical image can be found for the word left referring to Hell-dwellers in the Quran and malevolent ones in English culture. Both rendered this metaphorical verse literally because there is no such a metaphor in English.

In this verse, the word right is the equivalent of یمین, which has two meanings: "blessed heaven-dweller" and "the right side". On the other hand, شمال means "the left side" and "doomed to Hell". The reason why contrasting words of شمال   and یمین   are used in the Quran is that Heaven-dwellers’ report of deeds will be given to their right hand and Hell-dewller’s will be given to their left hand on Judgment Day (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Considering orientational metaphors, such an image is almost available in TL culture (SMC), and translators’ renditions are literal because no such a metaphor exists in English.

The metaphor in verse no. 49 of surah Saffat means that believers’ companions in Heaven are like protected eggs and have two desirable female qualities; having a white complexion and being hidden from other men. That is, believers are promised to have beautiful and modest companions in Heaven as a reward for their good deeds. With no similar image in TL (DMC), this metaphor was translated in different wording by translators. Saffarzadeh (2001) attributed this metaphor to female companions’ eyes covered with eyelashes, translating it through paraphrase and simile. On the other hand, in Arberry’s (1995) translation, they correctly refer to female companions, and he used the English metaphor "hidden pearls" to render a heavenly man’s fair companion who is hidden from other men.

In this Quranic verse, the metaphor includes personification; a sub-category of ontological metaphors, by likening human behavior of visiting someone at night to a star (i.e., Saturn) because the Arabic word طارق  means "one that knocks at the door". As a star appears at night, shines in the darkest sky, and disappears in days, it resembles a human who visits at night and has a short stay (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Having DMC, the metaphor was translated literally by Arberry (1995) and was transliterated by Saffarzadeh (2001).

Here The moon is an old, and curved date stalk is a novel Quranic metaphor, which presents an image of the moon as it fades in its interlunar place. As the moon increases and decreases through its phases, the new moon resembles an old curved date stalk (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Hence, by giving a sickle-like appearance to the moon, this natural phenomenon is presented as a concrete entity that is close to Arabs’ lives. However, a dry date stalk (date palms) and moon phases (lunar calendar) cannot be found in English people’s cultural experiences, and such an image is missing in TL (DMC), so the metaphor was rendered literally by translators.

In this verse, which provides proof for the inevitability of humans’ revival after death on Judgment Day (Tayyib, 1378 SAH), vegetation is a metaphor used for resurrection. In other words, the unfolding of a soul and dead people’s reviving on Judgment Day are compared to a dry, unpromising land that seems dead but is revived after rain. However, there is no such an image in TL culture (DMC), and both gave literal translations.

Here, Allah invited people to believe in Him and His prophet and to be saved from Hellfire in return (Tayyib, 1378 SAH).  The concept of commercial activity here indicates that "Faith is a profitable trade", in which you give so little (giving up worldly possessions) and are promised to get so much (eternal salvation in the hereafter). TL culture lacks such a conceptual domain (DMC), so translators’ renditions are literal.

In this verse, two natural phenomena (day and night) and their consecutive occurrences were introduced as signs of Allah (Tayyib, 1378 SAH), so the separation of day and night has come as a metaphor. The day, the night’s dress or cover is removed, and darkness appears everywhere. Such a mapping cannot be found in English culture (DMC), and both gave a literal translation. However, Saffarzadeh’s (2001) choice of "forth from" and "The light-giving Day" made her rendering more readable.

"The blind" and "the seeing" in this verse are metaphors indicating disbelievers and believers in Islam (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Such an image is specific to Islamic culture and is missing in the English culture, so translators rendered the DMC metaphor literally the same.

The above verse considers hypocrites deaf since they chose not to hear what Prophet Muhammad said, dumb in the sense that they could not even talk about Islam; and blind since they chose not to see the right path (Islam) (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). This metaphor shows that hypocrisy is a deliberate loss, unlike English culture. Such a cultural domain is missing in TL (DMC), and both rendered the three metaphors literally.

The above verse likens merciful humbleness to old parents to the bird’s lowered wings. When the bird wants to bring its little ones closer to itself to nurture them, it lowers its wing, so this concept has become a metaphor for good nurturing. Therefore, the verse guides man to care for his old parents just as they did when he was young (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Also, when a bird wishes to fly and ascend, it will spread its wings, and when wanting to land, it will lower them. Thus, lowering wings became a metaphor for humility. Likewise, when a bird is tired or weak, it spreads and lowers its wings, and places itself on the ground. Fourth, when a bird sees a predator, it draws close to the ground, lowering its wings in terror. These explanations indicate meanings of care, humility, and awe toward one’s old parents. Although the picture of the bird’s wing and its lowering seems universal, such an image is missing in English culture. The only similarity between Arabic and English semantic domains is that in the past Western people respectfully took off their hats and almost bowed when greeting someone. Thus, DMC and literal translation by translators can be seen here.

This verse was chosen as a metaphorical one because the word mathal in the Quran shows both parables and metaphors (Leaman, 2006). In this verse, Allah forbade humans from insincere charity that would lead to harm or reproach, and false charity is likened to barren land (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The word صفوان means "a smooth rock on top of which nothing remains", and صلدا means "the hard, infertile land". The conceptual domain in SL cannot be found in TL (DMC), so, translators rendered it literally. Saffarzadeh (2001) explained to clarify the metaphor not only after this phrase but also at the end of the verse; "[in this world and sow no seed for their Hereafter]".

This metaphorical verse refers to a reward for charity in Allah’s way in a rhetorical question that compares a man lending money to a fellowman and the one lending money to Allah when he helps the needy (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The difference between the two loans is that the former loaner may not receive his money back, whereas the latter will receive it multiplied by Him. This metaphor concertizes the abstract concept of reward in the hereafter. Such an image is missing in TL (DMC), and both translated it literally.

Here, the whiteness of day and its light are likened to the white thread, and the blackness of night is likened to the black one to show the duration of fasting in Ramadan month (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). TL culture lacks such a mapping (DMC), and metaphors were translated literally by both. Saffarzadeh tried to explicate its metaphorical connotation.

This verse refers to oppressors and disbelievers’ wretchedness on Judgment Day (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). While an empty heart symbolizes a lack of feeling or compassion for others in English culture, an empty heart in the verse signifies oppressors and disbelievers’ inability to think rationally due to the extreme horror of Judgment Day (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). Thus, DCM exists here, and translators rendered it literally. Interestingly, Saffarzadeh (2001) tried to clarify the metaphor but did it wrongly as "empty [Of any hope]".

This verse was revealed about believers as being given life and disbelievers as being dead, (Tayyib, 1378 SAH), and its metaphor lacks a similar mapping in English culture (DMC) and was translated literally by both. This does not convey the metaphor’s exact meaning. Although Saffarzadeh gave two explanations; "[because of disbelief]" and "a light of faith". An English speaker may understand this metaphor as if it is real life and death given by Allah.

In this verse, Allah talked about hypocrites’ spiritually ill hearts (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The words disease and sickness here are a metaphor and stand for their doubtful, hypocritical, and dark hearts. An English-speaker, with no background knowledge, may not understand this metaphor, as it is translated literally by translators because such a disease/sickness of heart image is missing in English culture (DMC). However, Saffarzadeh added "[of doubt and hypocrisy]" to help the reader understand this metaphor.

This verse talks about believers in Islam and the Prophet Muhammad; faith has been engraved on their hearts by Allah (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). However, in English culture hearts cannot be written on, so the above verse contains a DMC metaphor, translated literally by both. However, the purpose of the metaphor was explicated by Saffarzadeh (2001), but she used "in" as the preposition for heart which as an English idiom, in one's heart means "at the deepest level where one's honest feelings are". Hence, Arberry’s (1995) literal translation, using the preposition on is more acceptable and more loyal to the Quranic rhetoric.

This verse refers to Prophet Zechariah who, childless, prayed to Allah to grant him and his old wife a child and used this metaphor to talk about his old age (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The image of a flamed head due to old age is missing in English culture (DMC), so translators rendered it literally. However, they tried to indicate its metaphorical dimension through the word "hoariness" and "hoary" meaning "grey or white hair with age".

This verse refers to the time Allah ordered His prophet to start the public propagation of Islam (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The word صْدَعْ means "splitting" in Arabic but is used metaphorically here to mean a public call to Islam by Prophet Muhammad. Hence, this metaphor is DMC and was translated literally.

This verse narrates the ‘Aad people’s story, to whom Allah sent Prophet Hud, but they continued to worship idols and disbelieve in Him, so He sent a devastating wind to them by which they perished (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). The verse’s metaphoric aspect is that winds can be either fertile and help pollinate plants and bring clouds and rain, or infertile and devastating in Arab culture (Tayyib, 1378 SAH). However, this image is missing in English culture (DMC), and both tried to convey its concept approximately literally. 

In this verse,ذکر  is used metaphorically to refer to the Quran. No such an image, mapping, or sense exists in English culture (DMC), and translators rendered it literally, although Saffarzadeh (2001) tried to elaborate the metaphor through her addition, "[the Holy Quran]".

Discussion

The first research question was in what plan of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH, (SMC or DMC), Quranic metaphors can be placed. From 43 Quranic metaphors, 21 were found by the researchers to be SMC and 22 to be DMC. As can be seen from Table 1 below, most Quranic metaphors are DMC. This shows that there is a mismatch between cognitive mappings in Arabic and English due to their different models of conceptualizing experiences. As for why the researcher’s 21 metaphors were considered to be SMC and mapped into a semantic domain different from TL’s, we can refer to Leaman’s (2006) assertion that metaphors are shared by all Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic). The conceptual metaphor is not limited to meanings of individual words but can activate fixed mappings that re-conceptualize one experience in terms of another. Of course, according to Al-Zoubi et al. (2006), the difference between SMC and DMC metaphors is a continuum, with SMC ones realized in different wording falling in between.

Table 1. Number of Metaphors by Each Category of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH

The second research question focused on how Arberry (1995) and Saffarzadeh (2001) dealt with and translated Quranic metaphors, considering Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH. Table 1 shows that they rendered Quranic metaphors based on their hypothesis. Of course, not all its sub-categories are present in Table 1 because the researchers did not find them in the translators’ renderings. In short, 12 metaphors could be SMC and were rendered in similar wording by both, 4 metaphors could be SMC and were rendered literally by both, 3 metaphors could be SMC and were translated in similar wording by Saffarzadeh (2001), 3 metaphors could be SMC and were translated literally by Arberry (1995), and perhaps no SMC metaphor to be translated in different wording by either. Also, out of 22 DMC metaphors, 21 were rendered literally by both translators, and one metaphor was rendered in different wording by both. Therefore, there were many metaphors of both similar wording and literal renderings, irrespective of SMC or DMC.

As can be seen from Table 1, because English speakers may be unfamiliar with the Quran, out of 22 DMC Quranic metaphors, 21 were rendered literally and one metaphor was rendered in different wording by both. This finding confirmed that the lack of similar mappings was compensated for by translators’ giving additional information or using various translation strategies (Andrienko, 2015). Similar results were also found by Mohaghegh and Ketabi (2013). They analyzed both English and Persian translations of Quranic metaphors based on Newmark’s (2001) procedures and found out that Quranic metaphors are not dead but moribund or alive, and translators omitted their images and failed to translate them metaphorically.

On the other hand, 12 metaphors SMC realized in similar wording by both translators are culturally universal and conceptual metaphors derived from shared human experience (Al-Zoubi et al., 2006). As for why 12 metaphors that could be SMC were rendered in similar wording by both, we can refer to Leaman’s (2006) assertion that metaphors are shared by all Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic). The obtained results are also in line with those found by Schmidt (2014) in his study of metaphor translation in subtitling; the universality of metaphor affects the choice of the metaphor translation procedure, and shared metaphors can be translated using the same conceptualization, while non-shared ones are translated by a non-metaphorical paraphrase.

Likewise, the obtained result here, i.e., many metaphors were of both similar wording and literal renderings by both translators, irrespective of SMC or DMC, is in contrast with Al-Hasnawi’s (2007) conclusion from his review of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH through Arabic-English translation examples, including the Quranic ones. According to him, SMC metaphors with similar wording and SMC ones with different wording would result in equivalent TL metaphors or TL similes, and DMC metaphors have translators choose a TL simile, a footnote, paraphrase, explanatory remark, or omission. This contrast may be because both translators under study were preoccupied with the sanctity of the Divine word and the necessity of loyalty to it while conveying its sacred message. The other reason may be what Veisi Hesar and Tavangar (1393 SAH) stated. According to them, translators’ lack of knowledge of the role of cultural patterns in creating and interpreting metaphors and their inability to recreate them in TL leads to metaphors’ omission in translation.

To have an end-product geared towards TL culture, Saffarzadeh (2001) strove to transfer Divine teachings in metaphors through paraphrasing, explanation, simile, etc. She considered the conveyance of Divine messages primary and linguistic aspects of the Quran secondary, so she offered an accurate interpretive translation, using Quranic commentaries, verses’ background and situations of descent, and various translation strategies (Abbasian & Nazarian, 2016; Taktabar-Firouzjaie, 1394 SAH). Moreover, the findings of this study are in contrast with those of Mohaghegh and Ketabi (2013), who found that she replaced the original image with a new one because we saw that 12 SMC metaphors were rendered in similar wording, and so did Arberry (1995).

Arberry (1995) sought to recreate rhetorical, stylistic, and rhythmical features of the Quran and considered its verses rhetorical units joined together with rhymes. As Alizadeh and Jahanjouyan (2013) mentioned, his mistranslations can be regarded as either lapses or based on a different Quranic commentary. However, although some consider literal translation of Quranic metaphors more effective because the SL style is preserved, the impact of literal translation on TL readers resembles the effect of SL on its readers. Such a literal translation of Quranic metaphors does not convey the Quranic concepts (Taktabar-Firouzjaie, 1394 SAH).

In addition, as Al-Zoubi et al. (2006) maintained, the difference among SMC metaphors realized similarly, SMC ones realized differently, and DMC ones are a cline or continuum. In other words, SMC metaphors realized similarly are at one end, and DMC ones are at the other end of the continuum, with SMC ones realized differently as an intermediate set in between opposite. This in-between phenomenon is missing in the data analyzed in this study, so it can be inferred that translators under study either did not know about or disregarded the possibility of cross-cultural comparison when translating Quranic metaphors. Moreover, the finding that they mostly rendered metaphorical verses literally reveals that, despite translators’ native competence, they did not know about analytical procedures in the translation of conceptual metaphors.

Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research

From this study, it can be concluded that metaphorical verses in the Quran could be SMC and DMC in Arabic-English conceptualization, that conceptual metaphors exist in the Quran, that similar conceptualizations of TL and Arabic cultures facilitate their translation, and that their differences can do the opposite. This confirms the premise that some concepts are deeply rooted in human thoughts. Hence, Quranic translators can use common cognitive mappings of Arabic and TL to convey the depths of Quranic metaphors.

As Al-Hasnawi (2007) stated, metaphors are byproducts of sociocultural attitudes and beliefs and attitudes, and metaphor translation is cognitive where equivalences should represent cognitive conceptualizations of practices, beliefs, experiences, and attitudes. Some metaphors are based on "universal culture", representing SCM, and some are based on an "individual culture" with its ideas, conventions, and beliefs. Thus, as Quranic metaphors are formed by the socio-cultural attitudes and beliefs of Arabs (Al-Zoubi et al., 2006), translators should look at them as cognitive constructs that show how Arabs conceptualize and verbalize their experiences, and should look for a TL similar cognitive equivalence in TL culture. If Arab and TL cultures look at the world almost similarly, there will be SMC metaphors, but if not, DMC metaphors make translators’ jobs difficult. 

This study, as a warm-up application of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH to the Quranic translation, also confirmed that using a cognitive approach in metaphor translation enables translators to take both linguistic (metaphor type, text type, context, etc.) and extra-linguistic (translation direction, socio-cultural conventions, communicative purpose, etc.) aspects into account (Hong & Rossi, 2021). As Ali (2006) said, unlike translation procedures proposed by some translation theoreticians such as Newmark (2001), who did not mention how and on what basis a specific procedure may be chosen by translators, in Mandelblits’ (1995) CTH, translators’ decision is based on cultures’ similar or different mappings and relevance of SL metaphors to TL culture.

As the Quran abounds with metaphorical verses that reflect both linguistic characteristics of Arabic and its cultural background, linguistic knowledge is not sufficient for Quranic translators who need knowledge of its religious, rhetorical, and cultural background to produce a readable, meaningful, and effective translation because as Al-Zoubi et al. (2006) contended, translators face some problems when decoding and encoding culture-bound Quranic metaphors. However, neither translator in this study chose a specific metaphor translation procedure (e.g., using a different metaphorical image, converting a metaphor to sense, substitution, paraphrase, or deletion, etc.) scientifically and purposefully.

Thus, a practical implication of this study is that looking at Quranic metaphors from the perspective of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH makes translators’ job easier because linguistic and cultural differences between SL and TL can be dealt with effectively if translators free themselves from limitations of the linguistic wording and instead consider conceptual patterns behind metaphors in both SL and TL (Al-Alshniet, 2021). In this way, Quranic translators may successfully render the metaphorical sense to TL readers through readable sentences, parallel and familiar conceptual metaphors in TT, explanation, and conventional and familiar metaphors in TT instead of culture-bound and unfamiliar ST metaphorical expressions. Hence, the cognitive approach to the translation of Quranic metaphors can make a difference when properly explored and used.

Similarly, the Quranic translators should be warned against the mechanical and random application of metaphor translation procedures; e.g., those proposed by Newmark (2001), because as Ali (2006) stated, abstract rules alone do not guarantee successful metaphor translation. This is what Movazebi et al. (2022) stated, as well. According to them, compared to traditional metaphors, conceptual metaphors provide Quranic translators with a conceptual analysis of Quranic verses and a better appraisal of the semantic underpinnings of Quranic conceptualizations.

This application of Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH to the translation of Quranic metaphors can lead to further research on English metaphor translation in texts of other styles and literary genres (e.g., non-fiction and fiction, etc.) – based on this hypothesis. This is to reveal differences in cognitive patterns entailed in their translation, enrich translation studies, and result in comprehensive findings.

 Expanding on Mandelblit’s (1995) ideas, Kovecses (2005, as cited in Taheri-Ardali et al., 2013) stated that four plans may emerge in metaphor translation: (1) metaphors SMC and similar lexical implementations, (2) metaphors SMC but different lexical implementations, (3) DMC metaphors but similar lexical implantations, (4) and DMC metaphors and different lexical implementations. Likewise, Iranmanesh and Kaur (2010, as cited in Taheri-Ardali et al., 2013) extended this model and proposed six mapping plans: (1) SMC metaphors with similar lexical implementation, (2) SMC metaphors but different lexical implementation, (3) DMC metaphors but similar lexical implementation, (4) DMC metaphors with different lexical implementation, (5) the SL metaphor does not exist in TL, i.e. literal translation, and (6) the TL metaphor does not exist in SL. Hence, future studies can take these categories into account when investigating the metaphor translation in the Quran and any other text type. Finally, other researchers can apply Mandelblit’s (1995) CTH to the translation of animal metaphors in the Quran as well as its metaphors in special areas such as resurrection, prophethood, Imamate, etc.