Modeling Translation of Metaphorical Units from a Linguocognitive Perspective in Chinese and Russian

This article presents the development of an integrated cognitive model for translating metaphorical units. It addresses the issue of the cognitive essence of the translation process involving metaphors and phraseological units known as chengyu, collectively referred to as “metaphorical units.” The author proposes a novel cognitive framework that captures key mechanisms involved in analyzing static linguistic structures and dynamic linguocognitive processes during pretranslation stages (reconstruction of meaning) and identifying the most appropriate translation strategy during actual translation phases (reconceptualization). Emphasis is placed on how the choice of translation strategies relies on the concept of cognitive translation, which involves scenario-based approaches grounded in assessing conceptual shifts followed by selecting either universal or culture-specific strategies. Materials analyzed were drawn from Chinese literary sources (e.g., Lianke's novel “Dreams of Dingzhuang Village”) and political discourse (chengyus extracted from news articles between 2023-2025). Original texts along with their translations into Russian served as primary data sources. Ultimately, it was concluded that the proposed model demonstrates its efficacy across both literary and political contexts, providing a clear algorithm for achieving cognitively pragmatic equivalence in translation practices.

1. Alekseeva, I. S. (2008). Text and translation. Questions of theory. Moscow: Internat. relations. 184 p. ISBN 978-5-7133-1318-0. (In Russ.).

2. Boldyreva, O. N., Han, Sh. (2020). Features of the translation of Chinese phraseological units (chengyuev) into Russian. Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian studies, 2 (27): 69—71. DOI: 10.36809/2309-9380-2020-27-69-71. (In Russ.).

3. Chudinov, A. P. (2003). Metaphorical mosaic in modern political communication. Yekaterinburg: USPU. 248 p. ISBN 5-7186-0127-5. (In Russ.).

4. Deignan, A., Gabrys, D., Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English Metaphors Using Cross-Linguistic Awareness-Raising Activities. ELT Journal, 51 (4): 352—360.

5. Dickins, J. (2005). Two models for metaphor translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 17 (2): 227—273. DOI: 10.1075/target.17.2.03dic.

6. Fesenko, T. A. (2001). Linguomental model of the translation process. In: Language, consciousness, communication. Moscow: MAX Press LLC. 58—62. (In Russ.).

7. Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 657—677. DOI: 10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2008.02.001.

8. Hong W., Rossi, C. (2021). The Cognitive Turn in Metaphor Translation Studies: A Critical Overview. Journal of Translation Studies, 5 (2): 83—115.

9. Kibrik, A. A. (1994). Cognitive research on discourse. Questions of linguistics, 5: 126—139. (In Russ.).

10. Kushnina, L. V. (2012). Translation activity as a heuristic process. Modern problems of science and education, 6: P. 490. (In Russ.).

11. Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 9: 202—251. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139173865.013.

12. Leontyeva, K. (2020). Cognitive Dominants and Shifts in Sociocultural Perspective in Literary Translation. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. 127—39. DOI: 10.15405/EPSBS.2020.04.02.15.

13. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-Conceptualization and the Emergence of Discourse Meaning as a Theory of Translation. Meaning in Translation. 105—147. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4989.4724.

14. Lianke Ya. (2025). Dreams of Dingzhuang village. Moscow: Sinbad. 185 p. ISBN 978-5-00-131636-7. (In Russ.).

15. Liu Fagong. (2008). A study of the principles of translating metaphors from Chinese into English. Beijing: Publishing House of the Defense Industry. 346 p. (In Chin.).

16. Ma Guofan. (1978). Chengyu. Hohhot: Nei Mengu renmin chubanshe. 344 p. (In Chin.).

17. Maalej Z. (2008). Translating metaphor between unrelated cultures: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Sayyab Translation Journal, 1: 60–82.

18. Mandelblit, N. (1995). The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory. In: Translation and Meaning. Maastricht: Universitaire Press. 483—495.

19. Mason, K. (1982). Metaphor and Translation. Babel, 28 (3): 140—149. DOI: 10.1075/babel.28.3.05mas.

20. Minchenkov, A. G. (2008). Cognitive-heuristic model of translation (based on the material of the English language). PhD Diss. St. Petersburg. 319 p. (In Russ.).

21. Nefedova, L. A., Boldyreva, A. S. (2025). The problem of translating Chinese phraseological units of the chengyu type in the texts of political discourse. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 6 (500): 176—184. DOI: 10.47475/1994-2796-2025-500-6-176-184. (In Russ.).

22. Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Revised ed. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 179 p. ISBN 90 272 2060 3.

23. Tkach, S. Y. (2015). Models of translation. In: Languages. Culture. Translation, 1. Moscow: People’s Friendship University of Russia. 269—282. ISBN 978-5-209-06524-1. (In Russ.).

24. Vasiliev, L. G., Paysaeva, T. U. (2022). Situational model of translation as a means of achieving translation equivalence. Bulletin of the Kaluga University, 3 (56): 8—10. DOI: 10.54072/18192173_2022_3_5_8. (In Russ.).