DIMENSIONS OF IMAGERY: TRANSLATION ANALYSIS ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

The aim of this paper is to show how imagery, one of the most important human cognitive abilities, can be expressed. It considers the impact this ability can have on the process of text production and its understanding in translation. The cognitive grammar model by Ronald Wayne Langacker (1987, 1991) has formed the methodological perspective. The application of cognitive translation theory to translation analysis is presented on the example of the novel by Clive Staples Lewis “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and its translation into Polish by Andrzej Polkowski and into German by Lisa Tetzner. First of all, the terms ‘conceptualisation’ and ‘imagery’ are introduced and explained from the cognitive perspective. Then, the dimensions of imagery – selection, abstraction and perspective – are described. Based on this, the examples selected from the novel “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and its Polish and German translations are analysed and the results are discussed.

Many researchers have separated literary and linguistic translation theories (cf. Culler 1982: 5).Tabakowska (2001) pointed out the importance of investigating literary translation from a linguistic perspective and the importance of an interdisciplinary perspective within translation studies.The cognitive model of language might bridge the gap between linguistics and literary theories.It differs from other linguistic theories in that it propounds a holistic approach to language in the context of other cognitive phenomena and views it as being culturally and experientially grounded.Cognitive linguistics provides useful research tools for precise textual analysis, describing phenomena which could be overlooked if any other model was applied.Thus, the cognitive approach may prove to be a valuable source for research and practice of translation.Describing the original texts and their translated versions, it is necessary to find a model that accounts for the value of linguistic details and enables us to determine, at least approximately, the semantic potential of those aspects that might otherwise escape our attention.The cognitive theory by Langacker (1987Langacker ( , 1991) ) leads to informative conclusions in such aspects as precise word choices, grammatical structure of a sentence and the linear arrangement of its elements, which are often crucial for the interpretation of a text, more consciously words and constructions.It does not postulate a wholly arbitrary view of meaning, but recognises the role of subjective factors, individual mental processes, and experiences (cf.Lakoff, Johnson 1980: 30).
Imagery Langacker (1987: 12) describes language as "an integral part of human cognition".In other words, language is closely related to other cognitive abilities such as perception, conceptualisation, imagining, categorising, etc.Therefore, all the cognitive abilities are reflected in linguistic expressions.When analysing and describing a language, the cognitive abilities, knowledge, as well as individual and social experiences of a language user should be taken into account (cf. Langacker 1987: 12-13).
A language user construes mental representations of any situation."The meaning of an expression is equated with a conceptualisation in the mind of a language user" (Taylor 2002: 187).Conceptualisation means that in constructing a linguistic expression a language user is trying to give an appropriate conceptual structure to what he sees or imagines.That is, he is trying to find concepts that correspond with the given situation -the one the user is currently in -which also includes the communicative situation.Each language user is capable of continuously making new conceptualisations.Individual conceptualisations, however, are subject to conventionalisation with time.
What should be pointed out here is the fact that the number of expressions in a language is always smaller than the number of potential conceptualisations. 1 No language is able to express all of the mental experiences of its users."Mental experience is the flow of cognitive events.Conscious experience proceeds concurrently in numerous domains.Typically it is a partially integrated blend of perceptual sensations <...>, kinesthetic and motor events, emotive factors, and autonomous processes that may be quite distinct from all of these <...>" (Langacker 1987: 114).
The terms 'conceptualisation' and 'imagery' are closely related to each other.Imagery is a natural human ability "to construe a conceived situation in alternative ways -by means of alternate images -for purposes of thought or expression " (cf. Langacker 1987: 110).Producing mental representations is also described as scene visualising.Two scenes of the same situation may differ with regard to the following dimensions: the level of abstractness or specificity, the perspective from which the scenes are perceived, the selection of elements of the given scene, i.e. entities, features which are favoured for attention, possible salience of these elements, features.
Each scene contains a definite number of entities, which are linked and related to one another.A language user that produces the given scene -from this point forward referred to as a conceptualiser -chooses one or more entities that he especially focuses on.The entity or entities which are brought to attention become the profile, the focal point of the given scene.The other entities, which provide the context that is necessary for the characterisation of the profile, are referred to as its base (cf. Langacker 1987: 110-123;Linke 2008: 151-152).When a relationship is made the focus of attention, both the connected entities are profiled, one of them usually makes a primary focus and the other a secondary one.The primary focal participant in a profiled relationship is called the trajector.The secondary focal participant is called the landmark (cf. Langacker 2005: 24).
In a sentence, the relations between the profile and the base, between the trajector and the landmark are shaped so that the subject is a nominal expressing of the trajector and an object expresses the landmark.If a sentence contains a prepositional phrase, its landmark is expressed by the noun phrase following the preposition.The base may comprise an object, an attribute or a possessive pronoun that refer to the noun determining the profile.
Two mental representations of the same situation may also differ in the level of abstractness or specificity.This means that the conceptualiser, while producing the given scene, can select ideas that are more or less general (cf. Taylor 2002: 57-58;Langacker 2005: 21).
While depicting a scene, it is essential to choose the perspective from which this scene can be perceived.Depending on how the conceptualiser perceives the situation, whether all its elements are recalled at the same time or in a sequence, results in summary scanning or sequential scanning, respectively.
Another term associated with the perspective is viewpoint or a vantage point; i.e. the position conceptualiser selects to observe a situation plays an important role in how he perceives the elements of the situation, e.g.what order they emerge in.That covers both the conceptualiser's location (orientation) in physical space and in time as well (Taylor 2002: 62;Linke 2008: 154-155).
The capability of imagery has an enormous influence on producing and understanding texts."Linguistic expressions pertain to conceived situations, or scenes" (Langacker 1987: 116)."Every linguistic expression, at its semantic pole, structures a conceived situation (or scene) by means of particular image" (Langacker 1987: 128).That means all the abovementioned dimensions of imagery will find their output in expressions and texts in the given language.Which expression will be selected by a language user conceiving a text reflects,

Analysis
In the following section, the results of the analysis of the examples selected from the novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and its Polish and German translations are presented.All extracts were analysed with regard to the question how particular dimensions of imagery -selection, abstraction and perspective -are realised and reflected in the respective language.For each case, the translations of the extract in Polish and German are compared to the original one in English.The descriptions of the chosen extracts only take into consideration the differences between the source and the respective target.The presentation of the results of our analysis proceeds as follows: first, the extracts which differ in terms of selection are described, next -the ones that feature different levels of abstraction are considered, finally those where differences in perspective are observed.
As for the selection of elements, the extracts were highlighted in terms of the differences between the English original and its Polish and German translations.
In the first example selected for analysing, the extract translated into Polish features the narrator in the foreground: [Ja]2 Opowiem wam o tym, co im się przydarzyło.[I'll tell you what happened to them.](Lewis 1996: 9), while in both the original and the German texts there is no direct reference to the narrator.In the English extract, the focal point is the story: This story is about something that happened to them <...> (Lewis 2010: 4), and it is the same in the German translation: Unsere Geschichte erzählt bloß etwas von dem, was den vier Kindern dort widerfuhr.(Lewis 1992: 4).However, in the latter there appears the possessive adjective unsere Geschichte [our story], thus introducing the figure of the narrator indirectly, making the base for the primary focus.
In the next example, in both the English and German extracts the main characters of the novel they / sie make the primary focus: <...> they were sent away from London <...>.(Lewis 2010: 4) / Im Krieg wurden sie wegen der vielen Luftangriffe von London fortgeschickt <...> (Lewis 1992: 4).However, in the Polish translation, instead of passive voice, a non-personal form wysłano was used, which results in the characters being perceived as the secondary focus, while a person or people who the characters were sent by appears conjecturally as the trajector: Podczas wojny wysłano je z Londynu na wieś <...> (Lewis 1996: 9).
First, the possessive adjectives ze swoją gospodynią [with his housekeeper] and jej trzema pomocnicami [her three servants].The third extra element is a whole sentence Jeżeli już chcecie wiedzieć <...> [If you want to know...], introducing to the situation being described the figure of the reader, who in this sentence becomes the primary focus.
In another example, in both the English and Polish versions the trajector is designated by the pronoun and the noun referring to the characters of the novel: they / dzieci and the landmark -the professor him / go: <...> they liked him almost at once <...> (Lewis 2010: 4) / Dzieci szybko go polubiły <...> (Lewis 1996: 9).In the German extract, however, the relationship is reversed: Er gefiel ihnen auf den ersten Blick.[He appealed to them from the first sight] (Lewis 1992: 4).
Considering the example: "No there won't", said Peter."I tell you this is the sort of house where <...>" (Lewis 2010: 4) -Nie będzie żadnej awantury -powiedział Piotr.-Mówię wam, że to taki dom, w którym <...> (Lewis 1996: 10).-"Nein, uns hört keiner", sagte Peter."In diesem Haus <...>" (Lewis 1992: 5).The German translation again differs from the original.In the source and in Polish row / awantura is profiled in the first sentence.In the English extract, the word appears in the sentence prior to the discussed example, where the ellipsis was applied.In the German translation, in the first sentence "Nein, uns hört keiner" [No, no-one will hear us], there are two extra elements -the trajector keiner [no-one] and the landmark uns [us], while in the next sentence the figure of Peter (I tell you), which is the primary focus in the original and in Polish, is missing.
In the case of the next extract selected for analysis, it is the Polish translation that is far from the original version in terms of the number of the elements in the presented scene: <...> a long, low room with two windows looking out in one direction and two in another (Lewis 2010: 5).-Es war ein langer Raum mit zwei Fenstern nach der einen und zwei nach der andern Seite (Lewis 1992: 6).-Był to długi, niski pokój z dwoma oknami wychodzącymi na dwie różne strony świata (Lewis 1996: 10-11).According to the Polish translation, there are only two windows, while in the other versions (the source and German) there are four of them, thus there are more profiled elements.In this example, direction was translated as strony świata [lit.two different sides of the world] in Polish, which introduces świat [world -grammatically as object in Polish] as an additional element forming the base for strony [sides].
In the next example, both in English and Polish, the noun shoulder -ramie -appears, which is missing in German: She looked back over her shoulder <...> (Lewis 2010: 6).-[Ona] spojrzała przez ramię za siebie (Lewis 1996: 13).-Sie schaute zurück <...> (Lewis 1992: 8).However, as similar as the Polish and English examples seem to be, they are not identical.In both versions, the person who plays the role of a trajector appears one more time.In the English example, it emerges for the second time as a base for shoulder, while in Polish as another landmark, which in a way is a reference point for spojrzenie.The order of elements is also different in Polish and English.In the former, the order presents 'the movement of the gaze', the virtual direction of the gaze, passing the shoulder first to get behind the profiled person.In the latter, because of the fixed order of phrases in English sentences, it is not possible to capture the order of this conceptualisation in the same way. 3he original of another extract features one of the characters -Lucy -as the primary focus: In about ten minutes she reached it <...> (Lewis 2010: 6).This is also the case in Polish: Kiedy po blisko dziesięciu minutach doszła [ona] do światła, <...> (Lewis 1996: 14) (she -ona).However, in the German translation, this extract is divided into two clauses: Es dauerte eine Zeitlang, dann erreichte sie das Licht (Lewis 1992: 8).In the first part of the sentence, es, referring to the activity of reaching the light, is the trajector.It is not until the second clause that the character becomes the primary focus.
In one more example, in the original language and in the translation into Polish the trajector is a very strange person -bardzo dziwna postać: And soon after that a very strange person stepped out from among the trees into the light of the lamp-post (Lewis 2010: 6).-Wkrótce potem bardzo dziwna postać z parasolem wynurzyła się spomiędzy drzew i weszła w krąg światła rzucany przez latarnię (Lewis 1996: 14).The same example in German features this element as the landmark, ein seltsames Wesen, while the character mentioned in the previously presented extracts becomes the primary focus: [Sie] sah ein seltsames Wesen unter den Bäumen auf die Laterne zukommen (Lewis 1992: 8).In the same example, one more difference can be noticed.Namely, the last profiled element in the German sentence is Laterne [lamp-post].In the English and Polish versions, it is not the lamp-post, but its light: the light of the lamp-post -krąg światła rzucany przez latarnię.In the original text, the lamp-post is the base for the light, while in the Polish one it becomes the landmark for the light.
In the next English extract, the primary focus is his legs: <...> but his legs were shaped like a goat's <...> (Lewis 2010: 6), and this is also the case of the Polish translation: <...> ale jej nogi były nogami kozła <...> (Lewis 1996: 14).A very strange person -bardzo dziwna postać (Lewis 1996: 14), designated further on in the English text by the personal pronoun he, comprises the base in both of the extracts.In the German translation of the same text, <...> aber nach unten zu hatte es Ziegenbeine <...> (Lewis 1992: 8), this very element is the trajector, and is designated in this extract by the personal pronoun es, and previously in the text as ein seltsames Wesen, while Ziegenbeine [goat legs] are the secondary focus.
A very similar situation occurs in another fragment of the book, where in a clause of cause in German the primary element is also es, referring to ein seltsames Wesen: Es hatte auch einen Schwanz, den Lucy aber nicht gleich bemerkte, weil es ihn über den Arm, der den Regenschirm trug, geschlungen hatte, <...> (Lewis 1992: 8).Schwanz [tail] here becomes the secondary element, profiled in the clause by the pronoun ihn [him], while in the original and Polish texts tail -ogon is the trajector: He also had a tail, but Lucy did not notice this at first because it was neatly caught up over the arm that held the umbrella <...> (Lewis 2010: 6).-Miała też ogon, choć w pierwszej chwili Łucja go nie zauważyła, ponieważ był elegancko przewieszony przez trzymającą rozłożony parasol rękę <...> (Lewis 1996: 14).
In the translations of the novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis, numerous examples of differences in the level of abstractness can be found.The German samples below feature a higher level of abstractness than those of the original or the Polish version: "Was ist das?" (Lewis 1992: 5).-Co to za dziwny odgłos?! (Lewis 1996: 10).-"What's that noise?" (Lewis 2010: 5).
The first of the presented examples contains a very generalised interrogative sentence: "Was ist das?" [What is it?].The difference between the Polish translation and the original text is, however, slight: noise was translated as dziwny odgłos [strange sound].Thus the Polish example features the highest level of specificity.
The other example selected for analysis was translated into German as Es dauerte eine Zeitlang <...> [it lasted for some time].Yet, both the original version and the Polish translation contain the same phrase ten minutes -dziesięć minut.
The third of the examples above in the German translation features the use of two verbs to describe the same emotional state of a female character (namely, the previously mentioned Lucy): erschrak und fürchtete sich [lit.fell in fear and had a sense of foreboding].In the source language as well as in the Polish translation we only have one expression, which is rather general compared to the in German: felt a little frightened -trochę się przestraszyła [got scared a little].
In the first example, the past tense of the verb say was used in English.It was translated into Polish using the equivalent lexeme.However, in German the more specific verb grollen [grumble] was chosen.
In the second example above the adjective pusty used in Polish is the exact equivalent of the English word empty.It was translated into German as unbewohnt [uninhabited].
In another selected abstract, the Polish translation features a higher level of specificity than in the original language or German: <...> uspokoiła się (Lewis 1996: 13).-<...> dachte Lucy.(Lewis 1992: 8).-<...> thought Lucy (Lewis 2010: 6).In English the past tense of the verb think is used, which was translated into German using the equivalent lexeme.The Polish version is more specific, using the verb uspokoiła się [calmed herself down].
In the following example, it is the original that features the highest level of specificity: <...> a very strange person <...> (Lewis 2010: 6).The word person was translated into German as Wesen [being]: <...> ein seltsames Wesen <...> (Lewis 1992: 8).The noun Wesen covers what exists in a way, in some form.Therefore, it is a relatively general term.The similar choice was made by the translator into Polish, who also uses a more abstract term than what is conveyed by a very strange person: <...> bardzo dziwna postać <...> [a very strange figure] (Lewis 1996: 14).
Finally, below there are presented the differences in the perspective between the original text of Lewis's novel and its translations.
Depending on how the conceptualiser perceives the situation, i.e. whether its elements are recalled simultaneously or in a sequence, one after another, we experience either summary scanning or sequential scanning, respectively.
One more term associated with perspective is viewpoint or vantage point, i.e. the selected position from which the conceptualiser observes the situation plays an important role in how the elements of the situation are perceived, e.g.what order they emerge in.That refers to both the conceptualiser's location in physical space as well as in time.
In the case of the first extract selected for analysis, the differences between the original text and its translations is noticed at once in the way and the order in which the information is revealed.In the German version, all pieces of information are included in one sentence, holistically, while in English and Polish they are divided into two sentences: This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids.They were sent to the house of an old Professor who lived in the heart of the country <...> (Lewis 2010: 4).
The original version first reveals where the characters were sent from, then when it happened and why, and not until the end does it explain where to and that this destination was the countryside.These pieces of information appear in the German text in a different order -first when it took place, next for what reason, and in the end where the characters were sent from4 , whereas in the Polish translation the sequence of the information is as follows: when, where from, where to.The purpose, which corresponds with the English and German expressions stating the cause of their leave, is revealed last.
Disclosing the information in a specific order reveals what was the author or translator focused on first, what seemed most important to them, what they directed their attention to.What was regarded as more important was put first in the text, with less important pieces presented later on. 5he next case in the English text is an extract with all pieces of information presented holistically in one sentence: He himself was a very old man with shaggy white hair which grew over most of his face as well as on his head, and they liked him almost at once <...> (Lewis 2010: 4), whereas there are two sentences in the Polish translation: Profesor był bardzo stary i miał krzaczastą białą brodę, która łączyła się z równie siwą czupryną, a rosła tak gęsto i obficie, że na twarzy pozostawało już niewiele wolnego miejsca.Dzieci szybko go polubiły <...> (Lewis 1996: 9), and even three in the German one: Der Professor war ein alter Mann mit struppigen weißen Haaren.Sie wuchsen nicht nur auf seinem Kopf, sondern auch auf seinem Gesicht.Er gefiel ihnen auf den ersten Blick (Lewis 1992: 4), thus sequential scanning is applied here.
Another example in English contains the information that a female character (namely, the previously mentioned Lucy) was walking through the forest like the one before the last piece in the first sentence of the analysed extract: She began to walk forward, crunchcrunch over the snow and through the wood towards the other light.In about ten minutes she reached it and found it was a lamp-post.As she stood looking at it, wondering why there was a lamp-post in the middle of a wood and wondering what to do next, she heard a pitter patter of feet coming towards her (Lewis 2010: 6).The same pattern appears in German: Sie lief weiter -knirsch ... knirsch ... über den Schnee und durch den Wald auf das andere Licht zu.Es dauerte eine Zeitlang, dann erreichte sie das Licht.Es war eine Straßenlaterne!Sie blieb stehn und schaute sich um.Wieso brennt mitten im Wald eine Straßenlaterne?fragte sie sich.Da hörte sie plötzlich trappelnde Schritte <...> (Lewis 1992: 8).This is not the case of the Polish translation: i zaczęła iść przez las, skrzyp-skrzyp po śniegu, ku dziwnemu światłu przed sobą.Kiedy po blisko dziesięciu minutach doszła do światła, przekonała się, że to świeci latarnia na słupie.A kiedy tak stała i patrzyła na nią, rozmyślając, skąd się wzięła latarnia w środku lasu i co robić dalej, usłyszała odgłos zbliżających się kroków (Lewis 1996: 13-14).The information concerning the wood emerges at the beginning of the first sentence, which evidently shows that the translator's attention was first turned to this element.
The next sentences of the analysed extract feature the summary scanning in English.In the second sentence, all pieces of information are contained in one sentence of coordinate clauses linked with the conjunction and, in the case of the third sentence there is a participle construction with the present participle wondering and the conjunction as (which emphasises the parallelism of events).Translated into German, the second sentence is divided into two, the first containing two clauses, the other one single, while the third sentence is divided into several ones, which employs sequential scanning.In the Polish translation, the pieces of information are disclosed sequentially, though the last sentence for example contains a present participle rozmyślając [wondering] as well as the conjunction kiedy [when], which are the evidence of the summary scanning.In the original version, a part of the third sentence in the analysed text mentions the lamp post first and later where it can be found <...> why there was a lamp-post in the middle of a wood <...>.It is the same in Polish: <...> skąd się wzięła latarnia w środku lasu <...>.In the German translation, however, it is contrary: Wieso brennt mitten im Wald eine Straßenlaterne? 6he last extract selected for analysis features sequential scanning in English: <...> he carried over his head an umbrella, white with snow (Lewis 2010: 6), while its translation into German is the summary one: <...> und hielt über seinem Kopf einen weißbeschneiten Schirm.(Lewis 1992: 8).The information that the umbrella (Schirm) was white (weiß) and covered with snow (beschneit) is given in the German example in one lexeme weißbeschneit, as a prenominal attribute, while in the original language the umbrella is mentioned first, then described as white and finally what made it white (snow) is mentioned.The adjective white and the noun umbrella are additionally separated with a comma, which is often the index of the sequential scanning.The Polish text, however, lacks the translation of this fragment.

Concluding reflections
The result of the analysis of the selected extracts from the book is that texts which are seemingly identical in fact differ from one another.Each of them is indeed a parallel translation of the same extract and should be at least close in meaning.The discrepancies are linguistic manifestation of differences in various dimensions of imagery and become apparent while comparing how these imagery dimensions are expressed in particular extracts in the original language as well as in the translations.
As for the selection of elements, most of the extracts selected for analysis in English and Polish differ in the elements selected for the primary focus.The focal point in most of the German excerpts corresponds with the primary focus in the original versions.The other difference appears in extracts in which two elements, the primary focus and a secondary one, are profiled.In the original language and in the Polish translation, the trajector is constituted by the same element.The same example in German features this element as the landmark.There are also examples, in which an element of a given scene is missing in German.
In the translations of C. S. Lewis' novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, numerous examples of differences at the level of abstractness can be found.There are German samples which feature a higher level of abstractness than those of the original or the Polish version.On the other hand, there are extracts in German which also feature a higher level of specificity than those in the original or in the Polish language.
The differences between the original text and its translations, the differences concerning the way and the order in which the information is revealed can also be noticed.
As already mentioned, imagery abilities have an enormous influence on the creation and comprehension of texts.While reading a text, which reflects the way its creator's imagery works in his mind, a reader creates his own subjective image on the basis of it, and this image may, but need not, be an equivalent of the primary image.This is one of the reasons why translations differ from the original.The aim of this paper is not, however, to insist on the impossible, i.e. on a completely faithful translation.The aim of this paper is to make it clear that each act of translation should be preceded by a thorough analysis of linguistic manifestations of imagery in a text.If the image is treated as a unit of translation, it would allow translators to avoid potential obscurities, discrepancies, or even mistakes in their translations.
In this paper, an attempt was made to apply the cognitive theory of Langacker (1987Langacker ( , 1991) ) to translation studies and to demonstrate how the cognitive approach can be adopted for translation criticism and practice.It is useful for describing the processes of reading and analysing the source text and of reconstructing its meaning potential while producing the target text with the use of cognitive concepts and terminology.