A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Metaphor Translation in Literary Texts: A Revisitation of Conceptual Integration Theory

Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT), initially proposed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner in the 1990s, is a cognitive framework that elucidates how humans construct meaning through the dynamic interaction of multiple mental spaces. Mental spaces, as the foundational units of CIT, refer to small-scale, temporary conceptual structures that emerge during online cognitive processing to represent specific scenarios, events, or ideas. Unlike static conceptual domains in traditional metaphor theory, mental spaces are context-dependent and flexible, allowing for real-time adjustments as new information is introduced. CIT posits that meaning construction typically involves four core mental spaces: the input space 1, input space 2, the generic space, and the blended space. The input spaces contain distinct conceptual elements derived from different domains—for example, in the metaphor “time is money,” input space 1 might include elements of “time” (e.g., duration, passing, limited availability) and input space 2 elements of “money” (e.g., currency, exchange value, saving). The generic space, a higher-order conceptual structure, abstracts shared schematic features across the two input spaces; in the aforementioned metaphor, the generic space would capture the commonality of “scarce resource that requires management.” The blended space, the locus of creative meaning emergence, integrates selective elements from the input spaces while projecting emergent structure—novel conceptual content not present in either input space alone. For instance, the blended space of “time is money” might generate the emergent idea of “wasting time” (a concept that does not exist in the pure domain of time but arises from the integration of “wasting” (from money’s exchange logic) and “time”).

The application of CIT to metaphor translation lies in its ability to unpack the cognitive mechanisms underlying metaphorical meaning, enabling translators to move beyond surface-level lexical substitution and preserve the cognitive coherence of the source text (ST) metaphor in the target text (TT). The operational pathway begins with the translator identifying the mental spaces in the ST metaphor: first, they decompose the ST metaphor into its constituent input spaces, mapping the specific conceptual elements (e.g., entities, relations, attributes) within each space. Next, they analyze the generic space to distill the shared schematic structure that anchors the metaphor’s meaning, as this structure is the “cognitive core” that must be retained to avoid distorting the ST’s intended message. Then, the translator examines the emergent structure in the blended space, as this is the site of the metaphor’s creative or contextual meaning—elements that may be culture-specific or tied to the ST’s narrative context.

A critical technical point in this process is the distinction between “selective projection” and “emergent structure preservation.” Selective projection requires the translator to determine which elements from the input spaces are essential to the metaphor’s meaning; non-essential elements (e.g., culture-specific references that lack equivalents in the target culture) may be adapted, while core elements (e.g., the “scarce resource” schema in “time is money”) must be retained. Emergent structure preservation, by contrast, demands that the translator replicate the logic of meaning emergence in the TT blended space. For example, if the ST metaphor “his words are bullets” generates the emergent structure of “verbal attack causing harm,” the TT must not only translate “words” and “bullets” but also ensure that the blended space in the TT conveys the same emergent idea of harm—even if the target language uses a different lexical pairing (e.g., “his words are arrows” in a culture where archery is a more salient frame for attack).

The importance of CIT in metaphor translation is twofold: theoretically, it bridges the gap between cognitive linguistics and translation studies, providing a systematic framework to explain why some metaphor translations are more cognitively coherent than others; practically, it offers translators a step-by-step cognitive mapping tool to handle complex, culture-bound metaphors. For instance, in translating a literary metaphor rooted in Chinese agricultural culture (e.g., “he is a well-plowed field” meaning “he is receptive to new ideas”), a translator applying CIT would first identify input space 1 (agricultural field: plowed, fertile, receptive to seeds) and input space 2 (the person: open-minded, eager to learn). The generic space here is “entity receptive to external input.” The emergent structure is “the person’s mind is prepared to absorb new knowledge like a plowed field absorbs seeds.” The translator might then select a target culture equivalent that shares the generic space—if the target culture values gardening, the TT metaphor could be “he is a tilled garden,” preserving the core cognitive structure while adapting to cultural salience. This approach ensures that the TT metaphor not only conveys the ST’s literal meaning but also resonates with the target audience’s cognitive patterns, maintaining the literary metaphor’s expressive force and narrative function.

Within the framework of Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT), cross-space mapping refers to the selective projection of structure, attributes, and inferential patterns between the source domain (a familiar, concrete conceptual field) and target domain (an abstract or less familiar field) in literary metaphors, mediated by the generic space and integrated into the blended space. Unlike static domain mapping in traditional metaphor theory, CIT’s cross-space mapping is dynamic and context-dependent: it involves extracting shared schematic structures (e.g., “hierarchical organization” for both “family” and “corporation”) in the generic space, then projecting unique elements from source and target into the blend to generate emergent meaning. For literary metaphors, this mapping is not pre-determined but is co-constructed by the text’s narrative context, character emotions, and stylistic choices, making it integral to the metaphor’s aesthetic and thematic functions.

To systematically identify cross-space mappings in literary metaphors, a CIT-based operational framework can be constructed in four interconnected stages. First, domain demarcation requires isolating the source and target domains of the metaphor in both the source text (ST) and target text (TT). For example, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth (ST), the metaphor “Life’s but a walking shadow” frames the target domain “life” via the source domain “shadow”; in its Chinese translation, the target remains “life,” but the source may be adjusted to “yinhua” (shadow) or “xingying” (figure’s shadow), requiring explicit domain labeling for subsequent analysis. Second, generic space extraction involves coding shared schematic structures: here, the generic space would include “transience” and “lack of substantive presence,” as both “shadow” and “life” in the metaphor are defined by fleetingness. Third, cross-space mapping projection entails documenting bidirectional correspondences between source and target elements: from source (“shadow”) to target (“life”), this includes “duration (fleeting)” → “lifespan (short),” “dependence (on light/object)” → “dependence (on fate/circumstances),” and “invisibility of agency” → “powerlessness of individuals”; reverse projections (e.g., “life’s purpose” → “shadow’s function”) are also tracked to capture inferential symmetry. Fourth, blended space validation confirms that the mapped elements integrate to form emergent meaning—for instance, the blend of “life as shadow” generates the unique insight that life is both visible (experienced) and insubstantial (ultimately meaningless), which aligns with Macbeth’s disillusionment.

Narrative context and character emotions act as core contextual cues that shape the specificity of cross-space mappings. Narrative context, including plot progression and setting, narrows the scope of mapped elements: in Pride and Prejudice, when Elizabeth Bennet describes Mr. Darcy as “a cold mountain,” the Regency-era context of social restraint (narrative cue) directs the mapping to prioritize the source’s “inaccessibility” and “emotional frigidity” over its “geographic size” or “natural beauty.” Character emotions further modulate mapping intensity: if Elizabeth utters the metaphor in a state of resentment (emotional cue), the projection of “coldness” is amplified, whereas a later, affectionate utterance might downplay this attribute and emphasize the source’s “stability.” These cues are not passive backdrops but active filters—they determine which source-target correspondences are activated, suppressed, or modified, ensuring the mapping aligns with the text’s immediate communicative intent.

Comparing cross-space mappings between ST and TT metaphors reveals translation-induced shifts that reflect the translator’s conceptual choices. Take the ST metaphor “Her laughter was a silver bell” (source: “silver bell,” target: “laughter”) from Jane Austen’s Emma. In the ST, mappings include “sound (clear, resonant)” → “laughter (melodious),” “material (precious silver)” → “laughter (rare, valuable),” and “timbre (pure)” → “laughter (sincere).” A Japanese translation might render the metaphor as “kare no warai wa suzu no oto” (her laughter was the sound of a suzu bell). Here, the source shifts from “silver bell” to “suzu bell” (a traditional Japanese bronze bell), altering the mappings: “material (bronze)” replaces “precious silver,” weakening the “rarity” correspondence, while “timbre (soft, reverberant)” replaces “pure resonance,” modifying the “sincerity” inference. Such shifts are not errors but deliberate adaptations—they may stem from the target culture’s lack of a “silver bell” as a symbol of preciousness, or the translator’s desire to align the metaphor with the TT’s cultural context. By quantifying the number of preserved, modified, and omitted mappings (e.g., 2 preserved, 1 modified, 1 omitted in the example), researchers can categorize shifts as “preservative” (minimal mapping change), “modulative” (partial attribute adjustment), or “transformative” (complete domain reorientation), each revealing how translation mediates the metaphor’s conceptual and aesthetic transfer.

In sum, CIT-based cross-space mapping identification moves beyond surface-level metaphor equivalence to unpack the dynamic, context-shaped conceptual structures that underpin literary metaphors. By tracking mappings across ST and TT, this framework exposes how translation reconfigures the metaphor’s emergent meaning, offering critical insights into the cognitive and cultural dimensions of literary translation.

Structural alignment and blending mechanisms are core components of Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT) that underpin the cognitive processing of metaphor translation, bridging the conceptual gaps between source and target languages by mapping, merging, and generating new meaning. Structural alignment refers to the systematic matching of relational structures between the source metaphor’s input spaces (input 1: the source domain, e.g., “journey”; input 2: the target domain, e.g., “book”) and the target language’s conceptual framework. This process is guided by the principle of systematicity, which prioritizes the alignment of higher-order relational structures (e.g., “progress through stages” in both “journey” and “book”) over isolated attributes (e.g., “physical movement” or “paper pages”). Translators must first identify the invariant core relations of the source metaphor—such as “a beginning (departure/opening a book), a process (traveling/reading), obstacles (detours/difficult chapters), and an end (arrival/finishing)—then verify whether these relations have corresponding conceptual counterparts in the target language. For instance, in English literary texts, the metaphor “life is a journey” relies on the relational structure of “linear progression with milestones”; in Chinese, this aligns seamlessly with the cultural conceptualization of “人生如行路” (life as walking a road), where “行路” (walking) carries the same higher-order relations of progression and obstacles, enabling natural structural alignment.

Complementing structural alignment, the blending mechanism operates through three sequential sub-processes: composition, completion, and elaboration, which together generate the blended space’s emergent meaning. Composition involves extracting and merging selective elements from the two input spaces; for example, when translating the English metaphor “book as journey” into Chinese, the translator may extract “book’s chapters” (input 1: target domain) and “journey’s stages” (input 2: source domain) to form a preliminary merged set of elements. Completion then activates the target language’s background frames to fill in implicit relations: in Chinese, the frame of “reading as a meaningful experience” (a cultural background frame) may associate “chapters” with “scenic spots” (a common extension of “journey” in Chinese literary contexts), adding depth to the merged elements. Elaboration follows, as the translator extrapolates the blended structure through imaginative reasoning—for instance, describing a “difficult chapter” as “a rugged mountain path” in Chinese, which not only maintains the source’s relational core but also resonates with Chinese readers’ familiarity with mountain-travel metaphors for overcoming challenges.

The emergence of the blended space in “book as journey” translation illustrates how these mechanisms interact. In the English source, the input spaces include “journey” (with elements like “path, destination, traveler”) and “book” (with “pages, plot, reader”). Structural alignment maps “traveler” to “reader” and “destination” to “story’s end”; composition merges these mapped elements, while completion draws on English background frames of “narrative progression” to fill in the relation between “plot twists” and “detours.” When translating into Chinese, the translator aligns the same core relations but completes the blend with Chinese-specific frames: for example, replacing “path” with “road” (a more culturally salient term in Chinese journey metaphors) and elaborating “plot twists” as “forks in the road” (a common Chinese expression for decision points). The emergent meaning in the Chinese blended space—“reading a book is walking a road with unexpected forks”—retains the source’s metaphorical essence while adapting to target cultural cognition.

Contrasting successful and problematic cases reveals the criticality of precise alignment and blending. A successful example is the translation of Shakespeare’s “All the world’s a stage” into Chinese as “整个世界是一座舞台.” Here, structural alignment matches the higher-order relation of “life as a performance with roles” (invariant core) to Chinese’s conceptualization of “人生如戏” (life as a play), while composition merges “world” and “stage,” completion activates the Chinese frame of “drama as life reflection,” and elaboration uses “roles” (角色) to maintain the source’s relational depth. In contrast, a problematic translation occurs when a translator misaligns isolated attributes instead of core relations: translating the English metaphor “time is money” (core relation: “time is a finite resource to be spent”) into Chinese as “时间是金钱” (literal translation) fails to activate the Chinese background frame of “time as a precious, non-recoverable entity” (a more dominant conceptualization than “spendable resource”). This misalignment leads to a blended space that feels culturally alien, as Chinese readers associate “金钱” (money) more with exchange value than with the irreplaceable nature of time, weakening the metaphor’s literary impact.

In summary, structural alignment ensures the metaphor’s conceptual core is preserved, while blending mechanisms infuse the translation with target-language cultural and cognitive relevance. Successful translation depends on prioritizing systematic relational alignment over literal attribute matching and leveraging the target’s background frames during completion and elaboration—practices that bridge linguistic and cultural divides to retain the literary metaphor’s expressive power.

Semantic emergence in the blended spaces of Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT) for translated literary metaphors refers to the spontaneous generation of novel, context-dependent meanings that are not reducible to the sum of the semantic content in the two input spaces—the source space (containing the metaphorical structure of the source text, or ST) and the target space (encompassing the linguistic and cognitive framework of the target language, or TL). In CIT, metaphor translation involves projecting selective elements from the ST’s source domain and the TL’s target domain into a blended space, where cross-domain mappings interact to form an emergent structure; this structure transcends the original semantic boundaries of both input spaces, giving rise to meanings that neither space alone can produce. For literary metaphors, which are inherently tied to the ST’s aesthetic and cultural intentions, semantic emergence is not a random byproduct but a dynamic outcome of the translator’s cognitive mediation between linguistic systems and cultural contexts.

The emergence of non-input meanings in translated literary metaphors often manifests through the negotiation of cultural connotations. Take, for example, the translation of the English metaphor “to have a heart of stone” into Chinese. The ST’s source space centers on the mapping of “stone” (a domain of hardness and emotional insensitivity) to “human heart” (a domain of emotion), while the Chinese target space includes cultural schemas where “stone” carries additional connotations—such as the “cold stone” (lěngshí) associated with indifference, or the “uncarved jade stone” (wěidiāo zhī yù) linked to innate purity, though the latter is context-dependent. When the translator projects the ST’s “stone-heart” structure into the Chinese target space, the blended space may integrate the ST’s core insensitivity meaning with the TL’s cultural association of “stone” with unyielding stubbornness (a connotation absent in the English input space). The resulting translated metaphor—e.g., “xīn rú tóng yí kuài lěngshí” (heart like a cold stone)—thus generates an emergent meaning of “emotional insensitivity combined with unshakable stubbornness,” a nuance that does not exist in the original English metaphor. Another instance is the translation of Shakespeare’s “all the world’s a stage” into Chinese. The ST’s source space maps “world” to “stage” (implying life’s performative nature), while the Chinese target space includes the cultural schema of “theater” as a microcosm of social hierarchy (rooted in traditional Chinese opera’s role-based classification). The blended space may thus emergent a meaning of “life as a hierarchical performance where each role is preordained by social status”—a connotation absent in the English input space but resonant with Chinese readers’ cognitive background.

The emergence of such meanings is regulated by three interwoven contextual constraints: cultural context, target readers’ cognitive background, and literary genre conventions. Cultural context acts as a foundational constraint: it determines which elements of the ST’s source domain can be projected into the blended space without causing cognitive dissonance. For example, translating the English metaphor “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” into Chinese must account for the Chinese cultural schema where “wolf” (láng) is a symbol of cruelty (consistent with English) but “sheep” (yáng) also carries connotations of docility tied to agricultural traditions—this cultural context guides the translator to retain the core deception meaning while allowing the emergent connotation of “exploiting the vulnerable” (a TL-specific nuance) to surface. Target readers’ cognitive background constrains emergence by setting the threshold of interpretability: if the emergent meaning exceeds the readers’ existing cognitive frames, it risks being misinterpreted. For instance, translating the Irish metaphor “the craic is ninety” (referring to lively fun) into Chinese requires projecting the ST’s “craic” (a cultural domain of communal joy) into the TL’s “lively atmosphere” (rènao fēnwéi) space; the blended space may emergent a meaning of “boisterous, community-centered fun,” but the translator must avoid over-emergence—such as linking “craic” to Chinese “street festival joy” (jiējié rènao)—if the target readers lack familiarity with Irish communal traditions. Literary genre conventions further regulate emergence: poetic metaphors allow for more radical emergence to preserve aesthetic novelty, while realist fiction metaphors require restrained emergence to maintain narrative verisimilitude. A poetic English metaphor like “time is a river” translated into classical Chinese poetry may integrate the ST’s “flow” meaning with the TL’s poetic schema of “river as a carrier of nostalgia” (from Tang dynasty poetry), resulting in an emergent meaning of “time as a nostalgic current”—a choice justified by poetic genre’s tolerance for aesthetic innovation.

These contextual constraints play a critical role in balancing emergent meaning and ST fidelity. Cultural context prevents over-emergence that distorts the ST’s core metaphorical intention: for example, when translating the English “break a leg” (a theatrical blessing) into Chinese, the translator cannot replace “leg” with “hand” (shǒu) even if “hand” carries luck connotations in some Chinese contexts, as this would erase the ST’s theatrical cultural root. Target readers’ cognitive background ensures that emergent meanings are accessible without sacrificing the ST’s aesthetic uniqueness: a translator may retain the ST’s “oak tree” metaphor (symbolizing strength) in Chinese but allow the emergent connotation of “tenacity in adverse conditions” (resonant with Chinese readers’ familiarity with oak’s hardiness) to surface, preserving both fidelity and interpretability. Literary genre conventions reconcile emergence with fidelity by aligning the degree of novelty with the genre’s aesthetic goals: in modernist fiction, where metaphorical ambiguity is valued, a translator may permit more pronounced emergence (e.g., translating Kafka’s “bug” metaphor into Chinese with emergent connotations of “social alienation in collectivist contexts”) without violating ST fidelity, as the genre’s conventions tolerate such cognitive expansion. In sum, contextual constraints act as a regulatory framework that enables semantic emergence to enrich the translated metaphor’s cultural and aesthetic value while anchoring it to the ST’s core meaning, ensuring that the translation remains both cognitively accessible to target readers and faithful to the source text’s literary intention.

Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT) frames metaphor translation as a dynamic cross-space blending process, where translators align source-domain (SD) and target-domain (TD) mappings from the source text (ST) with target-language (TL) cognitive schemas to construct blended spaces that retain the ST’s metaphorical essence while ensuring TL acceptability. This section analyzes three representative English-Chinese literary metaphor translations—spanning conceptual, structural, and ontological metaphor types—via the CIT framework, examining mapping alignment, blending mechanisms, translational strategies, and their cognitive effects.

The first case draws on a conceptual metaphor from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” Here, the ST encodes the conceptual metaphor A SINGLE WEALTHY MAN IS A DESIRABLE RESOURCE, with SD mappings (wealth as “resource value,” single man as “resource entity”) and TD mappings (marriage as “resource acquisition,” wife as “acquirer”). The Chinese translation by Sun Zhili renders this as “凡是有钱的单身汉，总想娶位太太，这已经成了一条举世公认的真理” (Fánshì yǒuqián de dānshēnhàn, zǒng xiǎng qǔ wèi tàitai, zhè yǐjīng chéngle yī tiáo jǔshì gōngrèn de zhēnlǐ). Translator Sun adopts a literal-alignment strategy: he retains the SD-TD mapping structure, equating “in possession of a good fortune” with “有钱的” (yǒuqián de, wealthy) and “in want of a wife” with “总想娶位太太” (zǒng xiǎng qǔ wèi tàitai, always wants to marry a wife). The blended space merges Austen’s 19th-century British patriarchal marital schema with Chinese readers’ cognitive understanding of “marriage as resource matching” (a shared schema across both cultures). Emergent structure in the blend—“举世公认的真理” (jǔshì gōngrèn de zhēnlǐ, universally acknowledged truth)—amplifies the ST’s ironic tone by anchoring the metaphor in a TL-recognizable “social consensus” schema. CIT explains this translation’s success: the aligned mappings and shared cultural schema eliminate cognitive dissonance, allowing TL readers to access the same ironic meaning as ST readers.

The second case involves a structural metaphor from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “What a piece of work is a man!” This encodes the structural metaphor HUMAN BEING IS A CRAFTED ARTIFACT, with SD mappings (craftsman’s skill → human potential, artifact’s completeness → human perfection) and TD mappings (human body → artifact structure, human nature → artifact quality). The Chinese translation by Liang Shiqiu uses a free-reconstruction strategy: “人类是一件多么了不起的杰作啊！” (Rénlèi shì yījiàn duōme liǎobuqǐ de jiézuò a!). Here, the ST’s singular “a man” is expanded to “人类” (rénlèi, humanity), and “piece of work” is rendered as “杰作” (jiézuò, masterpiece). CIT analysis reveals that Liang reconfigures the input spaces: the source input space retains the SD-TD structural mapping (crafted artifact → human), while the target input space introduces the TL schema of “humanity as a collective masterpiece” (a more resonant frame in Chinese cultural discourse than the singular “man”). The blended space merges the ST’s admiration for human potential with the TL’s collective-oriented cognitive bias, producing an emergent meaning of “humanity’s universal greatness” that transcends the ST’s individual focus. This free translation succeeds because the blended space balances ST metaphorical structure with TL cognitive acceptability, though it slightly attenuates the ST’s intimate focus on individual human complexity—a limitation explained by CIT’s emphasis on input space alignment constraints.

The third case centers on an ontological metaphor from Robert Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by.” The ST frames the ontological metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY, with SD mappings (road → life path, divergence → life choice, less traveled → unconventional choice) and TD mappings (walking → life experience, destination → life outcome). The Chinese translation by Xu Yuanchong is “树林里分出两条路，而我——我选择了人迹更少的一条” (Shùlín lǐ fēnchū liǎng tiáo lù, ér wǒ——wǒ xuǎnzéle rénjì gèng shǎo de yī tiáo). Xu uses a literal-blending strategy: he retains the SD-TD ontological mapping (road → life path) and aligns the ST’s “less traveled by” with “人迹更少的” (rénjì gèng shǎo de, less trodden by people). The blended space merges the ST’s individualistic “life choice” schema with the Chinese schema of “path as fate” (a traditional cognitive frame in Chinese poetry). The emergent structure—“选择了人迹更少的一条” (xuǎnzéle rénjì gèng shǎo de yī tiáo)—retains the ST’s metaphorical core while resonating with TL readers’ familiarity with path-related life metaphors. A potential limitation, however, is that the TL’s “人迹更少的” lacks the ST’s subtle implication of “regret for the unchosen path”; CIT attributes this to partial mapping alignment, where the target input space does not fully encode the ST’s “unresolved choice” schema.

Across these cases, CIT demonstrates that successful metaphor translation depends on dynamic alignment between ST input spaces and TL cognitive schemas. Literal strategies work when SD-TD mappings overlap with TL schemas (e.g., Pride and Prejudice), while free strategies are necessary when TL schemas require reconfiguring input spaces (e.g., Hamlet). Limitations arise when input space alignment is incomplete (e.g., The Road Not Taken), highlighting CIT’s value in explaining why some translations retain metaphorical essence while others attenuate subtle cognitive meanings.

The conclusion of this study on a cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor translation in literary texts, centered on a revisitation of Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT), serves as both a synthesis of key findings and a bridge to future translational practice and research. At its core, this study reaffirms that metaphor translation is not a mere lexical substitution but a dynamic cognitive process of reconstructing cross-domain mappings across linguistic and cultural contexts—a perspective that challenges the traditional focus on formal equivalence in literary translation. By revisiting CIT, we have clarified its fundamental definition as a theoretical framework that explains how multiple mental spaces (input spaces, generic space, and blended space) interact to generate emergent meaning, and we have operationalized its core principles to guide metaphor translation practice.

The core principles of CIT, when applied to metaphor translation, emphasize four interconnected steps: first, identifying the source and target domains of the source-text metaphor and their underlying cross-domain mappings; second, analyzing the cultural and contextual constraints that shape these mappings in both the source and target languages; third, constructing corresponding input spaces in the target language that preserve the core inferential structure of the source metaphor; and fourth, blending these target-language input spaces to produce a translated metaphor that retains the source’s cognitive and aesthetic effects while remaining culturally coherent for target readers. This operational procedure addresses a critical gap in previous CIT applications: the lack of clear, step-by-step guidelines for translators. For example, in translating the English metaphor “time is money” into Chinese, translators must recognize that the source domain “money” (with mappings of “saving,” “spending,” and “wasting”) relies on a cultural context of capitalist time valuation. In Chinese, while “time is money” is increasingly understood in modern contexts, translating it into a rural setting might require adjusting the target domain to “grain” (a more culturally salient resource) to preserve the core mapping of “time as a valuable, consumable resource”—a process that aligns with CIT’s focus on preserving inferential structure over formal similarity.

The practical importance of this approach lies in its ability to resolve longstanding tensions in metaphor translation: between fidelity to the source text and acceptability to the target audience, and between cognitive consistency and cultural adaptability. Traditional translation strategies (e.g., literal translation, substitution, omission) often fail to balance these tensions because they overlook the cognitive foundations of metaphor. In contrast, the CIT-guided approach provides translators with a systematic way to evaluate trade-offs: for instance, when translating a culturally specific metaphor like the Japanese “cherry blossoms are ephemeral beauty,” which relies on the cultural connotation of cherry blossoms as a symbol of transience in Japanese aesthetics, translators can either retain the “cherry blossom” source domain (if the target culture shares this connotation) or substitute it with a culturally equivalent symbol (e.g., “lotus” in some Asian contexts) while preserving the core mapping of “ephemeral beauty”—a choice informed by CIT’s emphasis on emergent meaning in the blended space.

This study also identifies key limitations that point to future research directions. First, while we have focused on literary metaphors, the application of CIT to other text types (e.g., political discourse, advertising) remains under explored. Second, the operational procedure we propose requires further validation through large-scale corpus studies and translator training programs to assess its generalizability. Finally, the role of individual translator cognition (e.g., prior knowledge, cognitive style) in the blending process needs more empirical investigation, as CIT currently assumes a relatively uniform cognitive processing model.

In summary, this revisitation of CIT offers a transformative framework for metaphor translation, shifting the focus from formal to cognitive equivalence and providing translators with actionable guidelines. Its practical value lies in enhancing the quality of literary translations by ensuring that metaphors retain their cognitive force and cultural resonance, while its theoretical contribution lies in refining CIT’s application to translational practice. As globalization continues to increase cross-cultural literary exchange, this cognitive linguistic approach will become increasingly essential for translators seeking to bridge linguistic and cultural divides without sacrificing the aesthetic and intellectual integrity of literary texts.