Digital Technologies Research and Applications

Article

A Comparative Study of Human and Machine Translation of Animal Metaphors in Mo Yan’s Frog

Downloads

https://doi.org/10.54963/dtra.v5i1.1913
Yin, J., & Gu, Q. (2026). A Comparative Study of Human and Machine Translation of Animal Metaphors in Mo Yan’s Frog. Digital Technologies Research and Applications, 5(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.54963/dtra.v5i1.1913
Volume 5 Issue 1: March 2026
Copyright (c) 2026 Juechu Yin, Qiushi Gu
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

License

Digital Technologies Research and Applications (DTRA)  publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by DTRA agree to have the CC BY 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for any purpose, including commercial use. As long as the author and original source are properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute, reuse, and transform the content.

Authors

  • Juechu Yin

    School of Foreign Languages, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212000, China
  • Qiushi Gu

    School of Japanese Studies, Beijing International Studies University, Beijing 100204, China

Received: 20 November 2025; Revised: 12 December 2025; Accepted: 16 January 2026; Published: 30 January 2026

Metaphor translation plays a key role in cross-cultural communication. Among metaphor types, animal metaphors stand out for their rich cultural connotations and cognitive complexity, making them a valuable testing ground for translation strategies. Despite growing interest, existing research has yet to fully clarify the cultural adaptation mechanisms involved in rendering animal metaphor translation across languages. In particular, how different translation agents dynamically process these culturally loaded expressions remains underexplored, which complicates efforts to optimize human-machine collaboration. This study adopts conceptual metaphor theory and an integrated methodology combining qualitative and quantitative analysis with theoretical interpretation. Drawing on three English translations of Mo Yan’s Frog—by Howard Goldblatt, ChatGPT-4.0, and ChatGLM—this study conducts a systematic comparison of how human and machine translators handle animal metaphors. The analysis shows that effective rendering requires more than literal transfer: it depends on activating culture-specific frames and maintaining evaluative stance, not merely preserving surface imagery. While recent advances in artificial intelligence yield relatively high rates of literal retention, machine translations tend to remain surface-bound when metaphors are culturally or politically charged. By contrast, the cultural awareness and interpretive craft evident in the human translation more consistently preserve metaphorical nuance and ideological force. This study offers new evidence for research on metaphor translation and provides practical guidance for improving human-machine collaborations in literary contexts—e.g., using machine outputs to secure surface mapping while human translators recalibrate cultural frames and stance.

Keywords:

Metaphorical Translation Human-Machine Comparison Frog Animal Metaphors

References

  1. Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1980.
  2. Zheng, H.L. The essential characteristics of literary translation. Chin. Transl. J. 1998, 6, 5–9. (in Chinese)
  3. Huang, G.W. The analysis of grammatical metaphor in translation studies. Chin. Transl. J. 2009, 1, 1–5.
  4. Rouhi, M.; Mahand, M.R. Animal metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Psychol. Res. 2011, 1, 251–254.
  5. Talebinejad, M.R.; Dastjerdi, H.V. A cross-cultural study of animal metaphors: When owls are not wise! Metaphor Symbol 2005, 20, 133–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2002_3
  6. Xue, M. A study of translation of novel metaphor from Chinese into English. Shanghai J. Transl. 2019, 1, 25–30. (in Chinese)
  7. Chen, J. A cross-language study on vision based-metaphors in English and Chinese. J. PLA Univ. Foreign Lang. 2003, 1, 20–22, 27. (in Chinese)
  8. Goatly, A. Humans, animals, and metaphors. Soc. Animals 2006, 14, 15–37.
  9. Hart, K.R.; Long Jr., J.H. Animal metaphors and metaphorizing animals: An integrated literary, cognitive, and evolutionary analysis of making and partaking of stories. Evol. Educ. Outreach 2011, 4, 52–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0301-6
  10. Eco, U. A Theory of Semiotics; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1976.
  11. Eco, U. Experiences in Translation; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001.
  12. Zhang, H. Metaphorical mapping and translation of animal cultural connotations in Chinese and English in intercultural communication. Zool. Anim. Physiol. 2021, 2, 50–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38007/ZAP.2021.020405
  13. Chen, J.X. A contrastive study of metaphorical cognition in English and Chinese. PhD Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2004.
  14. Lan, C. A cognitive approach to spatial metaphors in Chinese. Foreign Lang. Teach. Res. 1999, 4, 7–15.
  15. Liu, W.; Yu, Z. Metaphorical translation strategies of the white paper “China’s Green Development in the New Era.” Forum Linguist. Stud. 2023, 5, 1858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v5i2.1858
  16. Cao, J.; Graham, C. Metaphorical conceptions of time: A corpus-based semantic analysis of “TIME IS MONEY” in English and Chinese. Forum Linguist. Stud. 2025, 7, 520–531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i1.7550
  17. Muhajir; Sumarwati; Saddhono, K. Linguistic symbolism and conceptual metaphors in Javanese Islamic myths: A semiotic perspective. Forum Linguist. Stud. 2025, 7, 77–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.10207
  18. Baker, M. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.
  19. Algobaei, F.; Alzain, E. Metaphors in translation: A study of figurative language in Badriah Albeshr’s Hend and the Soldiers. Forum Linguist. Stud. 2025, 7, 740–763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i8.9434
  20. Zhu, Y.F.; Guan, X.C. Translation education in the AI era: Challenges and opportunities. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2019, 27, 37–45.
  21. Weng, Y.M.; Wang, J.P. Characteristics and Limitations of Machine Translation of Literary Texts: A Comparative Study of Human-Machine Translation of Chinese Flowing Sentences. Contemp. Foreign Lang. Stud. 2020, 20, 128–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2020.06.014 (in Chinese)
  22. Li, F.Q. A comparative study on the quality of English-Chinese translation between translation learners and a machine translation system in the era of artificial intelligence. Foreign Lang. World 2022, 4, 72–79. (in Chinese)
  23. Pragglejaz Group. MIP: A method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor Symbol 2007, 22, 1–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2201_1
  24. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison; Gallimard: Paris, France, 1975.
  25. Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame; Routledge: London, UK, 1992.
  26. Alwash, L.M.A.; Abdul Jabar, M.A.; NimehchiSalem, V.; et al. The conceptual metaphor of animals used for praise and satire in Al Ghaddafi’s discourse. Int. J. Acad. Res. Prog. Educ. Dev. 2023, 12, 1532–1549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i1/16529