English Evaluative Concepts in a Contemporary Devotional Christian Text. A Comparative Study of Dzienniczek by Faustyna Kowalska and Its English Translation

  • Aleksander Gomola
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting book series (PTTI)


Gomola offers an analysis of English translation of a contemporary Polish mystical text. The chapter examines how the translation process affects representation of evaluative concepts like homeland or morality as well as selected conceptual metaphors of the original: knowledge is light, emotion is heat, mental pleasure is sweet or morality is accounting and discusses lexical and stylistic differences between the source and the target texts. Pointing to shifts in meaning resulting from translation, Gomola concludes that in some respects Diary is stylistically more convincing as a mystical text than the original, which may explain its popularity among English readers.


Noun Phrase Source Text Source Domain Religious Text English Reader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



  1. Kowalska, F. (1981). Dzienniczek. Miłosierdzie Boże w duszy mojej. Zgromadzenie Sióstr Matki Bożej Miłosierdzia. Accessed 20 Aug 2015.Google Scholar
  2. Kowalska, F. (2005). Diary. Divine mercy in my soul. Stockbridge: Marian Press.Google Scholar


  1. Barcelona, A. (2003). The metaphorical and metonymic understanding of the Trinitarian dogma. International Journal of English Studies, 3, 1–27.Google Scholar
  2. Biały, P. (2013). On the priority of connotative over denotative meanings in Polish diminutives. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 8(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, P. (2006). Word learning and theory of mind. In W. E. Mann (Ed.), Augustine’s confessions (Critical essays on the classics series) (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Blumczyński, P. (2010). Some remarks on linguistic aspects of religion. Anglica Wratislaviensia, 48, 87–95.Google Scholar
  5. Borkowski, I. (2001). Skąpana w oceanie miłosierdzia – Metaforyka wodna jako sposób wyrażania doświadczenia mistycznego w Dzienniczku Siostry Faustyny Kowalskiej. In E. Przybył (Ed.), Ostatnie Przed Wielkim Milczeniem (pp. 47–59). Kraków: Nomos.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, P. (2005). Lost (and found) in translation: A cultural history of translators and translating in early modern Europe. Wassenaar: NIAS.Google Scholar
  7. DesCamp, M. T., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Metaphors for God: Why and how do our choices matter for humans? The application of contemporary cognitive linguistic research to the debate on God and metaphor. Pastoral Psychology, 53(3), 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egan, H. D. (1996). An anthology of Christian mysticism. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gavrilyuk, P. (2014). The spiritual senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Górny, G., & Rosikoń, J. (2014). Trust. In Saint Faustina’s footsteps. San Francisco: St. Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hengel, M. (2004). Septuagint as Christian scripture. Its prehistory and the problem of its canon. London: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
  13. Jäkel, O. (2003). How can mortal man understand the road he travels? Prospects and problems of the cognitive approach to religious metaphor. In K. Feyaerts (Ed.), The Bible through metaphor and translation: A cognitive semantic perspective (pp. 55–86). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Janda, L. (2010). Cognitive linguistics in the year 2010. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  15. Kołakowski, L. (1982). Religion: If there is no God. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kövecses, Z. (2008). The biblical story retold. Symbols in action. A cognitive linguistic perspective. In M. Zic Fuchs & M. Brdar (Eds.), Converging and diverging tendencies in cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983 (pp. 109–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Llywelyn, D. (2010). Toward a Catholic theology of nationality. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews, G. B. (2006). Augustine on the teacher within. In W. E. Mann (Ed.), Augustine’s confessions (Critical essays on the classics series) (pp. 31–44). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar
  24. Pelikan, J. (1975). The Christian tradition: A history of the development of doctrine. Vol. 1: The emergence of the Catholic tradition (100–600). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sicherl, E. (2012). Slovene nominal diminutives and their English equivalents: A comparison. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 9, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweetser, E. (1991). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sweetser, E. (2005). An eye for an eye versus turning the other cheek: Moral accounting in the Gospel of Matthew. Accessed 20 Aug 2015.
  29. Tabakowska, E. (2002). Bariery kulturowe są zbudowane z gramatyki’. In R. Lewicki (Ed.), Przekład – Język –Kultura (pp. 25–34). Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Google Scholar
  30. Tidemann, P. A. (2009). Reggae reveals church involvement in slavery. Currents in Theology and Mission, 36(2), 104–108.Google Scholar
  31. Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words, English, Russian, Polish, German and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Zwierzyńska, A. (1993). Czy pojęcie ojczyzny w języku angielskim jeszcze istnieje?’. In J. Bartmiński (Ed.), Pojęcie ojczyzny we współczesnych językach europejskich (pp. 275–286). Lublin: Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksander Gomola
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Translation Studies and Intercultural CommunicationJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations