Aesthetic Equivalence in the Translation of Rubayyat of Khayyam Using Reception Aesthetics and Conceptual Metaphor Theory

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 2, Volume 49, Issue 1, April 2016, Pages 19-40   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v49i1.57437

Authors

Ehsan Panahbar; Akbar Hesabi^* ; Hussein Pirnajmuddin

Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
The issue of translation equivalence has received increasing attention from translation theorists and translators, but it seems that this issue can be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Reception Theory which appeared from the second half of the 20th century as an opposition to New Criticism, was to re-define the author-reader-text relation in different forms. In this theory, the author is de-centralized and unfocused and the reader and his perception based on his historical and sociocultural contexts are at focus. In this regard, Wolfgang Iser developed a branch of Reception Theory, i.e. School of Reception Aesthetics, which per se represents the issue of equivalence in case of translation. Moreover, by presenting Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), Lakoff and Johnson (1980) opened a new window towards equivalence theory and dealt with the problem of equivalence at the conceptual level. Following this theory, diverse cognitive approaches such as Tabakowska’s experiential equivalence (1993) and Mandelblit’s Cognitive Translation Hypothesis (1995) were concerned about translation equivalence. Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to investigate aesthetic equivalence using the two theories of Iser’s Reception Aesthetics (1974) and Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in order to promote an integrated model out of Mandelblit (1995) and Tabakowska (1993) with aesthetic equivalence.
2. Methodology
The study uses a qualitative approach and the research method is descriptive-analytical. Library research techniques, qualitative content analysis methods, and scientific conceptual metaphor identification methods were employed for collecting data. The sample size includes two quatrains selected in a purposive method from Rubayyat of Khayyam and their English translations by Fitzgerald. The inclusion criterion for selecting these two quatrains was their enrichment in terms of conceptual metaphors which were identified using methods of Pragglejaz Group (2007) and Steen (2007, 2009).
3. Discussion
After extracting conceptual metaphors, they were analyzed using cross-domain mapping methods in the source text and target text and then, cultural, cognitive, and aesthetic models were analyzed and compared in the two texts. After that, employing the integrated model presented in the study, metaphorical mappings were investigated and compared in the Persian quatrains and their English translations in order to identify that cross-domain mappings in the two conceptual systems were similar (in case of Similar Mapping Conditions or SMC) or culture-specific (in case of Different Mapping Conditions or DMC). In addition, this issue was investigated that the translator employed which cognitive strategies in case of facing these two situations in translating metaphors. Moreover, aesthetics experiences and conceptualization of sociocultural worlds of Iranian-Khayyamic and Western-Victorian cultures were investigated based on Iser’s definitions and the ideas in relation with aesthetic reception of texts.
In investigating quatrains, it seems that Khayyam reveals his ideologies and worldviews regarding the Universe, human destiny, determinism, creation (birth) and death, criticism of the Existence System, etc. in the form of conceptual metaphors. Therefore, he uses conceptual metaphors and metonymies to express his text-world and aesthetics towards humanity and the Universe. It seems that thoughts in these quatrains in the form of conceptual metaphors and metonymies can be based on Khayyam’s sociocultural and historical contexts constructing his cultural and aesthetic models in the form of cognitive schemas. Fitzgerald uses different cultural models such as “chess” instead of “puppetry” to create conceptual-aesthetic equivalence between the two conceptual systems. According to Iser’s reception aesthetics, and Lakoffian CMT, equivalence should be considered at the aesthetic level or the level of understanding texts as well as the conceptual level with regard to cultural and conceptual systems which apply imagination as well. As observed, in the new cultural, experiential, and conceptual system, Fitzgerald tries to create equivalence at the mentioned levels by switching in conceptualizations (conceptual metaphors). In addition, it seems that the translator faces different mapping conditions in conceptualization of these metaphors and metonymies due to differences in cultural models; therefore, these different mapping conditions make him keep equivalence at conceptual and aesthetic levels. As a result, in the framework of Iser’s theory according to which texts should be read in their specific sociocultural systems and via readers’ imagination, Fitzgerald uses the technique of switch of mapping to change conceptualizations.
4. Conclusion
According to the results of the study, it can be concluded that in the two analyzed quatrains and their translations, conceptual metaphors have significant roots in cultural models of communities; therefore, production and perception of these metaphors need familiarity with their sociocultural and historical contexts in each discourse community. As a result, the translator changes conceptualization in his conceptual system in case of the DMC caused by differences in cultural models of the two systems to keep conceptual equivalence. Moreover, in case of the SMC, the translator, influenced by similar cultural models in the two cultures, tried to keep original conceptualizations. The results also indicated that aesthetic equivalence in translation can be investigated and aesthetics as a component can be added to the integrated model in the present study.

Keywords

Translation Equivalence; Conceptual Metaphor; Iser’s Reception Aesthetics; Aesthetic Equivalence; Cognitive Translation Hypothesis; Experiential Equivalence

References

الزمخشری، ج. (1418/1998). الکشاف عن حقایق التنزیل و عیون الأقاویل فی وجوه التأویل. جلد السابع. ریاض، السعودیه: مکتب العبیکان.

الفاخوری، ح.، و الجر، خ. (1367). تاریخ فلسفه در جهان اسلامی. ترجمه عبدالحمید آیتی. تهران: سازمان انتشارات و آموزش انقلاب اسلامی.

برتلس، ی. (1959). رباعیات خیام. به اهتمام رستم علییف و محمد نوری عثمانف. مسکو: انستیتو خاورشناسی فرهنگستان علوم شوری (سلسه آثار ادبی ملل خاور).

ذکاوتی قراگوزلو، ع. (1369، مرداد). حکیم سخن‌آفرین. مجلۀ نشر دانش وابسته به نشر دانشگاهی مرکز تهران.

حسن‌لی، ک.، و حسام‌پور، س. (1384). پرسش‌های حیرت‌آلود خیام چگونه پدپد آمد؟ مجلۀ علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، 22(3)، 64-75.

جوینی، ع. (۱۳87). تاریخ جهانگشای جوینی. به تصحیح محمد بن عبدلوهاب قزوینی. تهران: هرمس.

صفی‌نژاد، م.، خزاعی‌فرید، ع.، و قربان‌صباغ، م. (1393). تعادل زیبایی‌شناختی در ترجمۀ متون ادبی از منظر زیبایی‌شناسی دریافت. مطالعات زبان و ترجمه، 37(4)، 69-90.

قنبری، م. (1389). خیام‌نامه، روزگار، فلسفه و شعر خیام. تهران: زوار.

مکارم‌شیرازی، ن. (1387). تفسیر نمونه. جلد 21. تهران: دارالمکتب الاسلامیّة.

ویسی‌حصار، ر.، و توانگر، م. (1393). استعاره و فرهنگ: رویکردی شناختی به دو ترجمۀ رباعیات خیام. جستارهای زبانی. 5(4)، 197-218.

Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Iser, W. (2000). The range of interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.

de Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. (1983). Introduction to text linguistics. London & New York: Longman.

FitzGerald, E. (1953). The Rubaiyat of Ommar Khyyam Rendered into English Quatrains. London and Glasgow: Collins.

Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. J. Weinsheimer, and D. G. Marshall (Trans.). London: Continuum.

Gibbs, R. (1999). Taking Metaphor out of Our Heads and putting it into the Cultural World. In R. Gibbs and G. Steen. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.145-167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Khayyam, O. (2013). The Quatrains of Omar Khayyam: Translated Into English Verse (E. H. Whinfield, Trans). London: Forgotten Books. (Original work published 1893)

Kövecses, Z. (2005): Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind & its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Maalej, Z. A. (2008): Translating metaphors between unrelated languages: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Sayyab Translation Journal (STJ), 1, 60-82.

Mandelblit, N. (1995) ‘The cognitive view of metaphor and its implication for translation theory’, in M. Thelen and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.) Translation and Meaning, PART 3, (pp. 482-495). Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.

Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive Poetics An introduction. London: Routledge.

PRAGGLEJAZ Group (2007). MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol. 22, 1-39.

Steen, G. J. (1999). From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five Steps. In Gibbs, R. W., JR. and G. J. STEEN, (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57-77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publication.

Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in discourse: Pragglejaz and beyond. Culture, Language and Representation, 5, 9-25.

Tabakowska, E. (1993). Cognitive linguistics and poetics of translation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Ingarden, R. (1989). Ontology of the Work of Art: the Musical Work, the Picture, the Architectural Work, the Film. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Verstegen, I. (2010). Arnheim and Ingarden on the Ontology of the Arts. Gestalt Theory. 32, (4), 307-322.