Ehsan Panahbar; Akbar Hesabi; Hussein Pirnajmuddin
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 ...
Read More
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. ConclusionAccording 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.
