Aesthetics in the Relationship of Conceptual Metaphors and Cultural Models in the Translation of Rubayyat of Khayyam

Mandelblit’s cognitive translation hypothesis investigates the translatability of metaphors at the conceptual level by considering two possible alternatives of same mapping condition (SMC) and different mapping condition (DMC) facing translators. His model incorporating other ideas about cultural models presumes conceptual metaphors as intertwined with cultural models. Additionally, in philosophy aesthetics has been defined as a way to access truth (constructed, situated and embodied rather than absolute). Therefore, the aim of the present study is to aesthetically evaluate Khayyam’s Rubayyat and its English translation by Whinfield as a case study in order to gauge the issue of aesthetic equivalence with regard to the integrated model based on ideas of Mandelblit, Tabakowska, and Al-Zoubi et al. Thus, firstly, SMCs and DMCs are investigated in Whinfield’s translation and secondly, aesthetic experiences of the two cultures involved are evaluated in terms of conceptual metaphors; finally, an attempt is made to modify the integrated model in terms of aesthetics. The research findings reveal that the translator has been mostly successful in maintaining conceptual equivalence by changing generic schemas and cultural models compatible to his Western community in cases of DMCs. This indicates the interrelation of conceptual metaphors and cultural models and demonstrates the overall applicability of the integrated model. Also confirmed is the necessity of supplementing the said model by factoring in aesthetics, defined by Heidegger and Nietzsche as the very understanding of a community about realities.


INTRODUCTION
Conceptual metaphors, cultural models, and aesthetics seem to be interrelated with regard to understanding realities instantiated in arts as sociocultural realities and conceptual metaphors as the very way of conceptualisation of reality by different discourse communities.Various methods and approaches have tried to deal with challenges engendered in this relation by investigating the mode of conceptualisation and understanding of truth in different cultures in translating literary works.In fact, according to Lakoff and Johnson (2003), since much of our social realities are metaphorically conceptualised and our physical world is also affected by our social concepts, metaphor plays a significant role in representing and defining reality as a whole in a culture (p. 146).
Furthermore, from a philosophical viewpoint, Heidegger (1971) believes that artworks are objects which reveal significant dimensions of truth experienced in a culture.He suggests that artworks created in a community can contribute to the mode of understanding and experiencing its social reality in the process of historical and sociocultural variability (Heidegger 1971, p. 71).Nietzsche (1999) also argues that formation of metaphors is a fundamental drive in human beings to understand and define new truth in the world.He believes that this intrinsic drive of metaphor formation defines truth generally in realms of myth and art.According to him, -this drive continually confuses the conceptual categories and cells by bringing forward new transferences, metaphors, and metonymies‖ (Nietzsche 1999, p. 151); in fact, metaphorisation is to reconfigure realities in the world.
By investigating conceptual metaphors in a literary work and its translation, the present study aims at analysing SMCs and DMCs and identifying the conceptual equivalence between the two conceptualisation systems.Additionally, using Heidegger and Nietzsche's ideas about aesthetics in revealing truth, it is to probe the aesthetic experiences of the two cultures in terms of conceptual metaphors and the equivalence created in translation.In other words, the objective is to shed light on a kind of aesthetic equivalence, due to different aesthetic experiences of the world, at the conceptual level.Also examined is the dependence of conceptual metaphor on cultural models and the possibility of interpretation and production of conceptual metaphors based on cultural models.Finally, considering conceptual strategies, the conceptual equivalence of the translation of Rubayyat of Khayyam is looked into in terms of the definition of aesthetics considered in the light of ideas by Heidegger and Nietzsche to revisit the integrated model based on Mandelblit's cognitive ttranslation hypothesis.

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was first presented in Lakoff and Johnson (1980) claiming that metaphor is not a mere word or expression but -the ontological mapping across conceptual domains‖ (Lakoff 1993, p. 208).According to Grady (2007), mapping is the most fundamental subject in CMT; it refers to the systematic correspondence between closely correlated concepts and ideas in one or two domain(s) of experience.This metaphorical correspondence can be between the two concepts as in their totality or between some of their elements.
Furthermore, this theory is closely related to the issue of culture, ideology, and cultural models in such a way that -the most fundamental values in a culture will be coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most fundamental concepts in the culture‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 22).Using CMT, Vengadasamy (2011) illustrates that we can shed light on the ideological and cultural beliefs of a writer or community by delving into metaphors and identifying and explaining the structural common ground existing between the source and target domains underlying them.Furthermore, in CMT, there is a difference between conceptual metaphors and metaphorical expressions.In fact, metaphorical expressions are instantiations of underlying conceptual metaphors (Safarnejad, Imran & Norsimah 2013).

METAPHOR AND TRUTH: AN AESTHETIC RELATION
From a philosophical perspective, Nietzsche believes that concept creation leads to truth construction via metaphor, metonymy and culture: A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation, and decoration[…]; truths are […] metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour […].(Nietzsche 1999, p. 146) Accordingly, truth for Nietzsche (1999) is something anthropomorphic (humanly constructed or embodied) world which -contains not a single point which would be ‗true in itself' or really and universally valid apart from man‖ (p.147).Furthermore, in an attempt to identify the nature of truth in terms of its creation and interpretation -emphasising metaphorisation in this regard - Nietzsche (1999) insists on the constructed, not objective, nature of truth and criticizes the Cartesian dualism by connecting it to aesthetics; For between two absolutely different spheres, such as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness, and no expression; but at most an aesthetic way of relating, by which I mean an allusive transference, a stammering translation into a quite different language.For which purpose a middle sphere and mediating force is certainly required which can freely invent and freely create poetry.(p.148) Therefore, aesthetics can be explained as a mode of understanding and constructing reality in a community and consequently aesthetic experiences of a certain discourse community are the building blocks of aesthetics.Heidegger (1971) regards aesthetics as the valid way of exploring truth and accessing realties of a discourse community.He also considers art as the mode of the happening and openness of truth.Gibson (2008) explains -artworks are portals through which we can peer into the deepest and most significant regions of reality (at least the human, cultural variety of reality)‖ (p.574).
The relationship between conceptual metaphor and cultural models in a discourse community raises the issue of aesthetics as the science of representing truth and reality in that community (Heidegger 1971).In fact, by investigating conceptual metaphors underlying ideologies, truths, and worldviews of a certain community or a person, one can explore the aesthetic system instantiated in conceptual metaphors of that culture.Apropos this, Heidegger thinks that humanity's fundamental experience of reality changes over time (sometimes dramatically) and their understanding of the world and social realities is historically everchanging.Therefore, he suggests that artworks created in a community can contribute to the mode of understanding and experiencing its social reality in the process of historical and sociocultural variability (Heidegger 1971).Accordingly, artworks represent what is and what matters as Heidegger (1971) emphasises that -art is the becoming and happening of truth‖ (p.71).Also, according to Lakoff and Johnson (2003, p. 146), since much of our social realities are metaphorically conceptualised and our physical world is also affected by our social concepts, metaphor plays a significant role in representing and defining realities as a whole in a culture.
Moreover, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) believed that metaphor can result in understanding of a set of future actions which are in fact different instantiations of conceptual metaphors in a social community.This prophetic power of metaphor leads us to perform these actions under a coherent experience of the world (p.156).Accordingly, they posit that experimentalism provides an account for understanding different areas of experience including aesthetic experience by which Lakoff & Johnson (2003) mean a way of perceiving, experiencing, constructing, and conceptualising, (new) truth in a discourse community as artworks are media for creating new realities (as Nietzsche and Heidegger posit so).Hence, understanding truth is based on the cognitive and perceptual basis which is different from one culture to another.These conceptual systems are basically metaphorical; In all aspects of life [including aesthetic experiences] we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act on the basis of metaphors.We draw inferences, set goals, make commitments, and execute plans, all on the basis of how we in part structure our experience, consciously and unconsciously, by means of metaphor.(Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 158) In addition, Lakoff and Johnson (2003) argue that -truth is always relative to a conceptual system that is defined in large part by metaphor‖ (p.159) because it is based on the understanding networks of a culture about realities and those networks are principally represented via the vehicle of metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 2003, p. 160).In addition, truth is what we live by, act upon, believe based on, etc.; therefore, we need to make use of them for interpreting reality.
As mentioned, truth is based on understanding, but understanding in large part does not involve direct experiences of reality and needs to be project metaphorically onto the features of less direct experiences.Accordingly, it can be hypothesised that aesthetics as a way to truth is metaphorically based, conflating two theories of Heidegger and Lakoff regarding metaphor.The case of projection of the structure of the concept MOVING OBJECTS as more direct experience onto the elements of TIME as the less direct element reveals the understanding of TIME in a culture and it can lead us to truth accepted about the concept of TIME.

METAPHOR AND CULTURAL MODELS
Cognitivists have tried to show that metaphor is a characteristic of not only artistic and literary abilities, but also -our conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 3).In fact, linguistic metaphors which themselves are one of the aesthetic aspects of literature are based on conceptual metaphors which are a systematic network of representing cultural and aesthetic understanding and experiences of literature (Kövecses 2005, Lakoff & Johnson 2003).For example, Jaberi, Abdullah and Vengadasamy (2016) assert that even novel, poetic, and aesthetic linguistic metaphors are just ‗extending forms' of conventional cognitive metaphors.This conceptual network depends on the cognitive and cultural system of each community and varies from one cultural system to another; therefore, the aesthetic schemas and experiencing literature aesthetically in translation cross-culturally may vary to create conceptual equivalence.These aesthetic experiences are mostly represented in conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson 2003).Therefore, the role of metaphor in understanding and experiencing the aesthetic system of each culture is a fundamental one.Indeed, -artworks provide new ways of structuring our experience in terms of these natural dimensions.Works of art provide new experiential gestalts and, therefore, new coherences.From the experientialist points of view, art is, in general, a matter of imaginative rationality and a means of creating new realities‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, pp. 235-236).Furthermore, the human conceptual system, containing a network of concepts, governs every aspect of our thoughts and actions in the sense that using them we can experience, interpret, interact, and enjoy the world.As such, -in suggesting that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor‖ (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 3).
Conceptual metaphor following Idealised Cognitive Models (ICM) is related to cognitive models of human communities and since language is the mirror of thought and (social) actions to a great extent, analysing language can be a significant source of attaining our conceptual system (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 3).As a result, metaphor can be largely observed as something emerging from cultural models of those community.ICMs are defined as -intersubjectively shared cultural schemas that function to interpret experience and guide action in a wide variety of domains including events, institution and physical and mental object' (Gibbs 1999, p.153).These models are the ways by which human beings can interact and understand the reality in their cultural world.Cultural models can be represented via different instruments and mental capacities such as metaphors.For showing their mental nature, they are called cognitive models and for emphasising their cultural identity they are labelled cultural models (Lakoff 1987, p. 68;Lakoff & Turner 1989, pp. 65-67).Quinn and Holland (1987) argue that cultural knowledge is organised by cultural models and framed into proposition-schematic or image-schematic forms and metaphors and metonymies have significant roles in construction of cultural models.Moreover, Shanghai (2009) also hold that that there is a kind of interactional relationship between metaphor and cultural models.They believe that we produce and interpret conceptual metaphors according to cultural models and some cultural models have underlying metaphorical bases.Cienki (1999) also considers the relationship between cultural models and metaphors as the relationship between base and profile.For example circle is base and radius is profile.Base is a whole cognitive structure and profile is the highlighted part of this whole (base).Interpretation and meaning of the profile is dependent on base.Base functions like a background and profile emerges from it.According to this theory, cultural models (propositional, metaphorical...) function as base and metaphors function as profile; therefore, producing and interpreting metaphors is dependent on cultural models.

METAPHOR TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE AT THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL
According to Catford (1967), determining the nature, scope, and conditions of translation equivalence is the central task of translation theory (p.21).Therefore, translation equivalence is a multidimensional issue concerning texts of different genres and at different linguistic, cultural, textual, experiential, etc. levels.With the advent of cognitive sciences, the issue of metaphor and metaphor translation experienced a Copernicus Revolution.Cognitive approaches to metaphor have revisited the interrelationship among metaphor, translation, and culture at the conceptual level.This interrelationship is represented differently by different cognitivists working on metaphor translation.
Following de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) who believe that a translation -can only be an equivalence in the experience of the participants‖ (p.216), Tabakowska (1993) offers the idea of experiential equivalence to investigate translation at the level of conceptualisation; she believes that two texts are equivalent if they show similarity at the conceptual level rooted in physical and cultural embodied experiences of the world (1993, p. 128).As she posits, the translator should go in depth and consider metaphor translatability at the level of conceptualisation.Additionally, culture as a determining factor in translation is viewed as a conceptual entity.As discussed, conceptual metaphors follow ICMs in a culture where they contain cultural models experienced over time and schematized in the community; therefore, the lack of convergence between conceptual systems' of source and target languages (or non-convergent conceptual system) impedes the making of equivalence between two different conceptual systems in translation (Tabakowska 1993, p. 129).Cultural models similarity can be seen as the convergent conceptual systems of source and target languages.Tabakowska presents a specific continuum to display the interaction of experience, culture and translatability, and conceptualisation: the idiosyncratic experience is positioned at the end of scale of translatability (lowest translatability) and universally embodied experiences are at the other scale (highly translatable) and culture specificity of experiences are in the middle (Tabakowska 1993).Mandelblit (1995) also tries to solve the problem of metaphor translation in terms of conceptualisation.He defines translation as a kind of transference from one conceptual system to another (p.486).He presents the cognitive translation hypothesis reconsidering metaphor translation as a mode of transference from a purely surface linguistic and expressive problem into a cognition problem (1995, p. 486).Following Lakoff's CMT, he argues that the process of metaphor translation would not merely be transference from one semantic system to another, but is also transformation of one mode of conceptualising the world into another (1995, p. 486).If the source and target languages make use of different conventional correspondences to express the same domain of experience, the process of finding the target equivalent may require a conscious conceptual switch on the translator's part.
Accordingly, there are two different conditions in the process of translating metaphor.The first one is Similar Mapping Condition (SMC) occurring when the mapping condition between source and target domains is the same for the two languages, resulting in the high possibility of reproducing the metaphor in the target language and achieving equivalence.The second one is Different Mapping Condition (DMC) which emerges when the mapping condition between source and target domains is different for the two languages.In this case, achieving equivalence is more difficult and needs more time and cognitive efforts on the translator's part (Mandelblit, 1995, pp. 489-492).In DMCs, achieving the equivalent translation needs not only a shift between linguistic items, but also a shift between conceptual mappings (Mandelblit, 1995, p.491).In this connection, Al-Zoubi, Al-Ali, and Al-Hasnawi (2009) consider these two conceptual conditions to cultural models; if two cultures are close to each other, SMC is the dominant condition and if they are different, DMC is the dominant one.They follow Cienki (1999) arguing that the conceptual metaphor is a relational nonautonomous phenomenon acting as the profile in relationship to cultural models as the base.Ideas about the relationship of cultural models and conceptual metaphors in translation can be sketched in Mandelblit's model as follows: The present study is a qualitative research employing a descriptive-comparative method.To collect data, library and documentary research techniques were employed.To analyse data, the qualitative content analysis technique was used in a comparative way.In fact, tenets of CMT explained above and its principle of cross-domain mapping as well as cultural and cognitive models were employed for analysing data in a comparative way.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
For the purpose of the present study, two quatrains from Rubayyat of Khayyam (1975) and their translations by Whinfield (2013) were selected using the purposive sampling method.
The criteria for selecting quatrains were their richness in terms of Khayyamic ideologies, cognitive and cultural models of the Islamic-Persian discourse community, and conceptual metaphors.Arguably, richness can be determined by employing the Metaphorical Identification Procedure (MIP) (Pragglejaz Group 2007) and the five-step method (Steen 2007) as well as investigating resources about Khayyam's worldviews, ideologies, and cultural models.The MIP and five-step method are two techniques proposed for more systematic, reliable and valid frameworks for identification of metaphors.MIP is to determine whether the expression used in a text or discourse is metaphorical by taking the following steps: 1. Read the whole text or transcript to understand what it is about; 2. determine the lexical units in the text-discourse; 3. Establish the contextual meaning of the examined word (for example by referring to dictionaries); 4. Determine more basic (concrete) contemporary meaning of the word (most concrete, related to bodily actions, and more precise, and historically older); 5.If the lexical unit has a more basic current-contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it; 6.If yes, the lexical unit is a metaphor (Pragglejaz Group 2007, p. 3).This procedure may be clarified by an example: Time is passing very quickly.The contextual meaning of the verb ‗pass' is ‗to spend (time)' and its basic meaning is ‗to move in a path so as to approach and continue beyond something' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Pass).Because there is a contrast between its contextual and abstract meaning and its basic meaning; therefore, ‗pass' is used metaphorically.
Then, to have a better understanding of conceptual metaphors underlying the metaphorical expressions, the five step method (Steen 1999;2007) was adopted.According to this model, identifying a metaphor in discourse requires a consideration of linguistic as well as conceptual issues.The five steps are briefly as follows: 1.The first step is identifying metaphorically used words in a discourse; then it analyses words to find the focus or source domain of the metaphorical relation.

2.
Step 2 concerns the transformation of linguistic expressions into their underlying conceptual structures in the form of a series of propositions.3. Step 3 transforms the single proposition with concepts from two distinct (source and target) domains derived from step 2 into an open, cross-domain comparison between two incomplete propositions each pertaining to another conceptual domain.4. In step 4, the analyst interprets the open cross-domain mapping by adding some new conceptual and mainly analogical structures. 5.
Furthermore, universal conceptual metaphors were extracted from Lakoff and Johnson (2003), Lakoff (1994) and Kövecses (2005Kövecses ( , 2010) ) for better comparison of extracted conceptual metaphors in the quatrains and those found in their translations.

BACKGROUND ON KHAYYAM AND WHINFIELD
Hakim Omar Khayyam, the Astronomer Poet of Persia, was born in the latter half of eleventh and died in the first quarter of twelfth century (430-526 AH).Many Khayyam scholars contend that he was influenced by Dahrīsm (Ghanbari 2005, Zekavati Gharaguzlu 1990), determinism, and agnosticism (Hassan Li & Hesam Pour 2005).The Dehkhoda Persian Dictionary refers to dahrīsm as -a religious school of thought believing that Time is the dominant Agent over the destiny of the Universe‖.The advocates of this school consider Time as the deity.In addition, they have no belief in the Hereafter (Ghanbari 2005).
Edward Henry Whinfield (1836Whinfield ( -1922) ) was as a translator of Persian literature including 500 quatrains of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám in 1883.According to Heron-Allen's analysis in The Sufistic Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (2012), Whinfield's translation is faithful to the original in terms of Khayyamic themes and is the least domesticated translation of the time.In the present study, Whinfield's translation of two quatrains is analysed.

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In order to analyse the data, using the model proposed by Al-Maalej (2008, p. 65), the source text and target text metaphorical expressions were unpacked and reduced to their conceptual metaphors.Then, using the cross-domain mapping method (Lakoff & Johnson 2003) the conceptual metaphors in the two texts were analysed separately and their cultural motivations causing tentative cross-cultural differences were examined because it is hypothesised that the differences in conceptualising a concept are in large part due to cultural beliefs of a community (Kövecses 2005).Afterwards, using the model proposed by Mandelblit (1995), metaphorical mappings were compared and contrasted in the Persian and English versions of Rubayyat in order to see how mappings between source and target domains in the two systems are universally structured (SMC) or culture-specific (DMC), and how the translator has dealt with translating metaphors in these two conceptual conditions.Finally, aesthetic experiences and conceptualisations of (social) world are to be investigated in the two Persian-Khayyamic and Western-Victorian cultures according to definitions of aesthetics by Heidegger and Nietzsche.
FIRST QUATRAIN ‫باز‬ ‫لعبت‬ ‫فلک‬ ّ ‫لعبتکاًین‬ ‫ها‬ / ‫هجاز‬ ‫رّی‬ ‫از‬ ًَ ‫حقیقتی‬ ‫رّی‬ ‫از‬ / ‫ّجْد‬ ‫ًطع‬ ‫بر‬ ‫کٌین‬ ‫ُوی‬ ‫بازیچَ‬ / ‫افتین‬ ‫عدم‬ ‫صٌدّق‬ ‫بَ‬ ‫باز‬ ‫یک‬ ‫یک‬ We are little puppets and the heaven is the puppeteer/this is real and not false/we play our little games in the circle of being/we are put back into the box of nothingness (Translation) This quatrain displays a certain worldview about mans' destiny in relation with ‗Time' which could be termed deterministic.The poet conceptualises the question of fate and free will.Khayyam's worldviews then, is aesthetically represented as conceptual metaphors indicating a certain understanding of the world (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, Nietzsche 1999).In addition, as mentioned, conceptual metaphors correlate with cultural models of a certain community (here Islamic-Iranian cultural models); accordingly, the ideas presented in this quatrain in the form of conceptual metaphors and metonymies are based on the sociocultural and historical context and consequently cultural models by/in which Khayyam lived.
These cultural models can be probed at two generic and specific levels as they are correlated with conceptual metaphors.At the generic level, there are three cultural models or frames organising at least one conceptual metaphor within themselves: puppetry, astronomy, and the existence system.
Puppetry can be defined as -the making and manipulation of puppets for use in some kind of theatrical show.A puppet is a figure-human, animal, or abstract in form-that is moved by human, and not mechanical, aid‖ (Encyclopaedia of Britannica: Puppetry).This kind of show was well-known in Old Iranian performing arts; therefore, its local form is rooted in the Iranian culture with its different cultural models.In fact, this generic frame engendered different cultural models in the Islamic-Iranian community at the time of Khayyam used as source domains for conceptualising other abstract concepts in the community and revealing the beliefs of the community.
Astronomy is the second generic-level cultural model under which there are different cultural models operating in the community at the time of Khayyam.In Old Iranian Astronomy, it was believed that there were nine heavens rotating around the Earth and their rotating creates Time which dominates man's life.In fact, the relationship between concepts TIME and ROTATING HEAVENS is causally metonymic (PRODUCER FOR PRODUCED).Accordingly, the generic frame of Old Iranian Astronomy entails different cultural models as -rotating heavens‖ which determine man's life resulting in a kind of determinism (Al-Fakhuri & Al-Jar 1979, pp. 505-507).These cultural models can be represented in their corresponding conceptual metaphors.
The third generic-level cultural model organizing and entailing cultural models of death, birth, lifetime, etc. in the quatrain is ‗the existence system'.These generic-level and specific-level cultural models entail conceptual metaphors and metonymies.
With analysis of the quatrain using the MIP, linguistic metaphorical expressions -‫ها‬ ‖ (the heaven is the puppeteer) were obtained and using the five-step method, the following conceptual metaphors were accessed for them:

HEAVENS ARE MASTERS OF PUPPETS TIME IS A MASTER OF PUPPETS HUMAN BEINGS ARE PLAYTHINGS LIFE IS A SCENE OF SHOW (LIFE IS A STAGE) DEATH IS A CONTAINER
In the case of TIME AS A MASTER OF PUPPETS, the poet first using the generic-level metaphor TIME IS A (DOMINANT) MOVING OBJECT and then using the frame -astronomy‖ in the cultural model -Old Iranian Astronomy‖ (Al-Fakhuri & Al-Jar 1979, pp. 505-507) conceptualises TIME AS ROTATION OF HEAVENS in a metonymic relation.Analogously, TIME IS A MASTER OF PUPPETS can be used for HEAVENS ARE MASTERS OF PUPPETS.
Furthermore, the poet conceptualises HUMAN BEINGS AS PLAYTHINGS underlying the linguistic metaphor - ‖ (We [human beings] are little puppets).This way of conceptualising may be due to Khayyam's agnosticism or predestinarianism in which the poet accepts the fact that he has no will to his birth or death as well as the way of his living (Whinfield 2013, p. 31, Ghanbari 2005, p. 133).In fact, TIME is conceptualised as A MASTER OF PUPPETS who stage-manages human beings, as he wills, during their lives.Khayyam conceptualises THE END OF LIFETIME (DEATH) AS A CHEST, which underlies the linguistic metaphor -‫عدم‬ ‫صٌدّق‬ ‫بَ‬ ‫‖افتین‬ (we are put back into the box of nothingness), into which all -puppets (human beings)‖ are put when they finish their roles during the -show-scene (life)‖.It should also be noted that analysing the metaphorical expression -‫ّجْد‬ ‫‖ًطع‬ (rug of existence) instantiates LIFETIME AS A (FUNNY) SHOW (or LIFE IS A STAGE) which is in keeping with the Islamic cultural model that life [in this world compared with the eternal life in the hereafter] is nothing but vain fun and play (The Koran 47: 36).
Another conceptualisation of TIME is TIME IS AN EXECUTIONER (KILLER) which can be inferred by the metaphoric word ‫ًطع‬ (nat'a) on which the show occurs, and by the cultural model inferred from it.In fact, the word ‫ًطع‬ is related to the cultural model of the public execution of criminals at Khayyam's time.It means a leather rug (on which people were executed), hence it continues LIFE IS A SCENE OF SHOW OF EXECUTION.Now, Whinfield's translation is analysed as follows: We are but chessmen, destined, it is plain, That great chess-player, Heaven, to entertain; It moves us on life's chess-board to and fro, And then in death's dark box shuts up again.
Using the MIP, it was determined that expressions such as ‗We are but chessmen', ‗That great chess-player, Heaven…', ‗life's chess-board', and ‗death's dark box' are metaphorical.Then, employing the five-step method and principles of CMT, their conceptual metaphors and metonymies can be identified.
The conceptualisation of TIME AS ROTATION OF HEAVEN is reflected in this translation because in western culture the metaphoric expression ‗the wheel of time' is used, but it could be argued that western readers may only partially infer this conceptualisation due to different cultural models, i.e.Old Iranian Astronomy.Therefore, TIME AS ROTATION OF HEAVEN and ROTATION OF HEAVEN IS MOVING HANDS entail TIME AS MOVING HANDS and TIME AS A MOVING OBJECT instantiated by the metaphoric expression ‗It moves us on life's chess-board to and fro' can be inferred, hence, HEAVEN AS A CHESS-PLAYER, instantiated by ‗That great chess-player, Heaven…', entails TIME AS A CHESS-PLAYER.In TIME AS A CHESS-PLAYER, however, the translator uses a different source domain (chess-player) and the frame ‗sport'.Due to the difference in conceptualisation of concept TIME, equivalence at the conceptual level may be only partially fulfilled.Hence, again within the generic-level cultural model of -chess‖ and its specific-level cultural models, the translator conceptualises HUMAN BEGINS AS CHESSMEN and the source domain is changed to be coherent with conceptualising HEAVEN (OR TIME) AS A CHESS-PLAYER.This is done by conceptualising LIFE AS A CHESS-BOARD or LIFE AS A GAMBLING GAME (instantiated by life's chess-board) (Lakoff & Johnson 2003) and THE END OF LIFE (DEATH) AS A CHESS-BOX (instantiated by death's dark box) which entails TIME IS A KILLER.It seems that the translator, facing a DMC, has adopted the strategy of changing the generic schema and its cultural models from ‗puppetry' to ‗chess' to render the conceptual equivalence.
Whinfield tries to recreate ideologies embodied in the quatrain in which conceptual metaphors are employed to emphasise the sense of futility and vanity of man's life.But, cultural differences and consequently differences in generic cultural models in Western and Iranian systems make Whinfield use generic cultural model of ‗chess' in order to maintain the conceptual equivalence in translations (Tabakowska 1993, Mandelblit 1995).
Considering Nietzsche and Heidegger regarding aesthetics as a way of producing and understanding truth in the world as well as ideas in the conceptual metaphor theory about accessing the ideology and thoughts of a person or community about the world, the aesthetics of Khayyam's poetry can be inferred from analysing its metaphors.This aestheticsencapsulated mostly in conceptual metaphors -seems to have been recreated in Whinfield's translation because he tries to keep equivalence not only at cultural, conceptual, experiential and ideological levels, but also at the aesthetic level.
It seems that Khayyam tries to criticise ‗the creation and death system' using several conceptual metaphors.In Khayyamic aesthetic experience, human beings are frequently conceptualised as ‗earthenware containers' (Ghanbari 2005); therefore, analysing the quatrain using the MIP and five-step method shows that in the metaphoric phrase ‫‖جاهیست-‬ (there is this earthenware bowl…), the bowl is ‗human being' and HUMAN BEINGS ARE EARTHENWARE CONTAINERS underlies the phrase.In addition, the metaphoric expression ‫دُر-‬ ‫‖کْزُگر‬ (Potter Time) shows that TIME AS A SKILLFUL POTTER does inane tasks making ornate bowls, but after a while, he shatters them on the ground.It seems that Khayyam tries to show his protest to this act of breaking (killing) human beings while they have been created as beautiful and rational as possible.Accordingly, the metaphoric expression -‫زهیي‬ ‫بر‬ ‫‖زدى‬ meaning ‗to shatter on the ground and to destroy' entails that Potter Time destroys HUMAN BEINGS AS EARTHENWARE BOWLS; therefore, TIME AS A SKILLFUL POTTER is TIME AS AN ADVERSARY and TIME AS A DESTROYER which entails DEATH AS DESTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION IS DOWN, and DEATH IS DOWN, DOWN IS BAD, DEATH IS BAD (Lakoff & Johnson 2003).These conceptualisations imply the unfairness and unpleasantness of Potter Time's acts; this is accented by the image of the ornate bowl being so lovely that even ‗Reason', the counterpoint to ‗Emotion', admires it, even loves it.Then the poet raises the existential question: why its maker (Potter Time) destroys (kills) it (human being)?Khayyam's incredulity is imparted in this conceptual metaphor by conceptualising DEATH AS DESTRUCTION.For, in Khayyam's cultural models of Dahrīsm, there is no Hereafter behind death and life will end in death (Ghanbari, 2005).In addition, it seems that Khayyam both ironically and critically conceptualises REASON AS GOD in Islamic cultural models and thoughts.There is a Koranic verse stating that -So blessed is Allah, the best of creators" (The Koran 23: 14), hence the Islamic conceptualisation of GOD AS (PURE) REASON.
Similarly, the conceptualisation of HUMAN BEINGS AS EARTHENWARE CONTAINERS in Khayyam's poetry can be rooted in Islamic cultural models and entails HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE OF CLAY.In fact, in several Koranic verses, it is signified that man is made of clay.For example; -It is He who created you from clay and then decreed a term and a specified time [known] to Him‖ (The Koran 6: 2).
This quatrain and its conceptual metaphors indicate Khayyam's agnostics or predestinarianism and Dahrīsm in which the poet accepts the fact that he has no will to his birth or death as well as the way of his living (Whinfield 2013, p. 31, Ghanbari 2005, p. 133).
Another point is that Khayyam uses the cultural model of ‗pottery' in order to make a kind of metaphoric relationship between ‗rotation of heavens' and ‗rotation of potter's wheel' and then, as mentioned, in Old Iranian Astronomy, ‗rotation of heavens' produces (the passage of) time (Al-Fakhuri & Al-Jar 1979).Furthermore, as mentioned, the metaphor TIME IS GOD in Dahrīsm signifies that Khayyam uses the generic cultural model ‗pottery' in order to criticise the creation and death system in the world.Here, Khayyam merges two cultural models of astronomy and pottery in order to aesthetically conceptualise his worldviews and ideologies.Now, Whinfield translation of the quatrain is presented and analysed as follows: There is a chalice made with wit profound, With tokens of the Maker's favor crowned; Yet the world's Potter takes his masterpiece, And dashes it to pieces on the ground!
Using the MIP and analysing the translation as a whole, it was determined that expressions and phrases such as ‗there is a chalice made…', ‗the Maker's favour …', ‗world's Potter takes his masterpiece', and ‗dashes it to pieces on the ground' are metaphorical.Then, employing the five-step method and principles of CMT, conceptual metaphors underlying the expressions were extracted.
Accordingly, employing the generic cultural model of ‗the creation of man from clay' and the less generic cultural model ‗pottery', it seems that Whinfield tries to conceptualise human beings as earthenware containers; in fact, he uses the concept ‗chalice' in a more generic cultural model conventionalised in his Western-Christian system since, as Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it, chalice is -a special cup for holding wine; especially: the cup used in the Christian ceremony of Communion‖.However, it seems that Whinfield tries to wholly conceptualise the translation in ‗pottery' as does Khayyam.If we consider the Western-Christian cultural models, the creation of human beings from clay is the common ground between Christian and Islamic cultural models.For example, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7 King James Version).This verse from the Bible is also repeated in the Koran, as mentioned above.Therefore, ‗the creation of man from clay' generic cultural model results in Christian cultural models relatively similar to Islamic cultural models.Accordingly, conceptual metaphors such as HUMAN BEINGS ARE EARTHENWARE CONTAINERS, HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE OF CLAY, THE EXISTENCE SYSTEM IS POTTERY, and GOD IS A POTTER related to this cultural model are relatively similar in both source and target texts.
Furthermore, it seems that the translator has eliminated metaphors related to Time such as TIME IS A MAKER, TIME IS A KILLER.This may be due to different cultural models in terms of Old Iranian Astronomy in which it was held that the rotation of heavens creates time which is dominant over human beings' destiny (cf.Al-Fakhouri & Al-Jar 1979).This generic cultural model and consequently its specific cultural models seem to be absent in the Western culture; as a result, the translator seems to face a DMC and replaces the metaphoric expression ‫دُر‬ ‫کْزُگر‬ (Time's Potter) in the source text with World's Potter in his translation.Another justification may be the metonymic relationship of ‫دُر‬ (Time) and ‫دًیا‬ (the world); the translator might have taken the metonymic meaning of the word ‫دُر‬ and interpreted the metaphor Time's Potter in the source text as the possessive expression of world's Potter.This interpretation is rooted in the definition of the word ‫دُر‬ in Persian dictionaries; for example, in Dehkhoda Persian Dictionary, this word has been defined as a very long time, the nature of time, or in general, the time itself.It can be concluded that in Khayyam's thought ‗Time' is central which may indicate his belief in Dahrīsm.In Whinfield's translation, this conceptualisation seems to be absent due to different generic schemas and cultural models; the translator, facing a DMC, may conceptualise GOD AS A POTTER within Christian cultural models in order to maintain the conceptual equivalence and this DMC is due to the diversity at the generic-level cultural models (Kövecses 2005).This diversity results in new conceptualisations in the target text such as GOD IS A POTTER, and GOD IS A KILLER underlying the metaphoric sentence of ‗world's Potter takes his masterpiece' because the translator uses the possessive adjective of ‗his' which seems to refer to God.
However, analysing the metaphoric expression of ‗dashes it to pieces on the ground' reveals DESTRUCTION IS DOWN, DEATH IS DESTRUCTION, DEATH IS DOWN, DOWN IS BAD, and DEATH IS BAD.These are mostly orientational and ontological conceptual metaphors rooted mostly in universal conceptualisations shared by all communities.Therefore, as expected, the translator faces no difficulty in re-conceptualising them in the target language.
Thus, the translator tries to keep equivalence at conceptual, cultural, and aesthetic levels using some modification in cultural and conceptual models of the target system.Changing generic schemas and consequently cultural models, the translator tries to keep equivalence at the level of conceptualisation of the world.In cases where the translator faces DMCs, he changes conceptualisations at different levels as well as cultural models to illustrate Khayyamic aesthetics and worldviews.In fact, the translator, by modification at the conceptual and schematic levels, tries to recreate Khayyam's aesthetic experience of the world or worldviews.

CONCLUSION
With qualitative analysis of the above two quatrains in terms of CMT, ideas about schema and cultural models, as well as some theories about aesthetics, the present study was to investigate aesthetic equivalence at the conceptual level in terms of conceptual metaphors.Choosing Khayyam's poems as the case study, Whinfield's translation, an underestimated translation (overshadowed by Fitzgerald's), published in 1893, was compared with the original Persian text employing Tabakowska's experiential equivalence and Mandelblit's cognitive translation hypothesis.As research findings indicate, it seems that Whinfield's aesthetic and conceptualisation system, significantly represented via cultural models (schemas) and conceptual metaphors, is somehow unique.When facing DMCs, Whinfield has tried to retain equivalence at the conceptual level between the target text and the source text by changing cultural models and generic schemas into those more recognised in his own community.Naturally, facing SMCs, the translator has had no significant problems and the conceptualisations are relatively the same in both texts.These findings confirm studies done in this regard by Kövecses (2005), Mandelblit (1995), Al-Maalej (2008) and Al-Zoubi et al. (2009).Furthermore, considering aesthetics of Heidegger and Nietzsche in terms of producing and understanding reality via art in general and metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphism (embodiment) in particular, findings of the present study suggest that the integrated model representing the triad of translatability, culture, and conceptualisation can be modified as follows: As observed in figure 3, cultural models of a certain community interact with the conceptual system and modes of experiencing reality and truth in the world on the one hand, and these conceptual systems --in forms such as generic frames, schemas, or ICMs as templates stored in minds of members of the community --are interrelated with aesthetics of the community on the other hand.Consideration of translation of literary works in terms of equivalence at conceptual level has proved to be a rewarding one.However, the variable of aesthetics as the mode of representing reality instantiated in metaphor and metonymy (Heidegger 1971, Nietzsche 1999) is intertwined with this conceptual level and as such should be factored into cognitive-based models of translation.

(
FIGURE 1.The tentative model of Tabakowska's experiential equivalence

(FIGURE 2 .
FIGURE 2. The integrated model based on Mandelblit's cognitive translation hypothesis, Tabakowska's experiential equivalence, and Al-Zoubi et al. (2009) in terms of ideas about conceptual metaphor theory, cultural models, and translatability