CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In any account of Interlingual communication,
translation is used as a generic term. Professionally, however, the term
translation is confined to the written, and the term interpretation to the
spoken (Newmark, 1991: 35). If confined to a written language, translation is a
cover term with three distinguishable meanings: 1. Translating, the process (to
translate; the activity rather than the tangible object), 2. A translation: the
product of the process of translating (e.g. the translated text), and 3.
translation: the abstract concept which encompasses both the process of
translating and the product of that process Bell (1991: 13). The term
'translation' used and discussed throughout this paper is confined to the
written language, and refers to both the product and process of translating.
Translational
equivalence is the similarity between a word and expression in one language and
its translation in another. This similarity results from overlapping ranges of
reference. A translation equivalent is a corresponding word or expression in
another language.
The definition of translation suggested
above imply that producing the same meaning or message in the target language
text as intended by the original author is the main objective of a translator.
This notion of 'sameness' is often understood as an equivalence relation
between the source and target texts. This equivalence relation is generally
considered the most salient feature of a quality translation.
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
Translational equivalence is the similarity between a
word or expression in one language and its translation in another. This
similarity results from overlapping ranges of
reference. A translation equivalent is a corresponding word or
expression in another language. This notion of
'sameness' is often understood as an equivalence relation between the source
and target texts. This equivalence relation is generally considered the most
salient feature of a quality translation.
In the process of translation these
levels of language appear to be equivalence levels between source language and
target language. For example, if there is a word in the Source Language (SL),
it must be translated into Target Language (TL) at the word level usually.
Accordingly, translation is the matter of establishing equivalence between SL
and TL.
Translation and interpretation also
need the ability to accurately express th e information into the target
language. Word per word translation is neither accurate nor desireable. A good
translator/ interpreter knows how to express the source text well, so it will
sound natural in its target language.
In
translation we have two different types of equivalence, namely formal
equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalent 'focuses
attention on the message itself, in both of ots form and content', unlike
dynamic equivalent which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect'.
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest
equivalent of a SL word or phrase. If the translation proces is not similar
with those two types the tranlation might be categorized as a non equivalence translation.
Dynamic
equivalence is a translating way by translating the source language into the
target language without too concern on its grammtical structures between the
source language and target language. Even though its grammatical structures are
different the meaning, content and message of the source text are similar with
the target text. Dynamic equivalence translation usually sounds more dynamic
rather than the formal translating way. In this way, the translator has the
rights to translate the text to make it sounds good and nice as long the
meaning and message of the translation is not become different.
The
examples below are dynamic equivalence translation examples.
Example
1
Source Language
Di Kedai Men Negara
Di
pinggir jalan kecil yang berkelok – kelok, diantara kebun – kebun kelapa menuju
ke Bingin Banjah. Desa yang belum dapat disebut desa benar, hanya sekumpulan
rumah – rumah orang tani saja, adalah sebuah kedai. Orang yang mula – mula
datang kesitu tidaklah akan menyangka, bahwa rumah itu sebuah kedai, apa lagi
letaknya tidak di pinggir jalan benar, melainkan dalam perkebunan yang
berpagar. Akan masuk kesitu mesti melalui sebuah pintu bambu dahulu. (1995:9)
Target
Language
At Men Negara’s Food Stall
Off
to the side of the narrow road that twisted through coconut groves on the way
to the village of Bingin Banjah was a hut. A newcomer to the village – if
Bingin Banjah could be called a village, for it was little more than a cluster
of peasants’ homes – might be forgiven for not knowing that the hut was in fact
a food stall. After all, the stall was not even directly on the side of the
road, but at some distance and within a fenced – in piece of ground which had a
bamboo gate to mark its entrance. (1998:19)
*
The first example is a
Dynamic Equivalent example.
Because after discussing it we think the
source language and text language are have a similar meaning, and the words of
that paragraph didn’t give a focus to the grammar like in formal equivalence.
So, it is a Dynamic Equivalent paragraph.
Example
2
Source Language
Jalan kecil itu adalah
jalan desa saja, tidak dipelihara dengan saksama sebagai jalan raya di tepi
kebun – kebun sebelah utara yang beralas dengan batu dan dikeraskan. (1995:9)
The Target Language
The road through Bingin Banjah was no
more than track, a neglected country track, not at all like a compacted ,
graveled, carefully maintained highway that skirted the plantations to the
north. (1998:19)
* The second example is a
Dynamic Equivalent sentence.
Because it has a different words order
(grammatical and structure) but in spite of that it has a similar meaning (the
message are still the same) between source text and target text language, even
though some words in this sentence are didn’t translated.
Example
3
Source Language
Jalan kecil itu
ramailah jika orang desa turun bekerja rodi atau datang bekerja ke balai desa
di Kampung Bunut Panggang, sebuah kampung yang terletak di pinggir jalan raya dan penduduknya beragama Islam. (1995:9)
Target
Language
Occasionally
it was crowded, as when men and woman were marshaled by the village to do some
collective task, or a throng of people passed a long it on their way to an
assembly at Bunut Panggang, the Muslim village on the main highway. (1998:19)
*
The third example is an
Equivalent sentence.
Because it has similar meaning between
the source language and its target language.
We can call it by dynamic equivalence,
because not all of the word is translated. The translator just make it same
with the source language but didn’t focus to the formal sentence.
Example
4
Source
Language
Tatkala
pelita telah terpasang, minta dirilah pemuda empat orang itu pulang ke rumah
masing-masing. Sekaliannya telah membayar harga makanannya tetapi seorang pun
tidak memperlihatkan kepada seorang. (1995:21)
Target
Language
The
lamps were lit. The four young men took their leave and went home. Before
departing each paid his own bill, taking elaborate care to ensure that none of
his companions saw how much he paid. (1998:30)
Ø Example
4 becomes to be a dynamic equivalence because both of them just has a same
meaning (the content are similar each other).
Example 5
Source
Language
Dengan
pandang yang berartiI Gerundung minta diri, karena ia hendak pulang juga. Pintu
pagar ditutup;malam itu pikiran Men Negara penuh dengan cita-cita, dan tidurnya
pun amat nyenyak. (1995:21)
Target
Language
That
night Men Negara’s mind was alive with hopes and plans as she fell into a deep
sleep. (1998:31)
Ø Example
5 is also a dynamic translation. Its target text has a different grammatical
structures, but totally the meaning are just the same.
Example 6
Source
Language
Menteri
polisi itu berpaling kepada I Gerundung yang duduk di tanah, seraya bertanya
dengan bengis, “Hai engkau mengaku memotong babi itu dengan tidak bersurat
keterangan, bukan?” (1995:26)
Target
Language
He
looked at I Gerundung who was squatting on the ground. “You killed that pig
without a permit, didn’t you? Admit it!” (1998:36)
Ø The
sixth example is so clear that it is a dynamic equivalence one. The source
language is almost same with its target meaning even though grammatically
different but similar.
Example 7
Source
Language
“Aku
tidak mau minum di kedai orang yang melanggar aturan,” jawab I Gusti Made Tusan
dengan geramnya. (1995:26)
Target
Language
I
Gusti Made Tusan snarkled at her: “I won’t set foot in the place of anyone who
violates government regulations!” (1998:36)
Ø This
example is a bit different on its target actually. But however if we read the
story from the beginning we will be able to catch well the meaning. In spite of
this this translation is equivalent.
Example 8
Source Language
Beberapa bulan telah lalu. Kehidupan
orang di Bingin Banjah masih sebagai biasa, tiada berubah. Kedua kedai disitu
tetap bersaingan juga, bahkan lebih keras lagi persaingannya. (1995:68)
Target
Language
Several
moths passed. Life in Bingin Banjah was as it always had been; nothing seemed
to have changed, except perhaps that Men Negara and Pan Gara were competing
even more fiercely than before. (1998:78)
Ø The
example above tells us about brief description of Bingin Banjah village. Even
they are different grammatically, but both give alike information on their own
ways. And they’re equivalent.
Example 9
Source
Language
Chatterjee
bimbang. Jika ditunggunya Ida Gde di Singaraja, sia-sialah perjalanannya ke
Pulau Bali yang jauh itu. Akan kosonglah halaman surat kabar “Perkumpulan Seni
Calcuta,” karena kelalaiannya itu. (1995:81)
Target
Language
Chatterjee
didn’t know what to do. If he stayed with Ida Gde in Singaraja he would miss
the spectacle that had brought him to Bali and, with that, fail to produce the
story he was expected to write for the journal of the Calcuta Arts Association.
(1998:91)
Ø Both
of the passages tell about the wellfare between Chatterjee and Ida Gde Swamba
in Singaraja. They are similar each other and still sounds dynamic even the
target language hasn’t a same grammar.
Example 10
Source
Language
Esok
harinya ia telah bercampur pula dengan tuan Chatterjee di hotel “Denpasar”.
Tuan itu amat senang hatinya, karena telah bertemu pula dengan kanalannya yang
pintar dan berbudi itu. Dari situ keduanya pun berangkat ke Karangasem akan
menyaksikan “pelebuan” yang hebat itu. (1995:85)
Target
Language
A
few hours later he left for Denpasar and the following day met up again with
Mr. Chatterjee at Hotel Denpasar. Chatterjee was delighted to see his
cultivated Balinese friend again. From Denpasar they set off together for
Karangasem to become the spectators at the imposing spectacle of the royal
cremation ceremony. (1998:95)
Ø This
last example is can be categorized equivalent each other. A bit different but
that just writer’s art on translating. Grammatically different, but at last of
it the content/ message can be delivered well in it’s understandable and sounds
they’re equivalent.
2.1. Problems
of Equivalence
The
principle that a translation should have an equivalence relation with the
source language text is problematic. There are three main reasons why an exact
equivalence or effect is difficult to achieve. Firstly, it is impossible for a
text to have constant interpretations even for the same person on two occasions
(Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995: 14). Before one could objectively assess
textual effects, one would need to have recourse to a fairly detailed and exact
theory of psychological effect, a theory capable, among other things, of giving
an account of the aesthetic sensations that are often paramount in response to
a text (Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995: 14).
Secondly,
translation is a matter of subjective interpretation of translators of the
source language text. Thus, producing an objective effect on the target text
readers, which is the same as that on the source text readers is an unrealistic
expectation.
Thirdly,
it may not be possible for translators to determine how audiences responded to
the source text when it was first produced (ibid, p. 14). No translator would
hinder the reader’s comprehensionby using an absolute expression in order to
achieve equivalent effect Miao,2000:202).
2.2. Strategies to Solve The Equivalence Problems
As
has been mentioned above, problems of equivalence occur at various levels,
ranging from word to textual level. The equivalence problems emerge due to
semantic, socio-cultural, and grammatical differences between the source
language and the target language. These three areas of equivalence problems are
intertwined with one another. The meanings that a word refers to are culturally
bound, and in most cases the meaning(s) of a word can only be understood
through its context of use.
Due
to semantic, socio-cultural, grammatical differences between the source
language and the target language, loss and addition of information in
translation cannot be avoided. Basnett-McGuire (1991) states that once the
principle is accepted that sameness cannot exist between the two languages, it
is possible to approach the question of loss and gain in the translation
process. Bell (1991: 6) suggests a similar point that 'something' is always
lost or, one might suggest, gained in the process, and according to Nida
(1975), "all types of translation involve 1) loss of information, 2)
addition of information, and /or 3) skewing of information". To conform to
the stylistic demands and grammatical conventions of the target language,
structural adjustment in translation is inevitably needed.
CHAPTER
III
CONCLUSION
Studying the
principles of correspondence, translation equivalence is such an important
thing to us. By knowing and understand it we could do the translating well.
Generally, all translators cope with finding equivalence in order to convey the
translation units better. During this study and finding, any translation
scholar contemplates about the possible factors which appear to affect it. Some
scholars define a borderline between the equivalence which is related to form
and the equivalence that is relevant to meaning, however, all of them have
something in common that is the approval of some problems which impede finding
equivalence.
There are
two kinds of equivalence. They are dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence.
Dynamic equivalence is concern on the meaning or message of its source
language. The grammatical and structure may be different along its content or
message are still same. While formal equivalence is more emphasized on its
grammatical structure and of course the meaning or message are exactly same.
Baker
(1992) classifies various problems of equivalence in translation and suggests
some strategies to deal with them. Adopting a bottom-up approach, she begins
with simple words and phrases and continues with grammatical, textual and
pragmatic equivalences. Problems of equivalence occur at various levels,
ranging from word to textual level. The equivalence problems emerge due to
semantic, socio-cultural, and grammatical differences between the source
language and the target language. These three areas of equivalence problems are
intertwined with one another. The meaning(s) that a word refers to are
culturally bound, and in most cases the meanings of a word can only be
understood through its context of use.
REFERENCES
Quinn,George.1998.The Rape of Sukreni.Jakarta:Balai
Pustaka.
Tisna, A.A.Pandji.1995.Sukreni Badis Bali.Jakarta:Balai
Pustaka.
No comments:
Post a Comment