i Background of the Study ... 1
Statement of the Problem ... 4
Purpose of the Study ... 4
Methods of Research... 5
Organization of the Thesis ... 5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORIES OF TRANSLATION, LANGUAGE PLAY, LINGUISTIC PROCESSES AND CHILD LANGUAGE 2.1 Theory of Translation ... 7
2.2 Theory of Language Play ... 8
2.3 Theory of Linguistic Processes ... 10
2.3.1 Phonology ... 11
2.3.2 Morphology... 12
2.3.3 Semantics ... 14
2.4 Theory of Children Phonological Development and Child’s Language ... 16
2.4.1 Simplification ... 17
2.4.2 Reduplication ... 18
2.4.3 Affixation ... 18
2.4.4 Two-Word-Stage (Telegraphic Speech) with Meaning Relation ... 19
2.4.5 The Initial Segmentation ... 19
2.4.6 Invention of Semantically Transparent Words ... 19
2.4.7 The Mastery of the sounds /s/ and /ʃ/ ... 20
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSLATION OF LANGUAGE PLAY OF THE DRAGONESE LANGUAGE FROM ENGLISH INTO INDONESIAN IN CRESSIDA COWELL’S HOW TO SPEAK DRAGONESE ... 22
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 48
Maranatha Christian University APPENDICES:
Dragon Vocabularies Data ... 59 Linguistic Processes and Translation Method of the Dragonese Language in English and Indonesian Version ... 63 Agreement
Between the Dragonese Language and Child Language Features
Maranatha Christian University
Skripsi ini membahas penerjemahan permainan bahasa dari bahasa naga yang dibuat penulis, Cressida Cowell, dalam novel How to Speak Dragonese versi Inggris ke dalam versi bahasa Indonesia yang diterjemahkan oleh Mutia Dharma.
Dalam skripsi ini saya membahas proses-proses linguistik yang digunakan untuk menciptakan permainan bahasa, baik dalam versi Inggris maupun Indonesia. Kemudian, saya membandingkan bentuk dan arti dari terjemahan bahasa naga dalam versi Indonesia dengan Bahasa Naga versi aslinya; apakah Bahasa Naga versi Indonesia juga menggunakan permainan bahasa dan mempunyai arti yang sama seperti versi Inggrisnya atau tidak. Selain itu, saya juga membahas mengenai kesesuaian bahasa naga tersebut dengan fitur-fitur bahasa anak; bermacam-macam fitur bahasa anak yang didapat dari bahasa naga versi Inggris serta apakah fitur-fitur tersebut tetap dipertahankan dalam versi terjemahannya atau tidak.
Sebagai acuan analisis yang saya lakukan dalam skripsi ini, saya menggunakan beberapa teori dari berbagai ahli. Sebagian besar, saya menggunakan teori permainan bahasa David Crystal, teori penerjemahan Basil
Hatim & Jeremy Munday, teori proses linguistik William O’Grady, Kennedy dan
Maranatha Christian University Beberapa proses linguistik yang dapat ditemui dalam analisis saya adalah proses dalam bidang fonologi, morfologi dan semantik, sedangkan untuk fitur-fitur bahasa anak yang saya temui adalah dalam bidang simplifikasi atau penyederhanaan, reduplikasi atau pengulangan, afiksasi atau imbuhan, tahap-dua-kata (two-word-stage) dengan arti yang berhubungan, penghilangan jeda (initial segmentation), penemuan kata-kata baru dengan arti harafiah (invention of
Maranatha Christian University
63 B. Linguistic Processes and Translation Method of the Dragonese Language in English and Indonesian Version
English Indonesian F S Eng. Ind.
1. Pishyou P Compounding Hrrp - P
2. Thankee P Suffixation Macih P Clipping P P Onomatopoeia Onomatopoeia
64 C. Agreement Between the Dragonese Language and Child Language Features in Both English and Indonesian Versions
Simplification (Additional vowel Simplification (The change of
sound at the end of words) /s/ into /c/)
Wrong usage of suffix
Simplification (Additional vowel sound at the end of words)
Reduplication Rhyme usage (aliteration)
Initial Segmentation Onomatopoeia
Initial Segmentation Initial Segmentation
Semantically transparent words Simplification (The change of /s/ into /ʃ/) 2 Simplifications (Phoneme Reduction and
A Combination of 2 Simplifications (Additional vowel sound at the end of words and assimilative process)
sound at the end of words) Simplification (Additional vowel
No. CL Child Language Features CL Child Language Features
Simplification (Syllable Reduction)
Simplification (The change of /ð/ into /d/)
65 the end of words and assimilative process)
Simplification (Phoneme Reduction)
Semantically transparent words Semantically transparent words Child Language Features CL
Maranatha Christian University
Background of the Study
Humans are social beings. In order to survive, we cannot live alone in this world; thus, socializing is a basic need for everyone. In socializing, it is crucial to communicate with one another. One important tool whose primary function is to communicate with each other is language. (Crystal 201)
“Language is many things – a system of communication, a medium for
thought, a vehicle for literary expression, a social institution, a matter for political
controversy, a catalyst for nation building” (O’Grady 1). The fact that there are so
Maranatha Christian University produce “Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message and/or statement
in another language” (Newmark 7). However, Nida, a translation expert especially
in Bible translation, asserted that “there can be no fully exact translations, the total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in details. (Nida 156) That is why, in translating, a translator has to decide whether to keep the sense or meaning, to keep the form or style, to keep neither or to keep both.
In addition to the language function mentioned above, there are several other uses of language where the basic aim has nothing to do with communicating ideas; one of them is being playful. (Crystal 201) Since we were young, the awareness of language has been developed with the help of our parents, teachers, and our friends. Since we have not known grammar and other language rules such as punctuations, which words are formal and which ones are informal or slangs, etc., we have been playing with language. This can be seen in children. Since ages 1 and 2 they play with lexicalized noised such as ding ling, pow pow, beep beep. (Crystal 4) At the ages 3 and 4 they play with more complex variations, such as adding rhymes like A says “Go up high”, B says “High in the sky” (Crystal 5).
The ability of using language develops through time. Adults, despite knowing grammar pretty well, love to play with language also. This is done simply for fun (Crystal 1) Language play is so common to encounter in everyday life because it is a normal and frequent part of adult and child behavior. (Crystal 1)
Maranatha Christian University A translator has to choose wisely whether to sacrifice the form, the meaning, or keep them both. What is more, he/she has to maintain the purpose of the text in which the language play is included.
The topic of my thesis is analysis of the translation of language play of
the Dragonese language from English into Indonesian in Cressida Cowell’s How
to Speak Dragonese. I am interested in choosing this topic because besides wanting to know further the linguistic processes of the language play in the book, I also want to know whether the language play in the English version is in accordance with child language or not. Moreover, I also want to know whether the translator maintains the accordance, which is in line with; or discordance, which is not in line with, in the Indonesian version as well.
The reason why I choose this novel as my data source is because the Dragonese language in the novel is so unique and funny. I love reading novels, yet I have never found a novelist that creates many words in a self-invented language which is derived from English. Moreover, when I read further, I found that the Dragonese language seems to adapt child language features, which is probably done on purpose by the author to attract children readers, as this novel belongs to the realm of children literature. The facts I found makes me more and more interested in the novel and its highly creative Dragonese language.
The topic of my thesis belongs to the fields of language play, translation
and child language. I will mainly use Crystal’s and Cook’s theories of language
play, Hatim & Munday’s theories of translation, O’Grady, Kennedy and
Maranatha Christian University This topic I choose is significant because it can expand the readers’ knowledge about language play including the linguistic processes in creating language play and some child language features. Besides providing some theories from language and translation experts, the readers may learn about how the translator translates the language play. Finally, the readers will understand more about the purpose of using language play and child language in a literary work, especially children literature. From those benefits, this thesis can help both those who want to become translators and those who have become translators in knowing the strategy to translate language play well.
Statement of the Problems
The problems that I am going to analyze in this thesis are:
1. What are the linguistic processes used in creating the language play in the English and in the translated Indonesian versions of How to Speak Dragonese?
2. Which one does the translator keep in translating the language play from English into Indonesian; the sense, the form, neither or both?
3. Is the Dragonese language in accordance with child language? Why? 4. Does the translator keep the accordance or discordance of the Dragonese
language with child language in the translated version?
Purpose of the Study
Maranatha Christian University 1. The linguistic processes used in creating the language play in the English
and in the translated Indonesian versions of How to Speak Dragonese. 2. The language play aspect which is kept by the translator in translating the
language play from English into Indonesian: whether it is the sense, the form, neither or both.
3. Whether the Dragonese language is in accordance with child language or not.
4. Whether the translator keeps the accordance or discordance of the Dragonese language with child language in the translation or not.
Method of Research
There are five steps I used in writing this thesis. First, I looked for the theories of language play, translation and child language to support my analysis later on. Second, I read the original version of How to Speak Dragonese and looked for the language play in Dragonese. Third, I analyzed the linguistic processes of the language play and translation strategies. Fourth, I looked and compared the language play with the Indonesian version, analyzed the accordance or discordance of the language play with child language features and finally wrote my thesis.
Organization of the Thesis
Maranatha Christian University Theoretical Framework, presents the theories of language play, translation, linguistic processes and child language for the analysis. Chapter Three, the Analysis, is the discussion of the language play, including the linguistic processes, the translation and the relation of the language play to child language. Chapter Four, the Conclusion, contains my opinions and comments on my analysis. This thesis is closed with the Bibliography and the Appendix.
Maranatha Christian University
In the previous chapter, I analyzed eleven data containing language plays. Eight of the data also contain language play in the Indonesian version, while three of them, which are Pishyou, Crappa cack-cack and Botty-crackers, do not contain language play in the translated version. They are not language play forms since those expressions in the English Dragonese language are not translated into Indonesian; Hrrp and Bumbumbreet use English words, while
Puppaa uses a Ducth word.
The function of language play is for having fun and playing with language. As I have explained in Chapter Two, considering that this language play
is from children’s literature, while children have not fully mastered their own
Maranatha Christian University
crackers that I have mentioned above are not translated into Indonesian. That is why I conclude that those three translations which do not use Indonesian do not contain language play, as I have explained before in Chapter 2 and in the beginning of Chapter 3.
Furthermore, from the eleven data that I have analyzed, the form of the three data containing language play which I have explained above is not kept in the translated version. It is because the three expressions in the English Dragonese language data contain language play, while in the translated version they do not. The sense of the two data, which are Stinkfish and Gaff, are not kept in the translated version either, due to their different meanings with the English version. Regarding the linguistic features used in creating the language play in both versions, there are nine features used in the English version and seven in the Indonesian version. Compounding, Onomatopoeia, Reduplication, Homophony and Clipping are used both in the English and Indonesian versions, while Suffixation, Hyponymy, Synonymy and Alliteration are only used in the English version. Among all of the linguistic features used, the English version mostly uses the following features: Compounding (5 data), Reduplication (4 data) and Synonymy (4 data), while the Indonesian version mostly uses Reduplication (6 data), Clipping (4 data) and Onomatopoeia (4 data).
In my opinion, the English version uses a lot of Synonymies since English has a lot of words which means the same or have similar meaning, while Indonesian does not have as many synonymies as English do. This fact is backed
up by Cooper, who stated that “With the abundant contributions of its many
Maranatha Christian University larger than that of other major world languages” (Cooper). It is a common
experience among international speakers to be overwhelmed by the amount of available vocabulary, and especially by the huge number of synonyms to choose from (Cooper). This often becomes a problem in translating English into Indonesian, because English has a lot of words with slightly different details whereas Indonesian has fewer words to translate them into. Some examples are English words like bottom, butt, buttock, arse (slang), bum (informal), backside,
and behind which are translated into only either pantat or bokong in Indonesian. As we can see from the example, English can have seven synonymous words, while Indonesian only has two equivalents for all of those. Even though not every English word has fewer equivalents in Indonesian, based on the theory and examples, I conclude that English has a lot more synonymies compared to Indonesian.
Regarding the use of many compound words, I think it relates to a lot of compound words in English, such as bathroom, hotplate, bellboy, eyeball,
Furthermore, in my opinion, the Indonesian version has more data containing reduplication feature because Indonesian uses a lot more of reduplicated words compared to English. In Indonesian, nouns will be repeated twice using a hyphen to make it plural, such as buku becoming buku-buku, ide
becoming ide-ide and so on. Besides plural form, Indonesian also has some words which use reduplication although they are not in plural form, such as kupu-kupu
Maranatha Christian University Regarding the use of quite a lot of clipped words, Indonesian has quite a lot of clipped words. They are usually used in address terms, to make names of people or places shorter in informal use. Some examples are pak for bapak, bu for
ibu, Indo for Indonesia and so on.
In relation with child language features, there are nine child language features which are used in the English version, with the initial segmentation (5 data), various forms of simplification (8 data) and reduplication (4 data) being the top three frequent processes used. The Indonesian version only uses five kinds of child language features, with twelve various simplifications, four onomatopoeias and six reduplications being the top three frequently used processes. Both the English and Indonesian versions use onomatopoeia, reduplication, initial segmentation, invention of semantically transparent words, and various simplification processes (syllable reduction, additional vowel sound at the end of words and the changing of difficult consonant sounds into easier ones). The simplification processes which are only used in the English version are the omitting of consonant cluster, word final devoicing and the substitution of consonant sound into vowel sound. However, combination of assimilative process and additional vowel sound at the end of words, and phoneme reduction are only used in the Indonesia version. Moreover, the English version also uses some features which are not found in the Indonesian version, such as two-word stage, meaning relation, wrong use of suffix and rhyme usage.
One of the data containing language play in the English version, which is
Maranatha Christian University child language features. However, overall, most of the data conform to child language features as have been described in detail above.
Analyzing language play is not as easy as it seems. First of all, we have to pay attention to the data selection, because not all kinds of language play are suitable to be analyzed in the final thesis. Moreover, if the data analysis are not enough to reach the word count quota, choose data that can be elaborated using other disciplines’ theories, such as psychology or child language development like
Maranatha Christian University
Cowell, Cressida. How to Train Your Dragon: How to Speak Dragonese. Book 3. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005. Print.
---, trans. How to Speak Dragonese: Bagaimana Caranya Bicara Bahasa Naga. Bandung: Little K, 2006. Print.
Adriansyah. “Kentut Bermasalah”.Cerita Lucu. Web. 4 March 2012.
Bedsole, Katharine F. “Why is “R” So Hard to Say? Answers to Questions
Parents Ask About the “R” Sound.” Super Duper® Handy Handouts!™,
2006. Web. 30 August 2011.
“B-b-belum Lancar Bicara, atau Ga-ga-ga-gagap?”. As They Grow - 3-4 Years.
2005. Web. 21 Agustus 2011.
Bloom, Lois, and Margaret Lahey. Language Development and Language Disorders. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1978. Print.
“Bokong.” Def. 1a. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print.
Maranatha Christian University Brett, David. “Elision”. Web. 16 July 2012.
“Bum.” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. “Busuk.” Def. 1 and Def. 2. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print. “Buttock.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
“Cack.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 7th ed. 2005.
“Cage.” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. Chibineko. “Desas-desus pengurangan huruf dalam bahasa indonesia *nyomot
punya senior =p”. Chibineko’s Site. 30 December 2009. Web. 20 August
Cook, Guy. Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Cowell, Cressida. How to Train your Dragon. Book 1. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2003. Print.
---. “F.A.Qs”. Cressida Cowell. Web. 7 March 2011.
“Cracker.” Def. 2. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. “Crap.” Def. 4 and Def. 5. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000.
Crystal, David. A Little Book of Language. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2010. Print.
---. Language Play. London: The Penguin Group, 1998. Print.
Maranatha Christian University D’Roiza, Dinesh. “Belajar dengan Masa Lalu”. Kompasiana. 20 Agustus 2010.
Web. 29 February 2012.
Daryanto, S.S. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. Surabaya: Apollo, 1997. Print.
Deanna. “Looking for some interesting compound names for characters in my
story?” Web. 19 August 2011.
“Define homophone”. Ask Define. Web. 25 September 2011.
“Dim.” Def. 6. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
Elizabeth, Mary. “What is Onomatopoeia?.” 4 July 2011. Web. 19 August 2011.
“Fish.” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
Foster, Susan H. The Communicative Competence of Young Children. England: Pearson Education Limited, 1990. Print.
“Gaff.” Def. 2. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. Gleason, Berko. “Semantic Development.” Web. 1 September 2011. “Haddock.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
Harley, Trevor. Psychology of Language From Data To Theory. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd, 2001. Print.
Hatim, Basil, and Jeremy Munday. Translation An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Maranatha Christian University “Ikan.” Def. 1a. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print.
“Kandang.” Def. 1a. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print.
Kennedy, X.J., and Dana Gioia. Backpack Literature An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. London: Longman/Pearson, 2006. Print.
“Kentut.” Def. 1a. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print.
“Krauk krauk krauk.. Ngunyah kacang Geulis mak Esti bikin ogah nutup toples...”
31 August 2010. Web. 17 March 2011.
Lof, Gregory L. “Confusion About Speech Sound Norms and Their Use.”
On-Line Language Conference 2004. 2004. Web. 8 July 2011.
Madsen, Bodil Nistrup, Bolette Sandford Pedersen and Hanne Erdman Thomsen. ”Defining Semantic Relations for OntoQuery”. Web. 6 November 2011.
“Makanan.” Def. 1h and Def. 2h. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print. McKean, Erin. “Totes presh Why we love and loathe clipped words”. 15 October
2011. Web. 16 November 2011.
“Mengenal Berbagai Macam Suara.” Soal Latihan: SD Kelas 1, 2005. Web. 17
“Munch.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. “Nest.” Def. 4a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd, 1982. Print.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward A Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Print. Nordquist, Richard. “Clipping.” Grammar and Composition. Web. 14 August
Maranatha Christian University ---. “homophones”. Grammar and Composition. Web. 25 September 2011.
---. “hyponym”. Grammar and Composition. Web. 16 July 2012.
Nunoura, Tsubasa, trans. Sentaro. Book 34. Jakarta: PT. Elex Media Komputindo, 2010. Print.
O’Grady, William, Michael Dobrovolsky, and Francis Katamba. Contemporary
Linguistics: An Introduction. Essex: Longman (Pearson Education Limited), 1997. Print.
Peccei, Jean S. Child Language. London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
“Please,” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. “Poo.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 7th ed. 2005.
Putra, Benazio Rizki. “Ngendap2 ke dapur, ngemil taro malem malem.. *krauk
krauk*.” 15 July 2010. Web. 17 March 2011
Radford, Andrew, et al. Linguistics An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
“Semantic Relation.” Web. 6 November 2011.
“Stink.” Def. 1a and Def. 2a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed.
“Terima kasih.” Def. 1b. Kamus Bahasa Indonesia Lengkap. 1997. Print.
“Thank You.” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. “Thunder.” Def. 1a. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print. Tim Redaksi Ayahbunda. “Perkembangan Bahasa dan Bicara”. Dari A sampai Z
Maranatha Christian University “Translation.” Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997.
“Tum.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
Watson, E. H., and Lowrey. G. H. Growth and Development of Children. USA: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc, 1962. Print.
“Woof.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
“You.” Def. 1 and Def. 3. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000.
“Young Children.” Glossary of Education. Web. 13 July 2011.
Yule, G. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
“Yum.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
“-ee.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
“-s.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.
“-y.” Def. 1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th ed. 2000. Print.