12 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concepts of Translation
Translation is the communication of meaning of a source-language text (henceforth, SLT) by means of an equivalent target-language text. The word, translation is derived from Latin, translatio (which itself comes from trans- and latio, together means “to carry across” or ‘to bring across”). The modern Romance languages used words for translation which was derived from that source and from the alternative Latin, traduco (“to lead across”). The Germanic (except Dutch) and Slavic languages likewise used calques, based on these Latin sources (Batia, 1992: 213).
The Ancient Greek term for translation, metaphrasis (“a speaking across”), had supplied English with metaphrase (a “literal” or “word-for-word” translation) – as it is contrasted with paraphrase(“as saying in other words”, from paraphrasis). Metaphrase corresponds, in one of the more recent terminologies, to ‘formal
equivalence”; and paraphrase, to “dynamic equivalence.” (Kasparek, 1983: 62)
Strictly speaking, the concept of metaphrase – of “word-for-word
translation” – is an imperfect concept, because a given word in a given language
often carries more than one meaning; and because a similar given meaning may often be represented in a given language by more than one word. Nevertheless,
“metaphrase” and “paraphrase” may be useful as ideal concepts that mark the
13
In translating concept of meaning, it is often found that there is no exact equivalent between an SL and a TL expression due to linguistic differences of two languages. There will be expressions which have some of the meaning components combined in them matching an expression which has the components with some additional ones. There will be overlapped, but there is seldom a complete match between languages www.articlebase.com/non-fiction-article/shift-in-translation2116778html?en).
Bell, in his book, The Theory of Translation (1991: 5-13) points out that translation is the expression in other language or TL of what has been expressed in another SL, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalence. So far he has added that translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language. He also suggests that there are three distinguishable meanings for translation:
a. Translating: the process (to translate: the activity rather than the tangible objects).
b. A translation: the product of the process of translating (that is, the translated text).
c. Translation: the abstract concept which encompasses both the process of translating and the product of that process.
From what Bell says above, it can be said that there are differences among translation, translating, and a translation. In this case, this research tends to use the
term “a translation” since it analyzes the product (the translated texts of Tempo
14
Larson (1984) further points out that translation is the change from one form to another, or the change from one language to another and vice versa. What it means by a language form is phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and so on, either oral or written. In other words, translation is the transfer of meaning from an SL to a TL. It means that meaning should be transferred and maintained, while form can be changed. The process can be seen in the diagram (figure) below
Figure 2.1 Larson’s (1984) diagram of the translation process
In order to make a translation effective, one should search for the meaning from SL and use TL form which can convey appropriate meaning. The figure below indicates the way how to express the same meaning between SL and TL (Larson :1984).
MEANING
SOURCE TEXT TARGET TEXT
Text which will
be translated Translation
Meaning
Interpretation
Representation of its meaning
SL TL.1 TL.2
Tengo sueno
Kajang Pujawai I’m sleepy
Man (speaker) is
sleepy
15
Besides that, Larson also points out that every text has forms and meanings. Therefore, a translation is divided into two types: literal translation and idiomatic translation. A literal translation is a translation which is based on the form which tries to follow the form of the SL, while idiomatic translation is a translation which is based on meaning; it attempts to express the meaning of the SL with the form of the TL with its appropriate, good grammatical construction and the choice of its lexical elements. In this case, the type of translation is from a very literal translation to literal translation which has been adjusted, almost idiomatic, idiomatic, and even to free translation. However, extremely free translation is rarely used. It is called extremely free translation when it is added by other information which is absent from the SL, or the meaning in the ST is changed, or when the historical fact and cultural text in the ST is changed. In reality, the target of translation is to produce a text in the TL which conveys the same message found in the SL.
The following are the steps which can be seen in a translation, based on
Larson’s theory of form and meaning:
Figure 2.3 Larson’s (1984) literal and idiomatic translation
16
Organizing / record/ medical/ that is/ becomes/evidence/which/ complete
TL: Organizing medical record which becomes evidence which is complete (→
literal)
Organizing medical record becomes complete evidence (→ adjusted literal)
Organizing medical record becomes a hard fact (→ almost idiomatic)
Organized medical record is a hard fact (→ idiomatic)
The above translation is adjustment of the sentence structure from SL to the English structure in TL (Kencawati 1989:114).
Idiomatic translation uses appropriate TL form, either in its grammatical construction or the choice of its lexical elements. Idiomatic translation must not be heard as the result of a translation but as if it was written in its original form in the TL. Therefore, a good translator strives for translating something idiomatically.
Kulka in Venuti (2000: 312) points out that a translation is “…a process that operates on texts (rather than words or sentences) and hence its product need to be studied within the frameworks of discourse analysis; and secondly, that translation is an act of communication, and hence both its processes, products and effects can and need to be studied empirically within the methodological
framework of studies in communication.” She further points out that this case can
be done by studying the effects of using cohesive features in translating them into TL in the higher or the lower level of explicitness and the text meaning potential into TL.
2.2 Concepts of Shift
17
and the optional ones (those dictated by his personal and stylistic preferences) to which resorts consciously for the purpose of natural and communicative rendition of an SLT into another language (Al Zoubi and Al Hasnawi, 2001: 114).
Catford (1965:73) says that translation is ‘the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL). He argues that there are two main types of translation shifts; namely, level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (for example, grammar) has a TL equivalence at a different level (for example, lexis). For example: In Indonesian,
continuous action is marked by the words ’sedang’ (sedang makan, sedang tidur)
while in English it depends on the subject and the tense (he is/was eating, I am/was eating).
Unlike English which is an inflectional language, Indonesian does not have any tense. For examples: Saya menulis, Kemarin saya menulis are translated to ‘I write’; ‘Yesterday I wrote’.
Catford (1965:74) divides category-shifts into four types: structure-shift, class-shift, init-shift, and intra-system shift.
1. Structure-shifts involve a grammatical change between the structure of the SL and that of the TL); for example, Indonesian has the principle of “head word +
modifier,” while English hasthe principle of “modifier + head word.”
For example: SL: Saya melihat jendela (window) kaca(glass) TL: I saw the ‘ glass window’.
18
2. Class-shifts, when an SL is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, for example, a verb may be translated with a noun; Noun may be translated with adjective;
For example: SL: Mahasiswa kedokteran (noun) (noun)
TL: Medical student (adjective) (noun)
3. Translation unit-shifts which involve changes in rank; For example: SL: Buku itu di atas meja
TL: The book is on ‘the’ table
In SL, the word, meja does not have any article, while in TL it has article ‘the’.
In informal Indonesian, it is very common to say, Saya guru (literally means ‘I am teacher’, without article), but in English, it has to be added an article: I am
‘a’ teacher.
4. Intra-system shifts occur when SL and TL process system approximately corresponds formally as to their constitution, but a translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system; for instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.
For example: In Indonesia, some nouns are considered as singular, while in English they are in the plural form: For example:
19
Catford (1965: 73-4) emphasizes that level shift in a language can occur in lexis and grammar. Structure shifts are structural shifts which occur in the structure of an SL to a different structure of a TL, “…structure shift is a type of category
shift which involves a change in grammatical structure between ST and TT.”
(Catford,1965:77). However, according to Nida (1969:107), “in many instances, shifts of components involve only a shift from a literal etymological meaning to one which is functionally more relevant.” Nida’s example for this case is the translation of the word ‘devil’ which has etymological meaning of “Satan”. If translated, say, into Arabic, the word would mean nothing unless an etymological shift is used; for example, the translator has to refer to its etymological origin, then he transfers it into the TL. Another type of componential shift goes from generic to specific meaning or vice versa.
Further more, Nida (1969: 89) points out that the area of cultural specification is likely to provide the greatest difficulties for the translator. In translating a text which represents an area of cultural specification in the SL but not in the receptor language, the translator must frequently construct all sorts of descriptive equivalents so as to make intelligible something which is quite foreign to the receptor. For example, the phrase wali nikah (male next of kin and guardian whose consent is required for the marriage of a girl or woman) in Indonesian does not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is untranslatable; and, of course, there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as clear as possible in the TL in order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
Popovic (1970:80) states: “Thus shifts do not occur because the translator
20
possible and to grasp it in its totality. Popovic’s statement reminds us of many
factors which affect the translator’s adoption of a particular style in rendering a
particular text into another language. This is in line with Nida’s idea above which states there is no possibility of shift in a translation from a cultural product in which the permanent shift does not have its equivalence in TL. For example the word, wali (appellation for the first preachers of Islam in Java who, as governors, were in command of the areas converted to Islam, they used the title of sunan and venerated as saints) in Indonesian does not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is untranslatable; and, of course, there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as clear as possible in the TL in order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
According to Halliday in Machali (1998:150), there are two shifts in the process of translation: first, obligatory shift which can be grammatical, structural, cohesion, and utterance; secondly, optional shifts, that is, shifts in meaning, reference, interpersonal, and textual.This second case can occur because the translator cannot find a form which is exactly the same as a source text which can be realized into TL so that the target reader can understand the meaning which has been intended by the ST. Catford (1965:73) points out that form or transposition shift is a translation procedure which involves the change in grammatical form from SL into TL. This theory is supported by Djajasudarma (1971: 31) who points out that determining a word which represents a thing, an object, or a person depends on its meaning. However, from time to time, a word can experience changes which are caused by the existence of some factors such as:
21 2. Historical factors (historical causes) 3. Social factors (social causes)
4. Psychological factors (psychological causes) which is realized in emotive factors and anything which exists because of apprehensiveness, politeness, and subtlety.
5. Foreign causes.
6. The need for new words.
Ulman (1972: 193-5) points out that the change in meaning of words can occur because of the existence of some factors such as:
a. Language is transmitted from generation to generation; therefore, it is not impossible that there will be misunderstanding in interpreting the meaning of a word or words.
b. Vagueness of meaning of a word is one of the causes in changing its meaning. c. A word which is adhered to its environment can also change its meaning which
is far from its original meaning.
d. The existence of polysemy adds to flexible factor in a language. e. Ambiguity of meaning of a word can also change its semantic.
f. The structure of vocabulary more easily change than that of a system. The existence of polysemy adds the flexibility factor in a language.
Obligatory and systematic shift which is caused by a system and principle (transposition shift) which consists of three kinds:
a. Singular noun in SL changes to plural form in TL Examples: pakaian → clothes
22 celana → pants
gunting → scissors
b. Repetition of adjectives in SL becomes real adjective (without being repeated) in TL:
Examples: buah itu kecil-kecil → The fruit is small daun itu lebar-lebar → The leaves are wide
c. Adjective as modifier + noun in SL changes to noun + adjective as modifier + noun in TL:
Examples: gadis cantik → beautiful girl buku tebal → thick book
anak (yang) baik → [a] good boy
Equivalency in translation has to be achieved, not only in message but also in every form of language. Baker in Leonardi (2009: 9-11) points out that the level of equivalency which has to be achieved by a translator in his translation outcome is the equivalency in the level of words, grammatical equivalency, textual equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency. These equivalencies are in use in all types of texts, including literary text.
A translator is a second writer, a transmitter of information related to culture in translation. Leonardi (2000: 1) points out that a translator is simultaneously faced by two languages and two cultures, the culture of the SL and the culture of the TL.
What it means by ‘culture’ here is all cultural elements which are found in two
23
several things above, it is expected that a translator can transfer the equivalent messages to the target language. Equivalency in translation has to be achieved not only in messages but also in every level of language.
Baker in Leonardi (2000: 9-11) points out that the level of equivalency which has to be achieved in a translation outcome is the equivalency in the level of words, grammatical equivalency, textual equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency. These equivalencies are in use in all types of text, including literary text. A translator is a second writer.
2.3 Concepts of Cohesion
A unit of experience in one sentence can be connected or tied with another sentence as an experience unit by cohesion. This tie forms a unit which is called cohesion. Cohesion constitutes a characteristic of a text. In other words, a linguistic unit especially a text consists of a number of sentences. It is called a text if it is cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Saragih, 2001:138). According to Bell, cohesion and coherence are distinct from each other but share one crucial characteristic; they both have the function of binding the text together by creating sequences of meanings‘(1991:164).
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion consists of the mutual connection of components of surface text within a sequence of clauses/sentences; it has the function of binding the text together. He further points out that when the structure of clauses contains formal lexical items which serve to create linkages between clauses, cohesion is being used.
24
cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Halliday, 1976:7).
The concept of cohesion is semantic one. It refers to relation of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. The general meaning of
cohesion is embodied in the concept of text. By its role in providing ‘texture’,
cohesion helps to create text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4). Like other semantic relation, cohesion is expressed through the strata organization of language. In this case, Halliday gives the terminology; namely, meaning is put into wording and wording is put into sound or writing. It can be seen from the figure below.
Meaning (the sentence system)
Wording (the lexicogrammatical system, grammar and vocabulary) ‘Writing’/Sounding (the phonological and orthographic)
Figure 2.4 Meaning Wording and Writing
Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 5).
25 a. Reference
As a cohesive device, reference consists of pronoun (personal pronoun), demonstrative, and comparative. Pronoun constitutes personal pronouns such as I, you, he, it, we, and they. Demonstrative denotes participant’s position or relative circumstance to language users such as this, that, here, there. Comparison has two
processes; participation or circumstance, or language users’ perspective by
obtaining process, participant or specific circumstance, similar in quality, such as big, bigger, biggest.
b. Ellipsis/Substitution
The close tight among clauses is formed by omission and alteration of clause components. Ellipsis indicates the omission of linguistic form from the context.
For example:
Mrs. Baker bought a book and a pencil for her son. There are some words which are omitted from the sentence above. The complete form of the clause above is
Mrs. Baker bought a book for her son and Mrs. Baker bought a pencil for her son. Some words which are omitted are Mrs. Baker and for her son.
Similar to ellipsis, substitution also denotes omission of linguistic form. The difference is the omitted linguistic form is replaced by another linguistic form. In the text, I bought a book and John bought it, too. Here, a book in the second sentence is omitted but it is replaced by the pronoun it. The linguistic form which is omitted can be clauses, phrases, words, or morphemes.
26
Conjunction functions as a connection of two or more clauses. In its system the conjunction can be detailed based on meaning, existence, and function. Conjunction consists of addition, comparison, time, and result or consequence which, respectively, can be further detailed.
The meaning ties among the clauses form a unit which is called a text or a discourse. The ties in the text become tighter if there are more cohesive devices used in the text. In other words, the bound text is marked by extensity and intensity of cohesion devices variation being used (Saragih, 2001: 138).
There are three categories of conjunction:
1. Adverb, including coordinating and compound conjunction, eg: but, so, then, accordingly, actually, therefore, etc.
2. Other compound adverb, eg: furthermore, anyway, instead, besides, etc.
3. Prepositional expression, eg: as a result, instead of that, in addition to, in spite of that, because of, etc.
d. Lexical cohesion.
There are types of lexical cohesion:
1. Reiteration: repetition, synonym, super ordinate. (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 288)
a. There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same height as herself; she stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of the mushroom ……
b. Accordingly …… I took leave, and turned to the ascent of the peak.
The climbis perfectly easy……
27 2. Collocation
It includes pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series.
For examples: chairs….. tables, red….green, basement….roof, car …brakes.
According to Kulka in Venuti (2000:299) cohesion is considered as an overt relationship holding between parts of the text, expressed by language specific markers.The grammatical differences between languages will be expressed by changes in types of ties used to mark cohesion in source and target texts. The following are the examples of the change of the types of cohesive ties from ST to TT:
ST: Pengusaha Anggodo Widjojo akhirnya menjadi tersangka. Dia dijerat dengan dua tuduhan: Menghalang-halangi penyidikan kasus korupsi dan percobaan penyuapan (Indonesian) (Tempo, January 24, 2010):
TT: ‘Anggodo Widjojo is finally indicted on two felony counts. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) will charge him with obstructing the investigation of a corruption case, and of attempted bribery’ (English) (Tempo, January 26, 2010).
In ST, there is no word of KPK (Corruption Eradication Committee), but in
TT it appears; on the other hand, the phrase, ‘dua tuduhan’ does not appear in TT.
The change in the cohesive tie is seen in the first sentence in ST. This change which occurs is the passive voice in ST and the active voice in TT, while the word, pengusaha (business person) in ST disappears in TT (ellipsis).
2. 4 Shifts of Cohesion in Translation
28
text. The choice is involved in the types of cohesive markers used in particular text can affect the texture as being ‘loose’ or ‘dense’ as well as the style and meaning of that text. On level of cohesion, she divides shift in cohesion into two:
a. Shift in level explicitness, namely the general levels of the target text’s textual explicitness is higher or lower, than that of the source text. In this case she
gives the example from English to French: SL (English)…..Halfway up he
realized that a ladder was swaying. TL (French) …… Il n’etait pas encore en
haut de L’echelle, lorsque’il a senti que celle-ci etait en train de basculer.
‘halfway up’is decomposed in the translation to read “he wasn’t yet on top of
the ladder when.”(TL) (Kulka in Venuti, 2000: 301).
b. Shift in text meaning(s); namely the explicit and implicit meaning potential of the source text changes through translations, eg, from English to Hebrew:
“dark” SL (English). Kehah (TL). It can only apply to”human”. Kulka in
Venuti (2000:302).
Cohesion in this study means cohesive relationship of meaning component in a semantic domain of a concept. Larson (1998:429) points out that semantic domain does not refer to using the same form or referring to the same specific item and over (this would be concordance), but rather to the fact that the things being referred to are from the same domain, i.e., center around the same topic or have certain semantic components in common, for example, from specific to generic meaning component or vice versa, from explicit to implicit meaning or vice versa.
29
meaning components combined in them matching an expression which has the components with some additional ones. There will be overlap, but there is seldom a complete match between languages. Further, Kulka in Venuti defined that in the level of cohesion, shifts in types of cohesion markers used in translation seem to affect translation in one or both of the following directions:
1. Shifts in Level of Explicitness
In order to make implicit information in translating, the process of interpretation performed by the translator on the source text might lead to a TL text which is more redundant than the SL text. This redundancy can be expressed by the higher level of cohesive explicitness in this TL text.
a. The general Level of the Target Text’s Textual Explicitness is higher than that of the Source Text
Kulka in Venuti determined that to make implicit information explicit may
result that the general level of the target text’s textual explicitness is higher than
that of the source text, as can be seen in the following example: SL : Saya sudah ingatkan soal anggaran (Tempo 24 juli2011)
TL : ‘I warned them about ways of raising fund’ (Tempo, July 26,2011) LIT: I have reminded about the budget
Notes 1) SL: sudah ingatkan literally means ‘have reminded’ TL: ‘warned (them)’
2)SL: soal literally means ‘about’ TL: ‘about ways of’
30
Here, the clause sudah ingatkan which has literal meaning ‘have reminded’ (also in a clause) is translated to ‘ warned them’ (two words). In this case, there is the shift of cohesion, the emergence of pronoun, ‘them’, which is referred to pronoun III, plural, in the target text which is not seen in the source text. The word, soal which functions as a preposition, ‘about’, is translated into a phrase, ‘about ways of’ (three words). Here, there is the shift in the grammatical cohesion which develops and is added to the combination of lexical cohesion, ‘ways of’. The same process also occurs in the translation of the word anggaran which is literally translated as ‘budget’. The translator translates it to a phrase ‘raising fund’ (two words). Again, the shift occurs where the translator use synonym (in this case, he
uses lexical cohesion, hyponym) to indicate correlation of ‘a group members’.
Here, it can be seen that the text of the source language is transferred to broader sense (higher level) in the target language. There is an addition of words here and there so as to make the target text longer than the source text. This occurs because of the difference in the type of grammar between the two languages and the difference in the types of cohesive ties in the source text and in the target text.
The change and addition in the process of translation above basically has to occur in order that the meaning which is found in the source text can reach the target text clearly so that the target reader can understand what has been intended by writer of the source text. The result is that there will be shifts in the level of explicitness higher than than of the source text.
31
Since the level of target text’s textual explicitness is not always higher
than that of source text. They also have to do with requirements of the target language grammatically, semantically, and stylistically as always general principle in translation.
Example 1) SL: Menggantungkan nasib pada kreditor (24 Juli 2011) TL: ‘Escaping creditors’ (Tempo, July 26,2011)
LIT: Make (one’s) life to creditor
Note 1) SL: Menggantungkan nasib literally means ‘Make (one’s) life to’ TL: Escaping
2) SL: pada kreditor literally means ‘to creditor(s)’ TL: creditors
Here, the clause, menggantungkan nasib in ST contains idiomatic meaning, but in the process of translation, the translator uses the opposite meaning,
‘escaping’. Basically, it is because of it cannot be separated from the context
because the text above is the title of a certain topic so that the translator uses the opposite word in the TT. In reality, what it is intended by the writer in the ST and the literal meaning of the clause, menggantungkan nasib is ‘an attempt to escape
from something’. This case also occurs in the preposition, to in to creditor(s) which
is omitted since the translator uses the grammatical cohesive device, ellipsis. The translator seems to drop the preposition and change it to ‘creditor(s)’ as the direct object instead of indirect object. Thus, there are two shifts: the shift of lexical cohesion (antonym) and grammatical cohesion (ellipsis).
32 Literal meaning: Do not respect radicalism
Note: SL: Jangan Menenggang literally means ‘Do not respect’ TL: Bombs
Here, the clause, jangan menenggang radikalisme in ST undergoes the shift; it becomes a word cluster in TT: ‘Bombs and Radicalism’. In this case, the translator uses the shifts of grammatical cohesion; that is, substitution and lexical cohesion (reiteration). In this case, the translator again uses the meaning which has been adjusted to the meaning which is found in the content of the news because the text above is the title of news. Thus, the shift which occurs in this TT is in the level of lower than the title which is found in the ST.
2. Shifts in Text Meaning(s)
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion ties much more than mutual connection of components of surface texts within a sequence of clauses or sentences and accordingly create the semantic unity of the text. Since there is no same word in two languages, the translator’s choice on meaning components of meaning concept involved in the type of cohesive markers used in a particular text can affect the SL explicit and implicit meaning potential of the SL.
Larson (1998: 44) stated that explicit information is the information which is overtly stated by lexical items and grammatical forms. It is part of the surface structure form. The implicit information is that for which there is no form but the information is part of the total communication intended or assumed by the writer.
33
particular text can affect the texture “loose’ or “dense” as well as the style of
meaning of that text. Since there is no same word in two languages, the translator’s choice on meaning components of meaning concept involved in the type of cohesive markers used in a particular text can affect the SL explicit and implicit meaning potential of the SL.
a. The Explicit Meaning Potential of the SL Changes to Implicit through Translation
Based on the amount of shared information between SL and TL, further he added that the implicit information may consist of referential, organizational, and situational meaning. English has specific grammatical markers which are cohesively obligatory.
Example: SL : Mereka bergabung dengan orang-orang lama LIT: They join with old people
TL: ‘They are hooking up with old players’(Tempo, July 26, 2011) Here, the phrase ‘old players’ connotatively indicate their old colleagues or friends who probably supported them to obtain their position. The word, ‘players’ implicitly indicates bad connotation; it could mean the plot or conspiracy. The two-verb phrase, ‘hook up’ literally means ‘to catch (fish) with a fishhook’. Therefore, the word bergabung (join) is translated to ‘are hooking up’ which most probably has an implicit meaning; that is, bad connotation, too.
34
To discover the similar related meaning concept of a lexical item, Larson (1998: 87) states that it can be done by grouping and contrast as in part-whole relations and contrastive pairs:
For example: SL: Lawan-lawan politiknya berusaha menggali dosa-dosa sang ketua
LIT: ‘His political opponents attempt to dig the sins of the chairman’ TL: Political opponents are working to uncover the misdeed of their party chairman(Tempo, July 26 2011)
The word menggali literally means ‘to dig’, but here it is translated to
‘uncover’. It indicates that menggali has implicit meaning, for dosa-dosa (sins)
cannot be dug. The phrase, dosa-dosa also has an implicit meaning since these words implicitly tells us about the misdeed of the party leader (in the data). It is not the sins which have the religious connotation, but it is the political ones. Again, sang ketua literally means the chairman. Of course, the translator needs to translate or to make it explicit by translating it to ‘the party chairman’.
2.5 Concepts of Culture in Translation
According to Halliday (1989:4), culture is “a set of semiotic systems, a set
of systems of meaning, all of which interrelate.” In this case he used a semantic
definition which means that culture includes all aspects of life in a community. Therefore, different cultures have different perceptions on worthy and unworthy
values. Meanwhile, Newmark (1988:94) defines culture “the way of life and its
manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as
its means of expression,” which indicates that its language group has its own
35
meanings. This word has a meaning of ‘taking place’ (in progressing) as in the following example:
ST: Hari itu, 25 pebruari, wakil presiden kelahiran Blitar, Jawa Timur itu tengah berulang tahun ke 67(Indonesian)(Tempo, 7 Maret 2010)
TT: ‘On that February 25,’It happened to be the 67th birthday of the Vice
President’(English) (Tempo, March 9, 2010):
In this case, it can be seen that cultural element in ST is expressed by the word, tengah in which the translator is fully aware of the meaning which is intended by the writer in the ST. Therefore, he tries to search for the appropriate or equivalent word for the idiom so that the reader in the TT will not misinterpret the real meaning intended in the ST.
Another meaning of the word, tengah is indicating a place; for example, the Middle East Countries. This word can also be related to time; for example, tengah malam (in the middle of the night) or tengah hari (noon), but in dia tengah makan is translated to‘he is eating’. The same is true to the word, bolong which can mean
‘with a hole’, such as in ‘There was a hole in his pocket’, but it can implicitly mean
that ‘he is broke’! If it is combined with the word, melompong, it means
‘completely empty’. The word, soal can also have many meanings (as in Table 3: 5,
36
Regarding what has been pointed out by Kramsch in his Context and Culture in Language (1998:3-4) above, that language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social life. When it is used in contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways. Further he quotes that the words people utter refer to common experience. They express facts, ideas or events that are communicable because they refer to a stock of knowledge about the world
that other people share. Words also reflect their authors’ attitudes and beliefs, their
point of view that are also those of others. In both cases, language expresses cultural reality. Speakers identify themselves and others through their use of language; they view their language as a symbol of their social identity.
From this idea, it can be found out that people express their experience or give the meaning of their experience through language when they are communicating with other people, for example by talking on the telephones, making conferences, and reading books, magazines, newspapers, and so on. Thus, it can be said that culture is the product of a certain community which is caused by life experience of the individuals, expressed through language.
Talking aboutculture, it can be separated from ‘mark’ since marks connect words with human life experience which are expressed through language which sometimes has denotative and connotative meaning.
But as a sign, a word also relates to other words that give it a particular value in the verbal text or co-text. Words refer to other words by a variety of cohesive devices that holds a text like pronoun, demonstrative, repetition. Semantic
cohesion depends on discourse community’s communal associations across
37
other words with which they have come to be associated in the discourse community’s semantic pool (Kramsch, 1998).
2.6 Previous Studies on the Shift of Cohesion in the Translation of some Texts There are some relevant researches in the works of shift of cohesion in the translation of the text from Indonesian to English.
Noverino (2010) has done the research on “The translation of English Implicit Meaning into Indonesian in the novel, One Two Buckle My Shoe. There are some implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and implicit situational meaning is translated into Indonesian.
Toussi and Jangi (ISSN 2249: 327-334), explore the issue of cohesion shift in translating English medical text into Persian. The study revealed that shift of cohesion are evident in translation English medical texts into Persian and cohesion is in area where explicitness is evident. Both studies give contribution to the researcher about explicit and implicit meaning. They are very beneficial for her in analyzing the data.
38
The topic of shift of cohesion which is entitled Shift of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation of The second Life of Bree Tunner into Kisah Singkat Bree Tunner as the research done by Jelita (2013) Udayana University, pointed out that there were two kinds of shift, namely, cohesion shift in the level of explicitness and shift in text meaning, and coherence shift form and function and generic word with descriptive phrase. The topic which is still related to this research was the dissertation, entitled Pergeseran Makna Tekstual dalam Terjemahan Teks Popular, “See You at the Top,” by Risnawati (2011), University of Sumatera Utara. The
dissertation found a finding about 10 types of the shifts of textual meaning from the source text (English) to the target language (Indonesian). They included the shifts from plural form to singular form, repetition of adjectives, grammatical cohesive device, suffixes pun and lah, lexical cohesive device, field of meaning, collocation, Modifier-Headword structure which becomes Headword-Modifier, transposition, and conjunction shifts. All these types of shift indicate a narrowing of meaning and generalization of meaning in the process of translation. Both ideas can help the research in understanding the theory cohesion and coherence.
39
meaning adjustments, of meaning components in textual relationships of a shared or known concept in a different linguistic system of two languages.
Adhi. S (2011) in his thesis, entitled An Analysis of Cohesion and Coherence in Animal Farm and Their Translability and Untranslability into Persian (www.scribd.com/doc-110947493/cohesi-dan-coherenci) draws on the model of cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasa(1976) to study and analyze the syntactic cohesive devices and collocational relation of three Persian texts. It further draws on the model of Hoey (1991) to study lexical cohesive devices in
Persian. Newmark’s (1988) ideas of literal / free and over- / under-translation, and
Kulka in Venuti’s (1986) ideas on shift of cohesion and coherence are also employed. The study has shown that Halliday and Hasan’s model is inclusive and is adequate to handle the Persian cohesive syntactic devices. Hoey’s model also seems to be adequate to analyze the lexical relations in the corresponding Persian versions. It is also found that the change of cohesion and coherence in some cases have led to explicitness thus conforming to the ideas of Kulka in Venuti (1986).
Ali Beikian et all (2013: Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran ) in
his study which was published in the Journal,
40
Pym (2005) explains that the general idea that translations tend to be more explicit than non-translations (the broad “explicitation hypothesis”) is one of the few apparent discoveries that have been made by translation studies. He further points out in his research that in its wider formulations, the explicitation hypothesis nevertheless remains hampered by conceptual imprecision and idealisms of stable meaning, as if there were just one thing, obvious to all, that could then be made explicit or implicit. Explicitation takes place, for example, when a SL [source-language] unit of a more general meaning is replaced by a TL [target-[source-language] unit of a more special meaning; the complex meaning of a SL word is distributed over several words in the TL; new meaningful elements appear in the TL text; one sentence in the SL is divided into two or several sentences in the TL; or, when SL
