EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION : LEVELS, PROBLEMS AND CATEGORIES SITI NURAISIAH PDF

Preview

Summary

EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION : LEVELS, PROBLEMS AND CATEGORIES SITI NURAISIAH email: [email protected] Translation of Applied Linguistics Student in Sebelas Maret University 1. Introduction The notion of equivalence in translation has become a central issue since 1960s. It is considered that equival...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION : LEVELS, PROBLEMS AND CATEGORIES SITI NURAISIAH Siti Nuraisiah

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T hinking Arabic Translat ion ayoub aouak

55874948-In-Ot her-Words-Mona-Baker Georgiana Zabulichi Translat ion Equivalence Fact ors (A descript ive Analyt ic St udy) Hadi Ohida, Kirembwe Rashid Abdul Hamed

EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION : LEVELS, PROBLEMS AND CATEGORIES SITI NURAISIAH email: [email protected] Translation of Applied Linguistics Student in Sebelas Maret University

1. Introduction The notion of equivalence in translation has become a central issue since 1960s. It is considered that equivalence is the most salient feature of a quality of translation (Nababan: 2008). Equivalence refers to cases where languages describe the same situation by different stylistic or structural means (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2000 cited in Munday, 2001:58). It implies that equivalence is achieving the same meaning in both source language (SL) and target language (TL) since the term of translation deals with transferring meaning. The discussion of equivalence becomes problematic. Larose (1989:78 cited in Munday, 2001) argues that it is impossible to get equivalent effect or response. It indicates that there is no equivalence in translation. Conversely, Kenny (1997:77 cited in Munday, 2001:49) states that the definition of equivalence is supposed to defined translation and translation, in turn, defines equivalence. It implies that the nature of translation is equivalence. However, Nida (cited in Munday, 2001:42) proposes that the success of translation depends above all on achieving equivalent response. Thus, it is challenging for translator in achieving equivalence, more precisely, closest equivalence. 2. Levels of Equivalence : Problems and Strategies Baker (2011) divides five levels of equivalence including equivalence at word level, equivalence above word level, grammatical equivalence, textual equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. 2.1.

Equivalence at Word Level

2.1.1. Word and Meaning In the process of translating certain text, translator will focus on decoding linguistic element which conveys meaning. The smallest unit which possess individual meaning is a word (Baker, 2011). Meaning is distiguished into four including propositional meaning referring to a real or imaginary world, as conceived by the speakers of the particular language to which the word or utterance belongs (e.g. shirt means ‘a piece of clothing worn on the upper part of the body’), expressive meaning relating to the speaker’s feelings or attitude rather than to what

words and utterances refer to (e.g. unkind and cruel show the speaker’s disapproval of someone’s attitude, but cruel is stronger than unkind), presupposed meaning dealing with meaning restricted and evoked meaning considering dialect and register variation (Cruse cited in Baker, 2011). 2.1.2. The problems of Non-equivalence Baker (2011: 18-23) proposes 11 problems of non-equivalence including culturespecific concept, the source-language concept which is not lexicalized in the target language, the source-language word which is semantically complex, different distinctions in meaning, the target language which lacks a superordinate, the target language which lacks a specific term (hyponym), differences in physical or interpersonal perspective, differences in expressive meaning, differences in form, differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms, and the use of loan words in the source text. First, culture-specific concept occurs when SL expresses unknown concept in relation to culture such as relagious belief, social custom or type of food (e.g. Midodareni is a custom in javanese for bride before she get married next day). Second, the source-language concept which is not lexicalized in the target language occurs when SL expresses known concept in target culture but it is hardly lexicalized (e.g. tuxedo is formal uniform including black coat and pants, white shirt, and butterfly tie, and it is difficult to lexicalized into Indonesian). Third, the source-language word which is semantically complex occurs when word expresses more complex meaning (e.g. kunduran). Fourth, different distinctions in meaning occur when TL has more or fewer distinctions in meaning than SL (e.g. rice can express bibit, tanaman padi, gabah, beras, nasi). Fifth, the target language which lacks a superordinate occurs when general word is not available (e.g. odong-odong has no general word in English). Sixth, the target language which lacks a specific term (hyponym) occurs when spesific word is not available (e.g. becak has no available specific word in English). Seventh, differences in physical or interpersonal perspective occurs when certain word implies different physical (e.g. ‘membawa’ can be expressed as take/bring/carry) and interpesonal perspective (e.g. eat can be expressed in Sundanese as neda, tuang, emam, dahar, nyatu, ngalebok in relation to who is speaking and to whom the word is lied). Eight, differences in expressive meaning covers the differences in speaker’s feeling while expressing certain word (e.g. jangan mendekat and menjauh has the same propositional meaning ‘not to close’ but different in expression). Ninth, differences in form means that particular form doesn’t always conveys same meaning (e.g. writer means ‘penulis’, speaker means pembicara, but interpreter means ‘alih bahasawan’ not ‘pengalih bahasa’). Tenth, differences in frequency and purpose of using

specific forms refers to means that certain language use a specific forms in frequency and puposes which tend to be different with other language. Eleventh, the use of loan words in the source text (e.g. interpreter is mostly used for ‘alih bahasawan’). 2.1.3. Strategies of non-equivalence For solving the problems existing, Baker (2011: 23-43) proposes some strategies including translation by a more general word (superordinate), a more neutral/less expressive word, cultural substitution, using a loan word or loan word plus explanation, paraphrase using a related word, paraphrase using unrelated words, omission, and illustration. The brief explanation is showed in the table below: Table 2.1. Strategies of non-equivalence at word level No.

Strategy

Descirption

1.

General word

2.

Neutral/ less expressive word Cultural substitution

It uses superordinate word in case subordinate does’t exist in TL if speaker’s feeling is difficult to expressed exactly. it replaces a culturespecific item or expression with a TL item which does not have the same propositional meaning but is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader It is particularly common in dealing with culturespecific items, modern concepts and buzz words It is used when the concept expressed by the source item is lexicalized in the target language but in a different form, and when the frequency with which a certain form is used in the source text is significantly higher than would be natural in the target language If the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the target language, or it is sematically complex.

3.

4.

Loan word / loan word plus explanation

5.

Pharaprase using a related word

6.

Pharaprase using a unrelated word

Example SL Becak

TL Traditional Transportation

Malu-malu kucing

Shy

Sandwitch

Roti tumpuk

Sandwitch

Sandwitch (Roti yang bertumpuk-tumpuk yang di dalamnya terdapat sayur dan daging)

Adore

Cinta

Midodareni

A custom in javanese for bride before she get married next day

7.

Omission

8.

Illustration

Berebet lumpat (Sundanese)

If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not vital enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the reader with lengthy explanations, translators can and often do simply omit translating the word or expression in question. If the word which lacks an equivalent in the target language refers to a physical entity which can be illustrated, particularly if there are restrictions on space and if the text has to remain short, concise and to the point.

Run (‘berebet’ is omitted)

Odong-odong

Adapted from Baker (2011) with combination 2.2.

Equivalence above Word Level

2.2.1. Collocation : Meaning and Category The second level above word is collocation. Collocation is concerned with how words go together (Larson, 1998:155). The way how words collocate tend to be different across languages. For example, merasa can be strung together with lelah (in relation to heart), pahit (in relation to tongue), hangat (in relation to skin), but in English feel can only be strung together with some words related to heart and skin, while in relation to tongue the word combined is taste. Nababan (2008:106-107) categorized collocation into endosentris and eksosentris. Endosentris refers to collocation which have head and modifier and word-meaning of each word is still conveyed e.g. rainy season means ‘musim hujan’ contructed from rainy = ‘hujan’ and season = ‘musim’. Eksosentris which famous as idiom deals with collocation which has no head and modifier and the meaning tend to be different from the words constructed e.g. give up means ‘menyerah’. 2.2.2. Problems and Strategies in Collocational Equivalence The differences in combining words into collocation leads some problems in relation to tanslation. Baker (2011: 58-67) proposes some problems in collocation including engrossing

effect of source text patterning, misinterpreting the meaning of a source-language collocation, tension between accuracy and naturalness, culture-specific collocations, marked collocations in the source text, SL’s fixed expression which has no equivalent in TL and different context of idiom in SL and TL. The brief explanation is showed in the table below: Table 2.2. Problems and strategies of non-equivalence above word level No. 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

Problem

Strategy

Engrossing effect of source text patterning Misinterpreting the meaning of a sourcelanguage collocation

Detaching SL’s patterning

Example SL TL A beautiful girl Gadis cantik

Reconstructing the context

Temperate climate

Tension between accuracy and naturalness Culture-specific collocations

The use of established patterns of collocation

Hard drink

Translation by paraphrase

Greek gift

Marked collocations in the source text SL’s fixed expression which has no equivalent in TL

Reconstructing the context

Breaking the ice

Translation by paraphrase

More than meets the eye

Different context idiom in SL and TL

Using an idiom of similar meaning and form / dissimilar form

Like father like son

of

Iklim sedang (sometimes misinterprate with ‘temperature’ referring to ‘hot’) Minuman beralkohol Hadiah yang merugikan si penerima Memecah ketegangan Sesuatu yang memilik arti lebih daripada yang terlihat mata. Buah jatuh tak jauh dari pohonnya

Adapted from Baker (2011) with combination 2.3.

Gramatical Equivalence The wider level than above word is grammatical level. Grammar is the set of rules

which determine the way in which units such as words and phrases can be combined in a language and the kind of information which has to be made regularly explicit in utterances (Baker, 2011: 92). Grammar organizes its unit by morphology and syntax. Morpology deals with words’ structure referring to the way how words are formed and changed for contrasting grammatical system (e.g. car/cars, waiter/waitress). Syntax refers to the grammatical structure of groups, clauses and sentences (e.g. a beautiful girl). Grammatical equivalence refers to grammatical diversity of grammatical categories across languages. These grammatical diversities pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondance in TL. Baker (2011) prosposes five grammatical categories including number, gender, person, tense and aspect, and voice. First, number refers to the idea of

countability. It is not merely expressed morpologically in all languages. So, it has to be careful when a translator finds a language with a category of number into one without such a category. A translator doesn’t need to overspecify this type of information in the TL, because it will only make the translation awkward and unnatural. Second, gender is a grammatical distinction between masculinity and femininity in terms of noun and pronoun. Some problems may pose when TL lacks of grammatical distinction, so the passive voice allows a translator to avoid specifying the subject. Third, person relates to the notion of participant roles in terms of system of pronouns. It plays in some variety of dimensions involving first, second and third person; masculine, feminine, and neuter; singular and plural; social status; level of intimacy; level of formality and so forth. Fourth, tense and aspect indicates two main types of information: time relations referring to locating an event in time in terms of past, present and future and aspectual differences dealing with the temporal distribution of an event, for instance its completion or non-completion, continuation or momentariness. Inspite of indicating time and aspectual relations, it is not necessary to perform the same function in all languages. Fifth, voice defines the relationship between a verb and its subject. It is categorized into active voice in which the subject is the agent responsible for performing the action and passsive voice in which the subject is the affected entity, and the agent may or may not be specified, depending on the structures available in each language. Those grammatical categories mentioned are summarized in the table below: Table 2.3. Grammatical Category No.

Example

Grammatical Category

SL

1.

Number

Worker Workers

2.

Gender

3.

Person

Waiter Waitress I, we You

4.

Tense and aspect

They She/he Cow/bull Chairman/chairwoman He went to Yogyakarta yesterday He goes to scholl everyday He will go to Semarang next month He has gone since 2 hours He is going to library now

TL Pekerja Para pekerja /pekerja-pekerja/ pekerja Pelayan Pelayan Aku/saya, kita/kami Anda/Anda sekalian/Kamu /kalian Mereka Dia Sapi Pemimpin Dia pergi ke Yogyakarta kemarin Dia pergi sekolah tiap hari Dia akan pergi ke semarang bulan depan Dia telah pergi sejak 2 jam lalu Dia sedang pergi ke perpustakaan sekarang

5.

He conducted his research at Solo The research was conducted at Solo

Voice

Dia melakukan penelitiannya di Solo Penelitian ini telah dilakukan di Solo

Adapted from Baker (2011) with combination 2.4.

Textual Equivalence Text refers to the arrangement of grammatical structure conveying meaning. How text

is arranged tends to be different across languages, and it poses many problems. These problems question a textual equivalence of translation since equivalence is considered important. Baker (2011) divides two types of textual equivalence : thematic and information structure and cohesion. 2.4.1. Thematic and Information Structure 2.4.1.1. Thematic Structure Thematic structure is one of terms which Halliday refers to clause as message. It consists of two segments : theme referring to what the clause is about and rheme dealing with what the speaker says about the theme (Baker, 2011:133). Theme can be considered as topic and rheme as message. For example: The officers Theme

were called to a service station at Minto at 3 am after a report that people were causing a disturbance. Rheme

The clause above tells about the officer as a topic of clause, and the message about the officer is were called to a service station at Minto at 3 am after a report that people were causing a disturbance. The notions of theme and rheme relate to acceptability and naturalness contructed in context. They impose different types of text. Theme, rather than rheme, plays an important role in organizing text and in providing text orientation. It consists of topical theme – marked (adjunct and complement) and umaraked (subject), interpersonal theme – wh-question, vocative and finite and textual theme – continuitive and conjunction (Halliday, 1994). For example: Well Cont. Textual theme

John, Voc. Interpersonal theme

what Wh/C Int/ marked topical theme

are you thinking of? F S P Rheme

These acceptability and naturalness are questioned in case of different thematic structures across languages. Baker (2011) proposes some possiblities which can arise as follows: (a) Transfering SL’s thematic structure without changing TL For example : SL : Grammar is organized along two main dimensions: morphology and syntax. TL : Grammar disusun berdasarkan dua dimensi yaitu morfologi dan sintaksis. The themes of both SL and TL are still same which is topical unmarked theme. SL is transfered without changing TL (b) Transfering SL’s thematic structure with changing TL For example: SL : English can therefore be said to have a grammatical category of number. TL : Sehingga dapat dikatakan bahwa bahasa Inggris memiliki katagori gramatikal yang membedakan jumlah atau banyaknya benda. The theme of SL is unmarked topical theme, but in SL there are two themes including textual theme (sehingga) and marked topical theme (C/ellipsis). Thus, SL is transfered with changing TL (c) Halliday’s thematic structure analysis doesn’t apply in TL 2.4.1.2. Information Structure Unlike thematic structure which conveys messange from speaker’s point of view, the information structure takes hearer’s point of view. It consists of given and new information. Given information refers to known information. The speaker expects that information given is already known by the hearer. New information refers to the information in which the speaker expects to convey to the hearer or the message itself. They are contructed in context rather than grammatical (Baker, 2011). The order of given and new information contribute in comprehending the information delivered. It is sugested that information flow from given to new (end-focus/end-weight/ simple-complex) becomes easy to comprehend. However, the problems pose in translation when the basic grammatical principles are different. For instance, one of basic grammatical principle in English is placing subject before predicate, while Brazilian Portuguese tends to place simple word before more abstract one.

2.4.2. Cohesion The other textual equivalent is determined by cohesion. Cohesion is the network of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links between various parts of a text (Baker, 2011). It relates expressions in sentences and pharagraphs. Halliday and Hasan identify five main cohesive devices in English including reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. First, reference is the relation between word and real world. Second, substitusion refers to replacing an item to another one. Third, ellipsis refers to omitting item. Fourth, conjunction refers to formal markers which relates sentences, clauses and pharagraps. It consists of additive (e.g. and, or, also, in addition, furthermore, besides, similarly, likewise, by contrast, for instance), adversative (but, yet, however, instead, on the other hand, nevertheless, at any ...