Archive for the ‘Terjemahan’ Category

Quality Analysis of Translation of the First Chapter of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita

by Irene Nany K

A Candidate of Master in Applied Linguistics, University of Brawijaya, Indonesia

 

Lolita is a world famous novel written by Russian author, Vladimir Nabokov in 1955. Originally written in English, this novel is often considered as one of the three most influential novels in history. In penning the story, Vladimir uses numerous wordplay and delicate words that makes this novel not easy to be interpreted, though it has been translated into many languages, including Bahasa Indonesia. There are also dozens of allusions to Poe, Joyce, Flaubert, Shakespeare, Keats, Melville, and so on.

This novel tells about a thirty something widowed man of mixed European origins, initially named “Humbert Humbert”. He was born in Paris in 1910 and fell obsessively and desperately in love with a twelve years old American girl, Dolores Haze (Lolita). We are told, in the first paragraph on the “Foreword,” that “Humbert Humbert” died of a coronary thrombosis on November 16, 1952, just before the start of his trial for murder. His memoir, “Lolita or The Confessions of a White Widowed Male” are actually being presented to us by John Ray, Jr. The novel is comprised of sixty-nine chapters. Although, at first glance, Lolita may seem to be the account of a pedophile and murderer, it is really a love story and a tragic one at that. This novel, however, is notable for its controversial subjects.

The writer mainly chooses to take the first chapter of this novel for in that part the opening story is lyrical and genius. As like fulfilling its role to captivate the reader on the first page, the first chapter is exquisitely succeeded. The use of words show the extravagant passion of “Humbert Humbert” towards Lolita, instead of prose, the first chapter sounds more like poem. Therefore, the writer tries to annotate the translated version of Bahasa Indonesia that is converted by Anton Kurnia and published by Serambi Ilmu Semesta in 2008. On the translated version of Bahasa Indonesia, the writer found some rarely used words like sulbi or boyak. Aside from the word choice by the translator along the novel, the writer tries to annotate the translation product of chapter one using the translation assessment theory mainly from Mashadi Said (Universitas Gunadarma) and Juliane House who deals with Functional-Pragmatic Model of Translation Evaluation (Halidayan Approach).

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Translation is a process of delivering or transferring information and message from one language to another. In the process of doing the translation, however, there are many aspects that influencing the translator to lose the poignant meaning, to cause perplexity, and to cause the same effect upon the Target Language reader compared to the Source Language reader. Along with the numerous translation products from foreign literature, translation theory developed fast during the second half of the 20th century, starting with the theory of Nida, Catford, and other theoretician (Hariyanto, 2013). The equivalency of the language meaning therefore, needs to be maintained (House, 2001).

According to Mashadi Said (2002) in his paper Menilai Terjemahan published in Jurnal Ilmiah Sastra Bahasa vol. 7 no. 2 (Dec. 2002), the quality parameter of a translation product depends on its accuracy, properness, and clarity:

Berkualitas tidaknya suatu terjemahan dapat ditentukan melalui tiga sudut pandang yaitu keakuratan, kejelasan, dan kewajaran. Keakuratan berarti sejauhmana pesan dalam teks bahasa sumber (TBsu) disampaikan dengan benar dalam teks bahasa penerima (TBp). Kejelasan berarti sejauhmana pesan yang dikomunikasikan dalam teks bahasa penerima dapat dipahami dengan mudah pembaca sasaran. Makna yang ditangkap pembaca TBsu sama dengan makna yang ditangkap pembaca TBp. Kewajaran berarti sejauhmana pesan dikomunikasikan dalam bentuk yang lazim, sehingga pembaca teks bahasa penerima terkesan bahwa naskah yang dibacanya adalah naskah asli yang ditulis dalam bahasanya sendiri.”

Nida and Taber (1982:13) quoted in Said (2002) argue that in order to maintain the accuracy of the message, a translator can change the grammatical structure of the sentence in the SL text: “… makna harus diutamakan karena isi pesanlah yang terpenting. … Ini berarti bahwa penyimpangan tertentu yang agak radikal dari struktur formal tidak saja dibolehkan, tetapi bahkan mungkin sangat diperlukan.

Among several ways in examining the product of translation, that are written on Said paper “Menilai Terjemahan” the writer mostly uses the feature of ‘back translation’ to examine the accuracy, properness, and clarity aspect of the TL text. For this is a simple method that can directly examine precision of the TL text.

Meanwhile according to Juliane House (2001), who use Halidayan approach in her way of assessing translation product, the process of translation must consider language or text through register (Field, Tenor , Mode ) and its genre:

“The assessment model (House 1997) is based on Hallidayan systemic-functional theory, but also draws eclectically on Prague school ideas, speech act theory pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus-based distinctions between spoken and written language. It provides for the analysis and comparison of an original and its translation on three different levels: the levels of Language/Text, Register (Field, Mode and Tenor) and Genre.” (p. 247)

One paramount thing in translating text, according to House is the properness or naturalness of language in the TL text. It is the difficult task that needs to be accomplished by every translator in order to produce an excellent translation that is will be well received by the TL reader. To do so, one must have the adept skill and vast knowledge of the language and culture of both SL and TL text:

“Over and above its role as a concept constitutive of translation, “equivalence” is the fundamental criterion of translation quality. In an attempt to make “a case for linguistics in translation theory,” Ivir expresses the inherent relativity of the equivalence relation very well: “Equivalence is…relative and not absolute,…it emerges from the context of situation as defined by the interplay of (many different factors) and has no existence outside that context, and in particular it is not stipulated in advance by an algorithm for the conversion of linguistic units of L1 into linguistic units of L2” (1996: 155).” (p. 247)

ANALYSIS

In every word choice of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, it is notable that the author put brilliant effort in describing his main character, “Humbert Humbert,” as a luscious and passionate toward Lolita. The main character is not just in love but also deeply in lust. This message that delicately appears on its writing style and language, however, shall be maintained when one tries to translate this novel into the Target Language due to the equivalence aspect of translation (House, 2011).

To apply the translation assessment theory upon the analysis of Lolita’s first chapter, the writer initially discusses the ideational, interpersonal and textual aspects of this novel. According to House (2011), a translator must consider the functional approach (field, tenor and mode) of the text s/he dealing with. As it is written on the foreword, this novel is a memoir of “Humbert Humbert”, more precisely it is a confession of him as a murderer. The first chapter of this novel is written by “Humbert Humbert” to be read by the juries of the court, while the form of his message is written. Furthermore, the translation analysis regarding to the theory of Said (2002) that deals with accuracy, properness, and clarity, upon some prominent issues on the first chapter will be discussed subsequently.

In the first paragraph of the first chapter, even speaking Lolita’s name is a sensual experience for “Humbert Humbert”. It is the alliteration of a literal trip of his tongue through his mouth:

Source Language (English):

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.”

Target Language (Bahasa):

“Lolita, cahaya hidupku, api sulbiku. Dosaku, sukmaku. Lolita: ujung lidah mengeja tiga suku kata, menyentuh langit-langit mulut, dan pada kali ketiga menyentuh gigi. Lo. Li. Ta”.

From this first paragraph, the writer argues that there are some words that are inaccurate. For example, In the TL the translator uses “api sulbi” for “fire of my loins”. Sulbi comes from Arabic language which means coccyx. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary (henceforth MWD) coccyx means “a small bone that articulates with the sacrum and that usually consists of four fused vertebrae which form the terminus of the spinal column in humans and tailless apes.” While loins mean “a: the upper and lower abdominal regions and the region about the hips; b: the pubic region, the reproductive organs” (MWD). In other words, sulbi refers to the bone while ‘loin’ literally refer to the sexual organ, therefore, it refers to passion or lust. For this reason, the use of sulbi to convert ‘loin’ is inaccurate. Hence, the writer proposes the use of word hasrat, meaning ‘passion’ or ‘lust’ to translate the word ‘loin’ (see table: annotated translation).

The next issue form the first paragraph is the depiction of Lolita’s name. The translated version however, looses the intricate aspect that the character wants to express through his description of the process mentioning the name of the one he loves passionately. The translator uses the phrase “..mengeja tiga suku kata..”, if we apply back translation to assess this issue, the meaning will be “…spelling three syllables…” which do not occur in the SL text. The whole process of spelling the name Lolita however, tells the reader something more than just the process of mentioning someone’s name. The author wants to emphasize that even in spelling Lolita’s name, “Humbert Humbert” is aroused. In the Bahasa version the sentences are translated into “…ujung lidah mengeja tiga suku kata, menyentuh langit-langit mulut, dan pada kali ketiga menyentuh gigi.” The phrase ‘taking a trip’ is changed into ‘mengeja tiga suku kata’ or ‘spelling three syllables’ which eliminate the adventurous sense of the action. Hence, the writer suggests the use of word ‘berkelana’ or ‘to wander’ for the phrase ‘taking a trip’.

In the second paragraph, there is one prominent issue on the use of words in the translated version that will be annotated.

Source Language (English):

“She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.”

Target Language (Bahasa):

“Dia adalah Lo yang biasa-biasa saja di pagi hari, setinggi seratus lima puluh senti, mengenakan sebelah kaus kaki. Dia adalah Lola saat mengenakan celana panjang longgar. Dia adalah Dolly di sekolah. Dia adalah Dolores pada data isian bertitik-titik. Namun dalam pelukanku dia adalah Lolita.”

 

The sentence ‘She was Dolores on the dotted line’ is literally translated into ‘Dia adalah Dolores pada data isian bertitik-titik’. While the phrase ‘on the dotted line’ in English idiomatic expression that refers to official name on the legal documents, to translate it literally will be perplexing for the reader. Due to properness and clarity aspects of translation for the target reader, the writer proposes the use of ‘dokumen resmi’ to transfer the phrase ‘on the dotted line’ (see table: annotated translation).

In the third paragraph, there are two issues to be discussed. The first one relies on the first sentence:

Source Language (English):

“Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.”

Target Language (Bahasa):

“Apakah dia memang seorang titisan? Ya, pasti. Kenyataannya, tak bakal ada Lolita sama sekali jika aku tak pernah jatuh cinta kepada seorang gadis belia pada suatu musim panas di sebuah puri di tepi laut. Oh, kapankah? Bertahun-tahun sebelum Lolita dilahirkan pada musim panas itu. Ah, kalian selalu bisa mengandalkan seorang pembunuh untuk menulis prosa yang indah.”

 The translated version of the first sentence ‘Did she have a precursor?’ into ‘Apakah dia memang seorang titisan?’ is rather inaccurate and unclear. In back translation, the sentence becomes ‘Is she a reincarnation?’ In fact, the author writing style is trying to hold the truth that the main character is going to reveal. It is not clear at first to what precursor the main character refers to. However, the next sentence explains that the precursor here refers to someone that he used to love in the past. Hence, the focus of the sentences is that special person in the past, whose identity is still unveiled. To translate it into ‘Is she a reincarnation?’ will shift the focus to Lolita itself, therefore the writer proposes the use of sentence ‘Apakah dia pernah dilahirkan dalam wujud orang lain sebelumnya?’ or in English it means ‘Had she she ever born before?’ to maintain the focus of the sentence in the SL text.

Still from the third paragraph, the next sentence that is going to be annotated is the sentence ‘…About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer’ which is translated into ‘…Bertahun-tahun sebelum Lolita dilahirkan pada musim panas itu.’ The sentence, however, is ambiguous in the TL text. In back translation the sentence will become ‘Years before Lolita was born that summer’. By the omission of the words ‘my age’ in the TL text, the message is not successfully transferred. The writer, therefore, proposes to provide the detail meaning in that sentence: ‘Kira-kira bertahun-tahun yang lalu, sebelum Lolita berusia sama denganku pada saat peristiwa musim panas itu terjadi.’

In the last paragraph of chapter one, the last sentence will be discussed:

Source Language (English):

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.”

Target Language (Bahasa):

“Para anggota sidang juri yang terhormat, yang mula-mula akan kutunjukkan adalah apa yang dicemburui oleh para malaikat-malaikat bersayap yang telah salah mengerti itu. Sudilah melihat selaksa sulur duri yang rumit membelit ini.”

 

In the last sentence of the TL text, it is obvious that the translator tries to maintain the characteristic of the author in using the wordplay in its SL text. However, the sentence ‘Sudilah melihat selaksa sulur duri yang rumit membelit ini’ does not sound quite natural in the TL text. The last sentence is actually the opening of the detail story that the main character is going to reveal, therefore the writer suggests to use clearer message in the TL text: “Marilah kita lihat jalinan kisah dari duri-duri yang membelit ini.

SL: English Version TL: Indonesian Version  Suggested Improved Translation
(1) Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. (1) Lolita, cahaya hidupku, api sulbiku. Dosaku, sukmaku. Lolita: ujung lidah mengeja tiga suku kata, menyentuh langit-langit mulut, dan pada kali ketiga menyentuh gigi. Lo. Li. Ta. (1) Lolita, cahaya hidupku, api yang membakar hasratku. Dosaku, sukmaku. Lo-lii-ta: ujung lidahku berkelana menelusuri bagian bawah mulutku dengan tiga sentuhan mengeja namanya, pada sentuhan ketiga, naik menyentuh deretan gigiku. Lo.Lii. ta.
(2) She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores onthe dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.  (2) Dia adalah Lo yang biasa-biasa saja di pagi hari, setinggi seratus lima puluh senti, mengenakan sebelah kaus kaki. Dia adalah Lola saat mengenakan celana panjang longgar. Dia adalah Dolly di sekolah. Dia adalah Dolores pada data isian bertitik-titik. Namun dalam pelukanku dia adalah Lolita.  (2) Dia adalah Lo. Lo yang tampak sederhana di pagi hari, dengan tingginya seratus lima puluh senti, mengenakan kaus kaki sebelah. Dia adalah Lola, saat mengenakan celana panjang longgar. Saat di sekolah, dia adalah Dolly. Dalam dokumen resmi dia adalah Dolores. Namun dalam pelukanku dia selalu menjadi Lolita. 
(3) Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style. (3) Apakah dia memang seorang titisan? Ya, pasti. Kenyataannya, tak bakal ada Lolita sama sekali jika aku tak pernah jatuh cinta kepada seorang gadis belia pada suatu musim panas di sebuah puri di tepi laut. Oh, kapankah? Bertahun-tahun sebelum Lolita dilahirkan pada musim panas itu. Ah, kalian selalu bisa mengandalkan seorang pembunuh untuk menulis prosa yang indah. (3) Apakah dia pernah dilahirkan dalam wujud orang lain sebelumnya? Ya, sudah pasti. Kenyataannya, Lolita tak akan pernah ada jika aku tak pernah jatuh cinta kepada seorang gadis belia pada suatu musim panas di sebuah puri di tepi laut. Oh, kapankah itu? Kira-kira bertahun-tahun yang lalu, sebelum Lolita berusia sama denganku pada saat peristiwa musim panas itu terjadi. Percayalah, seorang pembunuh selalu bisa diandalkan untuk menulis sebuah prosa yang indah.
(4) Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns. (4) Para anggota sidang juri yang terhormat, yang mula-mula akan kutunjukkan adalah apa yang dicemburui oleh para malaikat-malaikat bersayap yang telah salah mengerti itu. Sudilah melihat selaksa sulur duri yang rumit membelit ini. (4) Para anggota sidang juri yang terhormat, pertunjukan yang mula-mula akan kuperlihatkan adalah mengenai hal yang telah dicemburui oleh para malaikat-malaikat bersayap yang salah mengerti itu. Marilah kita lihat jalinan kisah dari duri-duri yang membelit ini.

 

CONCLUSION

The translated text of Lolita, especially the first chapter, to Bahasa Indonesia by Anton Kurnia, still have some failures in delivering the message from its SL text (English). In one hand, the translator tries to maintain the delicacy of the wordplay used by the author, Vladimir Nabokov, but in the other hand the translator ignores the prominent function of the translation, which is to deliver the full message and to do so in such natural ways in the context of TL readers.

 

REFERENCES

Hariyanto, Sugeng. 2008. Translation Quality Assessment in Translation Studies.

House, Juliane. 2001. Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta, (on-line journal), XL VI, 2, 2001. Retrieved online June 10th 2013.

Nabokov, Vladimir. 2006. Lolita. London: Penguin Books.

Nabokov, Vladimir. 2008. Lolita. Jakarta: Serambi.

Said, Mashadi. 2002. Menilai Terjemahan. Jurnal Ilmiah Sastra Bahasa vol. 7 no. 2 (Dec. 2002), ISSN: 1410-9077. Retrieved online July 1st 2013.

AN ANALYSIS OF EQUIVALENCE AT WORD LEVEL IN “THE LOST SYMBOL” TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH INTO INDONESIAN

Laila Sarah Puspita Sari

A Candidate of Master of Applied Linguistics of Universitas Brawijaya

 

According to Newmark (1988:7), 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. Then Nida and Taber (1982:12) propose a rather complete definition of translation, that “Translating consisting of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in term of style.” Meanwhile, Catford (1965:20) also states that translation is the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).

Working on translation, technically, a translator has to know the equivalency in translating the source language to the target one. As we know, translation peers always encounter different changes in equivalence within different language levels ranging from physical forms into meaning. Bell (1991:20) defines the phenomenon as “the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language.” Baker (2001:77) defines equivalence as the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that has allowed the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first place. From what the experts’ statement above, we can say that equivalence is the most important element in the process of translation.

This paper discusses translation problems arising from lack of equivalence at word level; what does a translation do when there is no word in the target language which expresses the same meaning as to be source language word? Based on those considerations, this paper deals with one of the types of equivalence that Baker proposed in her study, that is equivalence at word level. The data are taken from one of the Dan Brown’s novel, “The Lost Symbol” (Chapter 1) translation of English into Indonesian.

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Baker (2001) explores the notion of equivalence at different levels: equivalence at word level, equivalence above word level, grammatical equivalence, textual equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence. These levels of equivalence are closely related to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. There is n on-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within across language (Baker, 2001:11). In her book, Baker also describes common problems of non-equivalence at word level and the strategies dealing with it.

Culture-specific concepts

The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target language (abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom or even a type of food).

The source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language

The source language word may express a concept which is known in the target culture but simply not lexicalized, that is not “allocated” a target language word to express it.

The source-language word is semantically complex

The source-language word may be semantically complex.

The source and the target languages make different distinctions in meaning.

The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source language.

The target language lacks a superordinate

The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word (superordinate) to head the semantic field.

The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinate) but lack specific ones (hyponyms).

Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective

Physical perspective has to do with where things or people are in relation to one another or to a place, as expressed in pairs of words such as come/go, take/bring, arrive/depart, etc. perspective may also include the relationship between participants in the discourse (tenor).

Differences in expressive meaning

There may be a target-language word which has the same propositional meaning as the source-language word, but it may have a different expressive meaning.

Difference in form

There is often no equivalent in the target language for particular form in the source text.

Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms.

Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used.

The use of loan words in the source text

Words such as au fait, chic and alfresco in English are used for their prestige value, because they add an air of sophistication to the text or its subject matter. This is often lost in translation because it is not always possible to find a loan word with the same meaning in the target language.

In addition, Baker also proposes some strategies dealing with it as follows:

  • Translation by a more general word (superordinate)
  • Translation by a more neutral/ less expressive word
  • Translation by cultural substitution, which involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression with a target-language item which does not have the same propositional meaning but is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader.
  • Translation using a loan word or loan words plus explanation,which is particularly common in dealing with culture-specific items, modern concepts and buzz words. Following the loan word with an explanation is very useful when the word in question is repeated several times in the text.
  • Translation by paraphrase using a related word, whic his 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.
  • Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words. This is done if the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the target language, the paraphrase strategy can still be used in some contexts.
  • Translation by omission is adopted whenthe 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.
  • Translation by illustration is a useful option 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.

 

 DATA DISPLAY

In this paper, the data are categorized based on the problems of equivalence at word level.

  1. Culture-specific concepts
  • the 555-foot –> 555 kaki (170 meter)
  • turtlenecks –> Kaus berleher tinggi
  • cravat –> cravat (dasi)
  • fascalia –> fasealia (syal pengikat leher)
  • Staccato –> suara berderak
  1. The source language concept is not lexicalized in the target language
  • austere –> sederhana
  • daybag –> tas bahu
  1. The source-language word is semantically complex
  • unloading platform –> platform untuk menurunkan penumpang
  • collegiate cordovan loafers –> sepatu kulit santai model mahasiswa
  1. The source and the target languages make different distinctions in meaning
  • voice –> aksen
  • read –> membahas
  1. The target language lacks of superordinate
  • leaned –> mencondongkan tubuh
  • saying –> mengucapkan
  • climbing –> naik merayapi ­
  1. The target language lacks of specific term
  • craning –> menjulurkan leher
  • spire –> menara
  1. Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
  • you –> kau
  • child –> bocah
  • boy –> anak laki-laki
  • boy –> bocah
  • woman –> perempuan
  • your guest –> tamu Anda
  1. Difference in form
  • unexpected –> tak terduga
  • Hate –> tidak ingin
  • background –> latar belakang
  1. The use of loan words in the source text
  • corporate jet –> jet korporasi
  • symbology –> simbologi
  • philanthropist –> filantrop
  • dynasty –> dinasti
  • silhouette –> siluet
  • etymologically –> etimologis

DISCUSSION

As mentioned in the previous part, Baker in her book “In Other Words” proposed some strategies dealing with the problems that translator may face in translating the English into Indonesian. In this part, the work focuses on analyzing the problem and the strategies that the translator deals with.

Culture-specific concepts

a. Data: the 555-foot –> 555 kaki (170 meter)

ST : The 555-foot marble-faced obelisk marked the nation’s heart.

TT : Obelisk berpermukaan marmer setinggi 555 kaki (170 meter) itu menandai jantung bangsa ini.

It is proper for Western to say foot to describe the measure of altitude or length. The foot is still legally recognized as an alternative expression of length in Canada, officially defined as a unit derived from the metric metre and still commonly used in the United Kingdom, although both have partially metricated their units of measurement. The foot is widely used outside the English-speaking country (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)). In this phenomenon, the translator decides to translate it into 555 kaki and add explanation (170 meter) in which the measurement of length in meter sounds familiar in Indonesia.

b. Data: turtlenecks –> Kaus berleher tinggi

ST : The woman laughed. ‘Those turtlenecks you wear are so dated. You’d look much sharper in a tie!’

TT : Perempuan itu tertawa. “Kaus berleher tinggi yang Anda kenakan kuno sekali. Anda akan tampak jauh lebih cerdas dengan kemeja berdasi!”

American describes turtleneck as a garment, usually a sweater with a close-fitting, round, and high collar that folds over and covers the neck. Indonesian does not have the equivalence word of turtleneck because it is originally worn by American and Australian. The translator tries to find the cultural substitution for this in order to be more understandable for Indonesian. Therefore Kaus berleher tinggi is the best translation for turtleneck by describing how turtleneck looks like, that is t-shirt with high collar that folds over and cover the neck.

c. Data: cravat –> cravat (dasi)

d. Data: fascalia –> fasealia (syal pengikat leher)

ST: —and despite the headmaster’s romantic claims that the origin of the cravat went back to the silk fasealia worn by Roman orators to warm their vocal cords,—

TT : —Walaupun ada pernyataan romantis dari pemimpin akademi bahwa cravat (dasi) berasal dari fasealia (syal pengikat leher) sutra yang dikenakan para orator Romawi untuk menghangatkan pita suara,—

Western describe cravat is a scarf or band worn around the neck as a tie especially by men. Cravat means the forerunner to the modern tie. Historically, a cravat is a symbol of culture and elegance associated with Croats in the 17th century (http://academia-cravatica.hr/interesting-facts/history/). Nowadays cravat is worn by bridegroom of Western style. Again there is no equivalent word for cravat in Indonesian and we only have tie to call kind of long piece of cloth around the neck. In consequence, the translator uses a strategy by keeping the source text and give explanation as an addition, which sounds general or neutral for Indonesian that cravat can be described as the same as tie.

The same phenomenon exist in translating fascalia, there is no equivalence word for fascalia then the translator keeps the word and give explanation in the bracket

The source-language word is semantically complex

  • unloading platform –> platform untuk menurunkan penumpang

ST: Almost there, the boy told himself, craning his neck and looking up at the unloading platform.

TT: Hampir sampai, ujar bocah itu kepada diri sendiri, seraya menjulurkan leher dan mendongak memandangi platform untuk menurunkan penumpang.

In this case, the source text word is semantically complex and the translator decides to translate unloading platform intoplatform untuk menurunkan penumpang. The strategy which is applied is translation by paraphrasing using a related word

  • collegiate cordovan loafers –> sepatu kulit santai model mahasiswa

ST: He was wearing his usual charcoal turtleneck, Harris Tweed jacket, khakis, and collegiate cordovan loafers—

TT: Seperti biasa, dia mengenakan kaus abu-abu tua berleher tinggi, jaket Harris Tweed, celana panjang khaki, dan sepatu kulit santai model mahasiswa

The same problem happens in this part of text. If we translate it word-for-word, it causes a long text to explain one by one the term of that kind of shoes. Then, the same strategies used to transfer the appropriate meaning that is by paraphrasing using related words to get the understandable and acceptable translation.

The source and the target languages make different distinctions in meaning

  • voice –> aksen

ST: ‘Hello! Hello!’ a singsong British voice shouted from across the tarmac. ‘Professor Langdon?’

TT: “Halo! Halo!” teriak sebuah suara merdu beraksen Inggris dari seberang aspal. “Profesor Langdon?”

Literally, voice means sounds made when speaking or singing. For example, she is lost her voice. For this case, the translator considers the addition of information of British in which there is a stress that the character is speaking British English. Cultural substitution is used as the strategy to make it appropriate translation. Therefore he translates it into aksen which is not the literal meaning of voice.

  • read –> membahas

ST: ‘My book group read your book about the sacred feminine and the church!

TT: “Kelompok pembaca buku saya membahas buku Anda tentang sacred feminine dan gereja!

It is a great choice translating read into membahas, whereas the literal meaning of read is membaca. By considering the previous words, it is mentioned already the ‘pembaca’ is used to translate book. Word-for word translation is not the appropriate strategy to solve this problem. Therefore the translator applies the strategy of paraphrase by using the related words by considering some aspects that support the diction choice. The diction choice is acceptable for reader because they have the same information that a book group’s activity is not only reading the book but also discussing the contents of the book.

The target language lacks of superordinate

  • climbing –> naik merayapi ­

ST: Petugas lift sedang mengucapkan sesuatu menenangkan mengenai piston bersambung dan konstruksi besi tempa lift.

TT: Lift Otis yang naik merayapi pilar selatan Menara Eiffel itu dipenuhi turis.

We see that the translator decided to make his translation as natural as possible in Indonesian. He considered his understanding of Eiffel Tower that people can see Paris from above and people already know about it. Meaning that, there is the same knowledge between the reader and the writer. The decision of the collocation used is appropriate dealing with the ‘lift’ . Here ‘lift’ is subject which is climbing with the help of machine. If we translate it into ‘memanjat’, it is not acceptable because we use ‘memanjat’ only for human and some animals. Also the translator makes it more expressive by using naik merayapi. He wants people to imagine what was happening with the lift at that time’

It can be said that it is the strategy of the translator to translate it in two phrases, ‘naik merayap’ intead of ‘naik’. He tends to keep the natural meaning of ‘climbing’ in the text, in which the author describes the ‘lift’ is moving up slowly. Then if he only translates it ‘merayap’, it is less accurate in fact ‘merayap’ can be down, up, right or left.

 The target language lacks of specific term

  • craning –> menjulurkan

ST: Almost there, the boy told himself, craning his neck and looking up at the unloading platform.

TT: Hampir sampai, ujar bocah itu kepada diri sendiri, seraya menjulurkan leher dan mendongak memandangi platform untuk menurunkan penumpang.

In my opinion, the translation of menjulurkan leher fot craning is not appropriate. In Bahasa, menjulurkan is commonly expressed for tongue, menjulurkan lidah. Hence, we need more acceptable word to transfer the meaning of craning. Because of Bahasa lacks of specific term so the strategy used is paraphrase by using related word. The activity which is associated with stretching out one’s neck in order to see something can be called mengulurkan leher in Bahasa.

  • spire –> menara

ST: Outside the window the sun had set, but Langdon could still make out slender silhouette of the world’s largest obelisk, rising on the horizon like the spire of an ancient gnomon.

TT: Matahari sudah terbenam di balik jendela, tapi Langdon masih bisa melihat siluet ramping obelisk terbesar di dunia, yang menjulang di cakrawala seperti menara jam kuno.

A more general word is used as the strategy. Yet, the translator gives lack information to transfer the meaning of spire. He translates spire into menara and the reader will imagine the whole menara (tower), in fact, in his book, the author wants the readers to imagine the special part of the tower that is the spire. In the source text, English has specific word to call the top of the tower that is spire, while in Bahasa it needs two words to call the spire. In my opinion, it is acceptable if the translator translates the word spire into puncak menara in order to get the more specific meaning and information for the reader.

Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective

  • you –> kau

ST: ‘You look pale, son. You should have stayed on the ground.’

TT: “Kau tampak pucat, Nak. Seharusnya kau tetap di bawah.”

The Kau in this dialogue is used as the consideration of poetic term of novel and it is generally used as bound morpheme of engkau. Because of the social status between the speakers, in daily conversation kau sounds rude compared to kamu. In my view, kamu term is more acceptable for Indonesian. Kamu is considered a more familiar way of talking; it stands in the middle of formal and informal. Kamu is used with your sister, brothers, cousins, and other family members of the same age or status.

  • your car –> mobil Anda

ST: ‘If you’ll come with me, sir, your car is waiting.’

TT: ”Ikuti saya, Pak, mobil Anda sudah menunggu.”

Anda is very formal way of talking, like between businessmen, to people that are older, to person that you respect, to teachers, or to strangers. It can also be used as a barrier, because it shows that you have no interests of forming a close relationship with the other person. Considering the relationship between Langdon and the driver shows the different social status between them and the term of Anda is accurate to be used in the translation.

Difference in form

  • unexpected –> tak terduga

ST: The daydream about his late father, Langdon suspected, had been stirred by this morning’s unexpected invitation from Langdon’s longtime mentor, Peter Solomon.

TT: Langdon curiga, agaknya lamunan tentang almarhum ayahnya dipicu oleh undangan tak terduga pagi ini dari mentor lamanya, Peter Solomon.

To describe the minimal formal element of meaning in language, as distinct from word, this may or may not contain several elements of meaning. Thus, an important difference between morpheme and words is that a morpheme cannot contain more than one element of meaning and cannot be further analyzed. The term of tak terduga is an accurate diction for unexpected.

The use of loan words in the source text

  • corporate jet –> jet korporasi

ST: He was sitting all alone in the enormous cabin of a Falcoln 2000EX corporate jet as it bounced its way through turbulence.

TT: Dia sedang duduk sendirian di kabin luas jet korporasi Falcon 2000EX yang berguncang-guncang melewati turbulensi.

In my view, it does not need to keep the loan word in the translation when we have the original word in Bahasa. Corporate can be translated into perusahaan which is more acceptable and understandable for the target reader.

  • symbology –> simbologi

ST: He’d been halfway through reviewing Masonic symbology when his mind had drifted.

TT: Dia sudah setengah jalan meninjau simbologi Mason ketika benaknya tadi berkelana.

Symbology basedon Merriam Webster is the art of expression by symbol, or the study or interpretation of symbol. Bahasa does not have the equivalence word of this term so the translator decides to keep it in his translation and this strategy is exactly appropriate to solve the problem.

  • philanthropist –> filantrop

ST: The fifty – eight-year-oldphilanthropist, historian, and scientist had taken Langdon—

TT: Finlantrop, sejarahwan, dan ilmuwan berusia 58 tahun itu sudah membantu dan membimbing Langdon—

As the same as the previous discussion about using the loan word, in this case the translator does the same thing consider that in Bahasa, we have no term to substitute philanthropist.

  • dynasty –> dinasti

ST: Despite the man’s influential family dynasty and massive wealth,

TT: Walaupun dinasti keluarga Solomon sangat berpengaruh dan kekayaannya luar biasa,

Sometimes translator should not use the loan word to play save in his translation when we have our own term in the target text. When we talk about dynasty, it deals with royal family in a country and the same thing happens in Indonesia. Dinasti term in Bahasa is something like looking back in the China Kingdom era hundred years ago. It is better if dynasty is translated into keturunan because it is more neutral and familiar for Indonesia.

  • clipboard –> clipboard

ST: Langdon looked up to see a middle-aged woman with a badge and clipboard hurrying toward him, waving happily as he approached.

TT: Langdon mendongak dan melihat seorang perempuan setengah baya dengan lencana dan clipboard bergegas menghapirinya, lalu melambaikan tangan dengan gembira ketika Langdon mendekat.

As the same reason and opinion in the discussion above, I propose that the more acceptable translation for clipboard is papan tulis kecil. Some people will not get the same understanding what clipboard is if the translator keeps the English term.

 

CONCLUSION

Based on finding the analysis there are eight types of problems found dealing with the equivalence at word level in The Lost Symbol translation of English into Bahasa: Culture-specific concepts, the source language concept is not lexicalized in the target language, the source-language word is semantically complex, the source and the target languages make different distinctions in meaning, the target language lacks of superordinate, the target language lacks of specific term, differences in physical or interpersonal perspective, difference in form, and the use of loan words in the source text. The most problem faced is the use of loan words, found five terms in English which are no equivalence word in Bahasa. The strategy used by the translator is to loan the word because the term is also familiar for the target reader.

 

REFERENCES

Baker, M. 2001. In Other Words: a Course Book on Translation. London and New York: Routledge

Bell, Roger.T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman.

Catford, J. C. 1978. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press

Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook in Translation. London: Prentice Hall

Nida, Eugene and Charles R. Taber. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill

 

NON EQUIVALENCE AT WORD LEVEL IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANWAR FUADI’S RANTAU 1 MUARA

(Kutipan referensi/citation: Jurnal Linguistik terapan Vol 3/1, Mei 2013)

Iwik Pratiwi

 

 

by Iwik Pratiwi

SMK Negeri 2 Malang

Master’s candidate in Applied Linguistics at FIB of Brawijaya University

 

ABSTRACT

Rantau 1 Muara is the the last novel of the trilogy is the last trilogy of Negeri 5 Menara, written by Anwar Fuadi. The novel settings include, one of them, the unique life of pesantren. Because it is so unique, the translation into English may face problems as many of the concepts talked about are bound to Javanese or Islamic culture. Thus, it can be predicted that some problems should appear. To prove this, the writer translates one chapter and report the problem and how to solve the problems. This “translator reseacher” kind of research shows that the problems of non-equivalence are resulted from not only the author’s uses of local dialects and Arabic Islamic terms also the lexical and semantic field of the source words or expressions. More specifically the problems include cultural specific context, source text not lexicalized in target text, semantically complex source text, source text and target text making different distinction in meaning, differences in expressive meaning, differences in form, and loan words in source text. To make the translation of the text into English readable and relatable as possible, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic strategies, are adopted.

Keywords: Source Text (ST), Target Text (TT), equivalence, semantic field, lexical set, strategies

 

In Translation Studies, equivalence is an important concept. There are many levels of equivalence, and word level equivalence is the lowest level. Although translators do not normally work on word-for-word equivalence, the discussion may serve as the basic step in dealing with non equivalence found in the source text.

EQUIVALENCE AT WORD LEVEL

Baker (1992) defines word as the smallest unit of language which we would expect to possess individual meaning. In translation, everything would be easier if there were a one-to-one relationship between words and meaning in the various languages. But it isn’t so.

According to Cruse, in Baker (1992), there are four types of meaning on words and utterances: propositional meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning and evoked meaning. Presupposed meaning arises from selectional and collocational restrictions, while evoked meaning arises from dialect and register variation which covers field, tenor and mode of discourse. All types of the above lexical meaning contribute to the overall meaning of utterance or a text. In case of problems of non equivalence, Baker suggests that it is useful to view the semantic fields and lexical sets of a language. Understanding the semantic field and lexical sets can be useful to appreciate the value that a word has in a given system and to develop strategies for dealing with non equivalence.

 

CONCEPTUAL AND LEXICAL SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF THE SOURCE TEXT (ST)

General Overview of the Novel

Rantau 1 Muara is the last trilogy of Negeri 5 Menara, written by Anwar Fuadi, whose writing has inspired millions of people. The trilogy is inspired by the author’s enlightening education experience at Pondok Modern Gontor, an Islamic boarding school in East Java The first novel has been translated into English by Angie Kilbane and published in 2011. The translation of the second and third sequels are still in question. Part 17, Maghrib Terhebat, describes Alif’s first meeting with Dinara, the girl he falls in love with. The author of the novel who puts himself as the main character, is a member of Islamic community and spent some years in Islamic boarding school or pesantren. His utterances are mostly informal mixed with Islamic terms. He also uses many highly expressive items in this part, such as : enaknya, sebel, lega, salah sendiri, ini gawat, gombal, hebat juga dia, etc.

Concept of Islamic Prayers

The title of part 17, The Greatest Maghrib, refers to one of five most well-known Islamic prayers performed daily : at dawn (shubuh), midday (zuhur), afternoon (‘asr), sunset (maghrib) and evening (‘isha). At the five appointed times, a muazin announces a call to prayer (azan), traditionally from a mosque’s minaret. Shalat must always be preceded by ablutions (wudu’) of ritually washing the face, hands, and feet. This can be done with sand when water is not available. (Qur’an 5:6; also 2:222, 4:43.) Shalat is always directed in the direction (qiblat) of the Ka’ba shrine in Mecca. It may be performed individually, but it carries special merit when done with other Muslims (jama’ah). A prayer mat (sajada) is commonly used during the shalat.

When performing salat jama’ah at the mosque, worshippers are aligned in parallel rows behind the prayer leader (imam), who directs them through the rak’as (prescribed postures and recitations). Islamic prayer begins in a standing position with a glorification to God which called takbir, then moves through several simple postures until the supplicant is kneeling.

Specified recitations are said in each posture. The content of prayer is glorification of God, recitations of the Qur’an, and blessings on the Prophet. Shalat concludes with the taslima (greeting), “Peace be upon you,” even when praying alone.

Shalat and other Islamic rituals and practices can be easily observed in various aspect of Indonesian culture. As many other Islamic countries, Indonesian selectional and collocational restrictions are also typical and need to be treated carefully to avoid awkward wording in English, since English does not normally have equivalence for: memimpin doa, shalat berjamaah, mengirim doa, membaca tartil, mengambil wudhu, etc.

Differences in the structure of semantic field in Indonesia and English is notably challenging, therefore, assessing the value of given item in a lexical set is always desirable. The word malu in ST, for example, has at least three different meanings in TT: shy, embarrassed, ashamed. Also, while ST differs sholat from doa, TT has a single equivalent: prayer.

 

RESEARCH METHODS

This paper is a report of a small research. This is a kind of annotated translation, where the translator reports the translation problems and how to solve them while she was translating. The data are taken from a novel by Anwar Fuadi, namely Part 17 of the novel: Rantau 1 Muara, by Anwar Fuadi, which entitled Maghrib Terhebat. Because the novel is so unique, the translation into English may face problems as many of the concepts talked about are bound to Javanese or Islamic culture. Thus, it can be predicted that some problems should appear. To prove this, the writer translates one chapter and report the problem and how to solve the problems.

Then, the writer discusses the problems of non-equivalence at word level in the translation she did as well as some strategies for dealing with them. The discussion of the translation is mainly referring to equivalence presented by Baker (1992) in her book, In Other Words, providing the background knowledge and approaches related to non-equivalence before contrasting some typical conceptual and lexical semantic fields to prove that there is a considerable linguistic gap between Indonesian and English. The proposed strategies for dealing with problems of non equivalence are mainly adopted from Chesterman (1997) in Hariyanto (2013). Finally, the writer also presents the result of the translation to show the different side of pesantren that are not widely seen by people throughout the world, especially in the post 9-11 world, when pondok or pesantren often gets unfairly stereotyped.

 

DISCUSSION

Problems of Non Equivalence in the Translation

The local dialects and the uses of Arabic widely used in the novel are the main challenge due to non equivalence at word level in the translation of the text into English, that is to say that the TT has no direct equivalent for a word which occurs in ST. The followings are the problems of non equivalence found in ST, referring to Baker’s classification:

  1. Cultural specific context, i.e.: kampungan, bukan basa basi, mengirim doa, membaca secara tartil, sandal jepit, etc.
  2. Source Text (ST) is not lexicalized in Target Text (TT), i.e.: shalat, azan, wudhu, mukena, etc.
  3. The ST is semantically complex, i.e. : saling menjajaki, gombal, enaknya, etc
  4. ST and TT make different distinction in meaning, i.e. : malu (may means shy, ashamed or embarrassed in TT)
  5. Differences in expressive meaning: menambat hatiku, mencuri pandang, bergelung etc.
  6. Differences in form : narasumber, berpikir ulang, kampungan, malasmalasan, etc.
  7. Loan words in ST : Maghrib, tartil, jamaah, (borrowed from Arabic)

 

TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

To deal with the above problems of non equivalence, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic strategies, following Chesterman (1997) in Hariyanto (2013), are adopted to make the translation of the text into English readable and relatable as possible. The discussion is presented in a table of three columns consisting strategy, hint and example of language item found on ST. The examples are provided with the line number of the language items to provide easier review on the text development. Although only strategies used for dealing with non equivalence at word level will be presented,  a full linguistic account of its meaning is somehow desirable.

Syntactic Strategies

Following Chesterman (1997) ten syntactic strategies which involve pure syntactic changes 1) literal translation, 2) loan: Calque, naturalization, 3) transposition, 4) unit shift, 5) phrase structure change, 6) clause structure change, 7) sentence structure change, 8) cohesion change, 9) level shift and 10) scheme change), the translation of the text applies the followings:

Table 1: Samples of Syntactic Strategies

Iwik 1

 

Iwik 2

 

Semantic Strategies

Chesterman suggests changes mainly related to lexical semantics and sometimes aspects of clause meaning such as emphasis which includes:  1) synonyms, 2) antonyms, 3) hyponyms, 4) converses, 5) abstraction change, 6) distribution change, 7) emphasis change, 8) paraphrase, 9) trope change and other semantic changes.

Table 2: Samples of Semantic Strategies

Iwik 3

Iwik 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pragmatic Strategies

Unlike the previous strategies which manipulate meanings, these strategies manipulate message and tend to involve bigger from the ST, and typically involve syntactic and /or semantic changes as well. Chesterman (1997) categorizes pragmatic strategies into : 1) cultural filtering, 2) explicitness, 3) information change, 4) interpersonal change, 5) illocutionary change, 6) coherence change, 7) partial translation 8) visibility change, 9) transediting, and 10) other pragmatic changes.

Table 3. Samples of Pragmatic Strategies

Iwik 5

 

CONCLUSIONS

The translation of part 17 : Maghrib Terhebat, under the principles of equivalence is basically aimed at producing the English version of the text that is equivalent with the source text which is written in Indonesian. The problem of equivalence in translating this novel into English is quite significant not only because the author uses a lot of local dialects and Arabic Islamic terms in his novel, but the lexical and semantic field of the ST also has all kinds of non equivalence. Retaining it as much of the original flavor would be impossible without adequate insight about culture and ability to choose the most equivalent language items.

Although the strategies dealing with the problems of non equivalence is adopted for word level, the discussion of sentence level is unavoidable, since translators are not normally looking at every word in isolation and always expected to present the translation with a full linguistic account of meaning. Other strategies and differences between the ST and TT are preferably studied for further discussion.

REFERENCES

Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Routledge: London.

Grundy, P .2000 Doing Pragmatics. Oxford University Press: New York

Halliday, Mathiessen, 1985. Systemic Functional Linguistics.Hodder Education Publisher, New York. Halliday, Mathiessen. Systemic Functional Linguistics.Hodder Education Publisher, New York.

Hariyanto, Sugeng.2007. Globalization and Web Site Translation. Paper presented at the national Seminar and Workshop on Translation in the Globalized World. Politeknik Negeri Malang, 8 December 2007)

Hariyanto, Sugeng.2013. Translation Theoretical Overview and Practical Pointers. Unpublished Handbook.

Fuady, Anwar. 2011. The Land of Five Towers. Translated by Angie Kilbane. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.Jakarta.

Fuady, Anwar. 2013. Ranau Satu Muara. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta

 

 

APPENDIX

Iwik 6Iwik 7Iwik 8Iwik 9Iwik 10