CR-\PTER2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF NATIJRALNESS IN

advertisement
CR-\PTER2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF NATIJRALNESS IN TRANSLATION
Tiris chapter represents a brief theoretical perspective of the problem in the
writer's analysis. It covers five areas of translation. At the beginning of this chapter,
the writer explains the nature of translating. Next she explains t.he different kinds of
tra."1Slation, followed by the theory of translation equivalence. Then the writer
continues wit.'l the concept of naturalness in translation, and fmally she ends tlus
chapter by the need for testing a translation.
2.1 The Nature of Translating
In this section, the writer explains the defillition of translation, its process, and
the role of a translator.
2.1.1 Definition of Translation
Translation, by dictionary definition, consists of changing from one state or
form to another, to tum into one's own or another's language (The Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, 1974). Translation is basically a change of form. When we speak of the
form of a la.'lguage, we are pointing to the actual words, phrases, clanses, sentences,
paragraphs, etc., which are spoken or writt..en. These forms are knovm as the surface
structure of a language. It is the structural part of language which is actually seen in
print or heard
speech (Larson, 1984: l). The form in which the translation is made
5
6
is caUed the SOURCE LA.cl\lGUAGE and the form into \'vhich it is to be changed is
called the RECEPTOR or TARGET LANGUAGE.
McGuire (1980) defines translation as:
The rendering of a source language (SL) text into the tm"get language (TL) so
as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately
similar and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved. as closely as
possible but not so closely that the TL stru.ctures will be seriously distorted
(p. 2).
Furthermore, Larson (1984) explains that translation consists of transferring
the meaning of the source language into the receptor language. This is done by going
from the fonn of the first language to the form of a second language. It is the meaning
that is being transferred and must be held constant. ()nJy the form changes.
Translation, then, consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, and cultural
context of the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine its meaning,
and then constructing this same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical structure
which are appropriate L'l the receptor language and its cultural context (p. 3).
Catford (1965) defined translation as: "the replacement of textual material in
one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)" (p. 20).
2.1.2 The Translatio11 Process
Nida (1969) introduced a system of translation that consists of a procedure
comprising three stages: (l) analysis, in which the surface structure is analyzed in
temc; of (a) the grammatical relationships and (b) the meanings of the words and
combination of words, (2) transfer, in which the analyzed material is transferred in
the mind of the translator from language A to language B, and (3) resiructuring, in
7
which the transferred material is restructured in order to make the final message fully
acceptable in the receptor language. (p. 33). The system is diagnumned as follows:
A(Source)
l
(Analysis)
l
X---.- (Transfer)
B (Receptor)
i
(Restructuring)
i
--- > Y
Figure 2.1: The process of translation
In addition, according to Larson (1984), there are seven steps in L'ie
translation process: (l) establishing the project: understanding clearly the text, the
target, tr.e team, and the tools; (2) exegesis: discovering the meaning of the source
language text which is to be translated; (3) transfer and initial draft: transferring from
the source language into the receptor language; (4) evaluation: to check on accuracy,
clearness and naturalness of the translation; (5) revised d.raft: revision based on trl.e
feedback received from the evaluation; (6) consultation: getting help from advisors
and consultants; and (7) final draft. (pp. 46-51)
2.1.3 Translator's Role
Nev.mark (1988) says:
Vlhen we are translating, we translate wi!h four levels, more or less,
consciously in mind: (1) !he SL tex:t level, the level of language, where we
begin and which we con,.'inually go back to; (2) the referential level, the level
of objects and events, real or imaginary, which we progressively have to
visualize and build up, and which is an essential part, first of the
8
comprehension, then of the reproduction process; (3) the cohesive level,
which is more generai, and gramm!lfical, which traces the train of thought,
the feeling tone (positive and negative) and the various presuppositions of the
SL text. This level encompasses both comprehension and reproduction: it
presents an overall picture, to which we may have to adju;i the language
level; (4) the level of naruralness, of common language appropriate to the
writer or the speaker in a certain situation (p. 19).
Translation is a complicated process. However, a translator who is concerned
" th transferring tl1e meaning will find that the receptor language has a way in which
the desired meaning can be expressed, even though it may be very different from the
source language form.
But c.onsidering the complexity of language structures, how can a translator
ever hope to produce an adequate translation? Literalism can only be avoided by
careful analysis of the source language by, first of all, understanding clearly the
message to be communicated. A translator who takes the time to study and analyze
carefully the source language text, and then to look for the equivalent way in which
the same message is expressed naturally in the receptor language, will be able to
provide an adequate, and sometimes brilliant, translation. His goa! must be to avoid
!iteralisms and to strive for a truly idiomatic receptor language text. He will know he
is successful if the receptor language readers do not recognize his work as a
tra..nslation at all, but simply as a text written in the receptor language for their
information and enjoyment (Larson, 1984:25).
As an. exa.mple, translatin..g from English into Indonesian should seek to
present the message in such a way, that the Indonesian readers may comprehend the
same meaning as t.he readers who receive it in English. Yet, due to so many
differences in grammar and lexicon between English and Indonesian, and also
9
because of the differences in social, cultural, and historical background between them,
one cannot expect the responses of the readers of the original English text to be
similar to the reactions of those who read the message in Indonesian (Lie, 2004: 4-5).
Nevertheless, as Nida says in Lie (2004), a translator should attempt to produce in the
receptor lar,.guage (in this case, 1--J.donesian) the closest, natural equivalent of the
original text (p. 5).
Bassnett (1980) delicately explains that equivalence in translation should not
be approached as a search for sameness, since sameness cannot even exist between
two target language versions of the same text, let alone between the source and the
target language version. Once this principle is accepted, it becomes possible to
approach the question of loss and ga1'1 in the translation process. He says, "it is again
an indication of the low status of translation that so much time should have been
spent on discussi.11g what is lost in the transfer of a text from SL to TL at the same
time as ignoring what ean also be gained, for the !ra.'1Slator can at times enrich or
clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation process" (p. 36).
Two things are necessary for good translation- an adequate understanding of
the original language (the source language) and an adequate command of the
language into which one is translating (the receptor language) (Larson, 1984: 22).
9
10
Kil1dti ofTranslation
There
a..Te
many methods adopted in translation. However, the v.riter chooses
to explain only two methods derived from the theory by Mildred L. Larson
Meaning-based Translation (1984) about form-based
versus
meaning-based
translation.
Literal Trlmillation
Form-based translations attempt to follow the fonn of the source language and
are known as literal translations. For some purposes, it is desirable to reproduce the
linguistic features of the source text, as for example, in a lir,guistic study of that
language. Although these literal translations may be very useful for purposes related
to the study of the source language, they are of little help to speakers of the receptor
language who are interested in the meaning of the source la..<guage text. A literal
translation sounds like nonsense and has little communication value (Larson, 1984:
15).
For example, the English idioms "to take French leave" can.'lot be rendered
literally into Indonesian. Literal translation of "pamit seperti orang Perancis" or
ala Pe:rac'lcis" does not convey the real meaning of the expression and the
readers cannot understand what is being said. So, the translation is unnatural becanse
the words are still foreign, both in form and mea.7ling. A dynamic and natural
translation vvill be pergi tanpa pa nit" (Lie, 2004: 5).
Except for interlinear translations, a truly literal translation is uncommon.
Most translators who tend to translate literally actually make a pa.rtia!ly modified
11
12
literal translation. They modify the order and grammar enough to use acceptable
sentence structure in the receptor language. However, the words are translated
li erally. Sometimes these are also changed to avoid complete nonsense or to improve
the communication. Nevertheless, the result still does not sound naturaL
A person who translates in a modified literal method \v:ill change the
gra,umatical fonns when the structures are required. However, if he has a choice, he
\Vil!
follow the fonn of the source text even though a different form might be more
natural in the receptor language. Literal and modified literal translations often go
wrong in that they choose literal equivalents for the words, i.e. the words being
translated. Literal translations of words, idioms, figures of speech, etc., result in
unclear, unnatu.ral, and sometimes nonsensical translations. In a modified literal
translation, the translator usually adjusts the translation enough to avoid real nonsense
and wrong meanings, but the mmaturalness still remains (Larsen, !984: 16).
2.2.2 Idiomatic Translation
Meaning-based translations make every effort to communicate the meaning of
t.'Je source language text in the natural i(llms of the receptor language. Such
translations are called idiomatic translations. Idiomatic translations use the natural
forms of the receptor language, both in the grammatical structures and in the choice
of words. A truly idiomatic translation does not sow1d like a translation. It sounds like
it was written originally in lite receptor language. The translator's goal should be to
reproduce
the receptor language a text which communicates the same message as
13
the source language but using the natural grammatical and word choices of the
receptor language. His goal is an idiomatic translation (Larson, 1984: 18-19).
For example, the sentence "He cut his finger when playing with a knife"
cannot be translated literally into "Ia memotong jarinya ketik:a bennain dengan pisau",
since he did not do the action on purpose. The sentence should be translated
idiomatically into "Jarinya terpotong ketik:a bennai.'l dengan pisau" (Lie, 2004: 5).
Idiomatic transl.atior.s are also k:nown or referred to as dynamic-equivalence
t.ranslations. According to Beekman and Callow in Noss (1982), "In an idiomatic
translation, tlte translator seeks to convey to the RL readers the meaning of the
original by using the natural grammatical and lexical furms of the RL" (p. 15).
It should be noted that these two definitions have certain things in common.
They both emphasize two facts: ( J) it is the meaning or the message of the SL text
rather than the literal words, that the translator ought to translate and (2) the
grammatical and lexical fonns of the receptor-language (RL) are natural (Noss, 1982:
15).
Therefore, according to Beekman and Callow in Noss (1982),
The objective of tbe translator should be to produce "a translation so rich in
vocabulary, so idiomatic i.;:t phrase, so correct in construction., so smooth in
flow of thought, so clear in meaning, and so elegant in style, that it does not
appear to be a translation at all, and yet, at the same time, faithfully transmits
tbc message of the original" (p. 16).
14
2.3 Translation Equivalence
As Catford say'S it, the main problem of translation-practice is to find target
language translation equivalents (Catford, 1965: 21). Beloc (1931) says that "there
are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalents". Therefore, Nida
(1964) emphasizes that in tr<L11Slating, one must seek to find the closest possible
equivalent However, there are fundamentally two different types of equivalence, one
which may be called fonnal and another which is primarily dynamic (cited in Venuti,
2000: 129).
2.3.1 Formal Equivalence
According to Nida (1964) m Venuti (2000), Formal equivalence focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation one is
concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and
concept to ccncept. Viewed from this formal orientation, one is concerned that the
message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different
elements in the source language. This means, for example, that the message in the
receptor culture is constantly ccmpared with the message in the source culture to
determine standards of accuracy and correctness (p. 129).
.Futhermore, he explains that the type of translation which most completely
demonstrates this structural equivalence might be called a 'gloss tra_nslation," in
which the translator attempts to reproduce as iiterally and meaningfully as possible
the form and the content of the original. A gloss translation is designed to perruit the
reader to identify himself as fully as possible w:ith a person in the source-language
15
context, and to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and
means of expression (cited in Venuti, 2000: 129)_
2.3.2 Dynamic Equh>alence
In contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a
formal equivalence is based upon "the principle of equivalent effect", as said by Rieu
a."ld Phillips (1954) (cited in Venuti, 2000: 129). As Nida (1964) further explains, In
such a translation one is not so concerned V.':ith matching the receptor-language
message with the source-language message, but with matching the dynamic
relationship,
that the
relationship
between
receptor
and message
should be
substantially the sa.'Jle as that which existed between the original receptors and the
message. A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of
expression., and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the
context of his ovm culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of
the source-lartguage context in order to comprehend the message. Of course, there are
varjing degrees of such dynamic-equivalence translations (cited in Venuti, 2000:
129).
Dynamic
equivalence
m translation
is far more than mere
correct
communication of irrfonnatio!L In fact, one of the most essential, and yet often
neglected, elements is the expressive function, for people must also feel as we!!as
understand what is said (Nida, 1969: 25).
In translating it is not enough that the translation is well understood and the
sentences grammatically constructed, but rather that L!Je translation should be viewed
16
from the standpoint of the total impact which the message has on the one who
receives it. As for example, in translating from English to Indonesian, the aim should
be to present a message in such a way, that the Indonesian readers will more or less
respond and react emotionally in the same way as the English readers when they are
reading the text in Englis!L It should always he kept in mind that the translated
message is designed for the reader who only understands the Indonesian language,
because even a poor literal translation will be quite understood if the reader
understands English too, and moreover, if he is well acquainted with Lite original text
(Lie, 2004: 6).
2.4 The Concept ofNamralness of Translation
According to Nida in Lie (2004), translation consists of reproducing in the
receptor la11guage the closest natural equivalent to the message of the source language,
first
terms of meaning and secondly in tenns of style. By natural, it means that the
equivalent fonns should not be "foreign" either in form (except, of course, for such
inevitable maMers as proper names) or meaning. Namely, a good translation should
not reveal its non-native source. It is true that equivalence in both meaning and style
cammt always be maintained in tra.'l.slation. Therefore, when one must be abandoned
for the sake of the other, the meaning must have priority over the form. (p. 4).
To do effective translation one must discover the meaning of the source
language and use receptor language fonns which express this meaning in a natural
w·ay (Larson, 1984: 6).
17
According to Blight (1992), naturalness is the actual usage of the receptor
language. This is deduced from natural (untranslated) text material and from
responses by speakers of the language. The problem is that when the translation is not
natural, it is not idiomatic and often tl1e meaning of the original message is obscured
(
or changed. Readers are discouraged becaue reading is difficult and t.hey do net
enjoy it. The solution is to conform the translation to the patterns of the receptor
language (p. 32)
A traJ1.slation is natural if its wordings and grammatical patterns are those
which occur in the everyday speech andlor writing of its fluent speakers. Many
la.'lgllage criteria should be checked to determine how closely a translation follows
natural language patterns, including ordinary vocabulary and grannnatical patterns,
sentence length, word usage, nonnal idioms, figures of speech, understandability,
complexity of causal embeddings, and word order. Translators should always be a
fluent, mother-tongue speakers of the language into which they are translating. They
should also be sensitive to what is considered good style within their language gmup.
A translation should not sound like a translation, but, rather, should sound like a
nonnal discourse of the target language. It is possible to preserve original meaning
and express it 11aturally and dearly in a target language. This is translation in the
truest, fullest sense.
(retrieved from http://www.geocities.convbible translatio11,ig!ossg.hjrnjlnatural.html).
Nida (1969) says:
Rather than forcing the fonnal stru.cture of one language upon another, the
effective translator is quite prepared to make any and all f01mal changes
necessary to reproduce the message in the distinctive stmctural fotms of t'te
18
receptor languaga. If all languages differ in fonn (and this is the essence of
their being different lwgnages), then quite naturally the fonns must be
altered if one is to preserve the content. The extent to which the fmms must
be changed in order to preserve the meani.'lg will depend upon the linguistic
and cultural distance between languages (pp: 4-5).
The purpose of naturalness tests (vvhich the writer uses in this study), as
suggested by the name, is to see if the fonn of the translation is natura!and the style
appropriate. This testing is done by reviewers who are bilingual in both the source
and receptor language (Larson, 1984: 497).
2.5 Testing a Tra!!llilati!ln
According to Larson (1984), L'le best translation is the one which a) uses the
nonnai language fonns of the receptor language, b) communicates, as much as
possible, to the receptor language speakers t.he same meaning that was understood by
the speakers of the source language, and c) maintains the dynamics of the original
source language text (p. 6).
A translation has to be evaluated. The fol!o·wing is an explanation of what is
catled evaluation by Larson(l984):
The purpose of evaluation is threefold: accuracy, clearness, and naturalness.
Tne questions to be answered are 1) Does !he translation communicate !he
same meaning as the source language? 2) Does the audience far whom the
traru;lation is intended understand it clearly" and 3) Is !he fo:nn of the
translation easy to read and natural receptor language grammar and style?
Those helping V ith the evaluation should be mother-tongue speakers of the
receptor language. There are a number of kinds of evaluations which need to
be done (p. 49).
Nida (1964) says that dynamic equivalence translation is "the closest natural
equivalent to the source-language message." Thus this type of definition eontains
L'1ree essential tenns, which are: 1) equivalent, which pcints toward the source-
19
language message, 2) natural, which points tmvard the receptor language, and 3)
closest, which binds the two orientations together on L'le basis of the highest degree
of approximation" (cited in Noss, 1982: 15).
Com;ider Nida's original statement 'What one must determine is the response
of the receptor to the translated message. This response must then be compared with
the 1'1!-ay in which the original reeeptors presmnably reaeted to the message when it
was given in its original setting' (Nida, 1969:1).
Download