textual material equivalence and Savory who accentuates the thought equivalence, it can be deduced that equivalence is one of the key points in
translation. But it is not the only essential things in translation. At least, Wolfram Wills found that translation is a transfer process which aims at the
transformation of a written SL text into an optimally equivalent text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic understanding and
analytical processing of the SL.
9
Here, Wills considers that translation is a process, a transfer, and a trans
formation. Although the word ‗equivalent‘ is still mentioned, but the concentration for the process of translation itself is much
greater. Thus, from several definitions above, it can be inferred that translation
not only concerns in equivalence, but also in transformation process which involves operational matters for transferring message from one language to
another. The intention of transformation process here is a model which intended to explain human‘s thinking process when performing the translation
process. So, in order to achieve equal meaning between two languages, a translation process is needed.
2. Criticism of Translation
Speaking of translation, criticism is one of the most important parts in both its theory and also its practice. Even though the relationship between
translation and criticism is far from clear, there is an agreement that translators must start from a reading of a literary text, but not on how that correlates with
main lines of literary criticism. Actually, little has been said about what
9
S. B. McGuire, Translation Studies London: Methuen, 1980, p. 2
translation offers critics, beyond a further supply of texts. Translation criticism itself is an interdisciplinary academic field which closely related to literary
criticism and translation theory. It can be defined as the systematic study, evaluation, and interpretation of different aspects of translated works.
10
Criticism of translation is different from review of translation. Review of translation conducts some comments on new translations, description, and
evaluation as to whether they are worth reading or buying or not. On the other hand, criticism includes a broader activity. Criticism conducts analysis in
detail, evaluating old and new translations, and assuming that readers know the translation.
11
Translation criticism should take into account all the factors and elements in the process of translation. It comprises activities which are part of
the process of translation, but it is different from the forms of criticism involved in this process. Moreover, translation criticism should not be a mere
identification of errors, an intuitive, or highly subjective appraisal for judging some translated texts as good, bad, faithful, or anything else without qualifying
the criteria. a.
Criteria for Criticism of Translation As an important part in theory and practice of translation,
translation criticism certainly has supportive aspects or criteria. These criteria are utilized to determine the quality of a translation, so that the
objectivity of the criticism or assessment process can be maintained.
10
Taqiyeh M. H., ―What is Translation Criticism?‖ Translation Studies 11, no. 3 Fall 2005:
p. 61-63,
accessed December
17, 2013,
http:www.sid.irenViewPaper.asp?ID=44700varStr=3.14159265358979;TAQIYEH20M.H.; TRANSLATION20STUDIES;Fall202005;3;11;53;61.
11
Notes on
Translation Criticism.
Accessed December
17, 2013,
http:www.uv.estronchTraNotesOnTranslationCriticism.htm.
Thus, along with these criteria, the ability of the translator is expected to be improved in the future. In order to criticize a translation properly,
there are three criteria which were proposed by Larson, namely accuracy, clarity, and equity.
12
A translation is accurate if the contained content or information is not deviate from its source text. Then, a
translation is classified as clear if it is easy to understand by readers. Moreover, a translation is classified to have equity if the word and
grammar selection is proper and familiar to target readers. Beside the three criteria above, there are other aspects which can be
used as benchmarks to criticize translation. Simatupang proposed that the meaning of the text, style, and clarity are some of criteria which can
be utilized to see the level of acceptance in a translated text.
13
According to him, meaning, style, and clarity are the first and the foremost aspects in translation criticism. A good translation have to
encompass the true meaning of the source text, acceptable style in the target text, and clear enough to be read and understood by target reader
as well. Similar to Larson and Simatupang, Hoed argues that there are
several aspects which have to be considered in criticizing translation products. He proposes that the accuracy of meaning reproduction which
includes linguistics, semantics, and pragmatics, as well as phrase
12
Milder L. Larson, Meaning-based Translation: A Guide to Cross Language Equivalence Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984, p. 534.
13
Maurists D. S. Simatupang, Pengantar Teori Penerjemahan Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2000, p. 131-135.
fairness, terminology, and orthography should be taken into account by a critic if he or she wants to conduct a critic of translation.
14
b. Plan of Criticism
In order to make a comprehensive criticism of translation, Newmark discovers five topics in criticizing a translation.
15
These topics are essential for a critic who wants to assess a translation
product. The topics are: 1.
Analysis of source text stressing its intention and functional aspects. This part of analysis includes author‘s purpose and also
hisher attitude toward the topic, characterization of the readership, category and type of the text, quality of the
language to determine the translator‘s degree of license, and also state topic of the themes.
2. Analysis of the translator‘s interpretation of source text‘s
purpose, t ranslation method, and also translation‘s likely
readership. In this part, a critic should understand why translator has used some specific procedures for a specific aim
and also provide the reasons. 3.
Selective but representative detailed comparison of source text ST and target text TT. In this part of analysis, a critic has to
determine general properties of both ST and TT, and then
14
Benny H. Hoed, ―Pengetahuan Dasar Tentang Penerjemahan,‖ Lintas Bahasa Edisi Khusus No 171993 Jakarta: Pusat Penerjemahan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia, 1993,
p. 40.
15
Newmark, Op. Cit., p. 186-189.
provide how translator has solved a particular problem which posed by ST.
4. Evaluation of translation. This kind of evaluation should be
conducted in both the translator‘s terms and also the critic‘s terms. In this part of analysis, the assessment of the referential
and pragmatic accuracy of the TT by translator‘s standards, the assessment of the referential and pragmatic accuracy of the TT
by the critic‘s standards, and the assessment of the TT as a piece of writing is included.
5. Assessment of the importance of translation in target language
culture or discipline. In this part, a critic must analyze whether some culture-related words are worth translating or not.
Besides, a critic has to know also what kind of influence it will have on the language, literature, and the ideas in its new
milieu.
16
c. Marking a Translation
From the explanation above, it can be inferred that there are two approaches in criticizing a translation product: functional and
analytical.
17
The functional one is much more general. This approach attempts to see whether translator has achieved in translating text, but
the detail of translation seems to be overlooked. In the other hand, analytical approach is more detailed. Not only the general issues, but
the details are also taken into consideration as well. In order to
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid, p. 189.
investigate the details, Newmark assumes that all translation is partly science, partly craft, partly art, and partly a matter of taste.
First, Newmark considers that translation is partly science. It should be understood that a term ‗science‘ is a matter of wrong rather than
right, and there are two types of scientific mistakes here, which are referential or linguistic. Referential mistakes are about facts, real world,
propositions not words. Statements like ‗water is air,‘ ‗water is black,‘ or ‗water breathes,‘ are referential mistake; even though as metaphors
these terms may be true. In the other hand, linguistic mistakes show the translator‘s ignorance of foreign language, for example grammatical,
lexical, words, collocations, or idiomatical mistakes.
18
Secondly, Newmark also proposes that translation is partly craft or skill. An element skill is the ability to follow or deviate from
appropriate natural usage, namely pragmatic and persuasive invocative texts, neat in informative texts, and hugging the style of the original in
expressive and authoritative texts. In other words, the term ‗skill‘ here
means translator‘s capability to select or choose a more natural word selection in order to avoid making mistakes in translating the text. If
any mistakes occur, there are possibly some reason behind them, it could be due to inability to write well, misuse of dictionary, disregard
of deceptive cognates, the persistent of seeking equal word level, and perhaps lack of common sense.
19
For instance, a sentence To be or not to be from Hamlet, which is very popular among literature enthusiasts.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid, p. 190.
By many Indonesian translators, this sentence is rarely translated into Ada atau tiada, because the true meaning of the sentence in the source
language is stronger than the sentence itself.
20
Then, the third one is a positive one, translation as an art. This factor attempts to interpret implied meaning of the text rather than take
care of expressed meaning. As we know, the term ‗art‘ is much more related to creativity, and in this factor, creativity is a must to produce a
good and proper translation. A translator should be creative enough to create a variety of solutions and digest the author‘s mean rather than he
or she wrote in the source language. For example, if a book on Alexander von Humboldt starts with: Alexander von Humboldt
—yes, but why? A coarse translator perhaps will translate it into Kenapa
menulis buku tentang Alexander von Humboldt dari sekian banyak orang yang ada? Or perhaps there are translators who will translate it
into Tampak aneh menulis buku tentang Alexander von Humboldt. But there are also translators who will translate it into Alexander von
Humboldt... Ya, tetapi kenapa? From the third translation above, the first one seems to be more referential, the second one is pragmatically
closer, and the last one is more brief and the closest. This is what we call creative translation.
21
The last area of translation, the taste, has to be accepted as a subjective factor. This factor concerns about the translation as a
personal choice. It stretches from preferences between lexical
20
Benny H. Hoed, Penerjemahan dan Kebudayaan Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya, 2006, p. 95.
21
Newmark, Op. Cit., p. 191.
synonyms to sentences or paragraphs that under or over translated in different places. In this area, a matter of subjectivity and also the ‗good‘
or ‗bad‘ is far more prominent.
22
For example, a word however is more than enough to represent this factor. The word however can be
translated into namun or akan tetapi by the translator, it is according to their taste.
23
The translation choice is not depend on any other issue. As long as the meaning of the text is delivered, it is all up to translator.
However, whether translation is regarded as a science, art, craft, or taste, it seems significant to note that a good translation should play the
same role in the target language as the original did in the source language.
B. Poetry
