Above is a diagram that explains the process of translation as provided by Larson. Larson 1998: 4 explains that the core of translation process is
transferring the meaning of a text, not form, from source language to target language. Translation comprises first, observing text in the source language in
order to determine the diction, grammatical structure and context; second, discovering the meaning of the text; and third, looking for the natural equivalent
of the text in target language. Through their diagram, Nida and Taber 1982: 33, on the other hand,
asserts that there are three steps in translation process, they are: 1 analysis, 2 transfer, and 3 restructuring. In the first step, the content in the source text is
analyzed according to a the grammatical relationship and b the meaning of the words and combination of words. In the next step, the analyzed material is
converted to target language. Finally, in restructuring phase, the transferred material is restructured to make the content natural and decent for the readers of
target language.
A Source B Receptor
Analysis Restructuring
X Transfer
Y
Figure 2. Process of Translation by Nida and Taber
Another theory comes from Newmark 1988: 19 who proposes that translation process begins with choosing the appropriate method approach. When
an approach is chosen, translator translates the text by considering four levels: a the source language text level or the language level, b the referential level or the
level of events and objects, whether it is actual or non-existent, c the cohesive level, and d the level of naturalness. The translation process then proceeds to the
last step, revision procedure, which may be focused according to the situation.
2.2.4. Literary Translation
Literary translation is different to other translations. Other translations, technical translation for example, may not need complicated considerations as long as the
message in source language is conveyed in target language. However, that is not the case in literary translation. In translating literature, one has to pay attention to
the writer‘s idea and style as well as the cultural background of the work. Anani 1997 in Ghazala 2014: 15 describes literary translation as the
translation of the different genres of literature including poetry narrative and drama. Like other types of non-literary translation, it involves transforming a
verbal code into a different code, but unlike them, it is concerned not only in the referential meaning of words but also in their significance and effects.
Meanwhile, some writers define it through the tasks and characteristics of literary translator, such as 1 what is translated, 2 the method of translation, and
3 the function of the translation Schulte Biguenet in Ghazala 2014: 16. In contrast, Belhaag 1997 in Hassan 2011: 2-3 defines literary
translation by summarizing a set of characteristics of literary translation. That set includes 1 expressive, 2 connotative, 3 symbolic, 4 focusing on both form
and content, 5 subjective, 6 allowing multiple interpretation, 7 timeless and universal, 8 using special devices to ‗heighten‘ communicative effect, and 9
tendency to deviate from the language norms. Newmark 1998 in Melkumyan Dabaghi 2011: 129 mentions five
most important features of literary text that have to be rendered by translator, they are: 1 figurativeness and allegory; 2 onomatopoeic nature; 3 rhythm; 4 each
word counts; and 5 full of polysemous words and collocations. Meanwhile, Riffaterre 1992 in Hassan 2011: 3 suggests that literary translations must
reflect all the literary features of the source text such as sound effects, morphophonemic selection of words, figures of speech, etc.
In terms of the success of literary translation, several scholars share different opinions. Gutt 1991 in Hassan 2011: 3 stresses that in translating a
literary work, one should preserve the style of the original text. Gutt argues that a wr
iter‘s style is known from his diction and his sentence construction. Therefore, it is important for translator to translate a literary work literally.
However, Savory 1957 in Hassan 2011: 3 rejects Gutt‘s idea of literal
translation of literary work. He believes that literal translation of a literary work does not reproduce the effect of the original text. He claims that literature allows
the readers to interpret differently and therefore there should be freedom in translating literary work. To maintain the equivalent effect of an original text, one
has to have freedom to explore multiple interpretations of the source text and translate it how he sees fit.
