Kinds of Translation Procedures

2. Kinds of Translation Procedures

There are so many procedures of some linguist to translate various type of text, both formal text and literary text. Newmark mentions nineteen procedures, 43 machali declares “pemadanan berkonteks” contextual conditioning as one procedure of five procedures which the rest is adapted from Newmark, 44 Vinay- Darbelnet propose seven procedures, 45 Baker asserts seven procedures, 46 Larson suggests three procedures and some specific of those procedures, 47 Molina-Albir mention eighteen procedures, 48 Moentaha states eleven procedures, 49 and Duff asserts seven procedures. 50 As a solution to translate words or phrases that are bound by culture cultural words, the translation procedure which is postulated by Duff is the most appropriate suggestion. The procedures suggested by him are the appropriate solution in translating the cultural words. As he says that “I should like to recall some of the commonest solutions for translating words that are culturally bound”. They are as follows: 51 a The word is retained in its original form and no explanation is given. Molina and Albir divide this notion into two kinds, namely: 52 43 Peter Newmark 1988, loc.cit. 44 Rochayah Machali 2000, op.cit. pp. 71-73. 45 Jean Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet.“A Methodology for Translation.” The Translation Studies Reader.2 nd edition, ed. L. Venuti London and Newyork: Routledge, 2000, pp. 85-93. 46 Mona Baker 1992, loc.cit. 47 Mildred L. Larson 1984, op.cit. pp. 166-172. 48 Lucia Molina and Amparo. H. Albir 2002. loc.cit. 49 Salihen Moentaha, Bahasa dan Terjemahan Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc, 2006, pp. 48-78. 50 Alan Duff, The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981, pp. 26-27. 51 Ibid . 52 Lucia Molina and Amparo. H. Albir 2002, op.cit. p. 510. 1 Pure borrowing. This way is the procedure in using a loan word purely. It is same with “transliteration” notion by Hervey and Higgins in which a source language word is taken over unchanged to receptor language. 53 Baker mentions it as “Using loan word”; 54 while Vinay- Darbelnet states this concept as “Borrowing”, 55 and Newmark asserts it as “Transferrence”, 56 for example the word manggis is translated into manggis ; 2 Naturalized borrowing. This procedure is conducted by using a loan word that is modified as phonetic and morphological norms of receptor language. It is the same as what Hervey and Higgins mentioned “exoticism”, 57 that is, the name of source language is adapted to conform to the phonicgraphic conventions of receptor language; and this corresponds to Newmark’s “Naturalization”, 58 for example mantera → mantra. b The word is retained in its original form, with either: 1 A literal translation in brackets, e.g. batak → batak an ethnic of Indonesian; 2 An official or accepted translation in brackets, e.g. balai-balai → balai-balai the sleeping platform; 3 An explanatory footnote. 53 Sándor Hervey and Ian Higgins, Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method: French-English London and Newyork: Routledge, 1992, p. 29. 54 Mona Baker 1992, op.cit. p. 36. 55 Jean Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet 2000, op.cit. p. 85. 56 Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. p. 81 57 Sándor Hervey and Ian Higgins 1992, loc.cit. 58 Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. p. 82. Machali mentioned this notion as pemadanan bercatatan equivalence by using notes. 59 Meanwhile, Newmark states this way as the procedure of notes. He classifies notes into various forms, namely: 60 1 Notes within text, includes: a As an alternative to the translated word: abon → abon, or preserved meat; b As an adjectival clause: selendang → selendang, which was the scarf for the woman; c As a noun in apposition: ningrat → a ningrat, noble blood; d As a participial group using present or past participle: dukun → dukun , a man knowing the magic; e In brackets, often for a literal translation of a transferred: batak → batak an Indonesian ethnic. This way is similar with Duff solutions above; however; he differentiates “notes within text and in brackets” into two kinds: a literal translation in brackets and an official or accepted translation; f In parentheses: angklung → an angklung – traditional musical instrument of Indonesian. 2 Notes at the bottom page. This solution is equal with Duff’s “an explanatory footnote” above; 3 Notes at the end of chapter; 4 Notes or glossary at the end of book. 59 Rochayah Machali 2000, op.cit. pp. 72-73. 60 Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. p. 92. c The word is never mentioned in its original form. It means the translator uses another word which is familiar to RL Receptor Language readers’ culture in order to express SL Source Language word cultural equivalent. This concept is same with Newmark’s “cultural equivalent”, 61 Larson’s “cultural substitute”, 62 and Baker’s “cultural substitution”, 63 for example: arisan → playing cards, kutu buku → worm-book kutu is changed into worm. d The word is never mentioned in its original form, but the translator expands the text in order to convey all the associations. It means the translator doesn’t present the original word without the other words that relate to it. SL word is described by explaining the component of the word. Newmark differentiates this way into two procedures, namely: 64 1 Functional equivalent. It is an equivalent modified by explaining the function of the SL word, for example gubuk → a place for living. Based on Larson’s suggestion, it can be divided into two types of functional equivalent, they are: 65 1 generic word of source language equivalent modified by the function, for example langgar → a house where Indonesian Muslim pray; and 2 loan word explained by the function, for example gendang → the traditional musical instrument called gendang to make the rhyme stable. Here is the illustration: 61 Ibid . pp. 82-83. 62 Mildred L. Larson 1984, op.cit. pp. 170-172. 63 Mona Baker 1992, op.cit. p. 31. 64 Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. pp. 83-84. 65 Mildred L. Larson 1984. op.cit. pp. 167-169. Modifying a generic word Functional Equivalent Modifying a loan word Figure 5: The Classification of Functional Equivalent Procedure 2 Descriptive equivalent. It is an equivalent modified by describing the source language word, for example tukang panjat pohon → the men who climbed the trees to get money. Based on Larson’s suggestion, it can be divided into two types, namely: 66 modifying a generic word and modifying a loan word. Modifying a generic word includes modified with features of form, for example lumbung padi → the rice raised barn and modified by a comparison, for example gonggo → animal like a spider. Meanwile, modifying a loan word consist of two kinds, they are modified with a description of form, for example keris → the knife called keris is small but dangerous to use and modified by a classifier, for example Belitong → the district called Belitong. Here is the illustration Modified with feature of form Modifying a generic word Descriptive Equivalent Modified by a comparison Modified with a description of form Modifying a loan word Modified by a classifier Figure 6: The Classification of Descriptive Equivalent Procedure 66 Ibid . e Different translations of the same word are used, because the receptor language differentiates more than the source language. It means the procedure to use the more specific word of original words, e.g. rice → padi, beras, gabah, or nasi . This concept is same with “chunking down” Kattan proposes. 67 Chunking down means the reverse operation from the general to specific concept, for instance: we → kita, kami and dia → he, she. f Part of the source language expression is reduced, even omitted. This concept is called as reduction as Newmark declares. 68 It is used for suppressing a SLT information item in RLT, thus, there will be change in semantic field, that is, general to specific concept, for example: ikan sapu- sapu → fish. g A receptor language expression is given, although it is not derived from anything in the text. It is a procedure to add the implicit meaning of SL word. It aims to introduce details that are not formulated in SLT. Molina and Albir mention it as “amplification”. 69 For example cocor bebek → cocor bebek leaves. From Duff’s notion and some supporting theories by scholars above, it can be concluded that there are nine translation procedures, namely: pure borrowing, naturalized borrowing, notes pemadanan bercatatan, cultural equivalent, 67 David Kattan, Translating Culture: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and Mediators Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999, pp. 147-148. 68 Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. p. 90. 69 Lucia Molina and Amparo Hurtado Albir 2002, op.cit. p. 510. descriptive equivalent, functional equivalent, chunking down, reduction, and amplification.

C. The Strategy of Translation