14
dog Than Beware of the vicious dog Because, after the first translation of the sentence had already hinted that the dog was vicious vicious.
Based on the observations of researchers, each translator has the style of each in translating a work. Style that he used to be very closely related, for
example, the method he used to rely translation purposes which he did. Among the translators there is a faithful translation method, as has been done by the
translator of the novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. The reason is that he does not want to give contextual meaning in his Source Text. He tried to keep
the terms relating to the socio-cultural background of the Source Language, for example Mr. and Mrs. maintain and proper names of the characters in the novel.
He did not make an adaptation or domestication, but retain ideology of foreignization. This was done in order to maintain the authenticity of the story
elements and cultural values that underlie the story so that readers are invited to identify the themes, characters, setting and atmosphere of an alien culture. The
translators of each of the other novels differ in choosing the method of translation. Some of which use a free translation, semantic, idiomatic, and adaptation. This is
done depends on the habits and the style that characterizes them. May also depend on the purpose of translation itself.
C. The Translation Equivalence
1. The Definition of Translation Equivalence
Equivalence is the comparison of rules in different language but has the same objections or messages. Translation is a process of replacing a text in one
language the source language with a text in a different language target language. The first text is original and independent, but the second only exists as
aversions derived from the first. The derived version stands in for the original, and the two texts are said to be equivalent.
20
20
Juliane House, Trasnlation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.29
15
It has sometimes been said the overriding purpose of any translation should be to achieve ‘equivalent effect’, i.e. to produce the same effect or one as
close as possible on the readership of the translation as was obtained on the readership of the original.
21
When two things are equivalent, it doesn’t mean that they are identical but they have certain things in common, and function in similar ways. A translated
text will obviously bear very little linguistic resemblance to the original, but can be equivalent, that is to say, equal in value, in that in conveys in a similar message
and fulfils a similar function.
22
The source language and target language items rarely have the same meaning in the linguistic sense, but the can function in the
same situation.
23
Equivalent in translation cannot be taken to mean ‘identity’ or reversibility because there can never be a one-to-one relationship between a source text and
one particular translation text. Rather, a particular source text will have many different translation texts that can be called ‘equivalent’ to the source text with
different ways, depending on how similarity of message or function is interpreted.
24
Eugane A. Nida stated that translation theory is lagging behind translation skills and needs to catch up: “the older focus in translating was the form of the
message… the new focus, however, has shifted form the form of the message to the response of the receptor.”
25
This means that different translations will be ‘correct’ for different readership. Based on his statetment that “translating consist
in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source
21
Peter Newmark, A Text Book of Translation, London: Prentice Hall, 1988, p.48
22
Juliane House, Trasnlation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.29
23
J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London: Oxford University Press, 1965, p.49
24
Juliane House, Trasnlation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.29
25
Peter Fawcett, Translation and Language; Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome publishing, 1997, p.56
16
language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style”, Eugane A. Nida then declared that the translator must strive for equivalence rather
than identity, the best translation does not sound like a translation, and a conscientious translator must want the closest natural equivalence.
2. Types of Equivalence Popovic, quoted by Susan Bassnet, distinguished four types of translation
equivalence:
26
Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both source language and target language text,
i.e. word-for-word translation Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence ‘the elements
of paradigmatic expressive axis’, i.e. elements of grammar, which being a higher category than lexical equivalence.
Stylistic translation equivalence, where there is ‘functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at
an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning.’ Textual syntagmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of
the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.
Eugene A Nida distinguished two types of equivalence, formal and dynamic, where 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 concept.
Nida called this type of translation a gloss translation, which aimed to allow the reader to understand as much of the source language context as possible. Dynamic
equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship
26
Susan Bassnett, Translations Studies, London: Routledge, 2002, p.32
17
between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the source language message.
27
Baker distinguishes five types of matching, namely: the equivalence at the level of words, matching the top level of words, textual equivalence, grammatical
equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence. Baker distinguishes between:
28
a. Equivalence that can appear at word level, when translating from one language to another, Baker acknowledged that, in a bottom-up
approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact,
when the translator starts analyzing the source text heshe looks at the word as single units in order to find a direct ‘equivalent’ term
in the target language. Baker gives a definition of the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be
assigned different meanings in different language and might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme. This means
that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense.
b. Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages. Baker notes that
grammatical rules may very across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the
target language. In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the source language and target language may cause
remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either to
add or to omit information in the target text because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in target language itself.
29
Amongst
27
Susan Bassnett, Trasnlation Studies, London: Routledge, 2002, p.32
28
Mona Baker, In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation, London: Routledge, 1992, pp.11-12
29
Ibid.p.86
18
these grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation, Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice,
person and gender. c. Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a
source language text and target text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it
provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the source text which can help the translator in his or attempt to
produce a cohesive and coherent text for the target culture audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or
not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the source language text. His or her decision will be guided by three
main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type. In this type of equivalence, Baker
proposes five main cohesive devices, i.e. reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.
d. Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process. Implicature
is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied.
30
Therefore the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in
order to get the source text message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author’s intention in another culture in
such a way that enables the target culture reader to understand it clearly.
30
Mona Baker, In Other Words, a Coursebook on translation, London: Routledge, 1992, p.223
19
Werner Koller, quoted by Juliane House, proposed five types of equivalence, as follows
31
: a. The extra linguistic, real-world referents to which the text relates.
This type of equivalence is called denotative equivalence. b. Connotation conveyed in the text, that is the culturally normative
feelings or associations evoked by a specific term or phrase and by different levels of usage or styles, or social and geographical
dialects. The equivalence relation constituted here is called connotative equivalence. For example, the connotations evoked by
the term ‘breakfast’ in an English speaking context may differ radically from the associations this term evokes in Islamic
countries during Ramadan. c. The linguistic and textual norms of usage characterize a particular
text. The type of equivalence which relates to text type is called text normative equivalence. For example, a letter layout differs
widely across linguistic and cultural communities, and this needs to be taken account in translation.
d. The recipients of the translation for whom the translation is ‘specially’ designed, so that it fulfills its special communicative
function for these recipients. This type of equivalence is called pragmatic equivalence, for example, in a modern Italian translation
of the Bible, people might find a reference to Jesus riding into Rome on a Vesper instead of entering Jerusalem on a donkey.
This is, in fact, an example given by Eugene Nida in one of his talks about Bible translation.
e. The aesthetic, formal characteristic of the original text. This type of equivalence is formal aesthetic equivalence. For example, if the
translator succeeded in maintaining wordplays, rhymes, assonance, alliteration, phenomena in the translation, her or she would have
managed to achieve formal aesthetic equivalence.
31
Juliane House, Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.31-32
20
D. The procedures of translation
