11
intension of the writer or speaker and whether the expressions are formalinformal, coldwarm, or personalimpersonal.
Fourth, many translations do not sound natural in the target language. It is because the translator’s thought and choice of words are influenced by the source
language. A good way to overcome this problem is to set the text aside and translate a few sentences from memory to get the natural pattern of thought in the
first language. Fifth, the translator should not change the style of original text, except the text is sloppy written or full of tedious repetitions. The last principle is
about idiom. Duff 1981 also states that the idiom such as similes, metaphors, proverbs and sayings, jargon, slangs, colloquialisms and phrasal verbs cannot be
translated directly.
2. Type of Translation
Catford 1965 classifies the types of translation in terms of extent, levels and ranks. In term of the extent of the source language, Catford distinguishes the
type into full translation and partial translation. This distinction relates to the extent of SL text which is submitted to the translation process. In full translation,
the SL text is entirely translated into TL text material. Therefore, each part of the SL text would be replaced with the TL text. On the other hand, partial translation
only translates some parts from the SL text and left the rest of the parts untranslated. In some cases, such in literal translation, this kind of situation is
considered as a common thing. It is either because they are regarded as
“untranslatable” or for the deliberate purpose of introducing “local color”.
12
The second type is classified based on the level of the source language text. He devides it into total and restricted translation. This distinction relates to
the levels of language involved in translation. Total translation may be defined as the replacement of the SL grammar and lexis by the equivalent TL grammar and
lexis with consequential replacement of the SL phonologygraphology by the non- equivalent TL phonologygraphology. In restricted translation, the SL text
material is replaced by the equivalent TL text material, at only one level. It means that the translation happens only at the phonological or at the graphological, or
only at one of the two levels of grammar and lexis.
The last distinction in translation related to the rank in a grammatical or phonological hierarchy at which translation equivalence is established. In the
normal total translation, the translation equivalence may be set up at any rank and it constantly changes; at one point, it is sentence-to-sentence, at another, group-to-
group, at another, can be word-to-word. However, it is still possible for the equivalence to happen in only one rank which is called by rank-bound translation.
The popular terms, such as free, literal, and word-for-word translation partly correlates with the distinction. Free translation is always unbounded. This
translation tends to be at the higher ranks. It is sometimes larger than the sentence. Word-for-word translation usually means what it says. In other word, it is at
word-rank which may include some morphemes equivalence. Literal translation is just like word-for-word translation, but it is more grammatical in the TL than the
word-for-word translation. Newmark 1988 adds that it means the SL grammatical constructions are converted to the nearest TL equivalents but the
13
lexical words are again translated one by one, out of context. In order to make a clear understanding about the distinction between word-for-word translation,
literal translation, and free translation an example from Catford 1965, p. 26 is provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Example of Word-for-word, Literal and Free Translation Catford, 1965 p. 26
SL text TL text
Tuhan bersama mereka
God with them Word-for-word
God is with them Literal
Never mind about them Free
From Table 2.1 can be seen that word-for-word translation performed only in the word rank. Literal translation performed a higher level from word-for-word
translation and more grammatical. Then, free translation performed interchangeable with the SL text in situation where the addressee is being advised
to dismiss or disregard a triviality. Different from Catford 1965, Larson 1984 only classifies translation
into two types, form-based and meaning-based translation. Form-based translation attempts to follow the form of source language and it is knows as literal
translation. On the other hand, meaning-based translation tries to communicate the meaning of source language in the natural form of the target language. This kind
of translation is known as idiomatic translation. Idiomatic translations use the natural form of the receptor language, both in grammatical construction and in the
choice of lexical items. Therefore, the idiomatic translation sounds more like it is originally written in the receptor language rather than a result of translation.
14
3. Good Translation
