Reduplications as the Translation Equivalence of English Lexical Items in Indonesian.

THESIS

REDUPLICATIONS AS THE TRANSLATION

EQUIVALENCE OF ENGLISH LEXICAL ITEMS IN

INDONESIAN

MUHAMMAD RAFI’IE NIM 1290161032

MASTER PROGRAM

LINGUISTICS PROGRAM IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM

UDAYANA UNIVERSITY

DENPASAR

THESIS

REDUPLICATIONS AS THE TRANSLATION

EQUIVALENCE OF ENGLISH LEXICAL ITEMS IN

INDONESIAN

Thesis for Obtaining Master Degree

at Master Program, Linguistics Program in Translation Studies, Postgraduate Program, Udayana University, Denpasar

MUHAMMAD RAFI’IE NIM 1290161032

MASTER PROGRAM

LINGUISTICS PROGRAM IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM

UDAYANA UNIVERSITY

DENPASAR

THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

This thesis has been examined by the Board of Examiners of Postgraduate Program of Udayana University

on June 2nd, 2016

Based on the Decree of Rector of Udayana University No. 2383/UN14.4/HK/2016 The Board Examiners:

Chairman : Prof. Dr. I Wayan Pastika, M.S.

Members : 1. Dr. Ni Luh Nyoman Seri Malini, S.S., M.Hum.

2. Dr. Drs. I Wayan Resen, M.A., M.App.Ling. 3. Dr. Fransciscus I Made Brata, M.Hum. 4. Drs. I Nyoman Udayana, M.Litt., Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank our ancestors as the original creators of Indonesian language, the language I love dearly that serves as a morphologically and semantically fascinating language in linguistics studies. This thesis is especially dedicated to my parents: Abdul Hadi Bondo Arsyad, S.Pd. and Rahmawati Idris (departed). Words cannot express how thankful I am of your love, patience and support. Thank you with all my heart.

My sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisors: Prof. Dr. I Wayan Pastika, M.S. and Dr. Ni Luh Nyoman Seri Malini, S.S., M.Hum. for their academic guidance and input that serve as the building blocks to my thesis. To the Boards of Examiners to my thesis: Dr. Drs. I Wayan Resen, M.A., M.App.Ling., Dr. Fransciscus I Made Brata, M.Hum., and Drs. I Nyoman Udayana, M.Litt., Ph.D. for their academic opinions, suggestions and constructive criticisms to my thesis. I hope to continue good relations with all of you.

Thanks to the Rector of Udayana University: Prof. Dr. dr. Ketut Suastika, Sp. PD KEMD. for the chance given to me to pursue and finish my Magister study in the Linguistics program. Thanks to the Head of Linguistics Program, Postgraduate Program of Udayana University: Prof. Dr. Ida Bagus Putra Yadnya, M.A. and the Director of Postgraduate Program of Udayana University: Prof. Dr. dr. A.A. Raka Sudewi, Sp.S.(K) for their acknowledgements to my thesis. Thanks to all lecturers at the Linguistics Program, Postgraduate Program in Translation Studies for invaluable knowledge they have given to me and to the Academic Supervisor of the Postgraduate Program of Translation Studies, Prof. Dr. I Wayan Simpen, M.Hum. Thanks to the administration staff of the Postgraduate Program of Linguistics: I Ketut Ebuh, S.Sos., Nyoman Adi Triani, S.E. and to Redaksi Jurnal Linguistika: Silvia Damayanti.

Thanks for the helpful financial support to the Mayor of the City (Walikota) of Palangka Raya, H. M. Riban Satia, S.Sos., M.Si. and respectively to the former and current Head of STKIP Muhammadiyah Sampit, Kotawaringin Timur, Central Kalimantan, H. Drs. M. Darsyah Akhmadi M., S.H, M.Hum.,

M.Pd. (departed) and Apuanoor, S.Pd, M.Pd. Thanks to all of my former lecturers at STBA-LIA Yogyakarta, Central Java, Indonesia, especially to Hesthi Herusatoto, S.S., M.A. and Emilia Tetty Harjani, S.S., M.A. for their positive recommendations and moral support. Thanks to all of my former lecturers at Utrecht University, The Netherlands, for various insights on linguistics, especially to Dr. Bill Phillips (USA) and Prof. Bertus van Rooy (South Africa). Special thanks to my grandmother, H. Nurhayati, my sisters: Istiqomah Ni’mah and Zakiah Ni’mah, my aunts and uncles: Nurmaliati, Laili Mar’atun, Ardawati, Megawati Arsyad, M. Syafaruddin and Hamdan. Thanks to my Balinese foster mother, Gusti Ayu Made Wicitra and to my whole extended family for their kind support.

I would also like to thank my good friends for their moral support: Retawu Amartami, Budi Santosa, Haris Prasetya, Ratih Ananda, Rizka Andhini Putri, Ilfa Diyanawati Tafkir, Sindria Eka Putri, Hartati Setyawati, Yeti Zurida, A.T. Gurning, Ainul Fajri-Gazali, Nynke Chinafat, Rose Ali, Wiwin Sugiarti, Asmarani, Ida Bagus Candrika, Rafik Siregar, Alex Kootstra, Xavier Sarlet, Alessandro Galderisi, John Ferguson, Friedrich Raad, and Chanrit Cheturach. To good friends from StuNed: Yustina Artati, Agripinna Bele, Vascolino Pattipeilohy, Siska Aprilianti, Asken Sinaga, Sri Shindi Indira, Chatlyn Pandjaitan, Teguh Iman, Sofni Arifa Lubis and Wayan Santika.

Finally, thanks to the Translation Studies Class Coordinator: I Gusti Ayu Mahatma Agung and I Wayan Suryasa. Thanks to Flora Wirintina, Luciana Mega Setia Amri, I Gusti Ayu Shanti Iswari, I Ketut Yos Hendra, and all of my former classmates at the M.Hum.: Translation Studies. Thanks to my international former classmates at M.A.: Linguistics: The Study of the Language Faculty and M.A.: Linguistics: Language, Mind and Society at Utrecht University, The Netherlands, especially to Fleur Leijen. You are all an inspiration! I won’t forget you.

Yours Truly,

ABSTRACT

This thesis entitled “Reduplications as the Translation Equivalence of English Lexical Items in Indonesian” investigates the types of Indonesian reduplications and the ways certain English lexical items are translated in Indonesian reduplications. The data of the research is drawn from an English narrative textbook The Magic (Byrne, 2012) and its translation version in Indonesian The Magic (Purwoko, 2012).

This study explains three types of reduplications with their own distinctive forms and varieties on meaning implications, namely: full reduplication, partial reduplication, and imitative reduplication. Full reduplication consists of four sub-categories, namely: reduplication of simple words, reduplication of complex words, reduplication of bases within a complex word and reduplication without corresponding single bases.

English inflectional and derivational morphology can correspond productively to Indonesian reduplications. A variety of affixes of both English and Indonesian are the corresponding features involved in the morphological and semantic analysis. The translation equivalence is then established by textual equivalence and formal correspondence or by relatable contextual relations between certain English lexical items and Indonesian reduplications.

The results of the research show that reduplication of nouns can indicate concepts such as plurality, variety, and an adverbial function. Reduplication of verbs can indicate concepts of such as repetition, continuance, non-continuance, casual manners, reciprocity, and augmentative effects. Reduplication of adjectives can derive adverbial functions and can indicate a distributive plural reading. Keywords:

Reduplication, translation equivalence, lexical items, inflectional morphology, derivational morphology, affixes.

ABSTRAK

Tesis yang berjudul “Reduplikasi-Reduplikasi sebagai Padanan

Terjemahan dari Item Leksikal Bahasa Inggris dalam Bahasa Indonesia” ini menyelidiki tipe-tipe reduplikasi dalam bahasa Indonesia dan cara-cara item leksikal bahasa Inggris diterjemahkan dalam tipe-tipe reduplikasi tersebut. Data penelitian diperoleh dari teks buku naratif berbahasa Inggris The Magic (Byrne, 2012) dan versi terjemahannya dalam bahasa Indonesia The Magic (Purwoko, 2012).

Studi ini menjelaskan tiga macam tipe reduplikasi dengan bentuk masing-masing dan ragam implikasi makna, yakni: reduplikasi penuh, reduplikasi parsial, dan reduplikasi imitatif. Reduplikasi penuh terdiri dari empat sub-kategori, yakni: reduplikasi kata dasar, reduplikasi kata kompleks, reduplikasi kata dasar di dalam kata kompleks dan reduplikasi tak berkorespondensi dengan kata dasar.

Morfologi infleksional dan derivasional bahasa Inggris bisa

berkorespondensi secara produktif terhadap reduplikasi-reduplikasi bahasa Indonesia. Ragam afiks bahasa Inggris dan bahasa Indonesia merupakan fitur-fitur berkorespondensi yang terlibat dalam analisis morfologis and semantik. Padanan terjemahan kemudian ditentukan oleh padanan tekstual dan korespondensi formal atau dengan relasi-relasi kontekstual yang terkait antara item leksikal bahasa Inggris tertentu dan reduplikasi-reduplikasi bahasa Indonesia.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa reduplikasi kata benda bisa mengindikasikan konsep-konsep seperti kemajemukan, keragaman dan fungsi adverbial. Reduplikasi kata kerja bisa mengindikasikan konsep-konsep seperti pengulangan, keberlanjutan, ketidak-berlanjutan, cara-cara kasual, hal timbal-balik, dan efek-efek augmentatif. Reduplikasi kata sifat bisa memperoleh fungsi adverbial dan bisa mengindikasikan wacana jamak distributif.

Kata Kunci:

Reduplikasi, padanan terjemahan, item leksikal, morfologi infleksional, morfologi derivasional, afiks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

COVER

INSIDE COVER ... i

PRE-REQUISITE TITLE ... ii

APPROVAL SHEET ... iii

THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS ... iv

SURAT PERNYATAAN BEBAS PLAGIAT ... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi

ABSTRACT ... viii

ABSTRAK ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF DIAGRAMS ... xii

LIST OF MORPHOLOGICAL TABLES OF THE DATA ANALYSIS . xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Problems of the Study ... 4

1.3 Objectives of the Study ... 5

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance... 5

1.4.2 Practical Significance ... 6

1.5 Scope of the Study ... 6

CHAPTER II LITERARY REVIEW, CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH MODEL ... 8

2.1 Literary Review ... 8

2.2 Concepts ... 16

2.2.1 Concepts of Reduplication in Indonesian ... 16

2.2.2 Concepts of Translation Equivalence... 17

2.2.3 Concepts of Lexical Items ... 18

2.2.4 Concepts of Inflectional and Derivational Morphology ... 18

2.2.5 Concepts of Morpheme ... 19

2.2.6 Concepts of Base ... 19

2.2.7 Concepts of Affix ... 19

2.3 Theoretical Framework ... 19

2.3.1 Theories of Translation ... 20

2.3.2 Translation Equivalence and Its Conditions ... 21

2.3.3 Form and Meaning ... 22

2.3.4 Universal Theories of Reduplication ... 24

2.3.5 The Types of Reduplications in Indonesian ... 27

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD……….. 37

3.1 Research Approach ... 37

3.2 Research Location………... 37

3.3 Data Source ... 38

3.4 Research Instrument ... 38

3.5 Method and Technique of Collecting Data ... 39

3.6 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data ... 39

3.7 Method and Technique of Presenting the Result of Data Analysis ... 41

CHAPTER IV REDUPLICATIONS AS THE TRANSALATION EQUIVALENCE OF ENGLISH LEXICAL ITEMS IN INDONESIAN 42

4.1 Full Reduplication ... 43

4.1.1 Reduplication of Simple Words (Free Bases) ... 43

4.1.2 Reduplication of Complex Words ... 53

4.1.3 Reduplication of Bases within a Complex Word ... 64

4.1.4 Reduplication without Corresponding Single Bases ... 85

4. 2 Imitative Reduplication ... 87

4. 3 Partial Reduplication ... 92

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 95

5.1 Conclusion ... 95

5.2 Suggestion ... 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 97

APPENDIX ... 100

Appendix 1 ... 100

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

Page Research Model Diagram ... 36

LIST OF MORPHOLOGICAL TABLES OF THE DATA ANALYSIS

Page 4.1 Full reduplication of noun bases to indicate plurality ... 45 4.2 Full reduplication of adjective bases to derive an adverbial function .... 49

4.3 Full reduplication of noun bases of a period of day to derive an adverbial function ... 52

4.4 Full reduplication of complex nouns of an English complex noun derived by the suffix –ment to indicate plurality ... 57

4.5 Full reduplication of complex nouns of an English noun derived by

conversion/zero derivation to indicate plurality ... 60 4.6 Full reduplication of complex nouns of an English complex noun derived by the suffix -ing to indicate plurality ... 63 4.7 Full reduplication of verb bases within a complex verb to derive an

adverbial function with an augmentative meaning ... 67 4.8 Full reduplication of verb bases within a complex verb to derive a

reciprocal meaning ... 70 4.9 Full reduplication of adjective bases within a complex adjective to

indicate the distributive plural reading ... 74 4.10 Full reduplication of verb bases within a complex verb to derive an

adverbial function with a non-continuance meaning ... 77 4.11 Full reduplication of verb bases within a complex verb to derive an

adverbial function with a continuance or a repetitive action ... 80 4.12 Full reduplication of verb bases within a complex verb to derive a casual imperative and a repetitive meaning ... 84 4.13 Full reduplication without corresponding single bases with an adverb function ... 87 4.14 Imitative reduplication of a noun in a verb phrase ... 91 4.15 Partial reduplication of a noun to indicate plurality or variety ... 94

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADJ : adjective base.

C1 V X : the first consonant (C1) of any of the word base (X) first syllable plus the vowel (V) ‘e’ in partial reduplication.

DER-an : derivation suffixed with –an.

DER-ion : derivation suffixed with –ion.

DER-ly : derivation suffixed with –ly.

DER-ment : derivation suffixed with –ment.

DERpeng- : derivation prefixed with peng-.

DERter- : derivation prefixed with ter-.

DERZERO : zero derivation.

INFL-ed : inflection suffixed with –ed.

INFL-ren : inflection suffixed with –ren.

INFLmeng- : inflection prefixed with meng-.

INFLPAST : past verb inflection.

INFL-s : inflection suffixed with –s.

N : noun base.

NPERIOD OF DAY : noun indicating a period of day.

NP : noun phrase.

PP : prepositional phrase.

PREP : preposition.

REDBASE : reduplication of word bases.

REDFULL : full reduplication.

REDIMITATIVE : imitative reduplication.

REDWCSB : reduplication without corresponding single bases.

SL : source language.

TL : target language.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

As a branch of applied linguistics, translation is an important tool of the meaning transfer from one language to another for every aspect of life throughout the world. Major aspects of life such as religion, literature, science, and technology have depended on the translation role. In general, the translation role in human civilization and advancement is without a doubt contributive. The contribution of translation to human knowledge is facilitated by the translator’s knowledge and expertise in at least two different languages. This notion makes the relation between translation and languages are inseparable.

Translation is always related to different languages and different language forms for representing the meaning. Larson (1998) states that translation is basically a change of form: the forms of language, spoken and written, refer to lexicon and grammar: actual words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc. These forms are referred to as the surface structure of a language. It is the structural part of language which is actually seen in print or heard in speech. In translation, the form of the source language is replaced by the form of the target language. Translation consists of the meaning transfer from the source language into the receptor language. This is done by going from the form of the first language to the form of a second language by way of semantic or deep structure. It is meaning which is being transferred and must be held constant, only the form changes (Larson, 1998).

2

Furthermore, Larson (1998) defines translation in broad views that “translation consists of studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, communication situation, and cultural context of the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine its meaning, and then reconstructing this same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical structure which are appropriate in the receptor language and its cultural context.” From these statements of Larson’s, it can be seen that translation has two main features which are representations of form and meaning from one language to another language: form (lexicon and grammar) refers to the surface structure of the language and meaning (semantic) refers to the deep structure of language. Meaning is also considered from communication situation and cultural context of both source language (henceforth: SL) and target language (henceforth: TL). Form as the surface structure of language relates in this research to the field of morphology. The deep structure of the language which is the description of meaning behind the surface structure relates in this research to the field of semantics.

Furthermore, in this translation study, descriptions of meaning will relate to translation equivalence. Regarding translation and equivalence, Nida in Venuti (2000) states that “translation consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” It is realized that the result of translation is not exactly the same but equivalent to the meaning intended from the source text. The term “closest natural equivalence” refers to a very close similarity in meaning. Naturalness in translation is essential. It makes the translation more acceptable. To achieve naturalness in translation, a translator must have excellent knowledge of the receptor language into which he is translating as well as excellent knowledge of the source language. The term “style” refers to translation that has similar function and effect as intended by

3

the source language. A good translator has to try to ensure the style of the source language transferred to the target language. Thus, considerations of the text style must be made in order to render similar intended functions and effects of the source language into the target language.

Considerations for the naturalness of translation can be similarly related to the effectiveness of translation. Larson (1998) emphasizes the underlying premise upon the best and effective translation is the one which (1) uses the normal language forms of the receptor language, (2) communicates, as much as possible to the receptor language speakers the same meaning that was understood by the speakers of the source language, and (3) maintains the dynamics of the source language text. In the common sense, the translator that is able to use the normal language forms of the receptor language is the one that has excellent expertise and knowledge of the receptor language. A translator who can communicate the same meaning intended by the source language is also the one who has excellent expertise and knowledge of the source language. Therefore, an effective translator is the one who masters both source and receptor language. Maintaining the “dynamics” of the original source text indicates that the translation is presented in such a way that it will, hopefully, evoke the same response as the source text attempted to evoke.

Concerning the topic of this research that relates to morphology, one will recognize that every language has its own unique and distinctive morphological forms. Katamba (1993) states that affix morphemes can be divided into two major functional categories, namely derivational morphemes and inflectional morphemes. This notion reflects the recognition of two principles in word building processes: inflection and derivation. Inflectional and derivational morphemes form words in different ways. For instance: English countable nouns will have an obligatory use

4

of the inflectional suffix –s or –es to form a plural meaning; most English adjectives can derive an adverb by an addition of the derivational suffix –ly.

Indonesian language without exception has unique and distinctive morphological forms. One of these unique forms in Indonesian language is reduplication. Reduplication is an important and mostly a productive part in word-forming processes. Reduplication occurs by repeating the entire or part of a word. Meanings of reduplication are various due to variety of reduplication types. English affixes both inflectional and derivational attached to certain lexical items can correspond with Indonesian reduplications. The correspondence between English lexical items and their translation equivalence in Indonesian reduplications will be the central topic to be analyzed in this study.

The analysis of this research relies on two narrative textbooks chosen for the data source, namely, the source language book in English The Magic (Byrne, 2012) and the target language version in Indonesian The Magic (Purwoko, 2012) as the product of translation. The genre of this particular narrative textbook includes self-help, spirituality, personal development, psychology, philosophy, inspiration, and non-fiction.

1.2Problems of the Study

Dealing with reduplications as the translation equivalence of English lexical items in Indonesian, there are two interesting problems to investigate in this research:

1. What types of Indonesian reduplications serve as the translation equivalence of certain English lexical items found in the book The Magic?

2. In what ways are certain English lexical items translated into Indonesian reduplications in the book The Magic?

5 1.3Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to find further insights and scientific evidence concerning effective and efficient translation from English into Indonesian. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to answer the two problems of the study already stated. The objectives to be achieved in this research are:

1. To explain the types of Indonesian reduplications serve as the translation equivalence of certain English lexical items in the book The Magic.

2. To analyze the ways of certain English lexical items are translated into Indonesian reduplications in the book The Magic.

1.4Significance of the Study

This research is expected to give two types of contributions, namely the theoretical significance and the practical significance.

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance

Theoretically, it is expected that the result of this study will bring about some positive contributions to applied linguistic studies, especially in the matters of English to Indonesian translation study or vice versa. Furthermore, it is hoped that this study will specifically improve understanding on translation condition regarding such aspects as translation equivalence, English inflectional and derivational morphology, Indonesian reduplications, and the methods of identifying and describing English lexical items in corresponding contexts which lead to the use of Indonesian reduplications as the translation equivalence.

6 1.4.2 Practical Significance

Practically, the result of this study is expected to inspire further research and to contribute a comprehension for students of translation studies, translators, language researchers, language learners or those who in general are interested in English Indonesian translation or vice versa. The result of this study can be used as a reference in translation studies or for further study in related topics in translation. This research provides practical and helpful information especially on the topic of translation equivalence of English lexical items into Indonesian reduplications.

1.5Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is intended to determine the limitation of the discussion based on the characteristics of the data. The concern of this research is specified to reduplications as the translation equivalence of English lexical items in Indonesian.

The study concentrates on answering the problems of the study stated. To make the study more focused, the scope of the study is limited to finding Indonesian reduplications in the translation version of the book and explaining the types of the reduplications found with their corresponding English lexical items. The study is intended to analyze the ways of certain English lexical items are translated into Indonesian reduplications.

To analyze the results of the translation as shown in the data of this research, relevant theories adopted as the main theoretical foundations include: theories of translation, translation equivalence and its conditions from a linguistic point of view (Catford, 1965). Supporting theories in this study include form and meaning (Larson, 1998) to identify the forms and

7

meaning components indicated by the English lexical items in the forms and meaning components of Indonesian reduplications, theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993) to identify the morphological processes of reduplications and concepts of meaning carried by them, and the types of Indonesian reduplications (Sneddon et al, 2010) to identify and explain the types of Indonesian reduplications collected for the data analysis.

CHAPTER II

LITERARY REVIEW, CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND

RESEARCH MODEL

2.1 Literary Review

Previous studies relevant and helpful to the present study on reduplication as the translation equivalence of English lexicons in Indonesian are reviewed below.

An article entitled “Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation” by Panou (2013) is helpful to this research for comparative materials since it presents critical evaluation for several influential theories on equivalence in translation, including theories proposed by Nida (1964) and Newmark (1981). It can be seen from the article that translation theories are based on two opposing ways of translating. With regard to equivalence, Nida (1964) distinguishes between formal and dynamic equivalence. Nida asserts that in formal equivalence the target language resembles very much the source language both form and content. Formal equivalence is therefore much of a word-for-word view of translation. Whereas in dynamic equivalence an effort is made to convey the source language message in the target language as naturally as possible. The idea of dynamic equivalence is to improve readability by rephrasing constructions that could be confusing when literally translated, but retain some faithfulness to the original text rather than creating a complete paraphrase.

However, Nida’s theory has been criticized by other scholars. Broeck (1978) questions how is it possible to measure the equivalent effect since no text can have the same effect or elicit the same response in two different cultures in different periods of time. Then, Gentzler (2001)

9

criticizes Nida for using the concept of dynamic equivalence in order to proselytize readers regardless of their culture to endorse the ideas of Protestant Christianity. The fact is Nida at the time at which he proffered his views about equivalence was translating the Bible, hence trying to produce the same impact on various different audiences he was simultaneously addressing. Despite these criticisms, Nida’s theory can be useful as a procedure for translators working with all kinds of texts with a receptor-based direction to the task of translating.

Furthermore, Panou (2013) mentions that Newmark (1981) distinguishes equivalence in translation between semantic and communicative translations. Semantic translation focuses on meaning whereas communicative translation concentrates on effect. Semantic translation looks back on the SL and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible. Communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees. In this respect, it tends to be easier to read. The distinction between the meaning (semantic translation) and effect (communicative translation) is not about which method is better than the other. Both methods may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed. It may be the case that a particular sentence requires a communicative translation whereas another sentence may require a semantic translation. An illustration of this point can be seen in the following example of the common sign in German by Newmark (1981: 39) bissinger Hund and chien mechant, which should be translated communicatively as beware the dog! instead semantically as ‘dog that bites!’ and ‘bad dog!’ so that the message is communicated effectively.

Overall, this article evaluates that the linguistic-oriented approaches to translation assume that the source text occupies a supreme position and is considered to be crucial importance in determining not only the translation process but also the extent to which it has been successful. Whereas target-oriented approaches view the source text as the point of departure for the

10

translation and mostly focus on the cultural, historical, and socio-political factors surrounding the translation, thus looking at it as a culture-bound phenomenon. Whether useful or not, the concepts of equivalence to the translation process varies according to the stance of the translators concerned on what they regard are the virtues of equivalence itself (Panou, 2013).

After reviewing this article, the researcher of this study concludes that the linguistic-oriented approaches to translation equivalence are related to the source text and meaning intended by the source text. Formal equivalence (Nida, 1964) and semantic translation (Newmark, 1981) can be considered as the linguistic-oriented approaches to translation as these theories rely on word-for-word or literal translation. Dynamic equivalence (Nida, 1964) and communicative translation (Newmark, 1981) can be considered as the target-oriented approaches to translation as these theories view the readability and naturalness of the translation are crucial for the target readers. The target-oriented approaches consider external factors surrounding the translation such as cultural context and communication situation. Translators may use any concept of equivalence that is useful and applicable to their translation project.

Another literary review that is relevant for this research is taken from an article entitled “Plural Semantics, Reduplication, and Numeral Modification in Indonesian” (Dalrymple and Mofu, 2011). In relation to reduplication, cited from this article in Indonesian both plural marking as reduplication and classifiers in numeral modification constructions are optional, and bare (non-reduplicated) Indonesian nouns are best analyzed as exhibiting a general number (Greenberg, 1972; Corbett, 2000; Carson, 2000). Indonesian exhibits no mass-count distinction: notionally “mass” and notionally “count” nouns do not differ in their grammatical behaviour, and participate equally in reduplication and numeral modification constructions. This article provides an analysis of the semantics of reduplication, classifiers, and numeral modification in Indonesian

11

which rests on the lack of mass/count distinction and explains the strong dispreference on numeral modification of reduplicated nouns.

Dalrymple and Mofu (2011) indicate that Indonesian bare nouns can also refer to pluralities:

(1) Saya merebus telur. ‘I am boiling eggs’

(Darlymple and Mofu, 2011: 2).

From the example above, on the one hand, the non-reduplicated telur ‘egg’ can be interpreted as plural despite the fact that telur is a base form or a singular noun. On the other hand, Saya merebus telur can also be interpreted in English as ‘I am boiling an egg’. Telur refers to a whole class of things. In Indonesian, when such context occurs, reduplication indicating plurality generally does not apply.

Furthermore, Darlymple and Mofu (2011) exemplify that in Indonesian, reduplication of notionally “mass” noun like air ‘water’ is possible to refer to multiple quantities, see the following example:

(2) Mereka telah kemasukan air laut terlalu banyak dan air-air itu sudah berhasil

dikeluarkan.

‘They have ingested too much sea water, and those amounts of water have successfully been taken away.’

http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2008/bulan/02/tgl/04/time/152231 /idnews/888917/idkanal/10

(Darlymple and Mofu, 2011: 8)

From the example above, air ‘water’ reduplicated as air-air ‘amounts of water’ indicates the quantity of water. The reduplication also indicates an emphasis of the great amount of water involved in the context of the sentence. Whereas in English, the emphasis that indicates the

12

quantity of water is classified by ‘amounts of water’. It is therefore seen in this context that mass nouns in English do not inflect to refer to multiple quantities.

Furthermore, Darlymple and Mofu (2011) mention that the use of the reduplicated form in numerical modification is uncommon and dispreferred relative to the use of the non reduplicated form. Carson (2000) claims that the reduplicated form is ungrammatical in numeral modifier construction. Plural formations with numeral modifications of reduplicated nouns are rare, but are sometimes found, as seen in the following example:

(3) Tim ini terdiri dari empat siswa-siswa yakni…

‘This team consists of four students, namely…’

http://www.lamongan.go.id/Report/article_excel.cfr?articleid=4858 (Darlymple and Mofu, 2011: 6)

From the example above, the numeral modifier empat ‘four’ indicates that the noun siswa ‘student’ it modifies is plural. The reduplication of the noun is considered redundant and dispreferred. Unlike plural morphology in English which dictates that the numeral modifier agree with a plural noun, in Indonesian such a construction is uncommon.

In conclusion, Darlymple and Mofu’s (2011) article presents information on the optionality of plural markings used in reduplication by looking at the context of a sentence; the possibility to refer to multiple quantities of mass nouns by reduplication; and the dispreference of numeral modifications use in reduplicated nouns.

Another article investigating Indonesian reduplication that is helpful for this research is from Mistica et al. (2009) with their article entitled “Double-Double, Morphology and Trouble: Looking into Reduplication in Indonesian.” This article specifically investigates two main issues

13

in reduplication of verbs. First, verbs which have agentive voice affix meN- and second, word formation construction of derived words exhibiting reduplication.

Cited from this article, reciprocal meaning is formed by marking two verbs with undergoer voice and agentive voice, which forms a linking between the agent and the patient of the action. Moreover, according to Arka and Manning (2008), in Indonesian, the undergoer voice (UV) is the unmarked bare verb, and the agentive voice (AV) is marked with meN-, as seen in the following example:

(4) Mereka pukul-memukul

They UV.hit-AV+hit ‘They hit each other.’

(Arka and Manning, 2008: 45-69)

From the example above, the reciprocal meaning must have a plural subject, as seen in mereka ‘they’, for the derived reciprocal verb pukul-memukul ‘hit each other’. The undergoer voice (UV) is the unmarked bare verb pukul ‘hit’ and the agentive voice (AV) is marked with meN- as seen in memukul. The prefix meN- in mereka pukul-memukul occurs in an intransitive construction as the subject mereka ‘they’ encodes both the agent and patient. (The capital ‘N’ in meN- signals the sound change. ‘N’ becomes ‘m’ if the verb base begins with initial b, p, f (Sneddon et al, 2010), thus mem- occurs in memukul and the initial ‘p’ in the base pukul is lost).

Another function of reduplication of verbs is to derive a distributive reading of repetition in meaning as seen below:

(5) Dia memukul-mukul temannya.

He AV+hit-hit his.friend ‘He hit his friend repeatedly’ (Mistica et al, 2009: 44-52).

From the example above, the agentive voice (AV) is marked with meN- as seen in memukul. The prefix meN- in dia memukul-mukul temannya signals a transitive construction as there is a

14

presence of an object in the sentence as the patient. In memukul-mukul, the initial ‘p’ from the verb base pukul is lost and substituted by ‘m’ due to the morphophonemic assimilation to both parts of reduplicated verbs. The reduplication indicates a repetitive action or pluractionality (Corbett, 2000) of the verb where the action done is over multiple times to affected objects.

It can be concluded from this article that the reciprocal meaning by reduplication and the distributive meaning by reduplication are independent from each other, with respect to their realization. The reciprocal reduplication requires a plural subject to encode as both agent and patient of the resulting derived intransitive reciprocal verb. The undergoer voice (UV) is the unmarked bare verb and the agentive voice (AV) is realized as meN-verb. Whereas in the distributive reduplication to derive meaning of repetition, the agentive voice (AV) of meN-verbs in this construction signals the transitivity of the verb and the subject of the sentence can be singular or plural.

Another paper that is beneficial for the writer is about reduplication of nouns and adjectives. Rafferty (2002), on the article “Reduplication of Nouns and Adjectives in Indonesian” reviewed several other literatures on reduplication of nouns and adjectives which commonly occur, along with its implications on meaning. This article also presents extensive examples for many types of noun and adjective reduplications.

Rafferty (2002) includes the work of Moeliono (1988: 166-167) on two primary meanings associated with reduplicated nouns. 1) non singular with a sense of plurality, collectivity, or diversity; 2) facsimile or resemblance. For example, rumah-rumah ‘houses’ may have any of the three non-singular meanings: houses, a group of houses, or various houses. Rumah-rumah is categorized as a full reduplication of nouns.

15

Another example of a reduplication of noun is the construction like dedaunan ‘foliage’ from the word base daun ‘leaf’, that is exemplifying another form for expressing the collective meaning. Dedaunan is categorized as a partial reduplication of noun (Sneddon et al, 2010). This construction involves placing the base a syllable consisting of the first consonant of the base followed by ‘e’. Thus the base daun is partially reduplicated as dedaunan. The suffix –an co-occurs in this construction to indicate a variety of what is indicated by the base. Dedaunan can indicate plurality, collectivity or diversity.

The second basic meaning of reduplicated nouns is to derive meaning of facsimile or resemblance, illustrated by the reduplicated construction mobil-mobilan ‘toy car’ from the noun base mobil ‘car’. The meaning associated with this construction is diminutive. The reduplication carries the meaning of the pseudo-noun of the base. The suffix –an involved in this construction indicates the derived meaning of resemblance.

Furthermore in the article, Moeliono (1988: 212) briefly characterizes reduplication of adjectives as having two functions: modifying verbs and modifying nominal. 1) modifying verbs, thus becoming adverbs. For instance, see the adjective cepat ‘quick’ below:

(6) Dia lari cepat-cepat

‘He runs quickly’ (Moeliono, 1988: 212)

From the example above, reduplication of adjectives apply. The adjective cepat ‘quick’ is reduplicated to derive an adverb cepat-cepat ‘quickly’. The function of the adverb is to modify the verb lari ‘run’. 2) modifying nominals and in this function, exhibiting the meaning of diversity or plurality of the noun modified by the adjective. For example, see the following adjective mudah ‘easy’:

16

(7) Soal ujian kemarin mudah-mudah

‘The problems on the examination yesterday were all easy’. (Moeliono, 1988: 212)

From the example above, the reduplication of adjective mudah as mudah-mudah indicates that the noun it modifies is plural.

This article concludes that reduplication of nouns and adjectives can carry various meanings. Reduplication of nouns can carry semantic elements including plurality, collectivity, diversity and resemblance, whereas reduplication of adjectives can be applied to derive adverbs and to modify nominals exhibiting the meaning of diversity or plurality of the noun modified by the adjective.

2.2 Concepts

A concept as the abstract or the general idea of the study consists of short explanation or definition related to the topic being discussed. There are some concepts to be presented below regarding the title and the problems of this study. They are the concepts of reduplication in Indonesian, translation equivalence, lexical items, inflectional and derivational morphology, morpheme, base, and affix.

2.2.1 Concepts of Reduplications in Indonesian

Sneddon et al (2010) categorize three main types of reduplications in Indonesian, namely: full, partial, and imitative reduplications. Full reduplication can involve reduplication of simple words (or free bases), reduplication of complex words (consisting of an affix or more than one affix plus base) and reduplication of the bases within a complex word. Full reduplication

17

involves repeating an entire word. The resulting two bases or words are separated by a hyphen in writing. The second base or word is treated as the reduplicated part.

Examples of reduplicated simple words (free bases) are:

(8) buku-buku ‘books’ (from the noun base buku ‘book’)

tinggi-tinggi ‘tall objects’ (from the adjective base tinggi ‘tall’) duduk-duduk ‘sit around’ (from the verb base duduk ‘sit’) Examples of reduplicated complex words are:

(9) perubahan-perubahan ‘changes’ (from the verb base ubah ‘change’) tulisan-tulisan ‘writings’ (from the verb base tulis ‘write’)

Examples of reduplicated bases within a complex word are:

(10) kemerah-merahan ‘reddish’ (from the adjective base merah ‘red’)

sebesar-besarnya ‘as big as possible’ (from the adjective base besar ‘big’) melihat-lihat ‘sightsee’ (from the verb base lihat ‘see’)

(Sneddon et al, 2010: 19).

A more thorough description on reduplications in Indonesian is described at the later section in theoretical framework section 2.3.5.

2.2.2 Concepts of Translation Equivalence

Translation equivalence is distinguished between, on the one hand, translation equivalence as an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts and, on the other hand, the underlying conditions, or justification, of translation equivalence (Catford, 1965). A more thorough description on translation equivalence is described at the later section in theoretical framework section 2.3.2.

18

2.2.3 Concepts of Lexical Items

According to Larson (1998), lexical items include words, phrases, etc. Lexical items in this study relate to meaning components that are classified semantically into four principles groups: THINGS (nouns, pronouns), EVENTS (verbs), ATTRIBUTES (adjectives, adverbs), and RELATIONS (conjunctions, prepositions, particles, enclitics, etc).

2.2.4 Concepts of Inflectional and Derivational Morphology

Inflectional morphology is concerned with syntactically driven word-formation. An inflectional morpheme does not alter the word-class of the base to which it is attached. Inflectional morphemes are only able to modify the form of a word so that it can fit into a particular syntactic slot (Katamba, 1993).

Greenberg (1954) proposed the criterion of obligatoriness to characterize inflection. He argued that inflection occurs when, at different points in a sentence, syntax imposes obligatory choices from a menu of affixes. If the right choice is not made, an ungrammatical sentence results.

Derivational morphology is used to create new lexical items. Derivational morphemes form new words either by changing the meaning of the base to which they are attached, e.g. kind vs un-kind (both are adjectives but with opposite meanings); obey vs dis-obey (both are verbs but with opposite meanings), or by changing the word-class that a base belongs to, e.g. the addition of –ly to the adjectives kind and simple produces the adverbs kind-ly and simp-ly. As a rule, it is possible to derive an adverb by adding the suffix –ly to an adjectival base (Katamba, 1993).

19

2.2.5 Concepts of Morpheme

A morpheme is the smallest, indivisible units of semantic content or grammatical function which words are made of. A morpheme cannot be decomposed into smaller units which are either meaningful by themselves or mark a grammatical function (Katamba, 1993). Morphemes fall into two primary classes in terms of their operation in the structure of words: base morphemes and affix morphemes (Catford, 1965).

2.2.6 Concepts of Base

Any unit whatsoever to which affixes of any kind can be added. The affixes attached to a base may be inflectional affixes selected for syntactic reasons or derivational affixes which alter the meaning or grammatical category of the base (Katamba, 1993).

2.2.7 Concepts of Affix

An affix is a morpheme which only occurs when attached to some other morpheme or morphemes such as a root or stem or base. Affixes are bound morphemes: they can not occur independently. There are three types of affixes (1) Prefixes: A prefix is an affix attached before a root or stem or base. (2) Suffixes: A suffix is an affix attached after a root (or stem or base). (3) Infixes: An infix is an affix inserted into the root itself (Katamba, 1993).

2.3Theoretical Framework

This research attempts to provide descriptions regarding reduplication as the translation equivalence of English lexicons in Indonesian. The analysis conducted focuses on presenting

20

explanations on the types of Indonesian reduplication to their corresponding English lexicons and how the English lexicons are translated into Indonesian reduplications.

The main theoretical foundations for this study are drawn from theories of translation, translation equivalence and conditions of translation equivalence from linguistic point of view (Catford, 1965). Supporting theories are drawn from form and meaning (Larson, 1998), theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993) and the types of Indonesian reduplications (Sneddon et al, 2010). The adoption of these theoretical frameworks is considered relevant and appropriate for coping with the scope and objectives of the research. These theories are used as references in identifying and analyzing the data of the research as well as assessing the conditions of the translation equivalence. The descriptions of the adopted theories are presented at the sub-sections below.

2.3.1 Theories of Translation

Catford (1965) defines translation from a linguistic point of view as “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).” From this definition, two lexical items in it call for comment. These are ‘textual material’ and ‘equivalent’. ‘Text’ is any stretch of language, spoken or written, which is under discussion. According to circumstances a text may thus be a whole library of books, a single volume, a chapter, a paragraph, a sentence, a clause … etc. The use of the term ‘textual material’ underlines the fact that a text is expected in order to be processed as the translation material from the source language to the target language. The term ‘equivalent’ is the expectation for the result of the translation in the target language as intended by the source language.

21

The next term used by Catford (1965) in the definition of translation is the term ‘equivalent’. The descriptions on translation equivalence and conditions of translation equivalence will be presented at the sub-section below.

2.3.2 Translation Equivalence and Its Conditions

According to Catford (1965), the central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence.

Catford (1965) makes distinction regarding translation equivalence, on the one hand, translation equivalence as an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts and on the other hand, as the underlying conditions, or justification, of translation equivalence. Translation as an empirical phenomenon has its distinction between textual equivalence and formal correspondence: “a textual equivalent is any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text.” A formal correspondence is “any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.” It can be considered that the term ‘economy’ in formal correspondence as any element of the SL text that is occupied in the TL text as the translation equivalence at corresponding ranks of verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns etc. The discovery of textual equivalents is based on the authority of a competent bilingual informant or translator, with the help of dictionaries.

Regarding the conditions of translation equivalence, Catford (1965) states that the TL text must be relatable to at least some of the situational features to which the SL text is relatable.

22

Presumably, the greater the number of situational features common to the contextual meanings of both SL and TL text, the better the translation. It is possible to generalize to the conditions of translation equivalence as follows: “translation equivalence occurs when an SL and a TL texts or items are relatable to (at least some of) the same features of substance.” The type of ‘substance’ depends on the scope of translation. In this study, ‘substance’ is the situational features such as inflections or derivations of the SL and the TL that particularly correspond in their textual meanings or contextual meanings. The condition of translation equivalence can be justified when the SL substance has some relatable contextual meanings with the TL substance.

2.3.3 Form and Meaning

According to Larson (1998), one of the basic assumptions is that there is a valid distinction between the surface (grammatical, lexical, phonological) and the deep (semantic) structures of languages. The form of language refers to the actual words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc., which are spoken or written. These forms are referred to as the surface structure of language. It is the structural part of language which is actually seen in print or heard in speech. Behind the surface structure is the deep structure, the meaning. It is the meaning that serves as the base for translation into another language. A second basic assumption is that meaning is structured. It can be analyzed and represented in ways that are useful for the translator.

Furthermore, Larson (1998) states that translation consists of transferring the meaning of the source language into the receptor language. This is done by going from the form of the first language to the form of a second language by way of semantic structure. It is meaning which is being transferred and must be held constant. Only the form changes. Translation, then, consists

23

of studying the lexicons, grammatical structure, communication situation, and cultural context of the source language text, analyzing it in order to determine its meaning, and then reconstructing this same meaning using the lexicon and grammatical structure which are appropriate in the receptor language and its cultural context.

From the statement of Larson above, it can be concluded that forms of languages may be very different from one to another but the pivotal point in translation is the transfer of meaning. In this study, the surface structure of language can be correlated to the morphology of English lexicons and its corresponding translation in the morphology of Indonesian reduplications. The deep structure of language is correlated to the meaning behind the deep structure. The discovery of meaning is conveyed by analyzing the components of the SL text under discussion morphologically and semantically and then rendering the results of the analysis into the components of the TL text morphologically and semantically. Communication situations and cultural contexts of the SL text must also be considered in the reconstruction process of the TL text, in order to keep the intended meaning of the SL text rendered appropriately in the TL text. In other words, the reconstruction process in translation may be influenced by the communication situation, relevant to who the speaker is, who the audience is, the traditions of the culture, etc.

Larson (1998) describes in surface structure, units are grouped into increasingly larger units in hierarchy of grammatical structures. Morphemes unite to form words, words unite to form phrases, phrases unite into clauses, clauses into a sentence, sentences into paragraph, paragraph into discourse units of various kinds, and these unite to form a text-story, letter, sermon, or whatever. This statement recognizes that any text originates from a single unit of

24

language form in surface structure. A single unit then can be formed into larger units exhibiting any grammatical forms of language.

Furthermore, Larson (1998) mentions in the deep structure that the smallest unit in the semantic structure is a meaning component. Meaning components relate to morphemes (roots and affixes) that group together to form concepts (words). Meaning components and concepts are classified semantically into four principle groups: things (nouns, pronouns), events (verbs), attributes (adjectives, adverbs), and relations (conjunctions, prepositions, particles, enclitics, etc.). These notions of Larson’s illustrate that a text is manifested from the smallest units of language forms with meaning components that are grouped in a hierarchy of grammatical structures. Thus, language is structured. In translation, meaning is structured and therefore the SL text can be analyzed and represented in the TL.

2.3.4 Universal Theories of Reduplication

In Katamba (1993); Sapir (1921) observes that “nothing is more natural than the prevalence of reduplication, in other words, the repetition of all or part or of the radical element. The process is generally employed, with self-evident symbolism, to indicate such concepts as distribution, plurality, repetition, customary activity, increase in size, added intensity, and continuance.” Sapir’s theory indicates that reduplication is a natural phenomenon in languages. The evidence of reduplication involves the repetition of all part or a part of the radical element. The radical element itself is all part or a part of the word that is reduplicated. It can be of any word-class, such as nouns, verbs, or adjectives. Concepts indicated by reduplication proposed by Sapir can be incorporated in Indonesian reduplication. Concepts of meaning indicated by

25

reduplication will be more thoroughly described in the section of types of Indonesian reduplication proposed by Sneddon et al (2010).

A second theory on reduplication is proposed by Katamba (1993). Katamba uses the term of reduplication in a morphological sense, that “reduplication is restricted to situations where the repeated part of the word serves some derivational or inflectional purpose.” The incorporation of the statement in Indonesian reduplications can be applied in ways that for the purpose of derivation, another class of word is derived from a base or another meaning is derived from a base. Then, this derived form can productively participate in reduplication. Whereas for the purpose of inflection, reduplication occurs without altering the word-class of the base. Inflection by reduplication modifies the form of a word to fit into a particular obligatoriness of syntax. However, since languages have their own characteristics and have their own rules of what is obligatory to the syntax, sometimes what is obligatory in one language does not apply in another.

In the parallel context of English inflections and Indonesian reduplications, an illustration is presented by the example below. It is shown that what is obligatory to the syntax of English is optional in Indonesian:

(11) SL: Reindeer could fly, there were fairies in the garden, [pets] were like people, [toys] had personalities, [dreams] came true, and you could touch the stars. (Byrne, 2012: 1).

TL: Rusa bisa terbang, ada peri-peri kecil di kebun, [hewan peliharaan] seolah-olah manusia, [mainan] seolah hidup, [impian] menjadi kenyataan, dan Anda bisa menyentuh bintang-bintang. (Purwoko, 2012: 2).

From the SL sentence above, noun inflections carrying meaning in plurality include: ‘fairies’, ‘pets’, ‘toys’, ‘dreams’, and ‘stars’. In the case of regular count-noun in English, the plural suffix must be attached to a noun to form a plural noun that is grammatical and agreeable

26

in English syntactic slot. While in TL translation, only ‘fairies’ peri-peri and ‘stars’ bintang-bintang that are translated in the reduplicated form of nouns indicating plurality. The SL lexicons of noun inflections carrying meaning in plurality typed in square brackets above: [pets] hewan peliharaan, [toys] mainan, and [dreams] impian are not translated in the reduplicated form as plurals. This occurrence can be explained as a plural marking is optional in Indonesian nouns. According to Sneddon et al (2010), concerning plurality of nouns in Indonesian: (1) a noun is not usually reduplicated unless it is unclear from context whether one or more than one is referred to and then only if this is important to what the speaker wishes to convey (2) sometimes, however, a speaker does use reduplication even though plurality is clear from context (3) reduplication does not occur if a whole class of things is referred to (4) it is sometimes stated that reduplication of nouns indicates variety rather than plurality (although plurality is implied by variety) (5) reduplication is not normally used in reference to things which come in pairs.

In the TL data sentence typed in square brackets above, the translator chooses not to apply reduplication of plural nouns for the corresponding SL plural nouns for the reason of the optionality in plural markings in Indonesian. The translator chooses to apply reduplication only to certain nouns considered important to what the translator wishes to convey as plural e.g. peri-peri ‘fairies’ and bintang-bintang ‘stars’ and not to all of the corresponding SL plural nouns as reduplication does not occur if a whole class of things is referred to e.g. [hewan peliharaan] ‘pets’, [mainan] ‘toys’ and [impian] ‘dreams’

Katamba (1993) summarizes the common functions served by reduplication with the concept such as plurality of nouns. In verbs, reduplication often indicates continuation, frequency or repetition of an event or action. Often reduplication has an augmentative meaning. It signals an increase in size, frequency or intensity. Conversely, reduplication may have a

27

diminutive effect, often with connotations of endearments or simply of attenuation. The concepts indicated by reduplication proposed by Katamba can mostly be incorporated in Indonesian reduplications. The discussions of the types of Indonesian reduplications are presented at the sub-sections below.

2.3.5 The Types of Reduplications in Indonesian

Sneddon et al (2010) categorize three main types of reduplication in Indonesian, namely: full, partial, and imitative reduplication. These three types of reduplications will be described as follow:

1) Full Reduplication

Full reduplication may include simple words (or free bases), complex words (consisting of an affix or more than one affix plus base) and the bases of complex words. Full reduplication involves repeating an entire word. The resulting two bases or words are separated by a hypen in writing. The second base or word is treated as the reduplicated part. Sneddon et al (2010) furthermore state that full reduplication can consist of reduplication without corresponding single bases, reduplication of nouns, reduplication of pronouns, reduplication of adjectives, reduplication of verbs, and reduplication of numbers. In particular, in relation to the data of the study found, reduplication without corresponding single bases, reduplication of nouns, adjectives, and verbs will be described below:

28

Sneddon et al (2010) describe that sometimes reduplicated forms have no unreduplicated counterparts to which they can be related. Such forms are often treated as single bases in dictionaries, although usually written with a hyphen. Such forms include:

(12) laba-laba (n) ‘spider’ (n)

tiba-tiba (adj.) ‘suddenly’ (adv.)

sia-sia (adj.) ‘futile’ (adj.)

pura-pura (v) ‘pretend’ (v)

megap-megap (v) ‘pant’ (v)

masing-masing (adj.) ‘each’ (adj.)

(Sneddon et al, 2010: 19)

Although single bases with the same form sometimes occur, these are chance similarities. Thus the word tiba ‘arrive’ has no relationship to tiba-tiba ‘suddenly’ and the single base pura functions as a noun which means ‘temple’, thus, pura-pura can also mean ‘temples’. From the instances above, it can be seen that the reduplication without corresponding single bases can refer to nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs, with the same corresponding English word-classes.

b) Reduplication of Nouns

The major function of noun reduplication is to indicate plurality. Both simple (e.g. piring-piring ‘plates’, rumah-rumah ‘houses’) and complex nouns consisting of an affix or more than one affix plus base (e.g. singkatan-singkatan ‘abbreviations’, perubahan-perubahan ‘changes’) can be reduplicated to indicate plurality. A noun is not usually reduplicated unless it is unclear from context whether one or more than one is referred to and then only if this is important to what the speaker wishes to convey. In the first example below the number makes plurality specific, while in the second sentence plurality is clear from the general context that one does not usually buy a single shoe, and as in Indonesian, reduplication of nouns is not normally used in reference to things which come in pairs.

29

(13) Menteri mengunjungi tiga negeri asing.

‘The minister visited three foreign countries’. Saya harus membeli sepatu baru.

I must buy new shoes. (Sneddon et al, 2010: 20).

Sneddon et al (2010) furthermore state that it is sometimes stated that reduplication of nouns indicates variety rather than plurality (although plurality is implied by variety). Reduplication can be used where variety is of no importance. In the following sentence there is no focus at all on variation among the trees, what is stressed is that there is more than one:

(14) Rumahnya dekat pohon-pohon mangga itu.

‘His house is near those mango trees’. (Sneddon et al, 2010: 21).

Reduplication of nouns may produce a meaning which is different but nevertheless related to the meaning of the single base. Such forms include:

(15) Unreduplicated Reduplicated

gula ‘sugar’ gula-gula ‘sweets’

mata ‘eye’ mata-mata ‘spy’

kuda ‘horse’ kuda-kuda ‘easel, trestle’ langit ‘sky’ langit-langit ‘ceiling’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 20)

In a few cases, such words can also indicate plurality. Thus kuda-kuda ‘horses’ and mata-mata rantai ‘links of chain’ indicate plurality.

c) Reduplication of Adjectives

Reduplication of adjectives can function as adverbs, as exemplified below:

(16) Anak itu berteriak keras-keras ‘The child screamed loudly’. (Sneddon et al, 2010: 23).

30

Reduplication of an adjective can also occur when the noun it describes is plural. Reduplication indicates that the characteristic indicated by the adjective applies to the noun it modifies:

(17) Hutan-rimba yang pohonnya tinggi-tinggi sekali. ‘A forest whose trees are very tall’.

Gambarmu bagus-bagus. ‘Your drawings are beautiful’. (Sneddon et al, 2010: 22).

d) Reduplication of Verbs

With some verbs reduplication gives a connotation of action done in a casual or leisurely way:

(18) Unreduplicated Reduplicated

jalan* ‘walk’ jalan-jalan* ‘walk about, go for a stroll’

lihat ‘see’ lihat-lihat ‘have a look around’

(Sneddon et al, 2010: 23).

Sneddon et al (2010) assert that reduplication of verbs can indicate continued action, either an action done over a period of time or an action performed repeatedly:

(19) Potongan kayu itu terapung-apung di atas air. ‘The piece of wood floated on the water’ Dia berteriak-teriak minta tolong.

‘He shouted and shouted for help’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 23).

From the examples above, terapung-apung indicates a continued action. In addition, the prefix ter-… indicates a construction of ter- verbs with accidental meaning. According to Sneddon et al --- * The verb base jalan can also function as a noun, thus, jalan-jalan can mean ‘streets’ as the plural form of the noun base jalan ‘street’.

31

(2010), verbs in English do not distinguish between accidental and deliberate action. Thus, terapung-apung may refer to an unintended act. Second, berteriak-teriak indicates a repeated action. The prefix ber- indicates intransitivity of the verb. From the examples above, it can also be seen that unlike complex nouns, complex verbs (consisting of an affix or more than one affix plus base) only undergo full reduplication of the bases; that is, bases are reduplicated then the unreduplicated affixes are attached to the reduplicated bases.

Furthermore, Sneddon et al (2010) state that reduplication of verbs can give meaning which somewhat different from that of the single form, usually conveying a sense of intensity:

(20) Unreduplicated Reduplicated

menjadi ‘become’ menjadi-jadi ‘get worse’

meminta ‘request’ meminta-minta ‘beg’

(Sneddon et al, 2010: 24).

2) Partial Reduplication

According to Sneddon et al (2010), partial reduplication occurs only with bases which begin with a consonant. It involves placing before the base a syllable consisting of the first consonant of the base followed by ‘e’. This type of reduplication is no longer productive in the language; it occurs with a few bases, mainly nouns, and cannot be applied to others. The reduplicated word has a meaning which is the same as that of the single form or is related to it. Sometimes, the historical relationship is not obvious:

(21) tangga ‘ladder’ tetangga ‘neighbor’ jaka ‘bachelor’ jejaka ‘bachelor’ laki ‘husband’ lelaki ‘man’

luhur ‘noble’ leluhur ‘ancestor’

tapi ‘but’ tetapi ‘but’

32

3) Imitative Reduplication

Referring to Sneddon et al (2010), in imitative reduplication the two parts of the word are not identical, though they are similar. Nouns, adjectives and verbs can all undergo imitative reduplication. The variation between the two parts of the word can involve either consonants or vowels. Imitative reduplication is not productive; new forms cannot be created, nor can the two parts of the word change places. Frequently only the first component of the word occurs as a simple word. In some cases, neither part can occur alone. The reduplication usually indicates variety or emphasizes the meaning of the first component.

Sneddon et al (2010) illustrate imitative reduplication in the following examples by contrasting its differences that may be in the first consonant or in the vowels. The difference may be only the first consonant as seen below:

(22) sayur-mayur ‘vegetables’ lauk-pauk ‘side dishes’

ramah-tamah ‘hospitable and friendly’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25)

From the examples above, in sayur-mayur only the base sayur ‘vegetable’ can occur independently. Imitative reduplication of sayur-mayur ‘vegetables’ may indicate plurality or variety, in lauk-pauk only the base lauk ‘side dish’ can occur independently. Imitative reduplication of lauk-pauk ‘side dishes’ may indicate plurality or variety, and in ramah-tamah only the base ramah ‘friendly’ can occur alone as an adjective. Imitative reduplication of ramah-tamah derives an augmentative meaning. It signals an increase in quality of the adjective ramah ‘friendly’ as seen in ramah-tamah ‘hospitable and friendly’.

Some combinations may be considered as instances of imitative reduplication, although they actually consist of two existing independent parts, such as:

33

(23) kaya-raya ‘very wealthy’ (kaya ‘rich’, raya ‘great’) (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25).

Kaya-raya derives an augmentative meaning. It signals an increase in quality of the adjective kaya ‘rich’ as seen in kaya-raya ‘very wealthy’.

In imitative reduplication, the difference may also be in the vowels and there may be only one vowel difference:

(24) desas-desus ‘rumor’

warna-warni ‘all kinds of colors’ gerak-gerik ‘movements, gestures’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25-26)

From the examples above, neither part of desas-desus can occur alone; in warna-warni, only warna ‘color’ can occur alone as a singular noun. Imitative reduplication of warna-warni ‘all kinds of colors’ indicates a variety of colors, and; in gerak-gerik only gerak ‘move’ can occur alone as a verb. Imitative reduplication of gerak-gerak ‘movements, gestures’ indicates a repeated action.

It is also common for the first component to contain the vowels o…a and the second component to contain the vowels a…i, although these are not the only combinations. Often, with this type of imitative reduplication, neither part of the word can occur alone:

(25) bolak-balik ‘to and fro’

pontang-panting ‘run helter skelter’ obrak-abrik ‘destroy, smash to pieces’ mondar-mandir ‘back and forth’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 26).

From the examples above, in bolak-balik only balik ‘return’ can occur alone as a verb; in pontang-panting, obrak-abrik, mondar-mandir neither part of the word can occur alone. Bolak-balik ‘to and fro’ and mondar-mandir may indicate a continuous or repeated action, whereas

34

pontang-panting ‘run helter skelter’ and obrak-abrik ‘destroy, smash to pieces’ derive

augmentative meaning, signaling an increase in intensity of the verb.

2.3 Research Model

The research model diagram below shows the relations between the topic of the study, problem of the study, theoretical framework, research method, analysis, and result of the study. The study concentrates on answering the problems of the study. To make the study more focused, the scope of the study is limited to finding Indonesian reduplications in the translation version of the book and categorizing the types of the reduplications found with their corresponding English lexical items. The study is intended to analyze how English lexical items are translated into Indonesian reduplications.

Research approach applied to this study was qualitative method. Observation method proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) was used in collecting the data. Observation method was applied by observing carefully the entire source of data. Translational identity method proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) was used to analyze the data of the research. This method was applied to compare between one language with another language to find and analyze the equivalence. Formal and informal methods proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) were used in presenting the result of data analysis in this research. Formal method was used for the presentation of the data in a diagram, tables and patterns with mathematical symbols such as + (plus) and  (become). Informal method dealt with presenting a topic by applying explanation using words to describe findings in ways intended for readers to easily understand.

35

To analyze the results of the translation as shown in the data of this research, relevant theories adopted as the main theoretical foundations include: theories of translation, translation equivalence and its conditions from linguistic point of view (Catford, 1965). Supporting theories in this study include form and meaning (Larson, 1998) to identify the forms and meaning components indicated by English lexical items in the forms and meaning components of Indonesian reduplications, theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993) to describe morphological processes of English lexical items and their corresponding translation in Indonesian reduplications and concepts of meaning carried by the processes, and theories of Indonesian reduplication (Sneddon et al, 2010) to identify and explain the types of Indonesian reduplications. Research model for this study is shown by the diagram below:

36

RESEARCH MODEL DIAGRAM

REDUPLICATIONS AS THE TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE

SOURCE LANGUAGE Certain English Lexical Items TARGET LANGUAGE Indonesian Reduplications PROBLEMS

1. Types of reduplications in Indonesian serve as the translation equivalence.

2. The ways certain English lexical items translated into Indonesian reduplications.

METHODS Data Collection:

- Library Research. Data Analysis:

- Qualitative.

ANALYSIS

THEORIES

1. Types of reduplications in Indonesian (Sneddon et al, 2010).

2. Universal theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993).

3. Form and meaning (Larson, 1998).

4. Translation, translation equivalence and its

(2010), verbs in English do not distinguish between accidental and deliberate action. Thus, terapung-apung may refer to an unintended act. Second, berteriak-teriak indicates a repeated action. The prefix ber- indicates intransitivity of the verb. From the examples above, it can also be seen that unlike complex nouns, complex verbs (consisting of an affix or more than one affix plus base) only undergo full reduplication of the bases; that is, bases are reduplicated then the unreduplicated affixes are attached to the reduplicated bases.

Furthermore, Sneddon et al (2010) state that reduplication of verbs can give meaning which somewhat different from that of the single form, usually conveying a sense of intensity:

(20) Unreduplicated Reduplicated

menjadi ‘become’ menjadi-jadi ‘get worse’ meminta ‘request’ meminta-minta ‘beg’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 24).

2) Partial Reduplication

According to Sneddon et al (2010), partial reduplication occurs only with bases which begin with a consonant. It involves placing before the base a syllable consisting of the first consonant of the base followed by ‘e’. This type of reduplication is no longer productive in the language; it occurs with a few bases, mainly nouns, and cannot be applied to others. The reduplicated word has a meaning which is the same as that of the single form or is related to it. Sometimes, the historical relationship is not obvious:

(21) tangga ‘ladder’ tetangga ‘neighbor’ jaka ‘bachelor’ jejaka ‘bachelor’ laki ‘husband’ lelaki ‘man’ luhur ‘noble’ leluhur ‘ancestor’ tapi ‘but’ tetapi ‘but’ (Sneddon, 2010: 25).

3) Imitative Reduplication

Referring to Sneddon et al (2010), in imitative reduplication the two parts of the word are not identical, though they are similar. Nouns, adjectives and verbs can all undergo imitative reduplication. The variation between the two parts of the word can involve either consonants or vowels. Imitative reduplication is not productive; new forms cannot be created, nor can the two parts of the word change places. Frequently only the first component of the word occurs as a simple word. In some cases, neither part can occur alone. The reduplication usually indicates variety or emphasizes the meaning of the first component.

Sneddon et al (2010) illustrate imitative reduplication in the following examples by contrasting its differences that may be in the first consonant or in the vowels. The difference may be only the first consonant as seen below:

(22) sayur-mayur ‘vegetables’ lauk-pauk ‘side dishes’

ramah-tamah ‘hospitable and friendly’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25)

From the examples above, in sayur-mayur only the base sayur ‘vegetable’ can occur independently. Imitative reduplication of sayur-mayur ‘vegetables’ may indicate plurality or variety, in lauk-pauk only the base lauk ‘side dish’ can occur independently. Imitative reduplication of lauk-pauk ‘side dishes’ may indicate plurality or variety, and in ramah-tamah only the base ramah ‘friendly’ can occur alone as an adjective. Imitative reduplication of ramah-tamah derives an augmentative meaning. It signals an increase in quality of the adjective ramah ‘friendly’ as seen in ramah-tamah ‘hospitable and friendly’.

Some combinations may be considered as instances of imitative reduplication, although they actually consist of two existing independent parts, such as:

(23) kaya-raya ‘very wealthy’ (kaya ‘rich’, raya ‘great’) (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25).

Kaya-raya derives an augmentative meaning. It signals an increase in quality of the adjective kaya ‘rich’ as seen in kaya-raya ‘very wealthy’.

In imitative reduplication, the difference may also be in the vowels and there may be only one vowel difference:

(24) desas-desus ‘rumor’

warna-warni ‘all kinds of colors’ gerak-gerik ‘movements, gestures’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 25-26)

From the examples above, neither part of desas-desus can occur alone; in warna-warni, only warna ‘color’ can occur alone as a singular noun. Imitative reduplication of warna-warni ‘all kinds of colors’ indicates a variety of colors, and; in gerak-gerik only gerak ‘move’ can occur alone as a verb. Imitative reduplication of gerak-gerak ‘movements, gestures’ indicates a repeated action.

It is also common for the first component to contain the vowels o…a and the second component to contain the vowels a…i, although these are not the only combinations. Often, with this type of imitative reduplication, neither part of the word can occur alone:

(25) bolak-balik ‘to and fro’

pontang-panting ‘run helter skelter’ obrak-abrik ‘destroy, smash to pieces’ mondar-mandir ‘back and forth’ (Sneddon et al, 2010: 26).

From the examples above, in bolak-balik only balik ‘return’ can occur alone as a verb; in pontang-panting, obrak-abrik, mondar-mandir neither part of the word can occur alone. Bolak-balik ‘to and fro’ and mondar-mandir may indicate a continuous or repeated action, whereas

pontang-panting ‘run helter skelter’ and obrak-abrik ‘destroy, smash to pieces’ derive augmentative meaning, signaling an increase in intensity of the verb.

2.3 Research Model

The research model diagram below shows the relations between the topic of the study, problem of the study, theoretical framework, research method, analysis, and result of the study. The study concentrates on answering the problems of the study. To make the study more focused, the scope of the study is limited to finding Indonesian reduplications in the translation version of the book and categorizing the types of the reduplications found with their corresponding English lexical items. The study is intended to analyze how English lexical items are translated into Indonesian reduplications.

Research approach applied to this study was qualitative method. Observation method proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) was used in collecting the data. Observation method was applied by observing carefully the entire source of data. Translational identity method proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) was used to analyze the data of the research. This method was applied to compare between one language with another language to find and analyze the equivalence. Formal and informal methods proposed by Sudaryanto (1993) were used in presenting the result of data analysis in this research. Formal method was used for the presentation of the data in a diagram, tables and patterns with mathematical symbols such as + (plus) and  (become). Informal method dealt with presenting a topic by applying explanation using words to describe findings in ways intended for readers to easily understand.

To analyze the results of the translation as shown in the data of this research, relevant theories adopted as the main theoretical foundations include: theories of translation, translation equivalence and its conditions from linguistic point of view (Catford, 1965). Supporting theories in this study include form and meaning (Larson, 1998) to identify the forms and meaning components indicated by English lexical items in the forms and meaning components of Indonesian reduplications, theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993) to describe morphological processes of English lexical items and their corresponding translation in Indonesian reduplications and concepts of meaning carried by the processes, and theories of Indonesian reduplication (Sneddon et al, 2010) to identify and explain the types of Indonesian reduplications. Research model for this study is shown by the diagram below:

RESEARCH MODEL DIAGRAM

REDUPLICATIONS AS THE TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE

SOURCE LANGUAGE Certain English Lexical Items TARGET LANGUAGE Indonesian Reduplications PROBLEMS

1. Types of reduplications in Indonesian serve as the translation equivalence.

2. The ways certain English lexical items translated into Indonesian reduplications.

METHODS Data Collection:

- Library Research. Data Analysis:

- Qualitative.

ANALYSIS

THEORIES

1. Types of reduplications in Indonesian (Sneddon et al, 2010).

2. Universal theories of reduplication (Sapir, 1921; Katamba, 1993).

3. Form and meaning (Larson, 1998).

4. Translation, translation equivalence and its