20 process of translation is not merely transferring the SL style directly to the TL
form, but it is transferring the SL meaning into TL meaning and reconstructing it in the closest form of the TL. The following diagram is representing Larson’s
process of translation.
SOURCE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE
Discover the meaning Re-express the meaning
Figure 2.1. Larson’s Translation Process 1984: 4
On the other hand, Nida and Taber 1982: 33 categorize translation process into three stages. The first stage is “analysis”, in which the surface
structure is analyzed in terms of 1 the grammatical relationship, and 2 the meaning of the words and the combinations of words. The second stage is
“transfer”, in which the analyzed material is transferred in the mind of of ther translator from SL to TL. The third stage is “restructuring”, in which the
transferred is restructured in order to make the final message fully acceptable in the TL. The following diagram illustrates the process of translation based on Nida
and Taber 1988: 33.
Text to be translated Translation
Meaning
21
A Source B Receptor
Analysis Restructuring
X Transfer
Y Figure 2.2. Nida and Taber’s Translation Process 1988: 33
c. Form and meaning in translation
Larson 1984: 3 states that translation is basically a change of form, which are referred to as the surface structure of a language. It concerns with the
structural part of a language which is actually seen in print or heard in speech, or in other words, it is the language of daily formal communication. In addition,
Baker 1992: 24 says that “the form of the source language in translation is replaced by the equivalent lexical item of the receptor language.” The problem is
not every particular form in the SL has lexical equivalence in the TL. Based on Larson 1984: 3, translation goes from thr SL form into the
TL form by the way of semantic structure. In making a translation, a translator transfers the meaning of the SL text. Therefore, changes of form in the TL should
not change the meaning of the SL text; the meaning of the SL text is to keep constantly. It refers to the characteristic of a language in which the same emaning
component occurs in several surface structure of lexical items. The initial thing to do in translation process is to understand the
complete meaning of the SL text. There are several kinds of meaning. Nida and Taber 1982:34 classifies meaning into two classes, namely referential and
22 connotative meaning. Referential meaning refers to words as symbols of objects,
event, abstracts and relations. Connotative meaning refers to how language users react to the words and their combinations. By knowing the meaning of the SL
text, the translators are able to produce particular meaning to the TL and transfer the meaning effectively into the TL environment. Therefore, well-transferred
meanings are easier to be understood by the target readers.
d. Untranslatability
There is a problem where some texts cannot be translated from ST into TT found in the selected poems which are going to be analyzed; a problem which
mostly exists because of cultural absence of some cultural concept in American culture and most English speaking countries e.g.: gayam, a local food whose
concept only exists in Indonesian culture and is impossible to translate directly into English. This problem is called as untranslatability. According to Catford
1965, there are two kinds of untranslatability. The first is called Linguistic Untranslatability, which happens when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute
in TL, and the second is called Cultural Untranslatability, which happens when there is an absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature.
However, untranslatabilities can be translated indirectly by transferring the source item and explaining it if no parallel item can be found in TL and no
compensatory effect to produce within the same paragraph Newmark, 1981. Each variety of meaning in a SL can be translated both directly and indirectly into
a TL. Therefore, every single item is translatable using that principle. Jakobson 2004 also explains, in the light of overcoming untranslatabilities, that even if
23 there is no one-to-one correspondence between signs across language, full
semantic meaning of the words can still be expressed by that principle. Untranslatabilities can be a source of information streams in translation.
Nida 1959 states that non-correspondence of grammatical and lexical categories, as the main cause of untranslatabilities, is the main source of information loss and
gain in translation when SL category lacks information which is obligatory expressed in the corresponding TL category. Furthermore, untranslatabilities can
also be a source of information streams in translating between different cultures since language is an integral part of culture. Based on that situation, Snell-Hornby
1988: 42 suggests that a translator needs not only proficiency in two languages, but also be at home in those two cultures.
e. Translation Equivalence
Equivalence is not the same with correspondence, although those terms have slight similarities. Correspondence happens in comparing two language
systems and describing differences and similarities contrastively. While equivalence happens when there are equivalent items in specific ST-TT pairs and
contexts Koller, 1979, in Munday, 2008: 47. Popovic 1976 explains further about equivalence as he defines four types of equivalence in Bardenstein, 2005:
1 Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.
2 Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of ‘the elements of paradigmatic expressive axes, i.e. the elements of grammar.
