A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) in English Language Studies

  

A STUDY ON EQUIVALENCE AND NON-EQUIVALENCE

IN ENGLISH-INDONESIAN TRANSLATION

  

A Thesis Presented to

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

  

Magister Humaniora (M.Hum)

in

English Language Studies

  

By

Anselmus Sudirman

Student Number: 046332001

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

  

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2007

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………..… i APPROVAL PAGE ……………………………………………………..…. ii BOARDER OF EXAMINERS………………………………………… ...... iii STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY………………………………………… iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………..….. v LIST OF TABLES ..…………………………………………………..……. vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………........... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………..………. viii ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….. xi ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………. xii

  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION …………………………………………. 1

  1.1 Background……….…………………………………… 1

  1.2 Problem Identification……..………………………….. 9

  1.3 Problem Limitation………………..………….……….. 11

  1.4 Problem Statement……………………………..……… 12

  1.5 Research Goal……………………………….…............ 13

  1.6 Research Benefit ……………………………..……….. 14

  CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………............. 16

  2.1 Theoretical Review ……….…………………….……... 16

  2.1.1 Translation..……………………………………... 17

  2.1.2 Equivalence ………………………………….…. 24

  2.1.3 Non-equivalence……………………………....... 32

  3.1 Method…………………….………………………… 51

  3.4 Variable Identification .. …………………………… 56

  3.3.3 Nature of Data………………. ………………. 55

  3.3.2 Data Coding…………………………………... 53

  3.3.1 Types of Data……..…………….…………….. 52

  52

  3.3 Data Classification.. …………. ……………. ………

  3.2.2 Setting of Time… .…………………………… 52

  3.2.1 Setting of Place …..……………………….….. 52

  3.2 Setting………………………………………..……… 52

  CHAPTER 111 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………………. 51

  2.1.4 Translation Strategies ……………..………….... 33

  2.2 Theoretical Framework………………….……………… 45

  2.1.9 Translation Studies …………………................... 45

  2.1.8 Kinds of Translations…………………………… 42

  2.1.7 The Quality Translation ………………………… 41

  2.1.6.3 Chesterman’s Norms ………………….... 40

  2.1.6.2 Gideon Toury’s Laws of Translation…... 40

  2.1.6.1 Gideon Toury’s Norms in Translation .… 39

  2.1.6 Translation Norms…..………………………….. 39

  2.1.5 Translation Processes ………………………….. 36

  3.5 Data Collection Procedures ………………………… 56

  3.6 Data Collection Instruments………………………… 57

  3.7 Respondents ……………………………………….. 57

  3.8 Data Analysis Procedures…………………………... 58

  CHAPTER 1V ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ………………..……. 71

  4.1 Equivalence and Non-equivalence ………………… 71

  4.1.1 Lexical Equivalence and Non-equivalence….. 72

  4.1.2 Lexical Categories ……….………………..… 81

  4.1.2.1 Nouns………………………………… 82

  4.1.2.2 Verbs… . ..…………………………… 90 4.1.2.3 Adjectives …………………………....

  94

  4.1.2.4 Adverbs……..……………………….. 100

  4.1.3 Grammatical Equivalence and Non-equivalence ……………………….. 106

  4.1.3.1 Number………………………………. 106

  4.1.3.2 Person and Gender…………………… 110

  4.1.3.3 Tense and Aspect ……………………. 114

  4.1.3.3.1 Past Tense ……………….… 114

  4.1.3.3.2 Non Past Tense ……………. 116

  4.1.3.3.3 Voice ………………………. 118

  4.1.4 Semantic Equivalence ………………………… 120

  4.1.4.1 Semantic Non-equivalence……. …….. 126

  4.1.4.2 Semantic Variability…………………... 132

  4.2 Translation Strategies ……………………………..... 136

  CHAPTER V GRAND CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ………... 144

  5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………... 144

  5.2 Implications …………………………………..……….. 148

  5.2.1 Translation Equivalence…….…………………… 148

  5.2.2 Translation Non-equivalence ……………….…... 148

  5.2.3 Translation Strategies …………………………… 149

  5.3 Recommendation …………………………………..….. 150

  5.3.1 Equivalence and Non-equivalence …………….. 150

  5.3.2 Translation Teaching……………………………. 150

  5.3.3 Translation Education…………………………… 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………… . .. 152 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….. 157 Appendix 1: The Source Language Text………………..…………………. 158 Appendix 2: Coded Source Language Text……………………………..… 159 Appendix 3: Translated Texts……….…………………………………….. 160 Appendix 4: Summary of Coded Target Language Texts………………… 165 Appendix 5: Interview Blueprint………………………………………..… 167 Appendix 6: Interview Narratives ………………………………………… 168

  

List of Tables

  Page

Table 3.1 The Example of Interview Narratives …………………………….. 54Table 3.2 The Example of Lexical Equivalence and Non-equivalence …….. 60Table 3.3 The Example of Voice ……………………… ..………………….. 63Table 3.4 The Analysis of Figurative Meaning …………………………….. 66Table 3.5 The Example of Strategy Codes …..……………………………… 66Table 3.6 The Example of Interview Narratives………..…………………… 68Table 4.1 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences …….……………… 75Table 4.2 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Two-part Verbs ... 83Table 4.3 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Three-part Verbs.. 85Table 4.4 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Adverbs…………. 88Table 4.5 Other Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Adverbs….. 91Table 4.6 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Adjectives………. 93Table 4.7 Other Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Adjectives… 96Table 4.8 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Nouns…………… 99Table 4.9 Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Noun Compounds……………………… 101Table 4.10 Another Example of Lexical Equivalences and Non-equivalences in Adjectives ………………..………........ 104Table 4.11 Semantic Non-equivalence in OT1S23…..…............………….... 128Table 4.12 Semantic Variability……………….............................................. 135

  List of Abbreviations

  1. TE : Translation Equivalence

  2. TNE : Translation Non-equivalence

  3. ST : Source Text

  4. TT : Target Text

  5. SL : Source Language

  6. TL : Target Language 7. 3G : Third Generation

  8. PDA : Personal Digital Assistant

  9. PC : Personal Computer

  10. CCTV : Closed-Circuit Television

  11. TLT1S2 : Target Language Text 1 Sentence 2

  12. OT1S3 : Original Text 1 Sentence 3

  13. OT1T : Original Text 1 Title

  14. ET : Ekuivalensi Terjemahan

  15. NET : Non Ekuivalensi Terjemahan

  

ABSTRACT

Anselmus Sudirman. 2007. A Study on Equivalence and Non-equivalence in

English-Indonesian Translation. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies,

Master Program. Sanata Dharma University.

  Equivalence constitutes a phenomenon in the theory and practice of translation concerned with readability, clarity, and accuracy of the target language form and content. By principle, a change of the target language form and content

• – as the effect of translation – is considered as a linguistic fact that leads to lexical, grammatical and semantic elements. Translators attempt to recognize the differences within the source text and the target text by contextualizing word forms and their meanings. But the translation of both texts is considered lost if their form and content are ambiguous resulting in what is called non-equivalence.

  This translation research is significant (1) to explain translation equivalence (TE) and translation non-equivalence (TNE) using text-centered and translator-centered approaches (Campbell, 1998) by which the source and target texts are analyzed in terms of lexical, grammatical and semantic elements; (2) to set strategies of translating a non-equivalent text; and (3) to treat with equivalences and non-equivalences as models that reflect translators’ attempts in bridging the gap between the source and target texts. Thus, two research questions arise: (1) What are kinds of equivalences and non-equivalences in English- Indonesian translation texts? (2) What are strategies translators used/adopted to maximize equivalences in English-Indonesian translation texts?

  To answer these questions, the researcher deployed two methods of data collection. A narrative method was used to obtain linguistic data on equivalences and non-equivalences analyzed directly from the translated texts done by three translator respondents. Tape-recorded interview with the research respondents was performed to get information about their translation and to discover strategies they adopted/used to encounter non-equivalence problems in translating a text on technology. The purpose of tape-recording the interview was to elicit data accurately and originally. These interviewed transcripts were analyzed in the standpoint of a descriptive method.

  The procedures used in this research are: (a) selected three translators from different background knowledge, (b) selected the text, (c) gave the text to translators, (d) asked translators to translate the text, (e) collected the translated texts, and (f) analyzed them to recognize translation equivalences and non- equivalences. The instruments used were documents and unstructured tape- recorded interviews with the translators to get ideas on translation equivalences or strategies to overcome translation non-equivalences.

  This research yielded two salient results. First, all the translators left certain abbreviations of technological technical terms untranslated. Second, although translators translated the same source text (English), they produced three different versions of target texts (Indonesian). These results will expectedly contribute something significant towards kinds of translation equivalences and non-equivalences.

  

ABSTRAK

Anselmus Sudirman. 2007. Studi Ekivalensi dan Non-ekivalensi dalam

Terjemahan Bahasa Inggris dan Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Kajian

Bahasa Inggris, Program Magister. Universitas Sanata Dharma.

  Ekuivalensi merupakan sebuah fenomena dalam teori dan praktek penerjemahan yang terkait dengan keterbacaan, kejelasan, dan kecermatan bentuk dan isi bahasa sasaran. Pada dasarnya, perubahan bentuk dan isi bahasa sasaran – sebagai efek penerjemahan – dianggap sebagai fakta linguistik yang mengacu pada elemen leksikal, gramatikal dan semantik. Para penerjemah berusaha mengenal perbedaan-perbedaan dalam teks asli dan teks yang diterjemahkan dengan kontekstualisasi bentuk kata dan artinya. Tetapi, penerjemahan kedua teks itu dianggap menyesatkan bila bentuk dan isinya ambigu yang menimbulkan apa yang disebut nonekuivalensi.

  Penelitian terjemahan ini penting (1) untuk menjelaskan ekuivalensi terjemahan (ET) dan non-ekuivalensi terjemahan (NET) dengan menggunakan pendekatan text-centered dan translator-centered (Campbell, 1998) dimana teks asli dan teks yang diterjemahkan dianalisis berdasarkan struktur kebahasaan, leksis dan semantik; (2) untuk menentukan strategi menerjemahkan teks nonekivalen dan (3) untuk membahas ekivalensi dan nonekivalensi sebagai model yang mencerminkan upaya para penerjemah dalam menjembatani celah antara teks asli dan teks yang diterjemahkan. Maka, dua pertanyaan penelitian muncul: (1) Apa jenis ekuivalensi dan nonekuivalensi dalam teks penerjemahan Inggris- Indonesia? (2) Apa strategi-strategi yang diadopsi/digunakan para penerjemah untuk memaksimalkan ekuivalensi dalam teks terjemahan Inggris-Indonesia?

  Untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini, peneliti menerapkan dua metode pengumpulan data. Metode naratif dipakai untuk mendapatkan data-data lingguistik mengenai ekuivalensi dan nonekuivalensi yang langsung dianalisis dari teks-teks terjemahan yang dilakukan oleh tiga responden penerjemah. Wawancara yang direkam dengan para responden penelitian dilakukan untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang terjemahan mereka dan menemukan strategi yang mereka adopsi/gunakan untuk mengatasi masalah-masalah nonekuivalensi dalam menerjemahkan naskah teknologi. Tujuan direkamnya wawacara tersebut adalah untuk memperoleh data-data yang akurat dan orisinil. Transkrip-tanskrip wawancara ini dianalisis berdasarkan metode deskriptif.

  Prosedur-prosedur yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah: (a) memilih tiga penerjemah dari latarbelakang ilmu yang berbeda-beda, (b) memilih teks, (c) memberikan teks itu pada para penerjemah, (d) meminta para penerjemah untuk menerjemahkan teks, (e) mengumpulkan teks-teks terjemahan, dan (f) menganalisisnya untuk mengetahui ekuivalensi dan nonekuivalensi penerjemahan. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah dokumen dan wawancara tak terstruktur yang direkam dengan para penerjemah untuk mendapatkan gagasan-gagasan tentang ekuivalensi terjemahan atau strategi-strategi mengatasi nonekuivalensi terjemahan.

  Penelitian ini menghasilkan dua hal penting. Pertama, semua penerjemah tidak menerjemahkan singkatan-singkatan tertentu yang terkait dengan istilah- istilah teknis dalam bidang teknologi. Kedua, meskipun para penerjemah menerjemahkan teks bahasa sumber yang sama (bahasa Inggris), mereka menghasilkan tiga teks bahasa sasaran dengan versi yang berbeda-beda (bahasa Indonesia). Dua hal ini diharapkan akan memberikan kontribusi berarti terhadap jenis-jenis ekuivalensi dan nonekuivalensi terjemahan.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The first chapter of this thesis consists of six sections. First, the Background section elaborates the translation equivalences, non-equivalences,

  and strategies taken by translators to overcome non-equivalences. Second, the

  

Problem Identification section discusses concepts, factors, and variables used in

  identifying the research problem. Third, the Problem Limitation section highlights concepts, variables, and strategies of translation. The detailed information on the research questions, the design, or pattern of translation equivalences and non- equivalences and strategies applied in maximizing equivalences becomes part of the Problem Statement section. The fifth section on Research Goals presents types of equivalences and non-equivalences and the translation strategies. The Research

  

Benefit in section six focuses on the advantages of this research in contributing

something to the body of knowledge, academicians, and translators.

1.1 Background Translation inevitably coincides with equivalences and non-equivalences.

  The practice of translation as coined by Duff (1989: 10-11) emphasizes two underlying principles. First, translation equivalences in terms of language form and content constitute the ordering of words and ideas that should match the original as closely as possible. Second, the meaning of the target text should reflect accurately the meaning of the source text. In this perspective, translators attempt to establish equivalences for the purpose readability, clarity, and accuracy of the source and target languages.

  The articulation of translation focusing on the language form and the meaning is considered as a linguistic feature that puts into practice the analyses of lexical, grammatical, and semantic elements. In line with Duff’s emphasis, the change of language form linguistically modifies the content area of the translation because the consistency for accurately delivering message from the source text into the target text is of paramount importance.

  The priority of conveying meaning should comply with accuracy and clarity no matter translation non-equivalences cannot match the differences within both texts. In other words, the unavoidable mismatch between the source text and the target texts is called non-equivalence that is widely known as “untranslatability” (Bassnett, 1988:32; Catford, 1965: 98). By applying equivalence-oriented (Vinay & Darbelnet in Leonardi, 2005) and text-centered approaches (Campbell, 1998), the untranslatable or non-equivalent words, and phrases can be traced from the standpoint of their lexical, grammatical, and semantic features. However, the blurred translation, as a direct impact of untranslatability should be handled using a translator-approach (Campbell, 1998) that traces back the translated texts involving translators.

  The translators’ involvement is significant to clarify strategies used in dealing with translation non-equivalences particularly the transfer of meaning from the source text into the target text. Translators’ task, therefore, is to convey the meaning as clearly as possible by reconstructing the linguistic form of the target text. According to Nida (1964: 13), the translator facilitates the transfer of meaning and linguistic elements from the source text into the target text and creates equivalent expressions. In this case, translation is not solely related with types of equivalences to cope with, but also the non-equivalences of the target language readers.

  It is worth noting that the complexity of a source text to be translated (in this case a text on technology) is influenced by the “text-bound” (Duff, 1989) which is also called the text-meaning involving linguistic contexts of the target language. The term “text-bound” contains two domains, namely: (1) skills-reading that involves a comprehension on how to link the source text with the target text to achieve equivalent expressions; (2) writing which is time-consuming in hatching words or expressions to “govern the production and reception of translation” (Tianmin, 2006). For Duff, the transfer of meaning from the source text is influenced by the target text accuracy and clarity.

  In line with the fact, a translation should produce a target text that communicates the meaning accurately. A translator, then, situates the source language text within the target language texts expressing words, phrases, and sentences based on the linguistic system of that language. Riazi (2003) suggests that to make the target text communicative, a translator should meet three requirements, namely (a) familiarity with the source language that requires translators’ competence, (b) familiarity with the target language that influences the result of translation and (c) familiarity with the subject matters that demands vocabulary building, an adequate understanding, and competence in performing his/her job successfully.

  The existence of translation, under such a circumstance, takes heed of equivalences. Zaki (2001) points out that translating in fact involves more than just finding corresponding words between two languages. A source language text does not only aim at conveying a meaning, but aspires to produce a certain impact on the readers using particular language style especially in a literary translation. The term language style refers to the common linguistic rules familiar to the target language readers which are linguistically and culturally specific.

  The acceptability of the translation also depends on the equivalences (as the concern of this study) that bridge that gap between linguistic and cultural specificities. In this context, translation is becoming a more and more important means of enhancing linguistic and cultural understanding within the source and target texts. However, a certain cultural variety in the source text cannot be translated into the target culture as easily as the translator expects.

  Wiersema (2004) underlines that cultures which readers are traditionally not familiar with have become more familiar because of globalization. The effect of globalized world at least influences translation especially an excessive one that fails to foreignize or excoticize, i.e., use source language terms in the target language text that is, to a certain extent, acceptable now.

  In relation with this phenomenon, as what Wiersema concerns, a translator has three options for the translation of words that are left untranslated in the target text. First, adopting the foreign words without explanation that make them unacceptable or acceptable. Second, adopting the foreign words with extensive explanations. Third, rewriting the text to make it more comprehensible to the target language audience. Thus, it is generally held that translation refers merely to an activity of treating untranslated words from a foreign language text – as its source text – into a first language text – as its target language (Ma’mur: 2005).

  The translator will consequently find inexact meaning of the target text due to the stage of linguistic difficulty, as expressed by Baker (1992: 57) below: A certain amount of loss, addition, or skewing of meaning is often unavoidable in translation; language systems tend to be too difficult to produce exact replica in most cases. In line with this translation difficulty, Baker cites an example that an

  English term “good/bad law” is translated differently as “just/unjust law” in Arabic. What is essential from this example is not only about the accuracy of translation but also about the familiarity with the target text as well in communicating the message. Baker (1992: 57) describes further in detail in the following:

  Accuracy is no doubt an important aim in translation, but it is also important to bear in mind that the use of common target language patterns which are familiar to the target reader plays an important role in keeping the communication channels open.

  As to argue against Wiersema and Baker, Jacob (2002) criticizes that translation – no matter it encounters foreign words or not – should consist of giving linguistic expression in one language to a thought process that takes place in another. It looks for and uses what is judged to be the most appropriate way of re-verbalizing that thought to make the translated text naturally equivalent to the original. It means that translation constitutes a way of expressing equivalent words as closely as possible with the original text.

  In line with Jacob, Thriveni (2002) suggests that in achieving such a translation phenomenon, a translator has to look for equivalents in terms of relevance in the target language. Nida (1964) as quoted by James (2002) emphasizes that equivalent expressions should deal with the target language form and content to help the target language readers understand the customs, manner of thought, and means of expressions in the source language context. It is the translators’ task to relate the receptor’s mode of behavior with the context of source language.

  Whatever the equivalent words might be and what strategies used to overcome them, meaning is a central issue in translation as described by Al-Zoubi & Al-Hassnawi (2001:12) below:

  Meaning should be the main preoccupation of all translation. However, the amount of this interest varies according to the type of meaning conveyed by the lexical items of a given text. As far as translation is concerned, the translator has to do his/her best to transfer as much of the original meaning as s/he can into the target language.

  In searching for the meaning, translation often involves a tension or a difficult choice between what is typical and what is accurate (Baker, 1992: 56).

  The typicality refers to the target text specific meaning of registers produced in the context of its users only, and certain typical words cannot be used in the source text because of its inaccuracy to represent the same words. Accuracy refers to the exactness or correctness of words translated by which their original meanings are expressed clearly and the target reader finds the exact words expressions in the target text.

  If there is an ambiguity in expressing meaning, the target text cannot convey the message of the original text as clearly as possible. The translator, then, fails to communicate the text meaning and, as a result, the text is untranslatable. As a solution, the source text should be judged in terms of its communicative function and there should be an equivalence to clarify the same communication in the target text. Zaky (2000:2) formulates it as the following:

  In translation, consequently, the translator ought to translate the communicative function of the source text, rather than its significance. A translator must, therefore, look for a target language utterance that has an equivalent communicative function, regardless of its formal resemblance to original utterance as far as the formal structure is concerned.

  In other words, the communicative function again depends on the translator’s familiarities, and competences in communicating messages from the source text into target text. How s/he chooses appropriate utterances that equivalently bridge such messages proportionately. The equivalence-oriented translation (Vinay & Darbelnet: 1995) as quoted in Leonardi (2000) deals with noun and adjective phrases and words arise from the situation, and it is in the situation of the source language text that translators have to look for solutions. Indeed, semantic equivalence of an expression found in the glossary is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. The most important aspect to consider is the translators’ competence in translating a text contextually and accurately.

  By applying equivalence-oriented translation, translators replicate the same situation as in the original while using completely different wording. In this perspective, translation task requires “the skill of information literacy” (Salvador: 2006) involving competence to digest the source text and reformulate it equivalently in the target text. The more words or expressions is equivalent with the source text, the better translation relevant to produce a communication that clarifies what message is meant to convey and how to make it acceptable in the target text.

  The acceptability of a target text is in relation with linguistic accuracy, or standardized language use, and readers’ intelligibility. The study of equivalence is inevitably in favor of linguistic approach (lexicon, grammar, and semantics). In fact, the translator also faces two different cultures within the texts that uniquely represent a variety of specificities. To this extent, translating a text on technology emphasizes those differences. The truth is that every text rooted in the complexity of its linguistics as well as socio-cultural conditions is open to the equivalence or even translation lost. Translators have to deal with such differences for one purpose – communicating the message from the source text into the target text as clearly as possible.

  In the process of translation, communicating the SL message clearly is fruitful for the target language readers to understand the source language. If the translation is smooth, or particularly dynamic, the translated text seems likely an original one with a flow of ideas communicated fluently. In some cases, not every expression is equivalent because the translated texts describe neither naturalness nor specific cultural items in the original source texts. It is not merely the linguistic features of translation that make cultural transfer impossible to digest but also the target language receivers who are not accustomed to accepting translated words with their contexts of meanings.

  Korah-Go (2005) points out that translation as such emphasize the transfer of messages or information (in a non-literary text) from the source language (English) into a target reader (Indonesian). It is the translators’ effort to transfer the message in the practice of translation as professionally as possible (ethics of profession). By the term ethics, translators assume responsibility whereas every single effort aims at dedicating what is so-called “qualified service” for customers.

1.2 Problem Identification

  To identify the problem under study, a representation of methods is forwarded. First, the translation equivalence is an empirical phenomenon discovered by studying SL and TL texts (Catford, 1965: 27), and translation non- equivalence is a real phenomenon of mismatching between SL and TL texts. The underlying principle of text-centred approach, as Campbell (1998) is important to know the equivalences and non-equivalences involving lexical, grammatical, and semantic analyses. It provides an overview of the current trends in which such linguistic elements become an integral part of the source language and the target language. The absence of such elements results in translation non-equivalences that overlap the message from the source text into the target language.

  Second, as to overcome the translation non-equivalence, the potential use of translator-approach (Campbell, 1998) is highly demanded. This approach is possible to get easy access to translators who adopt other translator experts’ translation strategies as required in handling untranslatability (non-equivalences), or they coin their own strategies (that are subject to emergent ones).

  Some of the strategies used – as suggested by Wiersema (2004) – are: (1) adopting the foreign words without explanation that make them unacceptable or acceptable; (2) adopting the foreign words with extensive explanations; and (3) rewriting the text to make it more comprehensible to the target language audience.

  Baker (1992) coins some other strategies: (4) translation by omission, (5) translation by illustrations, and (6) translation by paraphrase using related/unrelated words. All these strategies are models that support the translation profession, translation studies, and qualified service and the fulfillment of knowledge.

  The method used in this research is mixed. First, all the models as mentioned previously imply a quantitative method, but it is not meant to be statistically derived generalization because the translators – as shown in the interview narratives (Appendix 6: Interview Narratives) – are allowed to use emergent issues in overcoming non-equivalences from their own perspectives. Second, a qualitative method is used to analyze linguistic data from the translated texts. In general, the method used in this research is the qualitative one that presents in the form of words rather than numbers (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 1).

1.3 Problem Limitation

  The effective use of text-centred approach yields different kinds of equivalences such as lexical equivalence, grammatical equivalence, and semantic equivalence. In semantic equivalence, for example, the translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact on the target culture audience as the original wording did upon the source language audience.

  In this equivalence the form of the original text is changed, but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful (Nida & Taber, 1982: 200) as quoted in Leonardi (2000).

  If there are no longer expressions attained to preserve as many as equivalences as possible due to the fact that source language terms do not contain correspondent meanings partially or inexactly, there should be a translator- approach that takes heed of strategies set by experts or created by the respondents themselves.

  Wiersema (2004) and Baker (1992) mention some of them: (1) adopting the foreign words without explanation that make them unacceptable or acceptable; (2) adopting the foreign words with extensive explanations, (3) translation by omission, and (5) translation by illustrations. These strategies determine meanings in the target language that can be preserved or maximized equivalently.

  It is known that equivalence-oriented (Vinay & Darbelnet in Leonardi 2005), and text-centered and translator-centred approaches (Campbell, 1998) are used to focus on attainment of lexical equivalence, grammatical equivalence and semantic equivalence because they are closely related to the analysis of lexical, grammatical, and semantic components within English and Indonesian texts. In the process of analyzing such components, the mismatching found between the source language and target language is called translation non-equivalence (untranslatability).

  There should be solutions taken by contacting the respondents who are also professional translators. They set strategies particularly in line with non- equivalences based on their real experience of translating an English text on technology into Indonesian. However, this study is limited to the specifications of lexical, grammatical, and semantic equivalences in terms of equivalent or non- equivalent words, phrases, or even sentences which are translated typically and accurately.

  1.4 Problem Statement In line with the background, problem identification, and the problem limitation, this research tried to answer the questions as stated below: a. What are kinds of equivalences and non-equivalences in English-

  Indonesian translation texts? b. What are strategies translators adopted/used to maximize equivalences in English-Indonesian translation texts? The “kinds” as mentioned in (a) are sorts or varieties of translation equivalences and non-equivalences that can be found in English-Indonesian translated texts. The concept in (b) deals with strategies provided by the translators in overcoming translation non-equivalences.

  In this case, a translation is in a state of non-equivalence if it has wrong, zero, or ambiguous meaning. As a result, the target language readers misunderstand the message of the translation. The reason is that the form of the language is preserved, but the meaning is lost or distorted (Nida & Taber, 1974).

  Translators solve the problems by adopting strategies as required or they create their own strategies in tackling translation non-equivalences. Baker (1992: 26-42) mentions some of them: (1) translation using a loan word or a loan word plus explanation, (2) translation by omission, (3) translation by illustration.

  Wiersema (2004) mentions some others: (4) adopting the foreign words without explanation that make them unacceptable or acceptable; (5) adopting the foreign words with extensive explanations; and (6) rewriting the text to make it more comprehensible to the target language audience.

1.5 Research Goal

  By taking into account linguistic features involving lexical, grammatical, and semantics and based on the problem formulation, this research is intended to describe the following goals:

  1. To interpret kinds equivalences (lexical, grammatical, and semantic equivalences) and non-equivalences in English-Indonesian translated texts.

  2. To describe strategies adopted by translators from translator experts as required and describe strategies they create to maximize equivalences in the English-Indonesian translated texts (emergent). Referring to such goals, the objectives of this research are to find out:

  1. The kinds of translation equivalences (TE) and translation non- equivalences (TNE) in English-Indonesian translated texts.

  2. The strategies adopted/used by translators to maximize equivalences in English-Indonesian translated texts.

  3. The translators’ strategies that can be used by other translators in doing their profession.

1.6 Research Benefit

  This research has significant contributions to the field of translation theory and practice as the following: