Shift Of Cohesion In The Translation Of Tempo Magazine
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concepts of Translation
Translation is the communication of meaning of a source-language text
(henceforth, SLT) by means of an equivalent target-language text. The word,
translation is derived from Latin, translatio (which itself comes from trans- and
latio, together means “to carry across” or ‘to bring across”). The modern Romance
languages used words for translation which was derived from that source and from
the alternative Latin, traduco (“to lead across”). The Germanic (except Dutch) and
Slavic languages likewise used calques, based on these Latin sources (Batia, 1992:
213).
The Ancient Greek term for translation, metaphrasis (“a speaking across”),
had supplied English with metaphrase (a “literal” or “word-for-word” translation) –
as it is contrasted with paraphrase (“as saying in other words”, from paraphrasis).
Metaphrase corresponds, in one of the more recent terminologies, to ‘formal
equivalence”; and paraphrase, to “dynamic equivalence.” (Kasparek, 1983: 62)
Strictly speaking, the concept of metaphrase – of “word-for-word
translation” – is an imperfect concept, because a given word in a given language
often carries more than one meaning; and because a similar given meaning may
often be represented in a given language by more than one word. Nevertheless,
“metaphrase” and “paraphrase” may be useful as ideal concepts that mark the
extremes in the spectrum of possible approaches to translation (Tatarkiewiz, 1980:
21).
12
In translating concept of meaning, it is often found that there is no exact
equivalent between an SL and a TL expression due to linguistic differences of two
languages. There will be expressions which have some of the meaning components
combined in them matching an expression which has the components with some
additional ones. There will be overlapped, but there is seldom a complete match
between
languages
www.articlebase.com/non-fiction-article/shift-in-
translation2116778html?en).
Bell, in his book, The Theory of Translation (1991: 5-13) points out that
translation is the expression in other language or TL of what has been expressed in
another SL, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalence. So far he has added that
translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a
representation of an equivalent text in a second language. He also suggests that
there are three distinguishable meanings for translation:
a.
Translating: the process (to translate: the activity rather than the tangible
objects).
b.
A translation: the product of the process of translating (that is, the translated
text).
c.
Translation: the abstract concept which encompasses both the process of
translating and the product of that process.
From what Bell says above, it can be said that there are differences among
translation, translating, and a translation. In this case, this research tends to use the
term “a translation” since it analyzes the product (the translated texts of Tempo
magazine).
13
Larson (1984) further points out that translation is the change from one
form to another, or the change from one language to another and vice versa. What it
means by a language form is phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and so on, either
oral or written. In other words, translation is the transfer of meaning from an SL to
a TL. It means that meaning should be transferred and maintained, while form can
be changed. The process can be seen in the diagram (figure) below
SOURCE TEXT
TARGET TEXT
Text which will
Translation
be translated
Meaning
Representation of its
Interpretation
meaning
MEANING
Figure 2.1 Larson’s (1984) diagram of the translation process
In order to make a translation effective, one should search for the meaning
from SL and use TL form which can convey appropriate meaning. The figure
below indicates the way how to express the same meaning between SL and TL
(Larson :1984).
SL
TL.1
Tengo sueno
Kajang Pujawai
Man
(speaker)
TL.2
I’m sleepy
is
sleepy
Figure 2.2 How to express the same meaning between SL and TL
14
Besides that, Larson also points out that every text has forms and meanings.
Therefore, a translation is divided into two types: literal translation and idiomatic
translation. A literal translation is a translation which is based on the form which
tries to follow the form of the SL, while idiomatic translation is a translation which
is based on meaning; it attempts to express the meaning of the SL with the form of
the TL with its appropriate, good grammatical construction and the choice of its
lexical elements. In this case, the type of translation is from a very literal translation
to literal translation which has been adjusted, almost idiomatic, idiomatic, and even
to free translation. However, extremely free translation is rarely used. It is called
extremely free translation when it is added by other information which is absent
from the SL, or the meaning in the ST is changed, or when the historical fact and
cultural text in the ST is changed. In reality, the target of translation is to produce a
text in the TL which conveys the same message found in the SL.
The following are the steps which can be seen in a translation, based on
Larson’s theory of form and meaning:
extr.
literal
literal
adjusted
randomly
almost
idiom
Extr.
literal
mixed
idiomatic
atic
free
TRANSLATION
TARGET
Figure 2.3 Larson’s (1984) literal and idiomatic translation
The following is the example of literal translation and idiomatic translation:
SL: Penyelenggaraan/ rekam/ medis/
yaitu/
sempurna.
15
menjadi/ alat bukti/ yang/
Organizing / record/ medical/ that is/ becomes/evidence/which/ complete
TL: Organizing medical record which becomes evidence which is complete (→
literal)
Organizing medical record becomes complete evidence (→ adjusted literal)
Organizing medical record becomes a hard fact (→ almost idiomatic)
Organized medical record is a hard fact (→ idiomatic)
The above translation is adjustment of the sentence structure from SL to the
English structure in TL (Kencawati 1989:114).
Idiomatic translation uses appropriate TL form, either in its grammatical
construction or the choice of its lexical elements. Idiomatic translation must not be
heard as the result of a translation but as if it was written in its original form in the
TL. Therefore, a good translator strives for translating something idiomatically.
Kulka in Venuti (2000: 312) points out that a translation is
“…a process
that operates on texts (rather than words or sentences) and hence its product need to
be studied within the frameworks of discourse analysis; and secondly, that
translation is an act of communication, and hence both its processes, products and
effects can and need to be studied empirically within the methodological
framework of studies in communication.” She further points out that this case can
be done by studying the effects of using cohesive features in translating them into
TL in the higher or the lower level of explicitness and the text meaning potential
into TL.
2.2 Concepts of Shift
Shifts are all the mandatory actions of the translator (those dictated by the
structural discrepancies between the two language systems involved in this process)
16
and the optional ones (those dictated by his personal and stylistic preferences) to
which resorts consciously for the purpose of natural and communicative rendition
of an SLT into another language (Al Zoubi and Al Hasnawi, 2001: 114).
Catford (1965:73) says that translation is ‘the replacement of textual
material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language
(TL). He argues that there are two main types of translation shifts; namely, level
shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (for example, grammar) has a TL
equivalence at a different level (for example, lexis). For example: In Indonesian,
continuous action is marked by the words ’sedang’ (sedang makan, sedang tidur)
while in English it depends on the subject and the tense (he is/was eating, I am/was
eating).
Unlike English which is an inflectional language, Indonesian does not have
any tense. For examples: Saya menulis, Kemarin saya menulis are translated to ‘I
write’; ‘Yesterday I wrote’.
Catford (1965:74) divides category-shifts into four types: structure-shift,
class-shift, init-shift, and intra-system shift.
1.
Structure-shifts involve a grammatical change between the structure of the SL
and that of the TL); for example, Indonesian has the principle of “head word +
modifier,” while English has the principle of “modifier + head word.”
For example:
SL: Saya melihat jendela (window) kaca(glass)
TL: I saw the ‘ glass window’.
Here, in Indonesian, jendela (window) is a headword while kaca (glass) is a
modifier which modifies jendela. On the contrary, in English, ‘glass’ becomes
a modifier which modifies ‘jendela’(window),while ‘window’ is the headword.
17
2.
Class-shifts, when an SL is translated with a TL item which belongs to a
different grammatical class, for example, a verb may be translated with a noun;
Noun may be translated with adjective;
For example:
SL: Mahasiswa
(noun)
TL: Medical
(adjective)
3.
kedokteran
(noun)
student
(noun)
Translation unit-shifts which involve changes in rank;
For example:
SL: Buku itu di atas meja
TL: The book is on ‘the’ table
In SL, the word, meja does not have any article, while in TL it has article
‘the’.
In informal Indonesian, it is very common to say, Saya guru (literally means ‘I
am teacher’, without article), but in English, it has to be added an article: I am
‘a’ teacher.
4.
Intra-system shifts occur when SL and TL process system approximately
corresponds formally as to their constitution, but a translation involves
selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system; for instance, when the
SL singular becomes a TL plural.
For example: In Indonesia, some nouns are considered as singular, while in
English they are in the plural form: For example:
pakaian (sing.) → clothes (pl.)
gunting (sing.) → scissors (pl.)
celana (sing.) → pants (trousers)
18
Catford (1965: 73-4) emphasizes that level shift in a language can occur in
lexis and grammar. Structure shifts are structural shifts which occur in the structure
of an SL to a different structure of a TL, “…structure shift is a type of category
shift which involves a change in grammatical structure between ST and TT.”
(Catford,1965:77). However, according to Nida (1969:107), “in many instances,
shifts of components involve only a shift from a literal etymological meaning to
one which is functionally more relevant.” Nida’s example for this case is the
translation of the word ‘devil’ which has etymological meaning of “Satan”. If
translated, say, into Arabic, the word would mean nothing unless an etymological
shift is used; for example, the translator has to refer to its etymological origin, then
he transfers it into the TL. Another type of componential shift goes from generic to
specific meaning or vice versa.
Further more, Nida (1969: 89) points out that the area of cultural
specification is likely to provide the greatest difficulties for the translator. In
translating a text which represents an area of cultural specification in the SL but not
in the receptor language, the translator must frequently construct all sorts of
descriptive equivalents so as to make intelligible something which is quite foreign
to the receptor. For example, the phrase wali nikah (male next of kin and guardian
whose consent is required for the marriage of a girl or woman) in Indonesian does
not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is untranslatable; and, of course,
there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as clear as possible in the TL in
order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
Popovic (1970:80) states: “Thus shifts do not occur because the translator
wished to ‘change’ a work, but because he strives to reproduce it as faithfully as
19
possible and to grasp it in its totality. Popovic’s statement reminds us of many
factors which affect the translator’s adoption of a particular style in rendering a
particular text into another language. This is in line with Nida’s idea above which
states there is no possibility of shift in a translation from a cultural product in which
the permanent shift does not have its equivalence in TL. For example the word,
wali (appellation for the first preachers of Islam in Java who, as governors, were in
command of the areas converted to Islam, they used the title of sunan and venerated
as saints) in Indonesian does not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is
untranslatable; and, of course, there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as
clear as possible in the TL in order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
According to Halliday in Machali (1998:150), there are two shifts in the
process of translation: first, obligatory shift which can be grammatical, structural,
cohesion, and utterance; secondly, optional shifts, that is, shifts in meaning,
reference, interpersonal, and textual.This second case can occur because the
translator cannot find a form which is exactly the same as a source text which can
be realized into TL so that the target reader can understand the meaning which has
been intended by the ST. Catford (1965:73) points out that form or transposition
shift is a translation procedure which involves the change in grammatical form
from SL into TL. This theory is supported by Djajasudarma (1971: 31) who points
out that determining a word which represents a thing, an object, or a person
depends on its meaning. However, from time to time, a word can experience
changes which are caused by the existence of some factors such as:
1.
Linguistic factor (linguistic causes) which is related to morphology,
phonology, and syntaxes.
20
2.
Historical factors (historical causes)
3.
Social factors (social causes)
4.
Psychological factors (psychological causes) which is realized in emotive
factors and anything which exists because of apprehensiveness, politeness, and
subtlety.
5.
Foreign causes.
6.
The need for new words.
Ulman (1972: 193-5) points out that the change in meaning of words can
occur because of the existence of some factors such as:
a.
Language is transmitted from generation to generation; therefore, it is not
impossible that there will be misunderstanding in interpreting the meaning of a
word or words.
b.
Vagueness of meaning of a word is one of the causes in changing its meaning.
c.
A word which is adhered to its environment can also change its meaning which
is far from its original meaning.
d.
The existence of polysemy adds to flexible factor in a language.
e.
Ambiguity of meaning of a word can also change its semantic.
f.
The structure of vocabulary more easily change than that of a system. The
existence of polysemy adds the flexibility factor in a language.
Obligatory and systematic shift which is caused by a system and principle
(transposition shift) which consists of three kinds:
a.
Singular noun in SL changes to plural form in TL
Examples: pakaian
→ clothes
kacamata → glasses
21
b.
celana
→ pants
gunting
→ scissors
Repetition of adjectives in SL becomes real adjective (without being repeated)
in TL:
Examples: buah itu kecil-kecil → The fruit is small
daun itu lebar-lebar → The leaves are wide
c.
Adjective as modifier + noun in SL changes to noun + adjective as modifier +
noun in TL:
Examples: gadis cantik → beautiful girl
buku tebal
→ thick book
anak (yang) baik → [a] good boy
Equivalency in translation has to be achieved, not only in message but also
in every form of language. Baker in Leonardi (2009: 9-11) points out that the level
of equivalency which has to be achieved by a translator in his translation outcome
is the equivalency in the level of words, grammatical equivalency, textual
equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency. These equivalencies are in use in all types
of texts, including literary text.
A translator is a second writer, a transmitter of information related to culture
in translation. Leonardi (2000: 1) points out that a translator is simultaneously faced
by two languages and two cultures, the culture of the SL and the culture of the TL.
What it means by ‘culture’ here is all cultural elements which are found in two
communities of language users such as names, histories, religions, beliefs,
traditions, customs, clothes, social structures, daily lives, social relationship, foods,
and languages (Karamanian, 2001: 1-3 and Thriveni, 2002: 1-6). In mastering
22
several things above, it is expected that a translator can transfer the equivalent
messages to the target language. Equivalency in translation has to be achieved not
only in messages but also in every level of language.
Baker in Leonardi (2000: 9-11) points out that the level of equivalency
which has to be achieved in a translation outcome is the equivalency in the level of
words, grammatical equivalency, textual equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency.
These equivalencies are in use in all types of text, including literary text. A
translator is a second writer.
2.3 Concepts of Cohesion
A unit of experience in one sentence can be connected or tied with another
sentence as an experience unit by cohesion. This tie forms a unit which is called
cohesion. Cohesion constitutes a characteristic of a text. In other words, a linguistic
unit especially a text consists of a number of sentences. It is called a text if it is
cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Saragih,
2001:138). According to Bell, cohesion and coherence are distinct from each other
but share one crucial characteristic; they both have the function of binding the text
together by creating sequences of meanings‘(1991:164).
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion consists of the mutual
connection of components of surface text within a sequence of clauses/sentences; it
has the function of binding the text together. He further points out that when the
structure of clauses contains formal lexical items which serve to create linkages
between clauses, cohesion is being used.
Cohesion constitutes a characteristic of a text. In other words, a linguistic
unit especially a text consists of a number of sentences. It is called a text if it is
23
cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Halliday,
1976:7).
The concept of cohesion is semantic one. It refers to relation of meaning
that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. The general meaning of
cohesion is embodied in the concept of text. By its role in providing ‘texture’,
cohesion helps to create text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of another (Halliday and Hasan,
1976:4). Like other semantic relation, cohesion is expressed through the strata
organization of language. In this case, Halliday gives the terminology; namely,
meaning is put into wording and wording is put into sound or writing. It can be seen
from the figure below.
Meaning
(the sentence system)
Wording (the lexicogrammatical system, grammar and vocabulary)
‘Writing’/Sounding (the phonological and orthographic)
Figure 2.4 Meaning Wording and Writing
Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the
vocabulary (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 5).
Cohesion is formed by cohesive meaning among the sentences and cohesion
is also a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element
that is crucial to the interpretation to it. Where the interpretation of any items in the
discourse requires making reference to some other items in the discourse, there is
cohesion. This cohesion is realized by four cohesive devices as follows (Halliday
and Hasan 1976: 7 – 29).
24
a. Reference
As a cohesive device, reference consists of pronoun (personal pronoun),
demonstrative, and comparative. Pronoun constitutes personal pronouns such as I,
you, he, it, we, and they. Demonstrative denotes participant’s position or relative
circumstance to language users such as this, that, here, there. Comparison has two
processes; participation or circumstance, or language users’ perspective by
obtaining process, participant or specific circumstance, similar in quality, such as
big, bigger, biggest.
b. Ellipsis/Substitution
The close tight among clauses is formed by omission and alteration of
clause components. Ellipsis indicates the omission of linguistic form from the
context.
For example:
Mrs. Baker bought a book and a pencil for her son. There are some words
which are omitted from the sentence above. The complete form of the clause
above is
Mrs. Baker bought a book for her son and Mrs. Baker bought a pencil for
her son. Some words which are omitted are Mrs. Baker and for her son.
Similar to ellipsis, substitution also denotes omission of linguistic form. The
difference is the omitted linguistic form is replaced by another linguistic form. In
the text, I bought a book and John bought it, too. Here, a book in the second
sentence is omitted but it is replaced by the pronoun it. The linguistic form which
is omitted can be clauses, phrases, words, or morphemes.
c. Conjunction
25
Conjunction functions as a connection of two or more clauses. In its system
the conjunction can be detailed based on meaning, existence, and function.
Conjunction consists of addition, comparison, time, and result or consequence
which, respectively, can be further detailed.
The meaning ties among the clauses form a unit which is called a text or a
discourse. The ties in the text become tighter if there are more cohesive devices
used in the text. In other words, the bound text is marked by extensity and intensity
of cohesion devices variation being used (Saragih, 2001: 138).
There are three categories of conjunction:
1.
Adverb, including coordinating and compound conjunction, eg: but, so, then,
accordingly, actually, therefore, etc.
2.
Other compound adverb, eg: furthermore, anyway, instead, besides, etc.
3.
Prepositional expression, eg: as a result, instead of that, in addition to, in spite
of that, because of, etc.
d. Lexical cohesion.
There are types of lexical cohesion:
1.
Reiteration: repetition, synonym, super ordinate. (Halliday and Hasan 1976:
288)
a. There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same height as
herself; she stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of the
mushroom ……
b. Accordingly …… I took leave, and turned to the ascent of the peak.
The climb is perfectly easy……
c. Henry’s bought himself a new Jaguar. He practically lives in the car.
26
2.
Collocation
It includes pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series.
For examples: chairs….. tables, red….green, basement….roof, car …brakes.
According to Kulka in Venuti (2000:299) cohesion is considered as an
overt relationship holding between parts of the text, expressed by language specific
markers.The grammatical differences between languages will be expressed by
changes in types of ties used to mark cohesion in source and target texts. The
following are the examples of the change of the types of cohesive ties from ST to
TT:
ST: Pengusaha Anggodo Widjojo akhirnya menjadi tersangka. Dia dijerat dengan
dua tuduhan: Menghalang-halangi penyidikan kasus korupsi dan percobaan
penyuapan (Indonesian) (Tempo, January 24, 2010):
TT: ‘Anggodo Widjojo is finally indicted on two felony counts. The Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) will charge him with obstructing the investigation
of a corruption case, and of attempted bribery’ (English) (Tempo, January 26,
2010).
In ST, there is no word of KPK (Corruption Eradication Committee), but in
TT it appears; on the other hand, the phrase, ‘dua tuduhan’ does not appear in TT.
The change in the cohesive tie is seen in the first sentence in ST. This change which
occurs is the passive voice in ST and the active voice in TT, while the word,
pengusaha (business person) in ST disappears in TT (ellipsis).
2. 4 Shifts of Cohesion in Translation
Kulka in Venuti quoted Halliday and Hasan (1976) points out that cohesion
does much more than provides continuity and thus creates the semantic unity of the
27
text. The choice is involved in the types of cohesive markers used in particular text
can affect the texture as being ‘loose’ or ‘dense’ as well as the style and meaning of
that text. On level of cohesion, she divides shift in cohesion into two:
a.
Shift in level explicitness, namely the general levels of the target text’s textual
explicitness is higher or lower, than that of the source text. In this case she
gives the example from English to French: SL (English)…..Halfway up he
realized that a ladder was swaying. TL (French) …… Il n’etait pas encore en
haut de L’echelle, lorsque’il a senti que celle-ci etait en train de basculer.
‘halfway up’ is decomposed in the translation to read “he wasn’t yet on top of
the ladder when.”(TL) (Kulka in Venuti, 2000: 301).
b.
Shift in text meaning(s); namely the explicit and implicit meaning potential of
the source text changes through translations, eg, from English to Hebrew:
“dark” SL (English). Kehah (TL). It can only apply to”human”. Kulka in
Venuti (2000:302).
Cohesion in this study means cohesive relationship of meaning component
in a semantic domain of a concept. Larson (1998:429) points out that semantic
domain does not refer to using the same form or referring to the same specific item
and over (this would be concordance), but rather to the fact that the things being
referred to are from the same domain, i.e., center around the same topic or have
certain semantic components in common, for example, from specific to generic
meaning component or vice versa, from explicit to implicit meaning or vice versa.
In translating concept of meaning, it is often found that there is no exact
equivalent between the SL and the target language expression due to linguistic
differences of two languages. There will be expressions which have some of the
28
meaning components combined in them matching an expression which has the
components with some additional ones. There will be overlap, but there is seldom a
complete match between languages. Further, Kulka in Venuti defined that in the
level of cohesion, shifts in types of cohesion markers used in translation seem to
affect translation in one or both of the following directions:
1. Shifts in Level of Explicitness
In order to make implicit information in translating, the process of
interpretation performed by the translator on the source text might lead to a TL text
which is more redundant than the SL text. This redundancy can be expressed by the
higher level of cohesive explicitness in this TL text.
a.
The general Level of the Target Text’s Textual Explicitness is higher than that
of the Source Text
Kulka in Venuti determined that to make implicit information explicit may
result that the general level of the target text’s textual explicitness is higher than
that of the source text, as can be seen in the following example:
SL : Saya sudah ingatkan soal anggaran (Tempo 24 juli2011)
TL : ‘I warned them about ways of raising fund’ (Tempo, July 26,2011)
LIT: I have reminded about the budget
Notes 1) SL: sudah ingatkan literally means ‘have reminded’
TL: ‘warned (them)’
2) SL: soal literally means ‘about’
TL: ‘about ways of’
3) SL: anggaran’ literally means ‘budget’
TL: ‘raising fund’
29
Here, the clause sudah ingatkan which has literal meaning ‘have reminded’
(also in a clause) is translated to ‘ warned them’ (two words). In this case, there is
the shift of cohesion, the emergence of pronoun, ‘them’, which is referred to
pronoun III, plural, in the target text which is not seen in the source text. The word,
soal which functions as a preposition, ‘about’, is translated into a phrase, ‘about
ways of’ (three words). Here, there is the shift in the grammatical cohesion which
develops and is added to the combination of lexical cohesion, ‘ways of’. The same
process also occurs in the translation of the word anggaran which is literally
translated as ‘budget’. The translator translates it to a phrase ‘raising fund’ (two
words). Again, the shift occurs where the translator use synonym (in this case, he
uses lexical cohesion, hyponym) to indicate correlation of ‘a group members’.
Here, it can be seen that the text of the source language is transferred to broader
sense (higher level) in the target language. There is an addition of words here and
there so as to make the target text longer than the source text. This occurs because
of the difference in the type of grammar between the two languages and the
difference in the types of cohesive ties in the source text and in the target text.
The change and addition in the process of translation above basically has to
occur in order that the meaning which is found in the source text can reach the
target text clearly so that the target reader can understand what has been intended
by writer of the source text. The result is that there will be shifts in the level of
explicitness higher than than of the source text.
b.
The General Level of the Target Text’s Textual Explicitness is lower than that
of the Source Text.
30
Since the level of target text’s textual explicitness is not always higher
than that of source text. They also have to do with requirements of the target
language grammatically, semantically, and stylistically as always general principle
in translation.
Example 1) SL: Menggantungkan nasib pada kreditor (24 Juli 2011)
TL: ‘Escaping creditors’ (Tempo, July 26,2011)
LIT: Make (one’s) life to creditor
Note 1)
SL: Menggantungkan nasib literally means ‘Make (one’s) life to’
TL: Escaping
2)
SL: pada kreditor literally means ‘to creditor(s)’
TL: creditors
Here, the clause, menggantungkan nasib in ST contains idiomatic meaning,
but in the process of translation, the translator uses the opposite meaning,
‘escaping’. Basically, it is because of it cannot be separated from the context
because the text above is the title of a certain topic so that the translator uses the
opposite word in the TT. In reality, what it is intended by the writer in the ST and
the literal meaning of the clause, menggantungkan nasib is ‘an attempt to escape
from something’. This case also occurs in the preposition, to in to creditor(s) which
is omitted since the translator uses the grammatical cohesive device, ellipsis. The
translator seems to drop the preposition and change it to ‘creditor(s)’ as the direct
object instead of indirect object. Thus, there are two shifts: the shift of lexical
cohesion (antonym) and grammatical cohesion (ellipsis).
Example 2) SL: Jangan Menenggang Radikalisme
TL: Bombs and Radicalism
31
Literal meaning: Do not respect radicalism
Note:
SL: Jangan Menenggang literally means ‘Do not respect’
TL: Bombs
Here, the clause, jangan menenggang radikalisme in ST undergoes the shift;
it becomes a word cluster in TT: ‘Bombs and Radicalism’. In this case, the
translator uses the shifts of grammatical cohesion; that is, substitution and lexical
cohesion (reiteration). In this case, the translator again uses the meaning which has
been adjusted to the meaning which is found in the content of the news because the
text above is the title of news. Thus, the shift which occurs in this TT is in the level
of lower than the title which is found in the ST.
2. Shifts in Text Meaning(s)
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion ties much more than mutual
connection of components of surface texts within a sequence of clauses or
sentences and accordingly create the semantic unity of the text. Since there is no
same word in two languages, the translator’s choice on meaning components of
meaning concept involved in the type of cohesive markers used in a particular text
can affect the SL explicit and implicit meaning potential of the SL.
Larson (1998: 44) stated that explicit information is the information which
is overtly stated by lexical items and grammatical forms. It is part of the surface
structure form. The implicit information is that for which there is no form but the
information is part of the total communication intended or assumed by the writer.
Kulka in Venuti (2000: 302) points out (from Halliday and Hasan) that
cohesion ties do much more than provide continuity and thus create the semantic
unity of the text. The choice involved in the types of cohesive markers used in
32
particular text can affect the texture “loose’ or “dense” as well as the style of
meaning of that text. Since there is no same word in two languages, the translator’s
choice on meaning components of meaning concept involved in the type of
cohesive markers used in a particular text can affect the SL explicit and implicit
meaning potential of the SL.
a.
The Explicit Meaning Potential of the SL Changes to Implicit through
Translation
Based on the amount of shared information between SL and TL, further he
added that the implicit information may consist of referential, organizational, and
situational meaning. English has specific grammatical markers which are
cohesively obligatory.
Example: SL : Mereka bergabung dengan orang-orang lama
LIT: They join with old people
TL: ‘They are hooking up with old players’ (Tempo, July 26, 2011)
Here, the phrase ‘old players’ connotatively indicate their old colleagues or
friends who probably supported them to obtain their position. The word, ‘players’
implicitly indicates bad connotation; it could mean the plot or conspiracy. The twoverb phrase, ‘hook up’ literally means ‘to catch (fish) with a fishhook’. Therefore,
the word bergabung (join) is translated to ‘are hooking up’ which most probably
has an implicit meaning; that is, bad connotation, too.
b.
The Implicit Meaning Potential of the SL Changes to Explicit through
Translation
33
To discover the similar related meaning concept of a lexical item, Larson
(1998: 87) states that it can be done by grouping and contrast as in part-whole
relations and contrastive pairs:
For example: SL: Lawan-lawan politiknya berusaha menggali dosa-dosa sang
ketua
LIT: ‘His political opponents attempt to dig the sins of the chairman’
TL: Political opponents are working to uncover the misdeed of their
party chairman (Tempo, July 26 2011)
The word menggali literally means ‘to dig’, but here it is translated to
‘uncover’. It indicates that menggali has implicit meaning, for dosa-dosa (sins)
cannot be dug. The phrase, dosa-dosa also has an implicit meaning since these
words implicitly tells us about the misdeed of the party leader (in the data). It is not
the sins which have the religious connotation, but it is the political ones. Again,
sang ketua literally means the chairman. Of course, the translator needs to translate
or to make it explicit by translating it to ‘the party chairman’.
2.5 Concepts of Culture in Translation
According to Halliday (1989:4), culture is “a set of semiotic systems, a set
of systems of meaning, all of which interrelate.” In this case he used a semantic
definition which means that culture includes all aspects of life in a community.
Therefore, different cultures have different perceptions on worthy and unworthy
values. Meanwhile, Newmark (1988:94) defines culture “the way of life and its
manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as
its means of expression,” which indicates that its language group has its own
culturally specific features. For example, the word tengah in Indonesian has multi
34
meanings. This word has a meaning of
‘taking place’ (in progressing) as in the
following example:
ST: Hari itu, 25 pebruari, wakil presiden kelahiran Blitar, Jawa Timur itu
tengah berulang tahun ke 67(Indonesian) (Tempo, 7 Maret 2010)
TT: ‘On that February 25,’It happened to be the 67th birthday of the Vice
President’(English) (Tempo, March 9, 2010):
In this case, it can be seen that cultural element in ST is expressed by the
word, tengah in which the translator is fully aware of the meaning which is
intended by the writer in the ST. Therefore, he tries to search for the appropriate or
equivalent word for the idiom so that the reader in the TT will not misinterpret the
real meaning intended in the ST.
Another meaning of the word, tengah is indicating a place; for example, the
Middle East Countries. This word can also be related to time; for example, tengah
malam (in the middle of the night) or tengah hari (noon), but in dia tengah makan
is translated to ‘he is eating’. The same is true to the word, bolong which can mean
‘with a hole’, such as in ‘There was a hole in his pocket’, but it can implicitly mean
that ‘he is broke’! If it is combined with the word, melompong, it means
‘completely empty’. The word, soal can also have many meanings (as in Table 3: 5,
59, 61). The phrase, soal ujian has literal meaning, ‘examination paper’; but, it can
implicitly mean concerning, regarding or about as in soal hidup mati (a matter of
life and death). It also occurs in the word, abu-abu which can mean a color (ashgray or ashy), udara abu-abu (an overcast sky), but it can implicitly mean
something which hazy, obscure, vague, or bewildered as in Pernyataan anggota
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat itu masih abu-abu (the legislator’s statement is vague)
35
Regarding what has been pointed out by Kramsch in his Context and
Culture in Language (1998:3-4) above, that language is the principal means
whereby we conduct our social life. When it is used in contexts of communication,
it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways. Further he quotes that the
words people utter refer to common experience. They express facts, ideas or events
that are communicable because they refer to a stock of knowledge about the world
that other people share. Words also reflect their authors’ attitudes and beliefs, their
point of view that are also those of others. In both cases, language expresses
cultural reality. Speakers identify themselves and others through their use of
language; they view their language as a symbol of their social identity.
From this idea, it can be found out that people express their experience or
give the meaning of their experience through language when they are
communicating with other people, for example by talking on the telephones,
making conferences, and reading books, magazines, newspapers, and so on. Thus, it
can be said that culture is the product of a certain community which is caused by
life experience of the individuals, expressed through language.
Talking about culture, it can be separated from ‘mark’ since marks connect
words with human life experience which are expressed through language which
sometimes has denotative and connotative meaning.
But as a sign, a word also relates to other words that give it a particular
value in the verbal text or co-text. Words refer to other words by a variety of
cohesive devices that holds a text like pronoun, demonstrative, repetition. Semantic
cohesion depends on discourse community’s communal associations across
stretches of talk or of the text. The meaning of words cannot be separated from
36
other words with which they have come to be associated in the discourse
community’s semantic pool (Kramsch, 1998).
2.6 Previous Studies on the Shift of Cohesion in the Translation of some Texts
There are some relevant researches in the works of shift of cohesion in the
translation of the text from Indonesian to English.
Noverino (2010) has done the research on “The translation of English
Implicit Meaning into Indonesian in the novel, One Two Buckle My Shoe. There are
some implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and
implicit
situational meaning is translated into Indonesian.
Toussi and Jangi (ISSN 2249: 327-334), explore the issue of cohesion shift
in translating English medical text into Persian. The study revealed that shift of
cohesion are evident in translation English medical texts into Persian and cohesion
is in area where explicitness is evident. Both studies give contribution to the
researcher about explicit and implicit meaning. They are very beneficial for her in
analyzing the data.
Djamila (2010-84) conducted the research in the topic of Shifts in
Translating Lexical Cohesion from Arabic to English: The case of first year master
students of English at Mentouri University of Constantine. She used quantitative
and qualitative approaches. In the quantitative approach she found that there were
shifts including, grammatical forms, structures, functions, and meanings. In
qualitative approaches she found shifts which have great affect on target text
meaning and cohesion. This idea helps the researcher find out the distribution
related to the analysis of language structure.
37
The topic of shift of cohesion which is entitled Shift of Cohesion and
Coherence in Translation of The second Life of Bree Tunner into Kisah Singkat
Bree Tunner as the research done by Jelita (2013) Udayana University, pointed out
that there were two kinds of shift, namely, cohesion shift in the level of explicitness
and shift in text meaning, and coherence shift form and function and generic word
with descriptive phrase. The topic which is still related to this research was the
dissertation, entitled Pergeseran Makna Tekstual dalam Terjemahan Teks Popular,
“See You at the Top,” by Risnawati (2011), University of Sumatera Utara. The
dissertation found a finding about 10 types of the shifts of textual meaning from the
source text (English) to the target language (Indonesian). They included the shifts
from plural form to singular form, repetition of adjectives, grammatical cohesive
device, suffixes pun and lah, lexical cohesive device, field of meaning, collocation,
Modifier-Headword structure which becomes Headword-Modifier, transposition,
and conjunction shifts. All these types of shift indicate a narrowing of meaning and
generalization of meaning in the process of translation.
Both ideas can help the
research in understanding the theory cohesion and coherence.
Shift in Translation or Translation Shift is an article which analyzes the
incidence of a shift in translation or explains about the stages in translation which is
related to shifts from a source language to a target language. Besides that, there are
several theories which support it, and one of them discusses the shifts in cohesion
and the shifts in cohesive markers which influence the process of translation,
referring to two levels: explicit level and implicit level, both in the shift level which
is higher and the shift level which is lower (articlebase.com/non-fiction-article/shiftin-translation2116778html?en). Besides that, it was said that cohesion shift is
38
meaning adjustments, of meaning components in textual relationships of a shared
or known concept in a different linguistic system of two languages.
Adhi. S (2011) in his thesis, entitled An Analysis of Cohesion and
Coherence in Animal Farm and Their Translability and Untranslability into
Persian (www.scribd.com/doc-110947493/cohesi-dan-coherenci) draws on the
model of cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasa(1976) to study and analyze the
syntactic cohesive devices and collocational relation of three Persian texts. It
further draws on the model of Hoey (1991) to study lexical cohesive devices in
Persian. Newmark’s (1988) ideas of literal / free and over- / under-translation, and
Kulka in Venuti’s (1986) ideas on shift of cohesion and coherence are also
employed. The study has shown that Halliday and Hasan’s model is inclusive and is
adequate to handle the Persian cohesive syntactic devices. Hoey’s model also
seems to be adequate to analyze the lexical relations in the corresponding Persian
versions. It is also found that the change of cohesion and coherence in some cases
have led to explicitness thus conforming to the ideas of Kulka in Venuti (1986).
Ali Beikian et all (2013: Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran ) in
his
study
which
was
published
in
the
Journal,
URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ells.v3n2p81 was to test the explicitation hypothesis
according to Kulka in Venuti (1986) and the model which was followed for the
analysis of conjunctive relations was that of Halliday and Hasan (1976). The results
of the investigation indicated that the processes of explicitation, implicitation, and
also the meaning change were observed in the corpus, although explicitation took a
bigger portion in the target text.
39
Pym (2005) explains that the general idea that translations tend to be more
explicit than non-translations (the broad “explicitation hypothesis”) is one of the
few apparent discoveries that have been made by translation studies. He further
points out in his research that in its wider formulations, the explicitation hypothesis
nevertheless remains hampered by conceptual imprecision and idealisms of stable
meaning, as if there were just one thing, obvious to all, that could then be made
explicit or implicit. Explicitation takes place, for example, when a SL [sourcelanguage] unit of a more general meaning is replaced by a TL [target-language] unit
of a more special meaning; the complex meaning of a SL word is distributed over
several words in the TL; new meaningful elements appear in the TL text; one
sentence in the SL is divided into two or several sentences in the TL; or, when SL
phrases are extended or “elevated” into clauses in the TL, etc.
40
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Concepts of Translation
Translation is the communication of meaning of a source-language text
(henceforth, SLT) by means of an equivalent target-language text. The word,
translation is derived from Latin, translatio (which itself comes from trans- and
latio, together means “to carry across” or ‘to bring across”). The modern Romance
languages used words for translation which was derived from that source and from
the alternative Latin, traduco (“to lead across”). The Germanic (except Dutch) and
Slavic languages likewise used calques, based on these Latin sources (Batia, 1992:
213).
The Ancient Greek term for translation, metaphrasis (“a speaking across”),
had supplied English with metaphrase (a “literal” or “word-for-word” translation) –
as it is contrasted with paraphrase (“as saying in other words”, from paraphrasis).
Metaphrase corresponds, in one of the more recent terminologies, to ‘formal
equivalence”; and paraphrase, to “dynamic equivalence.” (Kasparek, 1983: 62)
Strictly speaking, the concept of metaphrase – of “word-for-word
translation” – is an imperfect concept, because a given word in a given language
often carries more than one meaning; and because a similar given meaning may
often be represented in a given language by more than one word. Nevertheless,
“metaphrase” and “paraphrase” may be useful as ideal concepts that mark the
extremes in the spectrum of possible approaches to translation (Tatarkiewiz, 1980:
21).
12
In translating concept of meaning, it is often found that there is no exact
equivalent between an SL and a TL expression due to linguistic differences of two
languages. There will be expressions which have some of the meaning components
combined in them matching an expression which has the components with some
additional ones. There will be overlapped, but there is seldom a complete match
between
languages
www.articlebase.com/non-fiction-article/shift-in-
translation2116778html?en).
Bell, in his book, The Theory of Translation (1991: 5-13) points out that
translation is the expression in other language or TL of what has been expressed in
another SL, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalence. So far he has added that
translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a
representation of an equivalent text in a second language. He also suggests that
there are three distinguishable meanings for translation:
a.
Translating: the process (to translate: the activity rather than the tangible
objects).
b.
A translation: the product of the process of translating (that is, the translated
text).
c.
Translation: the abstract concept which encompasses both the process of
translating and the product of that process.
From what Bell says above, it can be said that there are differences among
translation, translating, and a translation. In this case, this research tends to use the
term “a translation” since it analyzes the product (the translated texts of Tempo
magazine).
13
Larson (1984) further points out that translation is the change from one
form to another, or the change from one language to another and vice versa. What it
means by a language form is phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and so on, either
oral or written. In other words, translation is the transfer of meaning from an SL to
a TL. It means that meaning should be transferred and maintained, while form can
be changed. The process can be seen in the diagram (figure) below
SOURCE TEXT
TARGET TEXT
Text which will
Translation
be translated
Meaning
Representation of its
Interpretation
meaning
MEANING
Figure 2.1 Larson’s (1984) diagram of the translation process
In order to make a translation effective, one should search for the meaning
from SL and use TL form which can convey appropriate meaning. The figure
below indicates the way how to express the same meaning between SL and TL
(Larson :1984).
SL
TL.1
Tengo sueno
Kajang Pujawai
Man
(speaker)
TL.2
I’m sleepy
is
sleepy
Figure 2.2 How to express the same meaning between SL and TL
14
Besides that, Larson also points out that every text has forms and meanings.
Therefore, a translation is divided into two types: literal translation and idiomatic
translation. A literal translation is a translation which is based on the form which
tries to follow the form of the SL, while idiomatic translation is a translation which
is based on meaning; it attempts to express the meaning of the SL with the form of
the TL with its appropriate, good grammatical construction and the choice of its
lexical elements. In this case, the type of translation is from a very literal translation
to literal translation which has been adjusted, almost idiomatic, idiomatic, and even
to free translation. However, extremely free translation is rarely used. It is called
extremely free translation when it is added by other information which is absent
from the SL, or the meaning in the ST is changed, or when the historical fact and
cultural text in the ST is changed. In reality, the target of translation is to produce a
text in the TL which conveys the same message found in the SL.
The following are the steps which can be seen in a translation, based on
Larson’s theory of form and meaning:
extr.
literal
literal
adjusted
randomly
almost
idiom
Extr.
literal
mixed
idiomatic
atic
free
TRANSLATION
TARGET
Figure 2.3 Larson’s (1984) literal and idiomatic translation
The following is the example of literal translation and idiomatic translation:
SL: Penyelenggaraan/ rekam/ medis/
yaitu/
sempurna.
15
menjadi/ alat bukti/ yang/
Organizing / record/ medical/ that is/ becomes/evidence/which/ complete
TL: Organizing medical record which becomes evidence which is complete (→
literal)
Organizing medical record becomes complete evidence (→ adjusted literal)
Organizing medical record becomes a hard fact (→ almost idiomatic)
Organized medical record is a hard fact (→ idiomatic)
The above translation is adjustment of the sentence structure from SL to the
English structure in TL (Kencawati 1989:114).
Idiomatic translation uses appropriate TL form, either in its grammatical
construction or the choice of its lexical elements. Idiomatic translation must not be
heard as the result of a translation but as if it was written in its original form in the
TL. Therefore, a good translator strives for translating something idiomatically.
Kulka in Venuti (2000: 312) points out that a translation is
“…a process
that operates on texts (rather than words or sentences) and hence its product need to
be studied within the frameworks of discourse analysis; and secondly, that
translation is an act of communication, and hence both its processes, products and
effects can and need to be studied empirically within the methodological
framework of studies in communication.” She further points out that this case can
be done by studying the effects of using cohesive features in translating them into
TL in the higher or the lower level of explicitness and the text meaning potential
into TL.
2.2 Concepts of Shift
Shifts are all the mandatory actions of the translator (those dictated by the
structural discrepancies between the two language systems involved in this process)
16
and the optional ones (those dictated by his personal and stylistic preferences) to
which resorts consciously for the purpose of natural and communicative rendition
of an SLT into another language (Al Zoubi and Al Hasnawi, 2001: 114).
Catford (1965:73) says that translation is ‘the replacement of textual
material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language
(TL). He argues that there are two main types of translation shifts; namely, level
shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (for example, grammar) has a TL
equivalence at a different level (for example, lexis). For example: In Indonesian,
continuous action is marked by the words ’sedang’ (sedang makan, sedang tidur)
while in English it depends on the subject and the tense (he is/was eating, I am/was
eating).
Unlike English which is an inflectional language, Indonesian does not have
any tense. For examples: Saya menulis, Kemarin saya menulis are translated to ‘I
write’; ‘Yesterday I wrote’.
Catford (1965:74) divides category-shifts into four types: structure-shift,
class-shift, init-shift, and intra-system shift.
1.
Structure-shifts involve a grammatical change between the structure of the SL
and that of the TL); for example, Indonesian has the principle of “head word +
modifier,” while English has the principle of “modifier + head word.”
For example:
SL: Saya melihat jendela (window) kaca(glass)
TL: I saw the ‘ glass window’.
Here, in Indonesian, jendela (window) is a headword while kaca (glass) is a
modifier which modifies jendela. On the contrary, in English, ‘glass’ becomes
a modifier which modifies ‘jendela’(window),while ‘window’ is the headword.
17
2.
Class-shifts, when an SL is translated with a TL item which belongs to a
different grammatical class, for example, a verb may be translated with a noun;
Noun may be translated with adjective;
For example:
SL: Mahasiswa
(noun)
TL: Medical
(adjective)
3.
kedokteran
(noun)
student
(noun)
Translation unit-shifts which involve changes in rank;
For example:
SL: Buku itu di atas meja
TL: The book is on ‘the’ table
In SL, the word, meja does not have any article, while in TL it has article
‘the’.
In informal Indonesian, it is very common to say, Saya guru (literally means ‘I
am teacher’, without article), but in English, it has to be added an article: I am
‘a’ teacher.
4.
Intra-system shifts occur when SL and TL process system approximately
corresponds formally as to their constitution, but a translation involves
selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system; for instance, when the
SL singular becomes a TL plural.
For example: In Indonesia, some nouns are considered as singular, while in
English they are in the plural form: For example:
pakaian (sing.) → clothes (pl.)
gunting (sing.) → scissors (pl.)
celana (sing.) → pants (trousers)
18
Catford (1965: 73-4) emphasizes that level shift in a language can occur in
lexis and grammar. Structure shifts are structural shifts which occur in the structure
of an SL to a different structure of a TL, “…structure shift is a type of category
shift which involves a change in grammatical structure between ST and TT.”
(Catford,1965:77). However, according to Nida (1969:107), “in many instances,
shifts of components involve only a shift from a literal etymological meaning to
one which is functionally more relevant.” Nida’s example for this case is the
translation of the word ‘devil’ which has etymological meaning of “Satan”. If
translated, say, into Arabic, the word would mean nothing unless an etymological
shift is used; for example, the translator has to refer to its etymological origin, then
he transfers it into the TL. Another type of componential shift goes from generic to
specific meaning or vice versa.
Further more, Nida (1969: 89) points out that the area of cultural
specification is likely to provide the greatest difficulties for the translator. In
translating a text which represents an area of cultural specification in the SL but not
in the receptor language, the translator must frequently construct all sorts of
descriptive equivalents so as to make intelligible something which is quite foreign
to the receptor. For example, the phrase wali nikah (male next of kin and guardian
whose consent is required for the marriage of a girl or woman) in Indonesian does
not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is untranslatable; and, of course,
there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as clear as possible in the TL in
order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
Popovic (1970:80) states: “Thus shifts do not occur because the translator
wished to ‘change’ a work, but because he strives to reproduce it as faithfully as
19
possible and to grasp it in its totality. Popovic’s statement reminds us of many
factors which affect the translator’s adoption of a particular style in rendering a
particular text into another language. This is in line with Nida’s idea above which
states there is no possibility of shift in a translation from a cultural product in which
the permanent shift does not have its equivalence in TL. For example the word,
wali (appellation for the first preachers of Islam in Java who, as governors, were in
command of the areas converted to Islam, they used the title of sunan and venerated
as saints) in Indonesian does not have its equivalence in English; therefore, it is
untranslatable; and, of course, there is no shift. The translator has to ‘explain’ it as
clear as possible in the TL in order that the TL reader will understand its meaning.
According to Halliday in Machali (1998:150), there are two shifts in the
process of translation: first, obligatory shift which can be grammatical, structural,
cohesion, and utterance; secondly, optional shifts, that is, shifts in meaning,
reference, interpersonal, and textual.This second case can occur because the
translator cannot find a form which is exactly the same as a source text which can
be realized into TL so that the target reader can understand the meaning which has
been intended by the ST. Catford (1965:73) points out that form or transposition
shift is a translation procedure which involves the change in grammatical form
from SL into TL. This theory is supported by Djajasudarma (1971: 31) who points
out that determining a word which represents a thing, an object, or a person
depends on its meaning. However, from time to time, a word can experience
changes which are caused by the existence of some factors such as:
1.
Linguistic factor (linguistic causes) which is related to morphology,
phonology, and syntaxes.
20
2.
Historical factors (historical causes)
3.
Social factors (social causes)
4.
Psychological factors (psychological causes) which is realized in emotive
factors and anything which exists because of apprehensiveness, politeness, and
subtlety.
5.
Foreign causes.
6.
The need for new words.
Ulman (1972: 193-5) points out that the change in meaning of words can
occur because of the existence of some factors such as:
a.
Language is transmitted from generation to generation; therefore, it is not
impossible that there will be misunderstanding in interpreting the meaning of a
word or words.
b.
Vagueness of meaning of a word is one of the causes in changing its meaning.
c.
A word which is adhered to its environment can also change its meaning which
is far from its original meaning.
d.
The existence of polysemy adds to flexible factor in a language.
e.
Ambiguity of meaning of a word can also change its semantic.
f.
The structure of vocabulary more easily change than that of a system. The
existence of polysemy adds the flexibility factor in a language.
Obligatory and systematic shift which is caused by a system and principle
(transposition shift) which consists of three kinds:
a.
Singular noun in SL changes to plural form in TL
Examples: pakaian
→ clothes
kacamata → glasses
21
b.
celana
→ pants
gunting
→ scissors
Repetition of adjectives in SL becomes real adjective (without being repeated)
in TL:
Examples: buah itu kecil-kecil → The fruit is small
daun itu lebar-lebar → The leaves are wide
c.
Adjective as modifier + noun in SL changes to noun + adjective as modifier +
noun in TL:
Examples: gadis cantik → beautiful girl
buku tebal
→ thick book
anak (yang) baik → [a] good boy
Equivalency in translation has to be achieved, not only in message but also
in every form of language. Baker in Leonardi (2009: 9-11) points out that the level
of equivalency which has to be achieved by a translator in his translation outcome
is the equivalency in the level of words, grammatical equivalency, textual
equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency. These equivalencies are in use in all types
of texts, including literary text.
A translator is a second writer, a transmitter of information related to culture
in translation. Leonardi (2000: 1) points out that a translator is simultaneously faced
by two languages and two cultures, the culture of the SL and the culture of the TL.
What it means by ‘culture’ here is all cultural elements which are found in two
communities of language users such as names, histories, religions, beliefs,
traditions, customs, clothes, social structures, daily lives, social relationship, foods,
and languages (Karamanian, 2001: 1-3 and Thriveni, 2002: 1-6). In mastering
22
several things above, it is expected that a translator can transfer the equivalent
messages to the target language. Equivalency in translation has to be achieved not
only in messages but also in every level of language.
Baker in Leonardi (2000: 9-11) points out that the level of equivalency
which has to be achieved in a translation outcome is the equivalency in the level of
words, grammatical equivalency, textual equivalency, and pragmatic equivalency.
These equivalencies are in use in all types of text, including literary text. A
translator is a second writer.
2.3 Concepts of Cohesion
A unit of experience in one sentence can be connected or tied with another
sentence as an experience unit by cohesion. This tie forms a unit which is called
cohesion. Cohesion constitutes a characteristic of a text. In other words, a linguistic
unit especially a text consists of a number of sentences. It is called a text if it is
cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Saragih,
2001:138). According to Bell, cohesion and coherence are distinct from each other
but share one crucial characteristic; they both have the function of binding the text
together by creating sequences of meanings‘(1991:164).
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion consists of the mutual
connection of components of surface text within a sequence of clauses/sentences; it
has the function of binding the text together. He further points out that when the
structure of clauses contains formal lexical items which serve to create linkages
between clauses, cohesion is being used.
Cohesion constitutes a characteristic of a text. In other words, a linguistic
unit especially a text consists of a number of sentences. It is called a text if it is
23
cohesive which means that a sentence is tied with another sentence (Halliday,
1976:7).
The concept of cohesion is semantic one. It refers to relation of meaning
that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. The general meaning of
cohesion is embodied in the concept of text. By its role in providing ‘texture’,
cohesion helps to create text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of another (Halliday and Hasan,
1976:4). Like other semantic relation, cohesion is expressed through the strata
organization of language. In this case, Halliday gives the terminology; namely,
meaning is put into wording and wording is put into sound or writing. It can be seen
from the figure below.
Meaning
(the sentence system)
Wording (the lexicogrammatical system, grammar and vocabulary)
‘Writing’/Sounding (the phonological and orthographic)
Figure 2.4 Meaning Wording and Writing
Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the
vocabulary (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 5).
Cohesion is formed by cohesive meaning among the sentences and cohesion
is also a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element
that is crucial to the interpretation to it. Where the interpretation of any items in the
discourse requires making reference to some other items in the discourse, there is
cohesion. This cohesion is realized by four cohesive devices as follows (Halliday
and Hasan 1976: 7 – 29).
24
a. Reference
As a cohesive device, reference consists of pronoun (personal pronoun),
demonstrative, and comparative. Pronoun constitutes personal pronouns such as I,
you, he, it, we, and they. Demonstrative denotes participant’s position or relative
circumstance to language users such as this, that, here, there. Comparison has two
processes; participation or circumstance, or language users’ perspective by
obtaining process, participant or specific circumstance, similar in quality, such as
big, bigger, biggest.
b. Ellipsis/Substitution
The close tight among clauses is formed by omission and alteration of
clause components. Ellipsis indicates the omission of linguistic form from the
context.
For example:
Mrs. Baker bought a book and a pencil for her son. There are some words
which are omitted from the sentence above. The complete form of the clause
above is
Mrs. Baker bought a book for her son and Mrs. Baker bought a pencil for
her son. Some words which are omitted are Mrs. Baker and for her son.
Similar to ellipsis, substitution also denotes omission of linguistic form. The
difference is the omitted linguistic form is replaced by another linguistic form. In
the text, I bought a book and John bought it, too. Here, a book in the second
sentence is omitted but it is replaced by the pronoun it. The linguistic form which
is omitted can be clauses, phrases, words, or morphemes.
c. Conjunction
25
Conjunction functions as a connection of two or more clauses. In its system
the conjunction can be detailed based on meaning, existence, and function.
Conjunction consists of addition, comparison, time, and result or consequence
which, respectively, can be further detailed.
The meaning ties among the clauses form a unit which is called a text or a
discourse. The ties in the text become tighter if there are more cohesive devices
used in the text. In other words, the bound text is marked by extensity and intensity
of cohesion devices variation being used (Saragih, 2001: 138).
There are three categories of conjunction:
1.
Adverb, including coordinating and compound conjunction, eg: but, so, then,
accordingly, actually, therefore, etc.
2.
Other compound adverb, eg: furthermore, anyway, instead, besides, etc.
3.
Prepositional expression, eg: as a result, instead of that, in addition to, in spite
of that, because of, etc.
d. Lexical cohesion.
There are types of lexical cohesion:
1.
Reiteration: repetition, synonym, super ordinate. (Halliday and Hasan 1976:
288)
a. There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same height as
herself; she stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of the
mushroom ……
b. Accordingly …… I took leave, and turned to the ascent of the peak.
The climb is perfectly easy……
c. Henry’s bought himself a new Jaguar. He practically lives in the car.
26
2.
Collocation
It includes pairs of words drawn from the same ordered series.
For examples: chairs….. tables, red….green, basement….roof, car …brakes.
According to Kulka in Venuti (2000:299) cohesion is considered as an
overt relationship holding between parts of the text, expressed by language specific
markers.The grammatical differences between languages will be expressed by
changes in types of ties used to mark cohesion in source and target texts. The
following are the examples of the change of the types of cohesive ties from ST to
TT:
ST: Pengusaha Anggodo Widjojo akhirnya menjadi tersangka. Dia dijerat dengan
dua tuduhan: Menghalang-halangi penyidikan kasus korupsi dan percobaan
penyuapan (Indonesian) (Tempo, January 24, 2010):
TT: ‘Anggodo Widjojo is finally indicted on two felony counts. The Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) will charge him with obstructing the investigation
of a corruption case, and of attempted bribery’ (English) (Tempo, January 26,
2010).
In ST, there is no word of KPK (Corruption Eradication Committee), but in
TT it appears; on the other hand, the phrase, ‘dua tuduhan’ does not appear in TT.
The change in the cohesive tie is seen in the first sentence in ST. This change which
occurs is the passive voice in ST and the active voice in TT, while the word,
pengusaha (business person) in ST disappears in TT (ellipsis).
2. 4 Shifts of Cohesion in Translation
Kulka in Venuti quoted Halliday and Hasan (1976) points out that cohesion
does much more than provides continuity and thus creates the semantic unity of the
27
text. The choice is involved in the types of cohesive markers used in particular text
can affect the texture as being ‘loose’ or ‘dense’ as well as the style and meaning of
that text. On level of cohesion, she divides shift in cohesion into two:
a.
Shift in level explicitness, namely the general levels of the target text’s textual
explicitness is higher or lower, than that of the source text. In this case she
gives the example from English to French: SL (English)…..Halfway up he
realized that a ladder was swaying. TL (French) …… Il n’etait pas encore en
haut de L’echelle, lorsque’il a senti que celle-ci etait en train de basculer.
‘halfway up’ is decomposed in the translation to read “he wasn’t yet on top of
the ladder when.”(TL) (Kulka in Venuti, 2000: 301).
b.
Shift in text meaning(s); namely the explicit and implicit meaning potential of
the source text changes through translations, eg, from English to Hebrew:
“dark” SL (English). Kehah (TL). It can only apply to”human”. Kulka in
Venuti (2000:302).
Cohesion in this study means cohesive relationship of meaning component
in a semantic domain of a concept. Larson (1998:429) points out that semantic
domain does not refer to using the same form or referring to the same specific item
and over (this would be concordance), but rather to the fact that the things being
referred to are from the same domain, i.e., center around the same topic or have
certain semantic components in common, for example, from specific to generic
meaning component or vice versa, from explicit to implicit meaning or vice versa.
In translating concept of meaning, it is often found that there is no exact
equivalent between the SL and the target language expression due to linguistic
differences of two languages. There will be expressions which have some of the
28
meaning components combined in them matching an expression which has the
components with some additional ones. There will be overlap, but there is seldom a
complete match between languages. Further, Kulka in Venuti defined that in the
level of cohesion, shifts in types of cohesion markers used in translation seem to
affect translation in one or both of the following directions:
1. Shifts in Level of Explicitness
In order to make implicit information in translating, the process of
interpretation performed by the translator on the source text might lead to a TL text
which is more redundant than the SL text. This redundancy can be expressed by the
higher level of cohesive explicitness in this TL text.
a.
The general Level of the Target Text’s Textual Explicitness is higher than that
of the Source Text
Kulka in Venuti determined that to make implicit information explicit may
result that the general level of the target text’s textual explicitness is higher than
that of the source text, as can be seen in the following example:
SL : Saya sudah ingatkan soal anggaran (Tempo 24 juli2011)
TL : ‘I warned them about ways of raising fund’ (Tempo, July 26,2011)
LIT: I have reminded about the budget
Notes 1) SL: sudah ingatkan literally means ‘have reminded’
TL: ‘warned (them)’
2) SL: soal literally means ‘about’
TL: ‘about ways of’
3) SL: anggaran’ literally means ‘budget’
TL: ‘raising fund’
29
Here, the clause sudah ingatkan which has literal meaning ‘have reminded’
(also in a clause) is translated to ‘ warned them’ (two words). In this case, there is
the shift of cohesion, the emergence of pronoun, ‘them’, which is referred to
pronoun III, plural, in the target text which is not seen in the source text. The word,
soal which functions as a preposition, ‘about’, is translated into a phrase, ‘about
ways of’ (three words). Here, there is the shift in the grammatical cohesion which
develops and is added to the combination of lexical cohesion, ‘ways of’. The same
process also occurs in the translation of the word anggaran which is literally
translated as ‘budget’. The translator translates it to a phrase ‘raising fund’ (two
words). Again, the shift occurs where the translator use synonym (in this case, he
uses lexical cohesion, hyponym) to indicate correlation of ‘a group members’.
Here, it can be seen that the text of the source language is transferred to broader
sense (higher level) in the target language. There is an addition of words here and
there so as to make the target text longer than the source text. This occurs because
of the difference in the type of grammar between the two languages and the
difference in the types of cohesive ties in the source text and in the target text.
The change and addition in the process of translation above basically has to
occur in order that the meaning which is found in the source text can reach the
target text clearly so that the target reader can understand what has been intended
by writer of the source text. The result is that there will be shifts in the level of
explicitness higher than than of the source text.
b.
The General Level of the Target Text’s Textual Explicitness is lower than that
of the Source Text.
30
Since the level of target text’s textual explicitness is not always higher
than that of source text. They also have to do with requirements of the target
language grammatically, semantically, and stylistically as always general principle
in translation.
Example 1) SL: Menggantungkan nasib pada kreditor (24 Juli 2011)
TL: ‘Escaping creditors’ (Tempo, July 26,2011)
LIT: Make (one’s) life to creditor
Note 1)
SL: Menggantungkan nasib literally means ‘Make (one’s) life to’
TL: Escaping
2)
SL: pada kreditor literally means ‘to creditor(s)’
TL: creditors
Here, the clause, menggantungkan nasib in ST contains idiomatic meaning,
but in the process of translation, the translator uses the opposite meaning,
‘escaping’. Basically, it is because of it cannot be separated from the context
because the text above is the title of a certain topic so that the translator uses the
opposite word in the TT. In reality, what it is intended by the writer in the ST and
the literal meaning of the clause, menggantungkan nasib is ‘an attempt to escape
from something’. This case also occurs in the preposition, to in to creditor(s) which
is omitted since the translator uses the grammatical cohesive device, ellipsis. The
translator seems to drop the preposition and change it to ‘creditor(s)’ as the direct
object instead of indirect object. Thus, there are two shifts: the shift of lexical
cohesion (antonym) and grammatical cohesion (ellipsis).
Example 2) SL: Jangan Menenggang Radikalisme
TL: Bombs and Radicalism
31
Literal meaning: Do not respect radicalism
Note:
SL: Jangan Menenggang literally means ‘Do not respect’
TL: Bombs
Here, the clause, jangan menenggang radikalisme in ST undergoes the shift;
it becomes a word cluster in TT: ‘Bombs and Radicalism’. In this case, the
translator uses the shifts of grammatical cohesion; that is, substitution and lexical
cohesion (reiteration). In this case, the translator again uses the meaning which has
been adjusted to the meaning which is found in the content of the news because the
text above is the title of news. Thus, the shift which occurs in this TT is in the level
of lower than the title which is found in the ST.
2. Shifts in Text Meaning(s)
As pointed out by Bell (1991: 165), cohesion ties much more than mutual
connection of components of surface texts within a sequence of clauses or
sentences and accordingly create the semantic unity of the text. Since there is no
same word in two languages, the translator’s choice on meaning components of
meaning concept involved in the type of cohesive markers used in a particular text
can affect the SL explicit and implicit meaning potential of the SL.
Larson (1998: 44) stated that explicit information is the information which
is overtly stated by lexical items and grammatical forms. It is part of the surface
structure form. The implicit information is that for which there is no form but the
information is part of the total communication intended or assumed by the writer.
Kulka in Venuti (2000: 302) points out (from Halliday and Hasan) that
cohesion ties do much more than provide continuity and thus create the semantic
unity of the text. The choice involved in the types of cohesive markers used in
32
particular text can affect the texture “loose’ or “dense” as well as the style of
meaning of that text. Since there is no same word in two languages, the translator’s
choice on meaning components of meaning concept involved in the type of
cohesive markers used in a particular text can affect the SL explicit and implicit
meaning potential of the SL.
a.
The Explicit Meaning Potential of the SL Changes to Implicit through
Translation
Based on the amount of shared information between SL and TL, further he
added that the implicit information may consist of referential, organizational, and
situational meaning. English has specific grammatical markers which are
cohesively obligatory.
Example: SL : Mereka bergabung dengan orang-orang lama
LIT: They join with old people
TL: ‘They are hooking up with old players’ (Tempo, July 26, 2011)
Here, the phrase ‘old players’ connotatively indicate their old colleagues or
friends who probably supported them to obtain their position. The word, ‘players’
implicitly indicates bad connotation; it could mean the plot or conspiracy. The twoverb phrase, ‘hook up’ literally means ‘to catch (fish) with a fishhook’. Therefore,
the word bergabung (join) is translated to ‘are hooking up’ which most probably
has an implicit meaning; that is, bad connotation, too.
b.
The Implicit Meaning Potential of the SL Changes to Explicit through
Translation
33
To discover the similar related meaning concept of a lexical item, Larson
(1998: 87) states that it can be done by grouping and contrast as in part-whole
relations and contrastive pairs:
For example: SL: Lawan-lawan politiknya berusaha menggali dosa-dosa sang
ketua
LIT: ‘His political opponents attempt to dig the sins of the chairman’
TL: Political opponents are working to uncover the misdeed of their
party chairman (Tempo, July 26 2011)
The word menggali literally means ‘to dig’, but here it is translated to
‘uncover’. It indicates that menggali has implicit meaning, for dosa-dosa (sins)
cannot be dug. The phrase, dosa-dosa also has an implicit meaning since these
words implicitly tells us about the misdeed of the party leader (in the data). It is not
the sins which have the religious connotation, but it is the political ones. Again,
sang ketua literally means the chairman. Of course, the translator needs to translate
or to make it explicit by translating it to ‘the party chairman’.
2.5 Concepts of Culture in Translation
According to Halliday (1989:4), culture is “a set of semiotic systems, a set
of systems of meaning, all of which interrelate.” In this case he used a semantic
definition which means that culture includes all aspects of life in a community.
Therefore, different cultures have different perceptions on worthy and unworthy
values. Meanwhile, Newmark (1988:94) defines culture “the way of life and its
manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as
its means of expression,” which indicates that its language group has its own
culturally specific features. For example, the word tengah in Indonesian has multi
34
meanings. This word has a meaning of
‘taking place’ (in progressing) as in the
following example:
ST: Hari itu, 25 pebruari, wakil presiden kelahiran Blitar, Jawa Timur itu
tengah berulang tahun ke 67(Indonesian) (Tempo, 7 Maret 2010)
TT: ‘On that February 25,’It happened to be the 67th birthday of the Vice
President’(English) (Tempo, March 9, 2010):
In this case, it can be seen that cultural element in ST is expressed by the
word, tengah in which the translator is fully aware of the meaning which is
intended by the writer in the ST. Therefore, he tries to search for the appropriate or
equivalent word for the idiom so that the reader in the TT will not misinterpret the
real meaning intended in the ST.
Another meaning of the word, tengah is indicating a place; for example, the
Middle East Countries. This word can also be related to time; for example, tengah
malam (in the middle of the night) or tengah hari (noon), but in dia tengah makan
is translated to ‘he is eating’. The same is true to the word, bolong which can mean
‘with a hole’, such as in ‘There was a hole in his pocket’, but it can implicitly mean
that ‘he is broke’! If it is combined with the word, melompong, it means
‘completely empty’. The word, soal can also have many meanings (as in Table 3: 5,
59, 61). The phrase, soal ujian has literal meaning, ‘examination paper’; but, it can
implicitly mean concerning, regarding or about as in soal hidup mati (a matter of
life and death). It also occurs in the word, abu-abu which can mean a color (ashgray or ashy), udara abu-abu (an overcast sky), but it can implicitly mean
something which hazy, obscure, vague, or bewildered as in Pernyataan anggota
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat itu masih abu-abu (the legislator’s statement is vague)
35
Regarding what has been pointed out by Kramsch in his Context and
Culture in Language (1998:3-4) above, that language is the principal means
whereby we conduct our social life. When it is used in contexts of communication,
it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways. Further he quotes that the
words people utter refer to common experience. They express facts, ideas or events
that are communicable because they refer to a stock of knowledge about the world
that other people share. Words also reflect their authors’ attitudes and beliefs, their
point of view that are also those of others. In both cases, language expresses
cultural reality. Speakers identify themselves and others through their use of
language; they view their language as a symbol of their social identity.
From this idea, it can be found out that people express their experience or
give the meaning of their experience through language when they are
communicating with other people, for example by talking on the telephones,
making conferences, and reading books, magazines, newspapers, and so on. Thus, it
can be said that culture is the product of a certain community which is caused by
life experience of the individuals, expressed through language.
Talking about culture, it can be separated from ‘mark’ since marks connect
words with human life experience which are expressed through language which
sometimes has denotative and connotative meaning.
But as a sign, a word also relates to other words that give it a particular
value in the verbal text or co-text. Words refer to other words by a variety of
cohesive devices that holds a text like pronoun, demonstrative, repetition. Semantic
cohesion depends on discourse community’s communal associations across
stretches of talk or of the text. The meaning of words cannot be separated from
36
other words with which they have come to be associated in the discourse
community’s semantic pool (Kramsch, 1998).
2.6 Previous Studies on the Shift of Cohesion in the Translation of some Texts
There are some relevant researches in the works of shift of cohesion in the
translation of the text from Indonesian to English.
Noverino (2010) has done the research on “The translation of English
Implicit Meaning into Indonesian in the novel, One Two Buckle My Shoe. There are
some implicit referential meaning, implicit organizational meaning, and
implicit
situational meaning is translated into Indonesian.
Toussi and Jangi (ISSN 2249: 327-334), explore the issue of cohesion shift
in translating English medical text into Persian. The study revealed that shift of
cohesion are evident in translation English medical texts into Persian and cohesion
is in area where explicitness is evident. Both studies give contribution to the
researcher about explicit and implicit meaning. They are very beneficial for her in
analyzing the data.
Djamila (2010-84) conducted the research in the topic of Shifts in
Translating Lexical Cohesion from Arabic to English: The case of first year master
students of English at Mentouri University of Constantine. She used quantitative
and qualitative approaches. In the quantitative approach she found that there were
shifts including, grammatical forms, structures, functions, and meanings. In
qualitative approaches she found shifts which have great affect on target text
meaning and cohesion. This idea helps the researcher find out the distribution
related to the analysis of language structure.
37
The topic of shift of cohesion which is entitled Shift of Cohesion and
Coherence in Translation of The second Life of Bree Tunner into Kisah Singkat
Bree Tunner as the research done by Jelita (2013) Udayana University, pointed out
that there were two kinds of shift, namely, cohesion shift in the level of explicitness
and shift in text meaning, and coherence shift form and function and generic word
with descriptive phrase. The topic which is still related to this research was the
dissertation, entitled Pergeseran Makna Tekstual dalam Terjemahan Teks Popular,
“See You at the Top,” by Risnawati (2011), University of Sumatera Utara. The
dissertation found a finding about 10 types of the shifts of textual meaning from the
source text (English) to the target language (Indonesian). They included the shifts
from plural form to singular form, repetition of adjectives, grammatical cohesive
device, suffixes pun and lah, lexical cohesive device, field of meaning, collocation,
Modifier-Headword structure which becomes Headword-Modifier, transposition,
and conjunction shifts. All these types of shift indicate a narrowing of meaning and
generalization of meaning in the process of translation.
Both ideas can help the
research in understanding the theory cohesion and coherence.
Shift in Translation or Translation Shift is an article which analyzes the
incidence of a shift in translation or explains about the stages in translation which is
related to shifts from a source language to a target language. Besides that, there are
several theories which support it, and one of them discusses the shifts in cohesion
and the shifts in cohesive markers which influence the process of translation,
referring to two levels: explicit level and implicit level, both in the shift level which
is higher and the shift level which is lower (articlebase.com/non-fiction-article/shiftin-translation2116778html?en). Besides that, it was said that cohesion shift is
38
meaning adjustments, of meaning components in textual relationships of a shared
or known concept in a different linguistic system of two languages.
Adhi. S (2011) in his thesis, entitled An Analysis of Cohesion and
Coherence in Animal Farm and Their Translability and Untranslability into
Persian (www.scribd.com/doc-110947493/cohesi-dan-coherenci) draws on the
model of cohesion in English by Halliday and Hasa(1976) to study and analyze the
syntactic cohesive devices and collocational relation of three Persian texts. It
further draws on the model of Hoey (1991) to study lexical cohesive devices in
Persian. Newmark’s (1988) ideas of literal / free and over- / under-translation, and
Kulka in Venuti’s (1986) ideas on shift of cohesion and coherence are also
employed. The study has shown that Halliday and Hasan’s model is inclusive and is
adequate to handle the Persian cohesive syntactic devices. Hoey’s model also
seems to be adequate to analyze the lexical relations in the corresponding Persian
versions. It is also found that the change of cohesion and coherence in some cases
have led to explicitness thus conforming to the ideas of Kulka in Venuti (1986).
Ali Beikian et all (2013: Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran ) in
his
study
which
was
published
in
the
Journal,
URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ells.v3n2p81 was to test the explicitation hypothesis
according to Kulka in Venuti (1986) and the model which was followed for the
analysis of conjunctive relations was that of Halliday and Hasan (1976). The results
of the investigation indicated that the processes of explicitation, implicitation, and
also the meaning change were observed in the corpus, although explicitation took a
bigger portion in the target text.
39
Pym (2005) explains that the general idea that translations tend to be more
explicit than non-translations (the broad “explicitation hypothesis”) is one of the
few apparent discoveries that have been made by translation studies. He further
points out in his research that in its wider formulations, the explicitation hypothesis
nevertheless remains hampered by conceptual imprecision and idealisms of stable
meaning, as if there were just one thing, obvious to all, that could then be made
explicit or implicit. Explicitation takes place, for example, when a SL [sourcelanguage] unit of a more general meaning is replaced by a TL [target-language] unit
of a more special meaning; the complex meaning of a SL word is distributed over
several words in the TL; new meaningful elements appear in the TL text; one
sentence in the SL is divided into two or several sentences in the TL; or, when SL
phrases are extended or “elevated” into clauses in the TL, etc.
40