CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background
of the study, statement of the problems,
objectives of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation, and operational definition of the key terms.
1.1 Background of the study Baker (1992:180-212)
includes cohesion in the study of textual equivalence defining it as the network of
lexical, grammatical, and other relations which provide links between various parts of a
text. However, each and every language
uses them in different patterns which should be taken into account when translating and may require omissions,
additional explanations, paraphrasing, etc (in other words, word for word doesn't always
work and textual equivalence may require
a use of different from the original cohesive patterns).
According to Halliday and Hasan
(1976:10) cohesion refers to the range
of possibilities that exists for linking something with what has gone before.
Since this linking is achieved
through relations in meaning, what is in question is the set of meaning relations which function in
this way: the semantic resources which
are drawn on for the purpose of creating text.
There are many devices which give
cohesion to a text. The particular device
which is used, and even the ways in which they are used, will vary from language to language. Such cohesion devices as
pronouns, substitute words, verb affixes,
deictic, pro-verb, conjunctions, special particles, forms of topicalization, and so forth.
2 Halliday and Hasan (Baker,1992:180-204) make a
detailed classification of the cohesive
devices in English. They identify five main cohesive devices in English: reference is the relation
between an element of the text or something
else by reference to which it is interpreted in the given instance. It is potentially cohesion relation because the
thing that serves the source of the interpretation
may be element of text. Substitution is the replacement of one item by another. Ellipsis is the omission of an
item. In other word, in ellipsis, an item is replaced by nothing. This is case of leaving
something unsaid which is nevertheless
understood. Conjunction involves the use of formal markers to relate sentences, clauses and paragraph to each
other. Then, lexical cohesion, which is divided
into: reiteration, is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, at the one end
of the scale; the use of general word to refer back to a lexical item, at the other end
of the scale; and a number of things in between
the use of synonym, near-synonym, or superordinate, and collocation, it covers any instance which involves a pair of
lexical items that are associated with each
other in the language in the some way According
to Mulyana (2005:26) explains that cohesive devices used in Indonesian included reference or
pronominal, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. The reference cohesive
devices are endophoric and exophoric reference.
The substitution cohesive devices mean a process and result of replacing one aspect of language to
another. The substituted constituents are usually in the form of words; whereas
substituting constituent are usually in the form of phrases. Next is ellipsis, the deleted
element which generally functions as the
subject of the clause or sentences. The type of conjunctions as cohesive 3 devices
comprises coordinative and subordinative conjunction, and conjunctions between sentences. The type of lexical
cohesion comprises reiteration and collocation.
The goal of translation is to
establish a relationship of equivalence between
the source and the target texts, while talking into account a number of constraints. These constraints include
context, the rules of grammar of the source language, its writing conventions, its idioms
and like that (Baker, 2001:77).
Baker (1992:180) extends the
concept of equivalence to cover similarity
in souece text (ST) and targettext (TT) information flow and in the cohesive role ST and TT devices play in their
respective text. She calls these two factors
combined textual equivalence. Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a source language (SL)
text and a target language (TL) text in
terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful
guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his
or her attempt to produce a cohesive and
coherent text for the audience in a specific context.
Catford (in Baker,2005:78) makes
a distinction between “formal correspondence”
and “textual equivalent”. First, formal correspondent is any TL category, which may be said to occupy, as
nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the
system hierarchy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.
Second, textual equivalence is
any TL form which is observed to be equivalent of a given SL form. As additional, SL and TL
texts or items are translational equivalents
when they are interchangable in a given situation”.
4 As a translators are able to
transfersuccessfully the textual equivalent from the source to target text, it requires
them to have knowledge to identify the cohesion
its self. Without such knowledge it is difficult to work out the interpretation of the cohesion and the
represent of cohesive devices in the source text to target text. Procedures are used to
deliver the source message and to get equivalent
effect for the readers.
Translation procedure is some
ways used by translator in translating language,
or it is also called translation strategies. Some experts give several strategies or procedures in translating SL
into TL. Such as Baker (1992:26-42 ) provides
strategies which are used to solve their various problems; (a) translation by more general word (superordinate), (b)
translation by a more neutral/less expressive
word, (c) translation by cultural substitution, (d) translation by loan word or loan word plus explanation, (e)
translation by using paraphrasing using related
word, (f) translation by using paraphrasing using unrelated word, (g) translation by omission, and (h) translation
by illustration.
According to Vinay and Dabelnet
(in Hatim and Munday,2004:148-151) there are two general translation
strategies, namely direct translation and oblique translation. Both strategies reveal
seven procedures, of which the direct translation
encompasses three: (1.) borrowing,(2.) calque, (3.) literal translation, and oblique translation includes (4.)
transposition, (5.) modulation, (6.) equivalence,
and (7.) adaptation.
Newmark (1988:68-89) goes on to
refer to the following procedures of
translation. Those are (1.) literal translation, (2.) transference, (3.) naturalization, (4.) cultural equivalence,
(5.) functional equivalence, (6.) 5 descriptive equivalence, (7.) synonym, (8.)
through translation, (9.) shifts or transposition,
(10.) modulation, (11.) recognized translation, (12.) translation label, (13.) compensation, (14.) componential
analysis, (15.) reduction and expansion,
and (16.) paraphrase.
Because every language has its
own devices for establishing cohesive link,
the particular device which is used, and even the ways in which they are used, will vary from language to language.
Such cohesive devices as reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction, and soforth, if translated one-for-one from SL into TL, will almost certainly distort the
meaning intended by the original author.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar