chapter ii review of literatures, concepts, … ii.p… · that have something to do with...
Post on 27-Apr-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK, AND RESEARCH MODEL
1.1 Review of Literatures
Several articles and thesis concerning the field of translation studies are
reviewed in this chapter. These works provides some insights into various concepts
that have something to do with translation and terms of address analysis.
The thesis from Liswahyuningsih (2011) entitled “Indonesian V-V
Constructions in “Laskar Pelangi and their translations in “The Rainbow Troops” is
reviewed. This thesis is focused on the types of V-V constructions found in the novels
and the shifts in V-V construction found in the novel. She used the theory of verb in
English grammar and theory of shifts in translation by Catford (1965). To identify the
types of V-V constructions, the data were analyzed based on the semantic contribution
to the verbs construction and their equivalents. In analyzing the varieties of shift found
in translating the Indonesian V-V construction, the data were analyzed syntactically
and grammatically to show the structural differences of the constructions between
Indonesian and English. This study results in two types of shift in the translation of
Indonesian V-V construction into English found in the data source, they are
transposition; that can be divided into unit shift, category shift, and structure shift; and
the second is modulation; that can be divided into lexical loose and lexical dense.
This study is seen as appropriate reference to be used for this study especially
to see how to analyze shift in translation. The relevancies of this thesis for the further
study are the way this study classified the type of shift and how this study use the theory
of shift in translation by Catford (1965) to analyze shift in translation. Both the thesis
and this study use theory of shift and analyze what type of shift occurred in the
translation. The differences between the thesis with this research are the thesis only
analyzed the Indonesian V-V construction shift in English – Indonesian novel
grammatically while this proposal is focused on analyzing the shift of terms of address
in Balinese-English translation. This study is also analyzes the power and solidarity
semantic using the theory of attitude in appraisal theory supported by the theory of
power and solidarity in sociolinguistics by Brown and Gilman, while the previous study
only analyze the shift grammatically and syntactically. The benefit of using this study
as a reference is that it can give the sight in using the theory of shifts in translation
theory to analyze the data and how to sort the corpus data for this study.
The second study is from Arka (2005) entitled Speech Levels, Social Predicates
and Pragmatic Structure in Balinese: a Lexical Approach. This paper accounts for the
interaction between syntax and semantics/pragmatics in the speech styles of Balinese.
The analysis makes use of an explicit representation that accounts for the co-occurrence
restrictions on linguistic expressions which are imposed by social information
associated with the speech level system. It is proposed that social information be
treated in terms of social predicates and modeled using LFG-style parallel structures.
The social predicates are contained in what is called pragmatic structure (prag-str). It
is demonstrated that this approach can account for the plain as well as
the(dis)honouring use of linguistic forms in Balinese. This article is used for reference
because it provides detail information about Balinese speech level and how the
Balinese terms of address is used. This paper also shows the pragmatic agreement in
Balinese language, especially in social hierarchy and terms of address. It has shown
how the traditional speech-level system can be captured in a lexically-based model of
grammar. Arka (2005) proposed that social information representing speech-
participant relations (SPEAKER, ADDRESSEE, and possibly the referent of the event
being talked about) is part of a layer called prag-str. The analysis treats the social
information associated with the speech-level system in Balinese as a form of social
predicate. The social predicate places a restriction on an index associated with an
argument of a head predicate or the SPEAKER or ADDRESSEE.
This study is seen as the appropriate and relevant reference for this study. The
benefit in taking this article as a reference is that the concept about social pragmatic
structure in Balinese terms of address can be known. This is very important as
background knowledge in analyzing the power and solidarity semantic in the
translation of terms of address from Balinese into English which have different
pragmatic agreement. The difference between the paper and this study is this paper is
a translation study which use translation theory to analyze terms of address from two
different languages (Balinese and English) while the paper is not a translation study
and only analyze about terms of address in Balinese language using syntax and
pragmatics theory. Other difference is the paper is analyzing the terms of address more
from the syntax and pragmatic approach, which is in this study, the terms of address
will be analyzed from sociolinguistics approach using appraisal theory.
The next study is from an article entitled Signaling Politeness, Power, and
Solidarity through Terms of Address in Dagbanli by Salifu (2010). This study
identifies the key linguistic components in Dagbanli address forms: kinship terms,
names, and titles and discusses the social and cultural values attached to each. The
subject of this study is the Dagomba kin system in Dagbali, Northern Ghana. He used
the relationship between language and social relations by Brown and Levinson, and
also power and solidarity theory from Brown and Gilman. The address forms discussed
in this paper are generally predictable for people who know one another very well or
whose statuses are clearly defined by their age or position. In situations where these
variables are not so clearly defined the choices available to speakers are varied and
unpredictable and depend on the speaker’s attitude towards the addressee or his or her
view of the situation.
This study is used as a reference because of its relevance with the study; it
analyzes terms of address and also power and solidarity in sociolinguistics. The
differences are, this study conducted in only one language environment, Dagbali
language and it is only analyzed the power and solidarity through the rules of the
language (relationship between one person and the others) while this study conducted
in two language environments, Balinese and English. It is also analyzed the power and
solidarity not only from the Brown and Gilman’s theory, but also from the dimensions
of addresser attitude, by attitude in appraisal theory. This will produce a deeper
analysis especially in the equivalency of power and solidarity semantic in source and
target language.
The fourth study is from an article entitled The Analysis of Persian Terms of
address based on the Theory of Politeness by Moghaddom et. al. (2013). This study
examines the Persian terms of address based on the theory of politeness in three distinct
historical periods of Qajar (1791 – 1925), Pahlavi (1926 – 1979), and after the Islamic
revolution. This study used the theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987)
supported by Holms (1992). This study results in: Persian terms of address of different
historical periods are clearly divided into positive and negative types. Since terms of
address are believed to manifest social relationships as well as social changes, this set
shows different types of addition, deletion, and change in frequency in line with similar
changes in society, such as launching new jobs and occupations as well as improvement
in education. All types of positive terms of address including ‘personal names’, ‘terms
of intimacy’ and ‘kinship terms’ have increased in number. Negative terms of address
of ‘occupational’ and ‘zero terms of address’ have increased in frequency while ‘titles
of honorifics’, ‘educational and cultural’ and also ‘teknonyms’ show to have decreased
in frequency.
This study is seen as a relevant reference because it analyzes terms of address
in Persian language. The benefit in using this study as a reference is that the concept
of politeness in using terms of address can be known. This is important for the
background knowledge how people use terms of address in general and how it can
show politeness and cultural value attached in the language. The difference are this
study is only analyzes this study conducted in only one language environment, Persian
language trough the politeness theory in sociolinguistics. My research conducted in
two language environments, Balinese and English, as a translation study. It is also
analyzed the power and solidarity from the dimensions of addresser attitude, by attitude
in appraisal theory supported by Brown and Gilman’s power and solidarity in
sociolinguistics. This will produce a deeper analysis especially in the equivalency of
power and solidarity semantic in source and target language.
The last study is from an article written by Brata (2013) entitled “Exploring
Power and Solidarity Semantic in Translation of Bible’s Cultural Terms of Address”.
This study is focused on analyzing the power and solidarity semantic in translating
terms of address in the bible from English to Balinese. He used Appraisal Theory from
Martin (2000) and takes the segment Attitude from appraisal theory from Hope and
Read (2004) and Hong (2007). This study shows how power and solidarity semantic
implemented in the translation of terms of address and how shift of meaning triggered
by the addressers’ attitude in situational context.
This study is seen as an appropriate and relevant reference to be used for this
study because this study analyze the same smallest unit, terms of address, and show
how to analyze the power and solidarity semantic in translation. The former study is
also a good reference to know how the appraisal theory applied in analyzing the
translation the terms of address. The former study shows that how context of situation
can influence the use of the terms of address, which also may be found a lot in this
study. The difference is that my research proposal is not only focused in power and
solidarity semantic, but also the shifts in translation. This research will also map the
terms of address in English and Balinese based on the honorific and non-honorific
level.
1.2 Concepts
Three concepts are used in this study; the concept of Balinese terms of address,
the concept of power and solidarity, and the concept of equivalence in translation.
These three concepts are the most appropriate and related to the topic and problems of
the study.
1.2.1 Balinese Terms of Address
In general, terms of address are “words and phrases used for addressing
someone. They refer to collocutors and thus contain strong elements of deixis” (Braun,
1988:5). The emotions, feelings, and even the cultural background of the participants
can be seen from the terms of address used by the addresser (1st person) to address the
addressee (2nd person) or the person being spoken (3rd person).
In Balinese society, terms of address take an important role to increase the
degree of politeness. Apart from personal pronoun, Balinese terms of address also
include names, kinship terms, and occupation (Suastra, 1996:34). Balinese terms of
address are complicated. The selection of the address norms is determined by social
status and other social variables such as age, sex, generation, and so on (suastra,
1996:28). Caste systems also strongly influence the use of terms of address.
There are two factors which affect the application of the caste system in
Balinese society; namely warna ‘colour’ and title. The concept of ‘warna’ is more
importantly related to Hindu religion based on Karma (job or duty) and Guna (talent)
(Widja, 1986:81, Wiana & Santri, 1993:12, cited in Suastra, 1996:3). The notion of
the concept of title is primarily based on hereditary and endogamy (Suastra, 1996:3).
Brown and Gilman (1960) give a concept determined by “power and solidarity
semantic”. They introduced two variants, T for the familiar or intimate relationship
between speaker and addressee, while V designates a polite or distant form (Brown and
Gilman, 1960:255).
Tinggen (1995) defined Balinese language as three levels: basa alus, basa
kapara/andap, basa kasar. Basa alus (polite language) is divided into four: alus
singgih, alus madya, alus sor, and alus mider. Alus singgih is used to place someone
to be higher than us based on their caste or their job, mostly used to speak to God, priest
or someone from royal family (example: Ida nyingakin, nyuryanin (see)). Alus madya
is used when we talk to someone who has higher position than us but less honorable
than alus singgih, and the form is the derivative from alus singgih (example: tiang (I),
sampun (already)). Alus mider is the polite language that can be used in any social
status or social situation and have more neutral sense than alus singgih and alus madya
(example: rauh (come), eling (remember), lemat (knife)). Alus sor is used to ‘lower’
ourselves from the addressee or to place ourselves in lower position in the
communication (example: titiang (I), nunas (eat), peningalan (eyes)). Basa kepara is
the daily language that is used to someone who has close relation to us (example:
“Lakar kija, Tu?” (where are you going, Tu?)). Lastly is basa kasar, which used in
cursing or when we are angry (example: kikil (feet), polo (head)). The former
relationship between speaker and addressee of different status may be asymmetrical
seen from the T-V (tu-vous) distinction. In T-V distinction, T used in non-honorific
addressing for someone while V used in honorific addressing. For example, A gives
V to B and receives T that shows B has higher position than A. Later is a relationship
between speaker and addressee of equal status. It is also called symmetrical
relationship. For example A gives T to B and receives T which shows that they are in
the same position/social status (Brown and Gilman, 1960:254). Balinese, however, has
more than two variants like explained above, which has more than one variation of T
and V. The pattern of Balinese terms of address across castes can be seen from the
following picture:
(Adopted from Suastra, 1996:29)
The terminology might be extended to T, V1, V2, or in fact it may be extended
to T1/T2 and V1/V2, where the connotation of a V pronoun is very dependent on the
status of the other participant (Suastra, 1996:28). The use of Balinese terms of address
can be seen from the following table that shows a nonreciprocal relationship among
castes in Balinese language:
Brahmana
V2 V1
Ksatria
Ksatria
V2 T2/V1
Sudra
Brahmana
V2 V1
Wesia
Wesia
V1 T2/V1
Sudra
Ksatria
V2 V1
Wesia
Brahmana
V2 V1
Sudra
Balinese Terms of Address Variations
Personal
Pronoun
Variants English
Gloss T1 T2 V1 V2
1st pronouns Kai Icang
Cang
Waké
Tiang Titiang for
humble
‘I’
2nd pronouns Iba
Nani
Cai
(male)
Nyai
(female)
Ragané
Jero
Cokeridéwa
Ratu, atu
‘you’
3rd pronouns Poloné
Ia
Ia dané Ida for
refined,
ipun for
humble
‘s/he’
(Adopted from Suastra (1996:30))
The concept of Balinese terms of address from Suastra (1996) and Tinggen
(1995) that has explained above are used in this study to define what and how the
Balinese terms of address is.
1.2.2 Power and Solidarity Semantic
Another type of social relations encoded in language is social distance or
closeness between individuals, or relations of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’. Brown and
Gilman (1960) argue that in some European languages, beyond the deictic functions of
the second person pronouns tu (T) or vous (V), there are in the choice of either pronoun,
signals of relationships of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’, where ‘power’ reflects relative
superior status, social distance, unfamiliarity, and deference, and ‘solidarity’ reflects
closeness, familiarity, common experiences and shared intimacies.
Brown and Gilman (1960:25) stated that:
(1) The power of semantic refers to the nuance of meaning implied by the form
of linguistic variation chosen in the asymmetrical relation between the
addresser and the addressee. Such an asymmetrical relation causes the non-
reciprocal terms of address to vary: Non Honorific, or Honorific-Non-Honorific
in the TL.”
(2) The solidarity semantic refers to the nuance implied by the form of
linguistic variation chosen in the symmetrical relation between the addresser
and the addressee. Such a symmetrical relation causes the forms of linguistic
variants reciprocal: Non Honorific, or Honorific – Honorific in the TL.”
Braun (1988) adopted the model from Brown and Gilman and collected data
from 30 languages. She agrees that power and solidarity are universal features of
address forms. She then proposed the statement below:
Whenever variants expressing intimacy, juniority, low social status, or
inferiority are employed, they can signal—if not mutual intimacy—juniority,
low status, or inferiority of either speaker or addressee (or both) (Braun,
1988:35).
The definition of power and solidarity used in this study is the definition Brown
and Gilman (1960) to differentiate between address forms which show power or
solidarity pronouns in the text.
1.2.3 Equivalence in Translation
Equivalence is the most important thing in doing translation. According to
Brata (2014), a text is stated to be a translation if it is equivalent with another text (SL
text). They are not only equivalent in message but also in form. In particular cases,
form equivalence in the micro level can be created. A metaphor, for example should
be translated into metaphor in SL. However, if it is not possible, it can be translated
literally provided the message it contains the same (Brata, 2014:9). Baker (1992)
classifies equivalent into five levels; they are word, phrase, grammatical, textual, and
pragmatic (cited in Brata, 2014:9).
The concept of equivalence in translation by Brata (2014) and Baker (1992)
above are used in this study to define what equivalence in translation is.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
Theories used in this study are explained in this part. According to the problems
of the study, there are two main theories used: Appraisal Theory by Martin (2000) and
the theory of shifts in translation (Catford, 1965) and some related theories about power
and solidarity semantic and shifts in translation are also used in this study to support
the main theories in analyzing the problems.
The Appraisal Theory proposed by Martin (2000) is used to analyze the first
problem, the sense of power and solidarity semantic conveyed in the translation of the
terms of address from Balinese into English in the text. Theory of shift in translation
by Catford (1965) supported by theory from Brata (2014) is used to analyze the second
problem, the types of shifts in translation occurred in the translation of the terms of
address from Balinese into English in the text. How the theories are used in analyzing
the problem are explained below after the explanation and description of each theory.
1.3.1 Appraisal Theory
Brown and Gilman (1960, cited in Braun, 1988:15) regarding to their concept
about power and solidarity semantic had introduced the symbols T and V (French Tu
and Vous) for the “familiar” second person pronoun and the “polite” pronoun. From
this, they introduce the concept of power and solidarity semantic. Power semantic can
be described as: Superior gives T and receives V, while inferior gives V and receives
T. Upper class speakers addressed each other with reciprocal V, lower class speaker
addressed each other with reciprocal T (Braun, 1988:15).
Later, the selection of T and V came to be determined by factors other than
power. The re-evaluation of social features is called “solidarity semantic”, led to
reciprocity of address with mutual T in the case of intimacy and mutual V in the case
of distance (Braun, 1988:15).
To analyze power and solidarity semantic in the translation of terms of address,
Appraisal Theory from Martin (2000) will be used. Appraisal theory can determine
the effect caused by the terms of address used by the addressee to addresser by the
classification of affect, appreciation, and judgment. By analyzing those effects, the
power and solidarity can be determined and analyzed specifically.
Martin along with White (2005) later developed the Appraisal Theory and made
the appraisal framework that describes a taxonomy of the language employed in
communicating evaluation, explaining how users of English convey attitude (emotion,
judgment of people and appreciation of objects), engagement (assessment of the
evaluations of other people) and how writers may modify the strength of their
attitude/engagement.
Appraisal consists of three subsystems that operate in parallel: attitude looks at
how one expresses private state (one’s emotion and opinions); engagement considers
the positioning of oneself with respect to the opinions of others and graduation
investigates how the use of language functions to amplify or diminish the attitude and
engagement conveyed by a text (Read, Hope, & Carroll, 2007:94):
The model of appraisal theory is shown on the picture below:
Overview of Appraisal Theory framework (Adapted from Martin and White, 2005)
ATTITUDE is the major subsystem in appraisal framework and is the
superordinate term for evaluative language in attitudinal positioning in text. It has three
sub-systems: AFFECT (emotional response – like, fear etc), JUDGEMENT
(evaluation of human behaviour – corruptly, skilfully etc.), APPRECIATION
(evaluation of entities – beautiful, striking etc.)
The Attitude sub-system describes three areas of private state: emotion,
ethics and aesthetics. An attitude is further qualified by its polarity (positive or
negative). Affect identifies feelings—author’s emotions as represented by their
text. Judgement deals with authors’ attitude towards the behaviour of people;
how authors applaud or reproach the actions of others. Appreciation considers
the evaluation of things—both man-made and natural phenomena (Read, Hope,
& Carroll, 2007:94)
Referring to power and solidarity semantic terms of address, the two meanings
mentioned above can be explored from the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the
addresser’s attitude. Martin (2000:160) classifies attitude into three dimensions the
affect, appreciation, and judgment.
In the development of the Appraisal Theory, Hope and Read (2004) and Hong
(2007) classify the affect, appreciation, and judgment into several subsections as can
be seen in the following table:
Attitude in Appraisal Theory
Adapted from Hope and Read (2004), Hong (2007), and Brata (2011)
ATTITUDE
Affect In/Security:
(Emotion of Eco-social well-being)
[+] confidence
[+] trust
[-] anxiety
[-] fear
Un/happiness
(affair of the heart)
[+] happiness
[+] love
[-] sadness
[-] anger
Dis/satisfaction
(emotions associated with the pursuit of
goals)
[+] curiosity
[+] respect
[-] envy
[-] displeasure
Appreciation Reaction Impact
[+] exciting
[-] tedious
Quality [+] good
[-] nasty
Composition Balance [+] unified
[-] discordant
Complexity [+] simple
[-] simplistic
Valuation [+] profound
[-] shallow
Judgment Social Esteem Normality: how
unusual someone is
[+] fortunate
[-] hopeless
Capacity: how
capable someone is
[+] powerful
[-] weak
Tenacity: how
resolute they are
[+] resolute
[-] reckless
Social Sanction Veracity: how
truthful someone is
[+] truthful
[-] dishonest
Propriety: how
ethical someone is
[+] ethical
[-] immoral
The three dimensions of attitude (affect, appreciation, and judgment) are related
to the addresser’s feeling for the addressee or someone spoken about. According to
Brata (2011), affect expressing the feeling of a person that refers to the addresser’s
personal emotion which is more subjective. Appreciation refers to the expression
provided by the addresser from what has been done by the addressee or someone.
Judgment is connected with how someone’s behavior closely related to the socio-
culture of the environment where he/she lives.
The terms of address are analyzed based on the concept of attitude in the model
of appraisal theory to describe the power and solidarity semantic in the Balinese version
and English version. The use of address terms in Balinese are compared to its
translation in English. In analyzing power and solidarity semantic, the relationship and
social status between speaker and addressee context of situation is used as the
measurement. Next, the power and solidarity semantic can be seen by analyzing these
aspects: the translation of the terms of address in English, does the context of situation
can be carried on from SL into TL, the equivalencies, does the sense of power and
solidarity semantic in the SL equivalent with the sense in TL, and the effect given in
the translation of the terms of address from Balinese into English. From the analysis
using the concept of attitude appraisal theory, the sense of power and solidarity
semantic in the Balinese terms of address and its translation can be known.
1.3.2 Theory of Shifts in Translation
The theory of shifts in translation is used to analyze the first problem about
shifts that occurred in the translation of terms of address from Balinese into English.
The main theory used is the theory of shifts in translation by Catford (1965) supported
by the development of the theory from Molina & Albir (2002) and Brata (2014).
Shift represents some changes occurring in a translation process. Translation
shifts occur both at the lower level of language, i.e. the lexicogrammar, and at the
higher thematic level of text. Catford (1965: 73) states that “by shift we mean the
departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from the source
language to the target language”. Further, he states that basically, in shift of translation,
or transposition he says, it is only the form that is changed. In addition, he urges “the
translation shift is done to get the natural equivalent of the source text message into the
target text” (Catford, 1965: 76). Translation shifts also occur when there is no formal
correspondence to the syntactic item to be translated (Machali, 1998: 3). According to
Bell (1991: 33), “to shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the
forms”.
Nida and Taber (1969: 171) say that “some of the most common shifts in
meaning found in the transfer process are modifications which involve specific and
generic meaning.” Such shifts may go in either direction from generic to specific or
specific to generic. A shift may result from the difference of the system in both
languages. The difference can be in the form of vocabulary or structure, the shift
caused by the vocabulary results in a shift in meaning.
Catford (1965:73) divides the shift in translation into two major
types, level/rank shift and category shift. Level/rank shift refers to a source language
item at one linguistic level that has a target language translation equivalent at a different
level. In other words, it is simply a shift from grammar to lexis. Besides the changes
of rank (unit-shifts), Catford (1965) also stated that there are also changes of structure,
changes of class, and changes of term in systems, etc. Some of these—particularly
structure-changes-—are even more frequent than rank-changes. (Catford, 1965:76) .
These kinds of changes belong to the Category Shifts. The category shift is divided
again by Catford (1965) into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift, and intra-system
shifts.
Later, Molina & Albir (2002) and Brata (2014) developed the theory of shifts
from Catford and categorize shifts in translation into two: transposition (change in
grammatical category) and Modulation (change in point of view). The categorization
is used in this study to classify and analyze the data.
1.3.2.1 Transposition Shifts
Transposition shift is the change in grammatical category and the development
of Category Shift by Catford (1965). “Category shift refers to departures from formal
correspondence in translation. What is meant by formal correspondence is any
grammatical category in the target language which can be said to occupy the same
position in the system of the target language as the given source language category in
the source language system” (Catford (1965) in Machali, 1998: 13). The category
shift is divided again by Catford (1965) into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift,
and intra-system shifts.
Transposition is the process where parts of speech change their sequence when
they are translated (Molina & Albir, 2002:511). It is in a sense a shift of word class.
Grammatical structures are often different in different languages and this may cause
shifts in grammatical structure. Brata (2014) also developed the theory of shifts in
translation and classify it into transposition and modulation shift.
Transposition or the shift in grammatical category is divided into four:
Structure shift, Unit Shift, Class Shift, and Intra System Shift. The explanation for
each is explained below:
1.3.2.1.1 Structure Shift
Structure shift is the changing of words sequence in a sentence. In grammar,
structure-shifts can occur at all ranks. The following English-Gaelic instance is an
example of clause-structure shift:
SL text John loves Mary = (John) S | ((loves) P | (Mary) C
TL text Tha gradh aig Jain air Mairi = (Tha gradh aig) P | (Jain) S | (air Mairi)
CA
A rank-bound word-word back-translation of the Gaelic TL text gives us: Is love at
John on Mary. (taken from Catford, 1965:77).
Another example of structure shift is adopted from Simanjuntak (2011):
Source Language Target Language
That pretty doll is bought by my cousin
yesterday
Boneka yang cantik itu dibeli oleh
sepupuku kemarin
“Pretty doll” with its pattern Adj + Noun is translated into “Boneka yang cantik” which
is Noun + which + modifier. Shift of structure is occurred in this sentence.
Brata (2014) divides transposition structural shift into two, and their usage
depends to the linguistic ethic or system and also the social factors that affect the
society of the target language. Structural shift is obligatory due to the linguistic factor,
and is optional due to the cultural factor (Brata, 2014:25). They are:
1. Linguistic Factor
Transposition structural shift based on the linguistic factors means a shift in
structure because of the different linguistic/grammatical system in source and target
language. In the process of translation, a person actually decodes the source language
and tries to find the equivalent meaning of the word phrases and symbols and produce
it in the target language. In the linguistic, equivalence is achieved if the target language
(in specific linguistic medium) carries the same intending meaning or message that the
language carries. One example of structural shift in linguistic factor is taken from Brata
(2014)
Source language Target language
Everyone was filled with fear and they
praised God. “A great prophet has
appeared among us!” and “God has come
to save his people!”
Sakancan anake punika sami pada
karesresan, raris ngluihang Ida Sang
Hyang Widhi Wasa, sapuniki
pangucapipune: “Ada nabi luih suba
mijil di pantaran iragane muah Ida Sang
Hyang Widhi Wasa suba rauh
ngrahayuang parakaulan Idane.”
It can be overtly seen that in SL the head “prophet” is preceded by the modifier
“great”. However, in the TL the head “nabi” is followed by the modifier “luih”. The
structural shift done by the translator is obligatory due to the two different linguistic
system for the sake of intelligibility (Brata, 2014:26).
2. Social Factor
In the process of translation, a person decodes the source language and find its
equivalence in the target language in its society which affected by its social
background, such as religions, political system, ethnicity, family values, physical
attributes (skin color, body type, etc), education, locality, its economic status, etc. the
shift caused by social factor is often optional for the sake of acceptability of the
translation product.
Source language Target language
Beelzebul, the chief of the demons Ratun Setan ane madan Beelsebul
(Adopted from Brata, 2014:26)
Every language has its own way in addressing someone. Here, theme is a
starting point of the message, and rheme is the development of the theme (Brata,
2014:27). In the example above, the theme Ratun setan are followed by the rhemes
ane madan beelsebul. The theme – rheme shift is optional due to the translator’s
preference.
1.3.2.1.2 Unit Shift.
Unit shift is the changes of rank; that is, departures from formal correspondence
in which the translation equivalent of a unit at one rank in the source language is a unit
at a different rank in the target language (Catford, 1965:79). Brata (2014) stated that
unit shift “results from the different amounts of meaning components between the SL
and TL. According to Catford (1965), Unit Shift means the changes of rank or unit. It
means that the departures from formal correspondence in which the translation
equivalent of a unit at one rank/unit in the SL is in a different rank/unit in the TL.
Transposition Unit Shift also can be divided into two according to Brata. They
depend to the linguistic system behind the languages, both SL and TL, and the cultural
factor, which is basically affected the terms of language used to express words in both
languages. The two subdivisions are:
1. High to Low
The definition of High to Low means that the transformations of rank changes
that occur from SL to TL is from a clause or phrase in SL into a word in TL. Or it can
be transformed from a clause in SL into a phrase or a word in TL. The translation has
to be processed by finding the equivalence between the word phrase in SL and the
phrase or clause in TL so that it will not be ungrammatical in both languages’ linguistic.
The shift from a low to high unit results from the TL that has less meaning components
than the SL.
2. Low to High
The definition of Low to High means that the transformation of rank changes
occurred from SL to TL is from a word in SL into a phrases or a clause in TL, or it can
be transformed from a word to a phrase in SL into a clause in TL. The transformation
has to be processed by finding the equivalence between the word and phrase in SL and
the phrase or clause in TL so that it will not be ungrammatical in both languages
linguistic system and culture.
Example:
Source language Target language
Widow (word) Eluh balu (phrase)
(adopted from Brata, 2014:28)
Unit shift from low to high unit means that the TL has more meaning
components than the SL. It can be seen from the example above, the word “widow” is
translated into “eluh balu”, a phrase.
1.3.2.1.3 Class shift.
Class shift occurs when the translation equivalent of a source language item is
a member of a different class from the original item. Catford (1965) gives one example
of class shift in his book: e.g. Eng. a medical student = Fr. un etudiant en medecine.
Here the translation equivalent of the adjective medical, operating at M, is the adverbial
phrase en medecine, operating at Q ((L’adjectif qualificatif (qualifying adjective) in
French defines people or things with a certain quality; Q-adjectives are numerous in
French, very rare in English.); and the lexical equivalent of the adjective medical is the
noun midecine. (Catford, 1965:79).
Class shift according to Brata (2014:29) is a change of word class. In
translation, some shifts occur in the realization of SL system and structures in the TL.
(Al – Zoubi & Al – Hassnawi, 2001). This belongs to the transposition class shift.
Example:
Source language Target Language
They were all amazed and said to one
another, “what kind of words are these?”
With authority and powerthis man gives
order to the evil spirits, and they come
out!
Anake sami pada angob, tur pada, pakisi
sapuniki: “Beh, aeng sidin pangandikan
Idane.” Aji kawibawan muah kawisesan
Ida mrentah setane ento, tur setane pesu
uli sig anake ento!
(Adopted from Brata, 2014)
From the TL pronoun system it can be seen that there was a change in the word
class from the propositional noun “this man” into the expressive pronoun “Ida” (3rd
pronoun: honorific refined form) employing the TL speech level. This shift is
obligatory; otherwise, it will not be acceptable to the TL norm and cultural value.
1.3.2.1.4 Intra system Shift
Intra-system shift refers to the shifts that occurs internally, within the system;
that is for those cases where the source and the target language possess systems which
approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation
involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the target language system (Catford,
1965:80). This kind of shift often occurs in the translation from English into French
especially in singular/plural system, for example we say in English the case (singular)
or the cases (plural), but in French we use the correspondence le cas/les cas. Here are
other examples taken from Catford where the translation equivalent of English singular
is French plural or vice versa that show the shift in intra system:
Source language (English) Target language (French)
Advice (singular)
News (singular)
Trousers (plural)
The dishes (plural)
des conceils (plural)
des nouvelles (plural)
le pantalon (singular)
le vaisselle (singular)
Source: Catford (1965:80)
2.3.2.2 Modulation Shift
Modulation is a shift in point of view. Whereas transposition is a shift between
grammatical categories, modulation is a shift in cognitive categories. Vinay and
Darbelnet (in Molina and Albir, 2002:499) postulate eleven types of modulation:
abstract for concrete, cause for effect, means for result, a part for the whole,
geographical change, etc., e.g., the geographical modulation between encre de Chine
and Indian ink; Indian ink was first invented in China, although the source of materials
to make the carbon pigment in India ink was later often traded from India, thus the
term Indian ink was coined (Smith, 1992:23). French, however, prefer to called it encre
de Chine referring to the origin of the ink. Encre de chine and Indian ink, though, are
the same thing.
Molina & Albir also defines that “modulation consists of using a phrase that is
different in the source and target languages to convey the same idea. It changes the
semantic and shifts the point of view of the source language (Molina & Albir,
2002:510)” Through modulation, the translator generates a change in the point of view
of the message without altering meaning and without generating a sense of
awkwardness in the reader of the target text. For example, He will soon be back
translated into Spanish as No tardará en venir, changing the adverb soon for the verb
tardar, instead of keeping the adverb and writing: Estará de vuelta pronto (Molina &
Albir, 2002: 511). Modulation shift is a kind of shift that is caused by different point
of view between source language and target language which the concept is unknown
in the target language. Modulation is a variation of the form of the message, obtained
by a change in the point of view. “This change can be justified when, although a literal,
or even transposed, translation results in a grammatically correct utterance, it is
considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL” (Vinay & Dalbernet,
2000:89). According to Molina & Albir (2002:510), “to change the point of view,
focus or cognitive category in relation to the ST; it can be lexical or structural, e.g., to
translate فل ط جاب إلن ب تذاه as you are going to have a child, instead of, you are going أن
to be a father.”
Brata (2014) stated that there is a shift in translation caused by differences in
point of view, called Modulation. There are three types of modulation according to
Brata that will be used in analyzing the data in this study: lexical dense, lexical loose,
and emphasizing 2nd person role.
2.3.2.2.1 Lexical dense
The lexical density of a text tries to measure the proportion of the content
(lexical) words over the total words (Liswahyuningsih, 2011:34). Lexical dense makes
the meaning become more explicit in the text.
Example:
SL Where is your faith
Where question
TL Apa kranane cening tusing percaya teken Guru
What caused you not (-) believe with teacher
Why question
(Adopted from Brata, 2014:31)
In the SL, it starts with the lexical item where and positive structure but in the
TL, it starts with why and followed by negative structure. The addition of Guru might
make the implicit meaning explicit. (Brata, 2014:31).
2.3.2.2.2 Lexical loose
In lexical loose, the form of the text is more simplified in lexical. Instead of
making the meanings of words easy to understand, lexical loose is precisely hides them
behind the terms and uses less words than usual. This often found in poetry, novels,
and script.
Example:
SL You fool!
Pronoun
TL Jlema belog
Noun
(Adopted from Brata, 2014:32)
In this example, the explicit information was made implicit by changing the specific
subordinate you as a person into the generic superordinate jlema (human). (Brata,
2014:32)
2.3.2.2.3 Emphasizing 2nd person role
This kind of shift is emphasizing the 2nd person as the addressee in target
language what is his/her role in the conversation.
Example:
SL be afraid of him
(nil)
TL Ida ane patut takutin cening
He who deserved fear son
3rd person 2nd person
(adopted from Brata, 2014:33)
In SL, there are no 2nd person pronoun stated. The addition of ‘cening’ (son) in
the TL was meant to give more emphasis on the second pronoun as an actor (Brata,
2014:33).
From all theories and explanations about shifts in translation, the theory of
shifts from Catford (1965) is used to analyze the first problem in this study, supported
by other theories development that has stated above. The theory used in analyzing shift
that happened in the translation of the terms of address, both from linguistic factor or
social factor. The Balinese terms of address and its translation in English is compared
and analyzed which type of shift it belongs to; whether it belongs to shift in
grammatical (transposition) or shift in point of view (modulation).
2.4 Research Model
In order to give the detailed picture of the entire series of the way how this study
was conducted, it is considered to be important to feature it into diagram:
For the first problem, the power and solidarity semantic in each data was
analyzed and described thoroughly using the appraisal theory. The field of discourse
from the statement was determined, as well as the participants and the role of the
discourse. The terms of address variations in English version and Balinese version
were analyzed. From this, the data could be classified whether it belongs to affect,
SOURCE TEXT TARGET TEXT
TRANSLATION OF TERMS
OF ADDRESS FROM
BALINESE INTO ENGLISH
The power and solidarity semantic
in translating the terms of address
Appraisal Theory
(Martin, 2000)
FINDINGS
Types of shifts occurred in the
translation of terms of address
Shifts in Translation
(Catford, 1965)
appreciation, or judgment and which one shows the power or solidarity semantic and
the reason why based on the effect in the diagram of attitude theory.
Appraisal theory was used to analyze the power and solidarity in the terms of
address because it can determine the effect caused by the terms of address used by the
addressee to addresser by the classification of affect, appreciation, and judgment. By
analyzing those effects, the power and solidarity could be determined and analyzed
specifically.
In translating the second problem, types of shifts in translation occurred in the
translation of the terms of address from Balinese into English in the text, the theory
from Catford (1965) supported by other theory development about shifts in translation
were used. First, the data from source language and the target language were put side
by side between the SL and TL and the types of shifts occurred there were analyzed.
Then, the data was classified into the same categories of shift and were presented three
or four data in each category and the rest were put in the appendix. Next, the shifts of
translation were described below each presented data.
top related