LINGUISTIKA, MARET 2016

ISSN: 0854-9613

Vol. 23. No. 44

Componential Analysis of The Cultural Terms in The Bilingual Short Story Entitled Mati “Salah Pati” and Its Translation “The Wrong Kind of Death”

I Gusti Ayu Arnita e-mail: [email protected]

Program Magister Linguistik, Universitas Udayana

Ida Ayu Made Puspani

e-mail: [email protected]

Program Magister Linguistik, Universitas Udayana

Ni Luh Nyoman Seri Malini e-mail: [email protected] Program Magister Linguistik, Universitas Udayana

Abstrak—Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi hal budaya dalam teks bilingual Mati "Salah Pati" dan terjemahannya "The Wrong Kind of Death". Selanjutnya penelitian ini juga membahas tentang analisis komponen makna dari istilah budaya Bali dan terjemahannya ke bahasa Inggris dari sudut pandang orang asing. Komponensial mengacu pada deskripsi makna kata-kata melalui set fitur semantik yang terstruktur, yang ditandai dengan "ada (+)", "tidak ada (-)" atau "ada atau tidak ada (+/-)". Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif karena obyektifitas penelitian ini berkaitan erat dengan mengidentifikasi dan menjelaskan hasil analisis. Sumber data penelitian ini diambil dari sebuah cerita pendek du bahasa berjudul Mati "Salah Pati", ditulis oleh Gde Aryantha Soethama dan terjemahannya berjudul "The Wrong Kind of Death" yang diterjemahkan oleh Jennifer Lindsay.

Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa analisis komponen makna dalam terjemahan adalah perbandingan dasar dari kata bahasa sumber dengan kata bahasa target yang memiliki arti yang sama, tetapi tidak semua ekuivalen, dan dapat ditunjukkan dengan persamaan dan perbedaan. Dari empat jenis dasar fitur semantik, ada dua jenis fitur semantik dapat ditemukan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu elemen objek dan elemen acara. Analisis komponen makna juga menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada kata memiliki fitur yang sama persis dan makna yang sama, semua itu tergantung pada budaya masyarakat

Kata kunci—kata pinjaman, istilah fesyen

Abstract—This research aims at identifying the cultural terms in the bilingual text Mati “Salah Pati” and its translation “The Wrong Kind of Death”. Futhermore this research also discusses about componential analysis of Balinese cultural term and its translation to English from foreign point of view. The componential refers to the description of the meaning of words through structured sets of semantic features, which are given as “present (+)”, “absent (-)” or “indifferent with reference to feature (+/-)”. This research used descriptive qualitative method since the objectiveness of this research is closely related to identifying and describing the result of the analysis. The data source of this research was taken from a bilingual short story entitled Mati “Salah Pati”, written by Gde Aryantha Soethama and its translation entitled “The Wrong Kind of Death” translated By Jennifer Lindsay.

The result of the analysis shows that componential analysis in translation is the basic comparison of a source language word with a target language word which has a similar meaning, but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components. From the four basic types of semantic features, there are two types of semantic features can be found in this study, those are object element and event element. Componential analysis also shows that no word has the exactly same feature and same meaning, it is depend on the culture of the community Keywords—componential analysis, comparison, Balinese cultural terms, meaning

INTRODUCTION

Generally, translation is a process of rendering meaning ideas, or messages of a text from one language to other language. There are some considerations which follow this process, which mainly related to the accurancy, clarity and naturalness of the meaning ideas, or messages of the translation. It means that it is an important thing to consider whether the readers of the target text accept equivalent information as the readers of the source text do. These considerations are clarified in some definition stated by some experts. One of the most prominent definition is stated by Newmark (1988:5) who defines translation as “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text”. This definition stresses on rendering meaning of the source language text into the target language text as what is intended by the author. Nida and Taber (1982:12), on the other hand, state that “translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message”. Nida and Taber explicitly state that translation is closely related to the problems of languages, meaning and equivalence. Eugene Nida also defines translation as “reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” Translation as Catford (1965:20) puts it simply implies the “substitution or replacement of textual materials in one language by equivalent textual material in another language.” The concept of

equivalence however poses some problems because it can be interpreted in different ways. In equivalence, it is not only the word that is taken into consideration but the context is also considered. From the above definitions, we observe that meaning must be given priority in any translation activity because it is meaning that is constant and must be held as such; the form can change depending on the style of the translator or the text.

Finegan (2004: 181-182) distinguishes three types of meaning, i.e. linguistic, social, and affective meaning. Linguistic meaning encompasses both sense and reference. One way of defining meaning is to say that the meaning of a word or sentence is the actual person, object, abstract notion, event, or state to which the word or sentence makes reference. Referential meaning may be the easiest kind to recognize, but it is not sufficient to explain how some expressions mean what they mean. For one thing, not all expressions have referents. Social meaning is what we rely on when we identify certain social characteristics of speakers and situations from the character of the language used. Affective meaning is the emotional connotation that is attached to words and utterances. Palmer says that the total meaning of a word can be seen in terms of a number of distinct elements or components of meaning (1976: 85). Components have a distinguishing function and serve to distinguish the meaning of a lexeme from that of semantically related lexemes, or more accurately they serve to distinguish among the meanings of lexemes in the same semantic domain.

A word or lexeme presents a complex semantic structure. A lexeme is built up of smaller components of meaning which are combineddifferently to form a different lexeme. The meaning of a lexeme is a complicated structure where elements of meaning have definite interrelation (Crystal, 1987:104). All semantic elements in a word are not equally important. One (or some) of them is the dominant semantic element and it organizes around itself all the other ones, which may be more or less important for the meaning of a lexeme.

Translation is more than just a mere linguistics transfer and it is basically a process of transferring meaning from one language as source language to another as receptor language. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is written that the translation is the process of changing something that is written or spoken into another language (Hornby, 2005: 1632). In the transferring process, the main concern is the meaning of the source language, not the form. In that process there is some loss or gained information. To know what information are loss or gained, it can be used componential analysis. Componential analysis in translation is the basic comparison of a source language word with a target language word which has a similar meaning, but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing sense components (Newmark, 1988:115). Componential analysis is effective when it comes to representing similarities and differences among words with related meanings. Componential analisis is based on the presumption that the meaning of aword is composed of semantic components. So the essential features that form the meaning are elementary units on semantic level. By componential analysis, it is possible to state the smallest indivisible units of lexis or minimal component. Componential analisis is based on the presumption that the meaning of a word is composed of semantic components. So the essential features that form the meaning are elementary units on semantic level. By componential analysis, it is possible to state the smallest indivisible units of lexis or minimal

components (Aitchison, 2003: 92). Componential analysis is effective when it comes to representing similarities and differences among words with related meanings. Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analysis the structure of words meaning. Thus it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in the domain (Ottenheimer, 2006: 20).

Componential analysis is a way of formalizing and stating precisely the sense relations that hold among words. It involves analyzing the sense of the word into its components; therefore, an alternative term for componential analysis could be “lexical decomposition “(Lyons, 1981:76). It is a process of breaking down the sense of the word into its semantic features (Leech, 1981:89). By this process words can be defined componentially in terms of formula. These componential definitions reduce the word’s meaning into its ultimate contrastive elements. The dimensions of meanings are given (+ ,-) labelling system so that marked features carry (+) and unmarked features carry (-). These features are called also semantic components and they refer to the theoretical constructs which characterize the vocabulary of a language (Lehrer,1974:46). To describe the presence and absence of a feature binnary rules are used. The symbol ‘+’ means the feature is present, while ‘-‘ means the feature is absent (Saeed, 2009: 260).

Structural semantics and CA were patterned on the phonological methods of the Prague School, which described sounds by determining the absence and presence of features (Jackson, 1996: 80). The method thus departs from the principle of compositionality (Saeed, 2009: 265). The lexical decomposition (or componential) approach to lexical semantics became one of the most influential in the 1960-1970s. In this theory, word meanings were broken down into semantic primitives or semantic features and their specifications. According to Semantic field (or semantic domain) theory, lexemes can be classified according to shared and differentiating features. The semantic features explain how the members of the set are related to one another and can be used to

differentiate them from one another. The determination of such features has been called componential analysis (Kreidler, 2002: 87 and Wardhaugh, 1977:163). Newmark (1988) proposed that in translation the basic process of componential analysis is to compare source language with the target language words that have similar meaning but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent by showing their differing sense components or semes. Seme, the smallest unit of meaning recognized in semantics, refers to a single characteristic of sememes. These characteristic are defined according to the differences between sememes. Itcan be used to determine the minimal elements of the meaning, which enables someone to describe words multilingualy (Newmark, 1988: 115). In this theory, word meanings were broken down into semantic primitives or semantic features and their specifications. CA is a method typical of structural semantics which analyzes the structure of a words meaning. Thus, it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in the domain. This is a highly valuable approach to learning another language and understanding a specific semantic domainof an Ethnography. Furthermore, Leech (1981: 98) states “as a distinctive technique, componential analysis first evolved in anthropological linguistics as a means of studying relations between kinship terms, but it has since proved its usefulness in many spheres of meaning”. The semantic domain where componential analysis was first used with some success was kinship terminology.

Sense components have in different way been called as semantic features. Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analyses the structure of words meaning. There are three fundamental classes of semantic features. Those are; (1) the common features, those are the features shared by all the meaning being compared, (2) the diagnostic features, those are the features which distinguish the meaning of any set, and (3) the supplementary features, those are the additional features which are important to describe all the aspect of meaning but which may not be

strictly significant in contrasting a particular set of meaning (Nida, 1975:182). The four basic types of semantic features which are shared by the language being compared can be divided into: (1) object elements, (2) events elements, (3) relational elements, (4) Quality elements (Nida, 1975: 146). Related to the diagnostic features, a SL word may be distinguished from a TL word on the one hand in the composition, shape, size, and function of its referent, and on the other hand in its cultural context and connotations, as well as in its currency, period, social class usage, and its degree of formality (Newmark, 1988: 114). Componential analysis attempts to go far beyond bilingual dictionaries, all componential analyses arebased on SL monolingual dictionary, the evidence of informants, and the translator uderstanding of his own language (Newmark, 1988: 115). There are many different ways to approach the problems of meaning, since meaning is related to many different functions of language. The meanings of words in a language are interrelated and they are defined in part by their relations with other words in the language. Analyzed in the same semantic domain, words can be classified according to shared and differentiating features. Breaking down the sense of a word into its minimal distinctive features, componential analysis of meaning can be a useful approach in the study of meaning, particularly in determining the meaningof a lexeme. Although componential analysis has some difficulties and limitations in its application, it is still used in modern linguistics. Componential analysis is also limited in its range of applicability as it does not apply easily to all areas of the vocabulary. Semantic components, when they can be identified, have a discriminatory function and they add to our understanding of the meaning of a lexeme by providing points of contrast with semantically related lexemes. The meaning of a lexeme must also involve a number of perspectives, e.g. denotation, sense relations, and collocation.

Since in translating the text, translator does not simply translate a word from a source language into a target language but also the cultural context, componential analysis can be used to translate the

cultural terms that the reader is unlikely to understand. Term is a specific word that contains detail meaning. It refers to the description of the meaning of words through structured sets of semantic features, which are given as “present”, “absent” or “indifferent with reference to feature”.

The research on componential analysis is very significant therefore this research aims at identifying the cultural terms in the bilingual text Mati “Salah Pati” and its translation “The Wrong Kind of Death”. There are some points of significance of the study that should be recognized. The significances are: generally, this study will bring about the positive contribution to the development of translation, as the part of applied linguistic studies. The significant particularly in the production of translation of cultural terms expression into English.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The data in this study were taken from a bilingual short story entitled Mati “Salah Pati”, written by Gde Aryantha Soethama and its translation entitled “The Wrong Kind of Death” translated By Jennifer Lindsay. The source languange in this story is Bahasa Indonesia and the target language is English. In this story found many numbers of Balinese cultural terms are translated using a different meaning in the target language, that is become interesting to investigate the component analysis of the cultural terms in Balinese and its translation into English. There are many cultural terms in the data source which was very interesting and supporting. This research used descriptive qualitative method since the objectiveness of this research is closely related to identifying and describing the result of the analysis. The analyses were presented descriptively because the research uses qualitative research method. The table, “+”, “-”, and “+/-” symbol were used to do componential analysis. The “+” symbol was used in the table if the data show the presence of the semantic feature, the “-” symbol was used in the table if the data show the absence of the semantic feature, and the “+/-” symbol was used if

the data showed the indifference with reference to feature.

DISCUSSION

The analysis of the componential analysis in this study focused on cultural terms found in the bilingual short story entitled Mati “Salah Pati”, written by Gde Aryantha Soethama and its translation entitled “The Wrong Kind of Death” translated By Jennifer Lindsay. The finding of the componential analysis is presented as follows:

  • 1.    Term “Ngaben” and “Cremation”

The componential analysis of the term “Ngaben “ and “Cremation” is as follows:

(SL): Memang, ngaben akan menjadi tanggung jawab keluarga yang ditinggalkan, akan diurus oleh anak-anak. (sentence no. 12)

(TL): Of course the responsibility for it would lie with the family left behind, and the cremation would be organized by the children.

Table 1.1

The semantic features between “ngaben” and “cremation”

Semantic Features

Source Language Ngaben

Target Language Cremation

Event

+

+

Funeral

+

+

ceremony Burn the dead

+/-

+

body

Use Hindu

+

-

Balinese

offerings Done in the

+

+/-

cemetery

From the table of componential analysis between “ngaben” and “cremation” above, shows that ngaben is different with cremation because they showing their differing sense components. As Newmark (1988) proposed, “the basic process of componential analysis is to compare source language with the target language words that have similar meaning but not an obvious one-to-one

equivalent by showing their differing sense components”. It can be seen from the table above, ngaben and cremation has three differences and only two similarities. The first similarities is, ngaben and cremation are kind of event, second, ngaben and cremation are funeral ceremony. It shows by the (+) sign in both of them. The differences based on the table are ngaben is the event that not only done by burn the dead body, but also use the various kinds of Hindu Balinese offerings to complete the ngaben ceremony. The use of offerings in ngaben is really make ngaben different with cremation. Cremation does not use such Hindu Balinese offerings. It is only burn the dead body without offerings. Besides that, ngaben in Bali is always done in the cemetery, while cremation can be done in a cemetery and also a place that called crematorium.

  • 2.    Term “Tegal” and “Land”

The componential analysis of the term “Tegal “ and “Land” is as follows:

(SL): Sepuluh are tanah tegal yang terakhir sudah terjual tiga tahun silam. Anaknya ketiga, yang bungsu, menggunakannya untuk modal mendirikan toko kesenian di Ubud. (Sentence no. 15)

(TL): His last small plot of land was sold three years ago when his third and youngest son had sold the fields for capital to build an art shop in Ubud.

Table 1.2

The semantic features between “tegal” and “land”

Semantic Features

Source Language Tegal

Target Language Land

Object

+

+

Dry Place

+

+

Planted with

+

-

crops for daily

life

Depend on the

+

-

rainfall

From the componential analysis table between “tegal” and “land” above, it shows that tegal and land is different because they showing their differing sense components. As Newmark (1988) said “the basic process of componential analysis is to compare source language with the target language words that have similar meaning but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent by showing their differing sense components”. There are two similarities of tegal and land. Both tegal and land are belong to an object in the surface on the ground and dry place. It showed by the presence (+) sign in the table above. The differences are also two. Tegal in Bali is commonly planted with crops that can be used in every day life, such as banana tree, coconut tree, durian tree, rambutan tree, etc. Commonly Tegal is located near with the owner house, it also depend on the rainfall for the irigation. The land is not planted with crops, it is identic with grass and only a few of trees. The land is not depend on the rainfall.

  • 3.    Term “Balai Banjar” and “Community Pavilion”

The componential analysis of the term “Balai Banjar “ and “Community Pavilion” is as follows: (SL): Sore-sore ia suka menyendiri di sudut balai banjar. Sementara anak-anak muda bersuit-suit memanggil gadis-gadis pulang sekolah, Pekak Landuh termenung mencari akal untuk mendapat uang biaya ngaben. (Sentence no. 23) (TL): In the late afternoon he liked to be alone in the corner of the community pavilion. While the boys whistled at the girls going home from school, Old Landuh would be pondering ways to get the cremation money.

Table 1.3

The semantic features between “balai banjar” and “community pavilion”

Semantic Features

Source Language Balai Banjar

Target Language Community Pavilion

Object

+

+

Big building

+

+

Place for

+

-

meeting

Assembly point

+

-

Place for any

+/-

+

events or

performances Consist of

-

+/-

chairs

From the componential analysis between the term “Balai Banjar” and “community pavilion” above, it shows that balai banjar is different from community pavilion because they showing their differing sense components. As Newmark (1988) proposed, “the basic process of componential analysis is to compare source language with the target language words that have similar meaning but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent by showing their differing sense components” There are two similarities and four differences between Balai Banjar and community pavilion. The similarities are both balai banjar and community pavilion are an object, and it is a big building to accomodate around hundred people. It can be seen from the presence of (+) sign in both of them. Balai Banjar in Bali is commonly used for meeting and an assembly point by the people or the community. Besides that, balai banjar is also used for doing any events or performance such as the dance, music, or sometimes the show like drama gong, etc that related to the art performances. Different with the community pavilion that consist of many chairs, there is no chairs in Balai Banjar. People sit together on the floor.

CONCLUSION

From the analysis that have been done in this study, it can be concluded that componential analysis in translation is the basic comparison of a source language word with a target language word which has a similar meaning, but not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their

common and then their differing sense components. Componential analysis is effective when it comes to representing similarities and differences among words with related meanings. From the four basic types of semantic features, there are two types of semantic features can be found in this study, those are object element and event element. Componential analysis also shows that no word has the exactly same feature and same meaning, it is depend on the culture of the community.

REFERENCES

Aitchison, Jane. 2003. Linguistics. London: Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd.

Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London: Longman

Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Finegan, Edward. 2004. Language. Its Structure and Use. 4th ed. United States of America: Thomson Wadsworth.

Hornby. 2005. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, Howard. 1996. Words and Their Meaning. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Kreidler, Charles. 2002. Introducing English Semantics.New York: Routledge.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Ltd.

Lenrer, Adianne. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam:North –Holland publishing Co.

Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistics: An introduction.      Cambridge,      England:

Cambridge University

Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning. Belgium: Mouton.

Nida, Eugene. and Taber, C. Russell. 1982. The Theory and Practice for Translators. Boston: Brill

Ottenheimer, Harriete. 2006. The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology.        Virginia:    Thomson,

Wadsworth.

Palmer, F. R. 1976.  Semantics  (2nd ed.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics. 3rd ed. United Kingdom: Wiley Blackwell.

Wardhaugh, Ronald.1977. Introduction to Linguistics. United States: McGraw-Hill.

19