EXPLICITATION OF CONJUNCTIVE RELATION IN ENGLISH-INDONESIAN TRANSLATION; A CORPUS BASED STUDY
on
EXPLICITATION OF CONJUNCTIVE RELATION IN ENGLISH-
INDONESIAN TRANSLATION; A CORPUS BASED STUDY
Putu Nur Ayomi, S.S., M.Hum∗
Abstract
This paper studies explicitation as one of the proposed universal of translated text, which can be seen from the rise in the level of cohesive explicitness in the target text. From the corpus of English-Indonesian translation, it is found that conjunctive relations tend to be explicitated in Indonesian TT of expository texts. Although there are also other types of shifts such as implicitation and meaning change, explicitation takes a bigger portion in the TT. Most types of conjunctive relations made more explicit are internal conjunctives, which show relations between meanings in the sense of representation of the speaker’s own ‘stamp’ on the situation and communicative situation of the text, especially the adversative contrastive connectives of avowal which give assertion of veracity and clarification to the text.
Abstrak
Makalah ini mengkaji eksplisitasi yang diajukan sebagai salah satu sifat teks terjemahan terlepas dari sistem bahasa sumber maupun bahasa target. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari meningkatnya keeksplisitan elemen kohesif teks. Dari corpus terjemahan bahasa Inggris ke bahasa Indonesia yang diamati dapat dilihat bahwa pergeseran ke arah eksplisitasi memiliki porsi yang lebih besar terutama pada teks ekspositori. Kebanyakan eksplisitasi hubungan konjungtif ditunjukkan dengan menambahkan kata
) Penulis adalah pengajar di ABA Bumigora Mataram
penghubung internal (yang menyatakan hubungan makna berdasarkan pandangan penulis terhadap isi pernyataan yang dihubungkan atau alur informasi dalam teks) terutama hubungan pertentangan yang menyatakan klarifikasi atau penekanan makna.
The current studies on translation language tend to treat translated text as a special linguistic unit that is distinguishable from non-translated texts. By investigating large corpora, both comparable and parallel corpora1 of translated text from various language variations, there are some recurrent features that are exist regardless of the linguistic systems of the languages involved in the translation process. These features are suggested as ‘universal of translation’.
A frequently observed phenomenon in translation is the explicit expression in the target text (henceforth,TT) of certain elements which are implicit on the linguistic surface of the source text (ST), (Dimitrova, 2003). In studies on translation, this is usually labeled explicitation, and due to its frequency in translation in various language combinations, it has even been suggested as a universal of translation.
In relation to explicitation, Blum-Kulka (1986:19) states that the process of interpretation performed by the translator on the ST might lead to TL text which is more redundant than the (SL) text. This redundancy can be expressed by a rise in the level of cohesive explicitness in the TL text. She continues that “explicitation is a universal strategy inherent in the process of language mediation and practiced by language learners, non professional translator and professional translators as well’.
Therefore, in order to examine explicitation as universal strategy in translation process, regardless of languages involved, it is important to differentiate explicitation that is obligatory due to differences in language system and explicitation that occur because of translator’s choice, for only the last that is counted.
In the absence of comprehensive research studying cohesion shifts in Indonesian translated text, especially of connectives (which can be considered more optional rather than other cohesive devices such as reference, substitution and ellipsis), this paper attempts to address the issue by comparing a number of English source texts and their Indonesian translations. This paper is expected to be able to give an insight or clarification on the universality of explicitation that has been claimed by many researches in Indonesian translated text, especially on the rise of the TT’s level of cohesive explicitness. The analysis is based on the two questions below:
-
1) To what extent does cohesion explicitation of conjunctive relations occur in Indonesian translated text?
-
2) To what kind of conjunctive relation does explicitation mostly occur?
According to Baker (in Olohan 2004: 91-100), there are four universal features of translation, namely: 1) simplification (the idea that translators subconsciously simplify the language or message or both), 2) explicitation (an overall tendency to spell things out rather than leave them implicit in translation to make implicit information more explicit), 3) normalization or conservatism (the tendency to conform to patterns and practices which are typical of the target language, even to the point of exaggerating them) and 4) leveling out (a hypothesis that translated language
and translated texts ‘steer a middle course between any two extremes, converging towards the centre’, meaning that we may encounter less variance in textual features in a corpus of translations than in a corpus of non-translations.
Klaudy (1998) in her article ‘Explicitation’ as reviewed in Dimitrova (2003) distinguishes four different types of explicitation based on the source of explicitations: Obligatory explicitations are dictated by differences in syntactic and semantic structures between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). Optional explicitations are dictated by differences in text-building strategies and stylistic preferences between languages, for example the addition of connective elements to strengthen cohesive links, the use of relative clauses instead of long, left branching nominal, and addition of emphasizes to clarify the sentence perspective. Pragmatic explicitation, in the other hand are dictated by differences between cultures, involving for instance the translator’s inserted explanations of source culture specific concepts. Lastly is translation-inherent explicitations that are attributed to the nature of the translation process itself which are language independent features of all translational activity, namely the necessity to formulate ideas in SL, which are originally conceived in the SL.
Some studies have confirmed that explicitation is found in translated text. Baker & Olahan (2000 in Olohan, 2004) studied that the use of optional that-connective is far more frequent in the TEC (Translated English Corpus) than in BNC (British National Corpus). Further, Vanderauwera (1985:97) found that repetitions are used to avoid ambiguity; references are specified, again for disambiguation purposes, vague information is made more precise, and according to Overas (1998), reformulation markers (that is, to be precise, namely, etc.) are used significantly more in corpus of translated text than in a comparable corpus of non-translated text.
Dimitrova (2003) studied Explicitation in Russian-Swedish Translation in the form of additions of connectives, more precisely adversative conjunctions and other markers of contrast. Shen, Chin-an (2006) found that the frequency of connectives used in Chinese translated technical texts is found higher than that of the corresponding English source texts. Explicitation as feature of translation is also found across the genre in a research done by Shih Chung (2008) entitled Corpusbased Study of Differences in Explicitation between Literature Translations for Children and for Adult. Both types of genre (children literature and adult literature) generally show explicitation phenomena on connectives used although the degree is different; it is 43% on children corpus and 21% on adult corpus. All of these research provide assumption that explicitation of connectives will also occur in Indonesian cross-genre translated texts.
One important source for research into shifts of cohesion in translation has been the work led by Blum-Kulka (1986). In her discussion on shifts in cohesion and coherence in translation, she begins from the premise that the process of translation necessarily involves shifts in textual and discursive relationships. Her hypothesis is that shifts of cohesion would affect levels of explicitness in the translated text (i.e. the general level of the target text’s textual explicitness is either higher or lower than that of the source text). It also creates shifts in the text meaning(s); namely the explicit and implicit meaning potential of the source text changes through translation. The rise of the target text’s textual explicitness is the result of the process, referred here as explicitation. On the other hand the fall of the target text’s textual explicitness is the result of implicitation process.
All of those shifts have probability to occur in every translation process.
However, the relation between explicitation (as a proposed universal feature of
translated text) and the other types of shift is best explained by Toury (2004:20) below:
“……If TRANSLATION INVOLVES EXPLICITATION is taken to imply that it only instances of explicitation that will be encountered, to the exclusion of non-explicitation, let alone implicitation- then the claim is obviously false. In fact, it is not even the case that in any individual instance of translation, more examples of explicitation than implicitation will occur. …..”
He then continued by saying:
“By contrast,……..it is even worse that this ‘neutralizing’ formulation can easily be taken to imply that the two opposites –explicitation and implicitation’ are on equal footing vis-a-vis translation………precisely because it lacks any indication of probability: Would one of the terms be more common, and its occurrences more predictable than its opposite?”
It can be concluded that explicitation can co-occur with the other types of shift in the translated texts, however, here the probability of the occurrence of explicitation, in its relation with the other types of shift is become the focus of examination,.
Conjunctive relations are semantic relations holding between two clauses,
or sentences which can be represented by various devices. And ‘connectives’ are formal markers to link sentences or the bigger parts of text, which also realize semantic relations between parts of text and therefore functions as a cohesive device.
Baker (1991: 191) noted that conjunctive relations do not just reflect
relations between external phenomena but may also be set up to reflect relations
which are internal to the text or communicative situation. For instance, temporal relations are not restricted to sequence in real time; they may reflect stages of
communication in the text. For example the use of first, second and third in paragraph that explain series of reasons.
Halliday & Hasan (1976) classify kinds of conjunctives relation into four main classes, namely Addition, Adversative, Causal and Temporal relation, all of those four relations can be external (representation of ‘content’ or external reality) and also internal (relate to communication process, i.e. speaker’s judgment of situation, rhetoric and speech role)
Conjunction is quite interesting to be an object of study because any shift in the translation of conjunction can bring quite a considerable effect as that said by Baker (1991:197):
“Adjusting patterns of conjunction in line with target-language general and specific text type preferences is less straightforward than adjusting patterns of reference. The problem with conjunction is that it reflects the rhetoric of text and controls its interpretation.”
The data source of this study is a self compiled parallel corpus. For the purpose of this study, the source texts are in English and the translations are in Indonesian. The corpus contains three source texts and their translation taken from six separate books by randomly taking one chapter from each of the three books of source texts and their translation from other three books. Every sentence in ST is then aligned manually with their corresponding translation in TT. All sentence connectives found in TT and ST are marked and compared to find out any shift of connectives. The books taken as data source include: The Transformation of Intimacy by Anthony Gidden (ToI) and its translation, The Opposite of Fate by Amy Tan (OF) and its translation and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ (HP) by J.K Rowling and
its translation.
The combination of qualitative and quantitative method was used. First of all conjunctives found in both STs and TTs were classified based on the types of the conjunctive relations that they realize, see Table 1, column 5 & 6, where types of relation are marked in numbers according to Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) classification. Secondly, all connectives found in STs and TTs are aligned to identify types of shifts occurring (column 8) according to Blum Kulka, 1986 (reprinted, 2000: 299). The total shifts occurrences were then calculated based on the types of shifts and types of conjunctives relation being shifted . Later the total frequencies of each type of shifts were compared in percentage.
Table 1. The Example of Connectives Alignments in” The Transformation of Intimacy” and its Translation
|
NO |
Sentence Number |
Cohesive Items |
Types Of Relation2 |
Presupposed Items (Sentence) |
Note | ||
|
ST |
TT |
ST |
TT | ||||
|
1 |
7 |
Once |
Tidak lama… |
44,1 |
- |
S6 |
No Shift |
|
2 |
8 |
- |
pada dasarnya |
- |
22 |
S1-7 |
Expliciatation |
|
3 |
9 |
- |
sesungguhnya |
- |
22 |
S8 |
Expliciatation |
|
4 |
10 |
gradually |
Justru |
41,2 |
24,1 |
S8-9 |
Explicitation + Implicitation |
|
5 |
11 |
- |
misalnya |
- |
14,2 |
S10 |
Expliciatation |
|
6 |
15 |
- |
pun (penambahan S) |
- |
45,1 |
S14 |
Expliciatation |
|
7 |
16 |
But |
Namun |
23,1 |
23,1 |
S15 |
No Shift |
|
8 |
17 |
- |
Dan |
- |
11,1 |
S16 |
Explicitation |
|
9 |
20 |
in the meantime |
pada saat yang sama |
44,5 |
44,5 |
S14-19 |
No Shift |
Based on the sentence alignment, the percentage of the shifts in each group of texts can be counted. Each can be presented as follow:
Table 2. Shifts of Conjunctive Relation in the Translation of” The
Transformation of Intimacy”
|
Conjunctive Relation |
Types of Shift | |||
|
Explicitation |
Implicitation |
Relation Change | ||
|
Additive |
Simple E/I |
4 (2=E, 2=I) | ||
|
Complex,emphatic (I) |
1 |
1 | ||
|
Complex, de-emphatic (I) | ||||
|
Apposition (I) |
1 |
1 | ||
|
Comparison (I) |
2 | |||
|
Adversative |
Adversative 'proper' (E/I) |
2 |
1 | |
|
Contrastive (avowal) I |
5 | |||
|
Contrastive : (E) |
3 | |||
|
Correction: (I) | ||||
|
- Of meaning |
1 |
1 (from 21.1) | ||
|
- Of word |
1 | |||
|
Dismissal: (I) | ||||
|
Causal |
General: (E/I) |
2 (From 14.2) | ||
|
Spesific (E/I) | ||||
|
- Reason | ||||
|
- Result | ||||
|
- Purpose | ||||
|
Reversed causal (I) |
1 | |||
|
Causal, specific: (I) | ||||
|
Conditional: (E/I) |
1 | |||
|
Respective: (I) | ||||
|
- Direct |
1 | |||
|
- Reversed polarity | ||||
|
Temporal |
Simple | |||
|
Conclusive: (E) | ||||
|
Correlatives: (E) | ||||
|
Complex: (E) |
1 | |||
|
Internal Temporal : (I) |
3 | |||
|
Correlatives (I) | ||||
|
Here and now: (I) | ||||
|
Summary (I) | ||||
|
Continuatives |
1 | |||
|
Number of Shift |
27 |
4 |
4 | |
|
Percentage of Shift |
77,14% |
11,43% |
11,43% | |
Table 2 shows that in the texts, there is a significant amount of explicitation in ToI, which covers about 77, 14% of the total shifts, followed by implicitation and meaning change. The large number of explicitations are represented through the addition of adversative markers (12 entries) especially contrastive markers of avowal (5 entries) that give assertion of veracity and clarification to the text by adding
conjunctive such as sesungguhnya, ternyata, sebenarnya which equivalent to actually or in fact in English and also contrastive conjunctives in their external meaning which is includes 3 entries. The other significant explicitation is the addition of sequential internal temporal conjunctive lalu (3 entries), equivalent to then in English, which indicate the sequent in the communication process between writer and reader. There are also some additions of additive marker dan (4 entries), two carrying internal meaning and the others carrying external meaning. Implicitation and meaning change are also taking place in the translation, their frequency of occurrence are the same which is 11,43%.
Table 4.2. Shifts of Conjunctive Relations in the Translation of “The Opposite
of Fate”
|
Types of Shift | ||||
|
Conj |
unctive Relation |
Explicitation |
Implicitation |
Relation Change |
|
Additive |
Simple E/I |
1 |
16 (I=14, E=2) | |
|
Complex,emphatic (I) |
1 from (15.1) | |||
|
Comparison (I) |
1 (dissimilar) | |||
|
Adversative |
Adversative 'proper' (E/I) |
3 (I) |
1 from (11.1) | |
|
Contrastive (avowal) I |
8 |
2 from (21.1) | ||
|
- Of meaning |
2 | |||
|
- Of word | ||||
|
Dismissal: (I) |
1 | |||
|
Reversed causal (I) |
1 | |||
|
Temporal |
Simple |
1 (I) from (11.1) | ||
|
Complex: (E) |
1 | |||
|
Internal Temporal : (I) |
1 | |||
|
Continuatives | ||||
|
Number of Shift |
18 |
17 |
5 | |
|
Percentage of Shift |
45% |
42,5% |
12,5% | |
According to table 4.2 above, explicitation does occur in the text of OF, along with implicitation and meaning change, although it is not as large as that in ToI. It consists of 45% of the whole shifts and it consists of the addition of conjunctives which represents many kinds of meaning relations. Still, the large numbers of explicitation result from the addition of adversative marker of avowal (8 entries) as
that in ToI. Almost all implicitation occurred (16 out of 17) caused by the omission of additive conjunctive and in the Indonesian TT, which make less additive internal relation between sentences in TT, compared to the English ST. However since a sequence of sentences is considered to have the general meaning of additive relation, it does not really affect the discourse interpretation.
Table 4.3. Shift of Conjunctive Relation in the Translation of “Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban”
|
Conjunctive Relation |
Types of Shift | |||
|
Explicitation |
Implicitation |
Relation Change | ||
|
Additive |
Simple E/I |
1(from 33) | ||
|
Apposition (I) |
1(from 33) | |||
|
Adversative |
Adversative 'proper' (E/I) |
1 | ||
|
Reversed causal (I) |
1 | |||
|
Temporal |
Simple |
1(from 1.1) | ||
|
Continuatives | ||||
|
Number of Shift |
1 |
1 |
3 | |
|
Percentage of Shift |
20% |
20% |
60% | |
Compared to ToI and OF, HP text contains only small number of conjunctives; there are only 25 entries of sentence alignments although it has large number of sentences and words (230 sentences) in the ST. This contributes the small number of shifts in the work, there are only 5 shifts occur. All kind of shifts occurs, and 60% are in the form of meaning change and 20% are in the form of implicitation and explicitation.
Of the three texts analyzed, the pure expository text, ToI, shows the higher frequency of explicitation, compared to other types of shift occurring. In OF, which is the combination between expository and narrative, though not as big as ToI,, explicitation is still a dominant type of shift. Based on the data shown in the tables above it can be found that explicitation is not consistently dominant shift in every text. In the pure narrative text of OH, the use of conjunctive is very small and so are
the shifts occurring. Although not too significant, considering the data limitation, shift of conjunctive meaning occur more frequently than the other shifts. Generally the tendency for explicitation of conjunctive relation is not applied consistently to the whole corpus, the data provide significant information about the kind of conjunctive relation that tend to be explicitated in Indonesian translated text.
The term explicititation in translation refers to the process of making TT more explicit rather than its ST. In this study, the explicitation involves the addition of conjunctives expression that expresses the meaning relation between sentence and the previous parts of text in the TT which is absent in ST, where the meaning relation have to be inferred from the meaning of propositions. The explicitation takes place in those three texts can be explained as follows:
There are seven explicitations of additive relations through the use of conjunctives in the TT of “ToI” . Four of them are in the form of conjunctive dan addition that is equivalent to and in English, which states the simple additive relation. Three of them function as internal connectives, It has something to do with the interaction itself, which is ‘there is something more to be said’. Without the addition of conjunctive, there is no interpersonal meaning in the ST. On the other hand, connective dan (and) that has external meaning is located in the phenomena that constitute the content of what is being said, the event that takes place. It can also be paraphrased into ‘and then…’.
In OF and HP there are two other kinds of additive relation that are being explicitated, namely appositive; misalnya (for example) and comparison of dissimilarity; sementara (while) in its comparative sense . Both are internal connectives. Most of explicitated conjunctive relations carry internal meaning which has to do with communicative or interaction process, but sentences they connect are still constituents of text and have semantic unity represented by connectives, instead of pure interpersonal remark by the translator.
Explicitation of adversative relation makes the adversative meaning become more explicit in the TT. The central meaning is ‘contrary to expectation’, with its varieties. There are 21 occurrences of adversative conjunctives in the ST of ToI, which covers about 43 percent of all conjunction occurence. In the TT, similarly, a large number of explicitations taking place convey this meaning.
There are twelve occurrences of explicitation of adversative relation in ToI and fourteen in OF. The most dominant explicitation of adversative relation is conjunction that takes the form of assertion of veracity, that of avowal, which are respectively five and eight in both texts. There are addition of connectives such as pada dasarnya (basically), sesungguhnya (actually), memang (really), padahal (though actually).
All conjunctives used to assert avowal relation carry internal meaning which relates to the communication process, that the writers or the translators interfere with the flow of information and assert his judgment. Therefore they can be considered carrying interpersonal-oriented internal relation because here the translators add their judgments and clarifications to the text. Here the adverbials or
connectives used function as disjunct instead of conjunct. Consider the example below:
-
(1) ST: The core of the novel concerns Graham’s progressive discovery of the lovers in Ann’s life before he entered it. She hides little but volunteers no information unless he asks for it directly. Graham gradually becomes obsessed with a need to uncover the sexual details of Ann’s past.” (ToI, S.8) TT: Inti dari novel tersebut pada dasarnya adalah seputar temuan-temuan Graham akan mantan kekasih Ann sebelum ia menyuntingnya. Ann sendiri sesungguhnya tidak banyak menyembunyikan sesuatu, namun ia juga hanya bercerita sejauh Graham bertanya langsung padanya. Situasi tersebut justru membuat Graham menjadi terobsesi untuk menyingkap detail-detail masa lalu seksual Ann.”
The first sentence of the example (1) above brings out the temporal meaning of summarizing what occurs in the previous text, which is the short summary of the story in the novel . There is no connective used in the ST, but in its translation there is an addition of connectives pada dasarnya, equivalent to the English basically or essentially which makes explicit the adversative meaning of avowal. This meaning is something like ‘as against what the current state of communication process would lead us to expect, ‘the fact of the matter is....’ the conjunction takes the form of an assertion of veracity, that is not disproving all assumptions that the readers might have from reading the introduction of the novel but claiming to only one truth, the single argument that follows. The use of this connective makes explicit the relation between this sentence and the preceding text, which exists in the source text, if we see the information flow but it is left implicit
There is also explicitation of adversative meaning through the addition of the word ‘sesungguhnya’ which can be translated into ’actually’. This makes explicit the adversative meaning of contrasting, against what the current state of
communicative process would lead us to expect (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:253). The nominal group in the first sentence; Graham’s progressive discovery of the lovers in Ann’s life before he entered it’ leads us to conclude that Ann hides her previous life since Graham has to find it out by himself, This is explicitly refuted in the TT, but remain implicit in the ST.
Besides the explicitation of contrastive avowal relation, there are also three explicitations of adversative relation of contrastive in their external meaning in ToI and two in OF, as represented by connectives namun (but) , bagaimanapun (however) and justru (on the contrary).
The explicitation of adversative relation is very dominant in expository text, that of ToF. In the case of OF, which is actually narrative in the case of plotting, adversative meaning is also dominant, expecially when the writer or the character explain her view and judgment of the situations in the text. Here we can conclude that the part of OF where adversative relation explicitation is dominant is also expository. According to Larson (1998:399), the purpose of the writer in expository text is to explain or to argue. It is usually signed by nonchronological communication relation, that of orientation, clarification and logical. Therefore, it can be assumed that this type of function makes use more connective in their internal meaning, especially adversative connective compared to descriptive and narrative text, especially to convey orientation and clarification of the previous sentence or larger parts of texts in their relation to the sentences that those conjunctives introduce.
The function of this type of text is then emphasized by the translator. In order to give the reader maximum comprehension of the text, translators add additional clarification and emphasis in the form of connectives addition especially those of contrastive avowal which constrain the readers’ interpretatation of the
relation between proposition, which therefore make the line of argument in the text clearer and minimize processing effort in the part of readers. As that explained by Blakemore (1992), summarized in Ben-Anath (2005):
“Connectives, not only signal thematic relations….More importantly, connectives serve a cognitive function to constrain the potential contextual effect that emerge by limiting and identifying relevant assumption and therefore lead to appropriate interpretation of communication at hand.”
There are very limited numbers of explicitation of causal relation in the data source. In ToI there are three explicitations of causal relation in the translation trough the addition of internal connectives, lalu (then) in causal sense and directive respective causal connective di sini (here). It has to do with the information flow, where there is assertion to the meaning ‘if we have now reached this point in the discourse,” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976:260), ‘I will tell you that…’.This can be classified under the heading of directive respective meaning. And since it has to do with communication between the writer and the reader, this kind of relation is considered internal. While explicitation of causal relation is absent in OF, there is one explicitation of reversed causal relation in HP text. This is in the form of addition of particle sih, which give emphasis in which the following sentence is expressing the reason or cause of the thesis in the preceding sentence. This conjunctive expression is usually used in informal spoken language
Temporal relation shows that the theses of the two or more successive
sentences has relation in time; sequence, simultaneous or previous, in term of external
phenomena. In addition to that, temporal relation may also indicate the time of the process of communication, which is internal. All the three explicitation found in ToI are in the form of internal temporal relation, realized by the addition of particle pun. Seen from the context, in sentences below, it makes covert the causal relation in its succeeding time.
-
(2) ST: There she unearths documents bearing witness to Graham’s compulsive enquiries into her past – and finds that he knows of her affair with Jack (the one sexual encounter which she has actively concealed from Graham. She goes over to Jack’s flat and finds Graham there, together with Jack bloodstained body. (ToI, S: 10)
TT: Di sana Anna menemukan sesuatu: dokumen-dokumen yang menunjukkan bahwa selama ini Graham sedang melakukan penyelidikan atas masa lalunya, yang membuat perempuan itu tersadar Graham telah mengetahui hubungan asmaranya dengan Jack; satu-satunya pengalaman seksual yang ia sembunyikan dari suaminya. Ann pun bergegas pergi ke flat tempat tinggal Jack dan Disana ia menemukan Graham bersama tubuh Jack yang berlumuran darah.
According to Sneddon (1996:229), particle pun acts as focusing adjunct in some of its function. It can also act as linking adjunct. Particle pun always follow the subject of the sentence and acts to emphasize it. Here the particle shows that the action of the sentence containing pun always follows the action of the previous sentence. It appears in construction referring to a sequence of actions; pun can thus often be translated to then in such construction.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:271), continuatives is a subdued cohesive; they cohere by stealth. A meaning that is basically not conjunctive, like ‘at time present’ (now), or ‘this is to be expected’ (of course), becomes cohesive when it
is slipped in as an incidental and it prepares the reader for a kind of afterthought that follow, an opening of a new stage in the communication.,
There is only one addition of continuatives in the TT through the addition of connectives ‘sekarang’ (now), as the excerpt below:
-
(3) ST: ………….Let us give some more sociological flash to these changes, which are to do with marriage and the family as well as with sexuality directly.
TT: ….. Sekarang, mari kita berikan beberapa tinjuauan sosiologis yang lebih luas atas perubahan-perubahan yang berhubungan langsung dengan pernikahan, keluarga dan juga seksualitas. (ToI, S:68)
Based on the findings and analysis of this study, some conclusions that can be drawn out are: (1) Explicitation cannot be proven generally applied across genre (expository and narrative descriptive). This is probably the result of the size of the corpus because the translated texts are also influenced by the translators’ style, the original writers’ style, texts’ purposes as well as the target readerships, and due to limited data, they may also contribute to the result of the study. (2) In the two expository texts of ToI and OF, explicitation appear to be dominant shift especially on adversative relation. It makes the relation between sentences become more explicit and makes the text’s perspective clearer. The translators add their interpersonal judgment and clarification to the TT by providing a large number of ‘avowal’
contrastive connectives.
From the analysis it can be found that certain conjunctive relations tend to be made explicit or implicit in English-Indonesian translated texts. It is really important therefore to study it, whether it has to do with Indonesian language stylistics (that certain connectives are frequently used in Indonesian non-translated texts and on certain genre) or the result of translation process that make it more universal across language. In order to do that, further study should include larger corpus; comparable corpus of Indonesian non-translated text or larger parallel corpus from a certain type of text or across genre.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Mona. 1991. In Other Words, A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge
Ben-Anath, Dafna. 2005. The Role of Connectives in Text Comprehension. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistic, 2005. Vol.5 No. 2 Teacher College, Columbia University.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 2000. Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In The Translation Studies Reader. 298-313. London: Routledge
Dimitrova, Brigitta Eglund. 2003. Explicitation in Russian-Swedish Translation: Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Aspect. In Slavica Lundensia Supplementa 2. Lund: pp.21-31. .
Droga & Humphrey.2003. Grammar and Meaning, an Introduction for Primary
Teachers. Australia; Target Text.
Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press
Halliday, MAK. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion In English. England: Longman
Klaudy, Kinga. 1998. Explicitation. In Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies, ed. M. Baker, London . New York, 80–84.
Olohan, Maeve. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies.
Oxford:Routledge
Rowling, J.K. 1999. Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Azkaban. London:Bloomsbury
Sequinot, Candace. 2001. Pragmatics and Explicitation Hypotheses. In The CAAL Bulletin, 4, (1), pp. 106-119. Cited (June, 2nd 2008) , available, from URL: http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/1988/v1/n2/037024ar.pdf
Shen, Chih-an. 2006. A Corpus-based Investigation into Explicitation in Commercial and Student Technical Translation (thesis). Taiwan; English Department of National Kaohsing First University of Science and Technology .
Chung-ling 2008. Corpus-based Study Differences in Explicitation Between Literature Translations for Children and for Adults. Cited (July, 10th 2008) In Accurapid Online Translation Journal, Volume 12. No. 3 July 2008. Available on URL: http:// accurapid.com/journal/45/explicit/htm
Sudaryanto.1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Jakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.
Tan, Amy. 2003. The Opposite of Fate. London: Harper Perennial.
Toury, Gideon. Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They
Are, Would They Qualify as Universals. In Translation Universals p.15-32 ed.
Maurenen & Kujamaki. Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Discussion and feedback