THE TRANSLATION OF IMPLICIT SITUATIONAL MEANING
OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPEAKER AND HEARER INTO
INDONESIAN SITUATIONAL MEANING OF RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SPEAKER AND HEARER.
Romel Noverino, SS., M.Hum
This research aimed at investigating the translation of English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer into Indonesian situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer.
This is a descriptive analytical study on how English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer is translated into Indonesian by analyzing English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer sentences found in the novels One Two Buckle My Shoe by Agatha Christie and its Indonesian translation Satu Dua Pasang Gesper Sepatunya by Alex Tri Kentjono. Within this paper, the writer limited the problem in translating ‘you’ into Indonesian.
This research the researcher conducted can belong to ‘qualitative research’ as there is a description of data from the source as well as from the product of the translation of implicit meaning in the novel.
The result of this research is that English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer should be translated into Indonesian by way of paying attention to the social norms applied in Indonesia.
Where the communication takes place, when it takes place, the age, sex, and social status of the speaker and hearer, the relationship between them, the presuppositions that each brings to the communication, the cultural background of the speaker and the addressee, and non-verbal communication and many other situational matters result in situational meaning.
Implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer means the understanding of meaning by paying attention toward the kind of relationship between the speaker and the addressee and the focus is how to translate pronoun ‘you’.
Hasan Alwi, Soenjono Dardjowidjojo, Hans Lapowila, Anton M. Moeliono argue that the daily usage of Indonesian pronoun is closely related to, generally, three parameters, namely age, social status and intimacy. This phenomenon is the result of Indonesian culture which gives high regard upon inter-personal social relationship. Attitude and behaviour in Indonesian society demand a certain proper, appropriate and suitable act in accordance with each self-esteem and self-respect. (2000, p. 250)
Indonesian second personal pronoun (Hasan Alwi et al, 2000, p. 253-254):
The pronouns are: engkau, kamu, anda, dikau, kau -, and –mu
Second personal pronoun engkau, kamu, and –mu is used by:
older people to younger who have been known well.
Example: kamu sudah bekerja, ‘kan?
Person who has higher social status to the lower one.
Example: Apakah hasil rapat kemarin sudah kamu ketik, Dina?
People who has intimate relationship, regardless of the age and social status.
Example: Kapan kerbaumu akan kamu carikan rumput?
Second personal pronoun anda is intended to neutralize relationship.
For example: Silahkan tulis data diri anda pada formulir ini.
Second personal pronoun dikau is particularly used in the field of literature such as prose or poem.
For example: Yang kurindukan hanya dikau seorang.
Plural form of Indonesian second personal pronoun kalian and Indonesian second personal pronoun with additional word sekalian.
For example: Kalian mau kemana liburan mendatang?
Kamu sekalian harus datang ke kantor pada waktunya
Hal ini terserah pada anda sekalian.
This research investigated, analyzed and discussed the translation of English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer with the limitation on ‘you’ into Indonesian by employing semantics and pragmatics.
Taken from http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossary.htm, Semantics is the study of meaning. Translators strive to preserve as much of the meaning of the original text as possible. Total meaning occurs not only in individual words, but also in how those words are inter-related through syntax, including inter-clausal connections, as well as meaning that is contributed by the cultural and speech context. While Pragmatics is the study of language in context, utterances do not simply "mean" something in isolation. They do not even fully mean something just by the addition of all the lexical (semantics) meanings of words and structures within utterances. Utterances also mean something within a context. There are a variety of contexts in which we speak, including intra-textual (discourse) context, speech situation context, and cultural context.
Semantics, a branch of linguistics, deals with the meaning of language as independent of context (as in the language, the world or mind depending upon specific theoretical perspectives). Moreover, the semantics of language does not exhaust the meaning of language in context: for one thing, it does not resolve the ambiguity of the meaning of a sentence; for another, it ignores what is done by what is said. Generally speaking, what is said in a sentence always differs from what is meant in context. Pragmatics purports to study language in context. Here, thus, both language and the context in which it is used are taken into account. Leech (1983, p. 6) has suggested that semantics and pragmatics are concerned with two types of questions, respectively:
1) Semantics: What does X mean?
2) Pragmatics: What did you mean by X?
Clearly, pragmatics is more concerned with what people mean in real life situations, generally speaking, than semantics, which is concerned with what language (typically words and sentences) means in isolation from context. In sum, pragmatics studies the meaning of language in context and it is this contextual perspective that broadens our understanding of human verbal communication as students and scholars of language. Semantics and pragmatics are different branches in language studies. Although both can be said to study 'the meaning of language', because they are guided by different assumptions about what 'language' is, they have rather different notions of what meaning is, or in other words, where meaning lies.
Semantics: meaning in (1) the world and (2) the mind
According to Dr. Shi-xu in www.geocities.com/shi_xu.geo/ semantics is one of the foundational components of modern western linguistic theory, along with phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax. In the study of meaning, semantics deals primarily with certain limited structures of language, viz. the word and the sentence. In semantics there are many variations of theory of meaning, but, roughly speaking, these are of two major kinds: 1) the view of meaning as in the (external) world and 2) the view of meaning as in the mind.
The first kind, basically, assumes that meaning is found in the world and that language (or at least part of it) is a set of names, or surrogates, for things in the world. For example, 'Amsterdam', 'Northern Ireland', 'Shi-xu', the sales tag in a shop, or a library catalogue, all refer to objects or people in the world. In this referential sense, meaning is thought to be grounded in reality. The second, basically, assumes that meaning exists in the human mind and consequently in the conceptual structure of a language. That is, how things are in the world is determined by our mental conceptions of them and these conceptions are reflected in our language structure. (Some theorists believe that different languages have different 'mindsets' and so different meaning systems (say of emotion), but more commonly semanticists assume that there are basic universal human concepts (meanings) which can be used to study culture-specific meanings.)
Underlying both views/theories is a basic assumption about language and the world which needs to be distinguished from an opposing view in pragmatics (broadly defined, see below). Namely, on the one hand, there is an independent, objective world (hence meanings), on the other, language represents it. The important point to grasp here is that language itself is a neutral, transparent medium, which merely describes, and meanings are contained in that medium.
Pragmatics: Meaning as joint creation in and through social interaction
In pragmatics (interpreted in the broadest sense of the term), the boundary between 'language' and 'the world' is blurred, such that meaning is found in the use of language in the world. That is, the world is not independent of our language and conversely our language is situated in the world. Therefore, language and the world must be studied together, if we want to understand how real language functions in our practical life. Thus, pragmatics is defined as the study of meaning as language use. In the words of Wittengstein (1968), 'meaning is use'. Since 'use' presupposes the context in which language is used, we can also say that pragmatics studies 'language in context'.
A subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s, pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or speech act in a concrete speech situation which is usually a conversation (hence *conversation analysis). It distinguishes two intents or meanings in each utterance or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the informative intent or the sentence meaning, and the other the communicative intent or speaker meaning (Leech, 1983; Sperber and Wilson, 1986). The ability to comprehend and produce a communicative act is referred to as pragmatic competence (Kasper, 1997) which often includes one's knowledge about the social distance, social status between the speakers involved, the cultural knowledge such as politeness, and the linguistic knowledge explicit and implicit.
of the aspects of language studied in pragmatics include:
--Deixis: meaning 'pointing to' something. In verbal communication however, deixis in its narrow sense refers to the contextual meaning of pronouns, and in its broad sense, what the speaker means by a particular utterance in a given speech context.
--Presupposition: referring to the logical meaning of a sentence or meanings logically associated with or entailed by a sentence.
--Performative: implying that by each utterance a speaker not only says something but also does certain things: giving information, stating a fact or hinting an attitude. The study of performatives led to the hypothesis of Speech Act Theory that holds that a speech event embodies three acts: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act and a perlocutionary act (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969).
--Implicature: referring to an indirect or implicit meaning of an utterance derived from context that is not present from its conventional use.
Pragmaticians are also keen on exploring why interlocutors can successfully converse with one another in a conversation. A basic idea is that interlocutors obey certain principles in their participation so as to sustain the conversation. One such principle is the Cooperative Principle which assumes that interactants cooperate in the conversation by contributing to the ongoing speech event (Grice, 1975). Another assumption is the Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983) that maintains interlocutors behave politely to one another, since people respect each other's face (Brown & Levinson 1978). A cognitive explanation to social interactive speech events was provided by Sperber and Wilson (1986) who hold that in verbal communication people try to be relevant to what they intend to say and to whom an utterance is intended.
One aspect of pragmatics which is very important in relation to this thesis is implicature. Based on Grice's theory: Communication is a cooperative activity, and any utterance is assumed to comply with the principles of cooperative interaction.
Grice’s conversational implicature is derived from a general principle of conversation plus a number of maxims which speaker will normally obey. The general principle is called the Cooperative Principle (1975, p. 45). The conversational conventions, or maxims, which support this principle are as follows: (Brown and Yule, 1983, p. 31-32)
I. Maxims of Quantity: 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
II. Maxims of Quality: 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
III. Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
IV. Maxims of Manner: Be perspicuous. 1. Avoid obscurity /of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly.
Grice also identifies conventional
implicatures, which according to him, determined by the conventional
meaning of the words used (1975, p. 44).
Timo comes from Häme, so he's a bit slow. This implies that people from Häme are a bit slow.
Another aspect of pragmatics in relation to this thesis is speech acts (Austin and Searle):
Language is not only used to make statements about the world. Other functions include naming, promising, asking, ordering, etc.
Sometimes these are made explicit by performative
I promise to come on time. I bet a pound you forget.
These are explicit speech acts, but assertions, questions and requests also conventionally perform actions which are implicit. Speech acts can only be described in terms of success or failure, not of truth or falsity. The characteristic conditions for the success or failure of each kind of function are called felicity conditions.
Searle (1969) distinguishes five basic kinds of speech act:
Representatives, which commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition (paradigm cases: asserting, concluding, etc.)
Directives, which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something (paradigm cases: requesting, questioning)
Commissives, which commit the speaker to some future course of action (paradigm cases: promising, threatening, offering)
Expressives, which express a psychological state (paradigm cases: thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating)
Declarations (= performatives), which effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (paradigm cases: excommunicating, declaring war, christening, firing from employment)
All utterances are thus seen as having functions beyond that of their literal meaning. Each utterance has:
1. a locutionary meaning (its
semantic, logical meaning)
2. an illocutionary force (its function as a speech act)
3. perlocutionary effects (i.e. its effects on the receiver)
Thus, You're going to regret this has a locutionary meaning predicating future regret of you, has the illocutionary force of a threat, and may have the perlocutionary effect of scaring you.
As stated above that pragmatics studies the meaning of language in context so the point of view of context is very significant. Taken from http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossary.htm, context refers to the environment or setting in which an utterance occurs. There are various contexts which are crucial for a translator to be aware of. The immediate linguistic context consists of words, phrases, and sentences which surround the utterance in question. This is discourse or textual context. The linguistic context also includes the situational context, that is, the social context in which the utterance was made. This includes the identity of speaker and addressee, their relationship, and the purpose of the utterance in the mind of the speaker. This social context is the concern of pragmatics. Ultimately, the pragmatic context also includes the time, place, and culture in which the utterance was made. So a translator must be aware of the historical, anthropological, and sociological environment in which the utterance he is translating was made.
Since there are many different ideas as to what "context" is and since implicatures are context-based, a brief explanation points out three essential properties of this notion as understood in relevance theory. First, context is a psychological notion; it is a subset of all the information accessible to a person. It is thus a very comprehensive notion, including the surrounding text or co-text as well as any socio-cultural, historical, situational or other kind of information assumed to be available. So it includes what others refer to as "situation", "setting", etc. Secondly, context is not "given", but is selected (Sperber and Wilson 1986, p. 132-142). Thirdly, "the selection of a particular context is determined by the search for relevance" (Sperber and Wilson 1986, p. 141); more specifically, context is that set of information which allows the text or utterance to be "optimally processed" (Wilson and Sperber 1986, p 144).
Dr. Shi-xu in www.geocities.com/shi_xu.geo/ states that context is important for language research because it shapes our understanding. Linguistic elements or resources can be ambiguous, vague or indeterminate, when abstracted from the context in which they are used and how they are actually used. This is true not just in terms of their forms or interrelations, but also as far as their meanings are concerned. In order to make proper sense of language, therefore, it is a must take context into account at the same time when we study language: language and context must be studied together as one unit of analysis (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992, p. 2)—hence the multi- and inter-disciplinarily of pragmatics (and discourse studies).
Language is always used in some context; and it is integral part of context—an insight most forcefully made by Hymes (1974) in the context of modern western linguistics. It is used in some specific time and place, by particular individuals, who are creative, but who are also members of some communities or institutions, which has particular values and traditions. In order to make proper sense of language we must bring context into the focus of analysis at the same time when we study language: language and context must be studied together as one unit of analysis—hence the notion of discourse and hence the multi- and inter-disciplinarily of discourse.
Dr. Shi-Xu classifies context into four interrelated components from the point of view of an analyst. These are inter-subjective, inter-personal, situational and semiotic.
The knowledge that participants bring into the linguistic interaction—‘what I know’ and ‘what I know that you know’ etc.—is called inter-subjective context. Such context also includes social and cultural knowledge. Because of such knowledge, discourse may be indirect, implicit and ‘incomplete’. This is where presuppositions and inferences come in.
Discourse has to do with (inter)personal context: the particular persons involved—‘personal style’, ‘social roles’ and ‘interpersonal relations’. ‘People become environments for each other’, as McDermott (1976, quote in Duranti & Goodwin, 1992: 5) has expressed. A habitually sarcastic person’s discourse may be benign in import whereas the ‘same’ speech by a ‘direct’ person may be ‘serious’ in nature. At an international press conference in the wake of atrocities in East Timor, Bill Clinton declared that ‘Indonesia must invite, must invite, international troops to restore order.’ In this particular situation, it is the position of the presidency of the United States that enables and empowers Clinton’s language. Thus, the discourse of a person in (institutional) power may carry more ‘force’ in effect than that of people who are less privileged. Such personal ‘biography’ and ‘place’ in society are referred to here as inter-personal context.
By situational context is meant the circumstances in which discourse takes place. These include the time, the place, the purpose of the interaction (e.g. buying post stamps, making a political decision) and the mode of communication (e.g. spoken or written). Basically, these are the 'here and now' of the discourse in question. The objects in the immediate situation of ‘If you take this, then I will take this’ render clear what ‘this’ and ‘this’ mean.
Semiotic context refers to simultaneous, prior and subsequent discursive or other symbolic material, for instance pictures alongside a news article. What is said before, what is said after and the supra-segmental features (pitch, pause, laughter etc.) are all related to the discourse that is the focus of attention. Such context is important, as ‘each additional move within the interaction modifies the existing context while creating a new arena for subsequent interaction’ (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992: 5). One special kind of semiotic context that should be mentioned is the background discourse that is implicitly or explicitly tied into the current discourse in question.
The method used is descriptive qualitative. The data are gathered from two novel versions (English and Indonesian); One Two Buckle My Shoe (OTBMS) by Agatha Christie and its Indonesian translation Satu Dua Pasang Gesper Sepatunya (SDPGS) by Alex Tri Kentjono. Here the writer read the English novel and identified sentences containing English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer. and then within the Indonesian novel, the writer identified the translations of those implicit situational meaning.
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
The Translation of Implicit Situational Meaning of Relationship between Speaker and Hearer into Indonesian Situational Meaning of Relationship between Speaker and Hearer.
“You know you’ve always found her very conscientious.” (OTBMS, p. 2)
“Kau tahu, kau selalu melihat bahwa ia senantiasa teliti dan sangat berhati-hati. (SDPGS, p. 11)
In this sentence, the utterance “You know you’ve always found her very conscientious.” is spoken by Georgina Morley to Henry Morley, her brother. The word you is translated into kau with consideration of intimate familial relationship between Georgina and Henry Morley.
“I expect you are right.” (OTBMS, p. 5)
“Mudah-mudahan engkau benar.” (SDPGS, p.15)
In this sentence, the utterance “I expect you are right.” is spoken by Miss Sainsbury Seale to Mrs. Bolitho, her friend. The word you is translated into engkau with consideration of intimate friendship relationship between them.
“Just like you and me.” (OTBMS, p.12)
“Termasuk Anda serta saya.” (SDPGS, p.25)
In this sentence, the utterance “Just like you and me.” is spoken by Mr. Morley to Mr. Poirot, his patient. The words you and me are translated into Anda serta saya with consideration of non-intimate relationship between one adult person to another.
”You must tell us,” he said,”everything that you can remember about this morning. You are a very important witness, and your recollection maybe of immense service to us.” (OTBMS, p.34)
“Engkau harus menceritakan kepada kami,” ujarnya,”segala sesuatu yang dapat kau ingat, yang telah terjadi hari ini. Engkau seorang saksi yang sangat penting dan keteranganmu mungkin bermanfaat sekali bagi kami.” (SDPGS, p.54)
In this sentence, the utterance ”You must tell us,” he said, “everything that you can remember about this morning. You are a very important witness, and your recollection maybe of immense service to us.” is spoken by Poirot to Mr. Morley’s assistance Alfred. The word you is translated into engkau and kau with consideration that it is spoken by someone older and having higher social class addressed to someone younger and having lower social class.
”...., you came,” he noded to Poirot. (OTBMS, p.35)
“…., Anda datang,” ia mengangguk ke arah Poirot. (SDPGS, p.56)
In this sentence, the utterance ”...., you came,” he noded to Poirot is spoken by Mr. Morley’s assistance Alfred to Poirot. The word you is translated into Anda with consideration that it is spoken by someone younger and having lower social class to someone older and having higher social class.
“Well, perhaps you are right, Poirot.” (OTBMS, p.40)
“Barangkali Anda memang benar Poirot.” (SDPGS, p.62)
In this sentence, the utterance “Well, perhaps you are right, Poirot.” is spoken by Japp to Poirot, his colleague. The words you is translated into Anda with consideration non-intimate relationship between them and also it is a formal professional conversation between one adult to another about a case of Mr. Morley’s death.
”I could easily have nipped upstairs and shot the old boy myself but I didn’t.” (OTBMS, p.42)
“Tentu saja dengan mudah saya bisa diam-diam naik ke atas dan menembak si tua itu sendiri tetapi saya tidak melakukannya.” (SDPGS, p.65)
In this sentence, the utterance ”I could easily have nipped upstairs and shot the old boy myself but I didn’t.” is spoken by Mr. Reilly to Japp, concerning Mr. Morley. The words the old boy is translated into si tua itu with consideration that Mr. Reilly is Mr. Morley’s partner in the same office and contextually, there is intimate professional relationship between them.
”Oh, you’re reading the debate in the house.” (OTBMS, p.155)
“Oh, rupanya engkau juga membaca debat di DPR.” (SDPGS, p.220)
In this sentence, the utterance ”Oh, you’re reading the debate in the house.” is spoken by Alistair Blunt to Jane Olivera. There is familial relationship between Alistair Blunt and Jane Olivera. Jane is Alistair’s niece. The word you is translated into engkau with consideration that it is spoken by someone older to someone younger.
English implicit situational meaning of relationship between speaker and hearer should be translated into Indonesian by way of paying attention to the social norms applied in Indonesia.
An implicit meaning should be translated explicitly if it causes ambiguity or vagueness in the target language. An implicit meaning can be translated implicitly if the entailment of references is clear and understandable; if the target language has grammatical system which allows it; if the implicit meaning is familiar and comprehensible by the target readers.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Avon: Cambridge University Press
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978) 'Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena', in Goody, E. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp56~311, Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.
Chalker, Sylvia. (1984). Current English Grammar. London: Macmillian Publishers Ltd
Duranti, A. & C. Goodwin (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and Conversation', in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press.
Haliday, M. A. K and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion In English. London: Longman
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hasan Alwi et al (2000). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka
Kasper, G. (1997) 'Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught?' (Network #6: http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/sltcc/F97NewsLetter/Pubs.htm), a paper delivered at the 1997 TESOL Convention.. Retrieved: June 15, 2004
Larson, Milfred. L. (1984) Meaning-Based Translation. United States of America: 1984
Larson, Mildred L., editor. (1991). Translation: theory and practice, tension and interdependence. American Translators Association scholarly monographs, 5. Binghampton, NY: State University of New York. 270 p.
Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.
Magdy M. Zaky in his journal entitled Translation and Meaning at http://accurapid.com/journal/14theory.htm volume 4, no. 4 October 2000. Retrieved: June 15, 2004
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Xu, Shi from http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Lounge/8112/class2/pragmatics.htm
Retrieved: June 15, 2004
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossary.htm. Retrieved: June 15, 2004