AbstractTranslating CSIto English requires the writer to apply some strategies in order to achieve theequivalence between source language text and target language text.
In thissense, the translator has to fully understand the knowledge of the sourcelanguage and target language Cultural Specific Items such as name of places,person, weapon, and some utterances. In this project, namely, Ayo dolanneng Magelang, the writer described alot of culture in Magelang using Javanese as the source language. Then, inorder to create the equivalence translation in English, the writer employedsome strategies based on Newmark (1991) and Munday and Hatim (2013). It coversthe text-to-text translation and the whole text translation. The strategies coverfrom transference, descriptive equivalence, synonym, transfonym and adjustment. In this booklet, the writer employedtransference and synonym as the main procedures.
Hopefully, the writer coulddeliver the message and values in Javanese to all English readers reading thebooklet.Keywords: Strategy, CSI, SL, TL, bookletIntroductionAyo Dolan nengMagelang is a booklet that depicts the informationabout Magelang Regency, Central Java. The booklet containing the informationrelated to coat of arm, districts, slogan, landmark, people, points ofattraction, cultural event, traditional songs, culinary, local fruits, rites ofpassage, folklore, legend, taboos, riddle, proverb, endemic and animal ofMagelang regency is presented for those who are curious about Magelang. Thenature of this booklet is inviting people to explore Magelang. This bookpresents some highlights of Magelang culture and interesting place in Magelangthat is worth to be studied and visited.The reader ofthis booklet will find two languages, namely Bahasa Jawa and English, presentedin this booklet to depict the richness of the Javanese culture in Magelang. Thewriter presents two texts on the same page.
Therefore, this booklet couldbecome a good reference for those who are learning English and Javanese sincethe language on this booklet preserves some Cultural Specific Items.Naturally, thisbooklet is a translation project especially dealing with the Cultural SpecificItems in local language (Javanese) translated into English. This process could be so challenging since manytranslators, experts and readers might be questioning whether it is possible ornot to translate cultural terms or in this study called as Culture-SpecificItems (CSI). Indeed, CSI is considered as a challenge for a translator since atranslator should have adequate knowledge of cultures in both languages.
Thisknowledge is crucial since a translator need to convey the message from thesource language (SL) and translate it to the target language (TL) in anappropriate equivalent to the message or information (Hilman, 2015). Some studiesstate that CSI is somehow unable to be translated since that equivalent may not have the same concepts the target language (Mendoza, 2008). It may dealwith cultural untranslatability causes by the absence in the TL culture of arelevant situational feature for the SL text (Bassnett, 2005). However, Newmark (1998)states that local and cultural text is actually possible to be translated. Further,the writer’s of this booklet first language is Javanese, thus, the writer hasthose specific knowledge related to CSI. Therefore, the writer could deal withthe problem and hopefully be able to transfer the message from a local language to English well. This paper isdealing with the research question below:Whattranslation strategies applied in translating CSIs in the booklet of “Ayo Dolanneng Magelang”?Nature of translationTranslation is,in fact, “a converting process” (Guo, 2012, p.
1) and it is not just a process of changing one language, in this case source language, into another language;target language. There are two different way of seeing translation. First, translation is considered to be an art product by a creative artist who ensures thecontinuity and diffusion of culture in sourcelanguage into the target language (Bassnett, 2005). On contrast, translation isdealing with power which can be seen fromthe “hegemonic power of images created by the target culture” in the mechanicsof textual production (Paz, 1992 in Bassnett, 2005, p. 4). Bassnett also shows that in the post-colonial perception theproduct of translation (target language) is superior to the source language.
However, the new perception emerges as bothoriginal and translation are considered as “equal products of the creativity ofwriter and translator”, and it depends on the writer to how to make the ideallanguage which can be considered natural in the target language (Paz, 1992).Nowadays,translation is considered more about the “negotiation between texts and betweencultures”(Bassnett, 2005, p.6). Thus, the task of a translator is to become the mediator of thetransaction between texts and languages.
It is imperative for the translator toachieve cultural equivalence between the source language and the targetlanguage and how to make up semantic zero caused by culture. The culturalequivalence, in this case, mainly refers to semantic equivalence and pragmaticequivalence (Guo, 2012). Further, a translator is required to have a skill anda sense for his own language. Indeed, it is not dealing with ‘sixth sense’ butintelligence, sensitivity and intuition, as well as of knowledge (Newmark, 1991). Thus, a good translation makes the reader of the product get sameinterpreting as when readers, in this case the native speakers, read theoriginal one.
Here is the dynamics of translations offered by Newmark in 1992: Furthermore, Hatim & Munday (2013) offer highlight the mainissues of translation which is related to linked to the strategies of literaland free translation and form and content. They mention that the translatorshave to be aware the comprehensibility and transabilityissue. First, translatability is related to the fact that in translation,despite obvious differences in linguistic structure (grammar, vocabulary,etc.), the meaning can still be adequately expressed across languages. It alsodeals with the referential and connotative meaning.
Nida (1964) suggests thatin translating the referential meaning, semantic analysis, hierarchicalstructuring and componential analysis are needed especially in understandingthe broad meanings of a words in SL andTL. While in connotative meaning, thetranslators have to understand the meaning of the sentences as a whole and alsobe sensitive to the emotion embedded in the sentences. Second,comprehensibility deals with the condition where the translation of meanings considerssome factors such as target audience, communicative and translation purpose.
Itespecially deals with entire chunks or some unique SL values needed to betranslated across cultural and linguistic boundaries. However, it is alwayspossible to bridge the cultural gaps (Hatim & Munday, 2013). After dealingwith transability and comprehensibility, translators must deal with the meaningand the message on the source language. The translations must focus on themessage both the form and its content for whatever purpose (Nida, 1964). Inthis sense, Hatim and Munday (2013) consider this as the formal equivalence.Translators may do nothing in order to preserve in order to preserve effects ofutterances in source language especially when it is considered that it is noneed to interfere the formal arrangement of words, structure, etc. However, itshould be a conscious act and for the sake of good reason not for any otherpurpose (Hatim & Munday, 2013).
Hatim and Munday (2013) emphasize that the aim of doing so isbringing source language linguistic or cultural preferences to target reader.However, when SL explication and adjustment is needed in translating the SL toTL, translators should move to dynamic equivalence where they could providerich varieties of contextual values and effects. Further, in some occasion,adjustment by restructuring message in SL is needed in order to preserve thelinguistic and stylistic appropriateness (Hatim & Munday, 2013).