Next, Nida and Taber (1969) explain the process
of translating as follows.
Translating consists of 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.
In Translation: Applications and Research,
Brislin (1976: 1) defines translation as:
"the general term referring to the
transfer of thoughts and ideas from one language (source) to another (target),
whether the languages are in written or oral form; whether the languages have
established orthographies or do not have such standardization or whether one or
both languages is based on signs, as with sign languages of the deaf."
Identical with the above definition is the one
proposed by Pinhhuck (1977: 38). He maintains that "Translation is a
process of finding a TL equivalent for an SL utterance".
In the definitions appearing in 1960s-1970s,
some similarities have been found: (1) there is a change of expression from one
language to the other, (2) the meaning and message are rendered in the TL, and
(3) the translator has an obligation to seek for the closest equivalent in the
TL. Yet, there is no indication that culture is taken into account except in
that of Nida and Taber.
Actually Nida and Taber themselves do not
mention this matter very explicitly. Following their explanation on "closest
natural equivalent", however, we can infer that cultural consideration
is considered. They maintain that the equivalent sought after in every effort
of translating is the one that is so close that the meaning/message can be
transferred well.
The concept of closest natural equivalent is
rooted in Nida's concept of dynamic equivalent. His celebrated example is taken
from the Bible, that is the translation of "Lamb of God" into the
Eskimo language. Here "lamb" symbolizes innocence, especially in the
context of sacrifice. As a matter of fact, Eskimo culture does not know
"lamb". Thus, the word does not symbolize anything. Instead of
"Lamb of God", he prefers "Seal of God" to transfer the
message. Here he considers cultural aspects.
The inclusion of cultural perspective in the
definition of translation unfortunately does not continue. The later ones keep
on not touching this matter. See the following definition.
"Translation involves the rendering of a
source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that
(1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the
structure of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible, but not so closely
that the TL structure will be seriously distorted (McGuire, 1980: 2).
In the following definition, Newmark does not
state anything about culture.
"Translation is a craft consisting in the
attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the
same message and/or statement in another language" (Newmark, 1981: 7).
Finally, Wills defines translation more or less
similarly as follows.
"Translation is a transfer process which
aims at the transformation of a written SL text into an optimally equivalent TL
text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic
understanding and analytical processing of the SL" (Wills in Noss, 1982:3).
It is known that out of 8 definitions above
only one takes cultural aspects into account, the one by Nida and Taber. This
definition is actually a specific one, rooted from the practice of the Bible
translation. By nature, it is understood that the translation should be done to
every language. As the content addresses all walks of life and culture plays an
important role in human life, culture, therefore, should be considered.
The other definitions, however, are meant to
explain the experts' view on translation theory to be applied in the
translation of all types of material, including scientific or technical texts
which are not deeply embedded in any culture. Thus, it can be momentarily
hypothesized that cultural consideration must be taken if the material to
translate is related to culture. For material that is not very much embedded
into a specific culture, cultural consideration may not be necessary.
According to Snell-Hornby (1988: 39), however,
this exclusion of cultural aspect from the discussion of translation theory is
due to the view of the traditional approach in linguistics which draws a sharp
dividing-line between language and "extralinguistic reality"
(culture, situation, etc.). The contemporary approach, according to her, sees
language as an integral part of culture. This view can be seen in Hymes (1964)
and Halliday and Hasan (1985), for example.
2. Language and Culture
Culture in this discussion should be seen in a
broad sense, as in anthropological studies. Culture is not only understood as
the advanced intellectual development of mankind as reflected in the arts, but
it refers to all socially conditioned aspects of human life (cf. Snell-Hornby,
1988: Hymes, 1964). In practical wordings, Goodenough (1964: 36) puts:
"As I see it, a society's culture consists
of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner
acceptable to its members, and do so in any role that they accept for any one
of themselves. Culture, being what people have to learn as distinct from their
biological heritage, must consist of the end product of learning: knowledge, in
a most general, if relative, sense of the term. By definition, we should note
that culture is not material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people,
behavior, or emotions. It is rather an organization of these things. It is the
forms of things that people have in mind, their models of perceiving and
dealing with their circumstances. To one who knows their culture, these things
and events are also signs signifying the cultural forms or models of which they
are material representation."
It can be summarized that this definition
suggests three things: (a) culture seen as a totality of knowledge and model
for perceiving things, (b) immediate connection between culture and behavior
and events, and (c) culture's dependence on norms. It should be noted also that
some other definitions claim that both knowledge and material things
are parts of culture. See, for example, Koentjaraningrat (1996: 80-81) and
Hoijer
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar