Monday, 14 May 2018

Definition of Translation Based on Many Experts


There are many theories concerning translation that are proposed by experts. The theories reflect the expert’s paradigms on the nature of translation. According to Nida and Taber (1982, p.12), “Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of a source-language message, firstly in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” Based on her theory, it is significant not to merely transfer the message of the source text, but also to transfer the style of the text to receptor language. It implies that a translator must transfer the meanings of the text delivered well to the readers, meanwhile style should attach to the translated text as well.

Wills (1982) in Budianto & Fardhani (2010, p.1) asserts that a translation is a method of finding an optimally equivalent target language text from a written source language text. It requires syntactic, semantic, stylistic, and text pragmatic comprehension by the translator of the original text. Compared to Nida & Taber’s theory, Will defines more specific about aspects that must be considered in transferring source language (SL) to target language (TL) by mentioning syntactic, semantic, text pragmatic comprehension, and stylistic aspects.

J.C. Catford (ibid., p.5) defines translation as follows: “The replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).” Meanwhile, Larson (1984, p.3) proposes that translation is a change form of the source language into the form of receptor language whether it is written or spoken. In addition, according to Newmark, “Translation is rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text” (1988, p.5).

Based on the experts’s explanation above, essentially the translation can be defined as an attempt in replacing words from one language to another language by concerning the meaning and form or style of the text. Hence, it creates the closest equivalence that can be acceptable in the receptor language (Nida and Taber (1982); Wills (1982); J.C. Catford (1965); Larson (1984); and Newmark (1988).

2 comments: