AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATING THE ADDRESSING TERMS IN PRAMOEDYA ANANTA TOER’S THIS EARTH OF MANKIND

AZIMATUL FAUZIAH

Abstract


AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATING THE ADDRESSING TERMS IN PRAMOEDYA ANANTA TOER’S THIS EARTH OF MANKIND


Azimatul Fauziah


English Literature, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya


azimatul13@gmail.com


Dian Rivia Himmawati, SS, M.Hum.


English Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya


dianrivia@gmail.com


ABSTRAK


Studi ini focus pada penerjemahan sapaan dalam Bumi Manusia sebagai bahasa sumber dan This Earth of Mankind sebagai bahasa sasaran. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh dari kekuasaan dan solidaritas dalam penerjemahan sapaan dan mengetahui faktor yang menyebabkan ketakterjemahan dalam menerjemahkan sapaan. Metode deskriptif kualitatif, teori penerjemahan (House; 2009), hubungan antar kata , kata ganti  orang yang memiliki kekuasaan dan solidaritas (Brown and Gilman; 1960), dan register kategori Halliday digunakan untuk menganalisa data. Hasil analisa menunjukan bahwa ada tiga macam sapaan di This Earth of Mankind, sapaan dalam bahasa Belanda, Melayu, dan Jawa.  Beberapa sapaan dari bahasa yang berbeda memiliki makna yang sepadan dan penerjemah menerjemahkannya dengan istilah yang sama dengan menggunakan ‘denotative equivalence’ dan pragmatic equivalence. Penerjemah gagal memahami bahwa penulis membedakan sapaan untuk penjajah dan jajahan, keluarga bangsawan dan masyarakat umum, hubungan formal dan keakraban. Masalah penerjemahan sapaan terjadi ketika sapaan tersebut memiliki konsep khusus yang berhubungan dengan budaya tertentu namun tidak memiliki istilah padanan dalam bahasa sasaran dan karena sistem  tatabahasa yang berbeda. Oleh karena itu, penerjemah menggunakan dua pandangan yang berbeda untuk menerjemahkan sapaan. pandangan yang pertama terpusat pada bahasa sumber sedangkan pandangan yang kedua  terpusat pada proses penafsiran penerjemah. Hal tersebut membuat terjemahan menjadi sangat berbeda jika dilihat dari mode (cara), field (bidang), dan tenor (tujuan).


Kata Kunci: penerjemahan, sapaan, padanan, budaya, kekuasaan


ABSTRACT


This study focuses on the translation of addressing term in Bumi Manusia as source text and This Earth of Mankind as target text. The purpose of this study is to find out the influence of power and solidarity in translating the addressing terms and find out the factors of untranslatability in translating addressing term. Descriptive qualitative method, translation theory (House; 2009), lexical relation (Kreidler; 1998), pronoun of power and solidarity (Brown and Gilman; 1960), and Hallidayan register categories are applied to analyze the data. The result show that there are three kinds of addressing terms in This Earth of Mankind, Dutch addressing term, Malay addressing term, and Javanese addressing term. Some addressing terms from different language have the same proportional meaning and the translator translated them as the same term and the translator used denotative equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. The translator failed to catch that the author differ the addressing term to show the difference between colonize and colonizer, aristocrat family and common people, intimacy relation and formal relation. The problem of translating addressing terms appeared when the special concept of addressing term related to particular culture do not have any equivalence term in target text and the different of grammatical system. Therefore, it makes the translator use double perspective in translating the addressing term. The first focuses on the source text while the other focus on the process of interpretation by the translator. It made the result of the translation become really different from the original seen from register categories: mode, field, and tenor.


Keywords: translation, addressing term, equivalence, culture, dan power


 


 



 


INTRODUCTION

Bumi Manusia is one of the greatest works of Pramoedya Ananta Toer who was frequently discussed as Indonesia's and Southeast Asia's best candidate for a Nobel Prize in Literature. Terms of addressee plays  important role in Bumi Manusia because it indicates the social status of someone. There are three kinds of addressing terms based on ethnicity in this novel. They are Dutch addressing term, Malay addressing term, and Javanese addressing term. Oyetade (as quoted in Chu-Cing Hsu; 2) defines terms of addresseeas words or linguistic expression which speakers use to designate the person being talked to while talk is in progress or which writers use to address the recipient in written communication. Moreover, Braun (1988:7) explains that the actual use and the function of addressing terms depands on the stucture of language, on the speaker’s intention and on the address relationship between two interlocutors, as well as on the occasion of the occurrence.


Juliane House (2009: 4) defined translation as a process of replacing a text in one language by text in another language. He also explained that translating is not only a linguistic act but it is also an act of communication across culture. Translating terms of addressee from Indonesian into English is not easy because they have different pronominal form. In translating addressing term, the translator should notice on the detail. Words can only be understood when it is considered together with the cultural context. So, in translating addressing term, it is not only replacing the word to another language but creating the same meaning and atmosphere as similar as the original text. Moreover, the addressing terms in Bumi Manusia are closely related to power. Braun and Gilman defined Power as ability to control behavior over another. They also said that power is a relationship between at least two persons, and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both can not have the same power in the same area of behavior (1960: 254). People who have power will be addressed differently from common people. Power is associated with high social status and it reflects respect and honor. So, people from high social status will be addressed in polite way to show a great reverence.


To translate a text as similar as the source text, it is needed to see whether the source text is equivalent to target text or not. House defined equivalence as how similarity of message or function is interpreted (2009: 29). There are many types of equivalence and it depends on the perspective that the translator used. It is possible to use denotative equivalence that use ‘real world’ referents to which the text relates. Also, the translator could use other equivalence such as pragmatic equivalence which focuses to fulfill its communicative function for the recipients. This study tries to discuss the factors of untranslatability in translating addressing term.


There are two research questions for this study, (1) How does the translator translate the Indonesian addressing terms in Toer’s Bumi Manusia into English version, This Earth of Mankind? (2) What is the influence of power and solidarity toward the choices of addressing terms in Toer’s Bumi Manusia? This study tries to describe about the method of the translator in translating addressing term and know the influence of power and solidarity in translating the addressing term. This study only focuses on translating the addressing terms that have any equivalence problems in their translation and do not pay attention to grammar or another linguistic aspect. 


This study tries to describe about the process of young learner with visual learning style acquire language and know the relationships between personality and learning style. This study is not only focusing in linguistics but also covering learning activities and psychology area but it is not for learning strategy. Several theories are becoming main cores of this study, such as translation theory of House, lexical relation of Kreidler and Brown and Gilman in pronoun of power and solidarity.


.


RESEARCH METHOD


This study uses descriptive-qualitative in getting and describing about the translating addressing terms phenomena in This Earth of Mankind. This study needs to be explained by words not by numbers or statistics, because this study is stressing on translation aspect and its relationship with culture. Bodgan and Biklen (1984:5) defined the qualitative approach as a research procedure which produces a descriptive data such as verbal or nonverbal utterances or words from the object being observed. The data for this study are utterances. There are two sources of data used in this study. Those data are Toer’s Bumi Manusia as source text that was written by Pramoedya Ananta Toer and This Earth of Mankind as target text that was translated by Max Lane.


Observation is used to analyze this research. Observation includes collection of the data that is needed by the researcher without manipulating. Sugiyono(2010, p. 146) adds that observation is done by the researcher about what the researcher wants to observe in the research.  To observe this research, internet access and taking a note are needed by the researcher as the basic instrument. There were three steps to analyze the data. They were data reduction, data display and conclusion and verification. The researcher sorted the data by choosing the addressing terms that had problem with equivalence. Then, she displayed the data in table. Conclusion and verification became the last step of the data analysis process. In this case, the data had been displayed and discussed before were concluded. The conclusion was the answer of the problems existing supported by some theories related (Sugiyono, 2010, p. 345). To answer the first question, the researcher used lexical relation of Kreidler in his book introducing English semantic and translation theory by Machali. Then, in answering the research question number two, the researcher used pronoun of power and solidarity by Brown and Gilman, translation theory by Nababan and House, then collaborate with Hallidayan register categories of field, mode and tenor.


 


ANNALYSIS AND DISCUSSION


There are two analyses in this section. The first is the analysis of the method that was used by translator to translate addressing terms. The second is the analysis of relation between power and solidarity toward the addressing terms.


In translating terms of addressees, the translator should find the equivalence between the source text and the target text. House (2009: 29) defines equivalence as a similar message and fulfills a similar function. The writer noticed that the translator use some different patterns. The first pattern, the translator tried to find out the literal or denotative equivalence which use ‘real world’ as referents for source text to target text. The second pattern, the translator used the original addressing terms from the source text and provided glossary for informing the meaning of the addressing terms in the end of the novel. The last, the translator changed the addressing terms to different addressing terms as the adaptation to the context of target language.


After analyzing the method that was used by translator to translate addressing terms, the research used the following table to sum up the result:


 


Table 1 The Comparison of Addressing Terms in Bumi Manusia and This Earth of Mankind






No




Original




Translation




Procedure




Problem






1.




Juffrouw




Miss




Literal translation




Different in context






2.




Noni




Miss




Literal translation




Different in context






3.




Noni




Noni




Annotation




Inconsistent






4.




Mevrouw




Mrs/Madam/


Ma’am




Literal translation




Different in context






5.




Mevrouw




Miss




Free translation




Different in meaning






6.




Tuanmuda




Young master




Literal translation




Different in context






7.




Tuanmuda




Master




Literal translation




Inconsistent






8.




Tuan




Sir/Mr.




Literal translation




Different in context






9.




Tuan




Tuan




Annotation




Inconsistent






10.




Tuan




You/he




Free translation




Different in function






11.




Tuan-tuan




Tuans




Free translation




Different in meaning






12.




Ndoro




Master




Literal translation




Different in context






13.




Ndoro




Ndoro




Annotation




Inconsistent






14.




Sahaya




I




Literal translation




Different in context






15.




Sahaya




Your servant




Free translation




Different in meaning






16.




Meneer




Mr.




Literal translation




Different in context






17.




Papa




Father




Literal translation




Different in context






18




Kowe




You




Literal translation




Different in context






19.




Nak




Child




Literal translation




Different in context






20.




Nyai




Nyai




Annotation




-






21.




Nyai-nyai




Nyais




Free translation




Different in meaning






22.




Gus




Gus




Annotation




-






23.




Sinyo




Sinyo




Annotation




-






24.




Mas




Mas




Annotation




-






25.




Abang




Your friend




Free translation




Different in meaning






26.




Man




Man




Free translation




Different in context






27.




Mr




Mr.




Free translation




Different in meaning






As shown from the table above, Malay dominated the addressing terms because Malay is neutral language that can be used by Javanese and Dutch in their daily conversations. Noni, Tuanmuda, Tuan, Ayah, Ayahanda, Sahaya, Nak, Sinyo, and Abang are addressing terms that belong to Malay addressing terms. These terms are more common because Malay is widely used in all Dutch East Indies. In the other hand, there were some Javanese addressing terms such as Nyai, Ndoro, Kowe, Gus, Mas, and Man that were used in particular occasions or refer to particular people. Similar to Javanese addressing terms, Dutch addressing terms are only used for certain people. Juffrouw, Mevrouw, Meneer, and Meester are Ducth addressing terms that only used to call Dutch people.


There are three patterns in translating addressing terms. In the first pattern, the translator used denotative equivalence which only focused on the meaning of the terms. Machali (2000) stated that as a method, literal translation considers as the most important translation procedure because the basic of literal translation is in clause or sentence level. However, translating addressing terms include and reflect the culture of the society because the addressing terms that were used by the characters determine their background whether their status or ethnicity. Even the words in source text have the same denotation with target text, they do not always have the same connotation.


The translator used two different procedures in translating the addressing terms for the first pattern. The first procedure is lexical translation which is used to translate Tuanmuda, Tuan, Papa, Ayah, Ayahanda, Sahaya, Aku, Kowe, and Nak. Some of the terms are not appropriate because there is the difference of interpersonal perspective. The second procedure is adaptation. The translator attempted to make the addressing terms familiar in target text. The terms Juffrouw, Mevrouw, Meneer, Ndoro, and Noni are special concepts that were used in Dutch colonial era. The translation text could be understood by the reader of the target text, but the reader can not catch the essence that those terms are particular addressing terms for certain groups. So, even the words of source text have denotative equivalence in target text, but they are not suitable for the context of source text.


In the second pattern, the translator did not change the addressing terms because the terms, Noni, Nyai, Ndoro, Gus, Sinyo, and Mas are special concept of source text that do not have any equivalence word in target text. The translator used annotation to translate because he persisted to use the original terms and gave glossary to explain the meaning of the term. The writer noticed that the translator is understand that the addressing terms have important role to distinguish the identity of the characters, but he only highlighted Javanese addressing terms. The concept of thing in Dutch and English are almost similar because they are in the same language family. So, the translator was easy to find out the lexical equivalence from Ducth terms to English terms. However, the concept of some words such as Noni, Sinyo, and Nyai are especially used in colonial era, so it is difficult to find out the equivalence in target text. Ndoro, Gus, and Mas are terms from Javanese culture who really emphasis in status and familiarity while English only differ for formal or informal situation. Unfortunately, the translator used inconsistent translation procedures for one term. For instance, the term Noni is translated as Miss by using lexical translation and the translator also used annotation in other text so that he did not change the addressing terms. These conditions would make the reader confuse and would make wrong interpretation that Miss and Noni are different.


The last pattern showed that the translator change the form of the addressing terms. The translator used free style translation. The translator missed to understand the language system of source text and target text because he translated Nyai-Nyai as Nyais and Tuan-Tuan as Tuans. Nyai and Tuan are not English term, so the plural form of Nyai and Tuan are not necessarily Nyais or Tuans because it is unclear whether Nyai and Tuan are countable or uncountable noun. Accountability concept is universal concept that can be understood by all people and can be expressed through lexical structure in all language, but not all languages have grammatical category for number and not all languages apply the same concept for number.


The second analysis is relation between power and solidarity toward the addressing using T and V because in previous part, there are many translations of addressing term that are not appropriate to the context of the novel. The ways of people in choosing the addressing terms are really related to the culture that exist in their society. The culture of society consists of everything that everybody has to know or believe in order to operate manner that acceptable for its member. In Javanese society, especially in the past, the kingdom applied feudal system. This system force lower class people to respect much to people who have more power. Gilman (1960; 252) defined Power as a relationship between at least two persons and it is nonreciprocal because both can not have the same authority. There are many forms of power such as physical strength, wealth, age, sex, institutionalized role in the state, the army, or within the family. The relations called older than, richer than, stronger than, employer of, richer than and nobler then are all asymmetrical. If A is older than B, B is not older than A. The relation called “more powerful than”. The pronoun usage expressing this power relation is also asymmetrical or nonreciprocal, with the greater receiving V and the lesser T. Pronoun form of T and V were used by some European countries to differ between ‘singular you’ tu (T) and ‘plural you’ vos (V). Now, T and V are used as symbols; the T form is often described as the familiar form and the V form as the polite one. The superior will say T to the inferior and receives V, and vice versa.


T and V approach also could be used to indicate solidarity. The T form is usually used by people who stand in the same position. It reflects symmetrical relation; for instance: attended the same school or have the same parents or practice in the same profession. The T of solidarity can be produced by frequency of contact as well as by objective similarities. The dimension of solidarity is potentially appropriate to all persons addressed. Power superiors may be solidarity (parents, elder siblings) or not solidarity (officials whom one seldom sees). Reciprocal T usage was always available to show intimacy. The following part would discuss the power of characters and its influence among the other characters and the writer used T and V form to analyze them.


To sum up the relation of power and solidarity through the addressing term that were chosen by the characters in Bumi Manusia, the writer summarized them into a table. The table would illustrate the addressing terms, the interlocutors, the relation between interlocutors, and the function of the addressing terms.


 


Table 2 The T and V form of Addressing Terms in Bumi Manusia


 






No




Addressing Term




Interlocutor




Relation




Function






1




Juffrouw




Java – Dutch


Dutch- Indo




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






2




Noni




Java – Indo




nonreciprocal




Respecting






3




Mevrouw




Java – Dutch


Dutch -Dutch


 


Indo – Indo




nonreciprocal


reciprocal


 


reciprocal




Respecting


showing intimacy


respecting






4




Nyai




Java – Java


Dutch - Java




reciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






5




Tuanmuda




Dutch – Java


Java - Java




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






6




Tuan


 




Java - Java


Java – Dutch




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






7




Ndoro




Java – Dutch


Java – Java




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






8




Meneer




Java – Dutch




nonreciprocal




Respecting






9




Mama




Ann – Nyai


 


Minke – Nyai




nonreciprocal


 


nonreciprocal




showing intimacy


showing intimacy






10




Papa




Indo – western




nonreciprocal




showing intimacy






11




Aku




Java - Java


 


Java – Dutch




reciprocal


 


nonreciprocal




showing intimacy


showing intimacy






12




Sahaya




Java – Java




nonreciprocal




showing intimacy






13




Kowe




Dutch – Java




nonreciprocal




Disrespecting






14




Nak




Java – Java




nonreciprocal




showing intimacy






15




Gus




Java – Java




nonreciprocal




showing intimacy






16




Sinyo




Java –Indo


Java – Java




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


respecting






17




Abang




Indo - Indo


Java – Java




nonreciprocal


nonreciprocal




Respecting


showing intimacy






18




Mas




Indo – Java




reciprocal




showing intimacy






19




Man




Dutch – Java




nonreciprocal




Disrespecting






20




Mr (Meester)




Java – Dutch




nonreciprocal




Respecting






The table above shows that there are three functions of addressing terms, respecting, disrespecting, and showing intimacy. From the data above, the relations of the interlocutors are mostly nonreciprocal, so it shows that social status is very important in colonial era because the nonreciprocal relations illustrate the difference power between addressor and addressee. In many nonreciprocal cases, the higher social status will get V form from the addressors to show their respect and say T form because they are not stand in the same position as the addressee. Except respecting, nonreciprocal relation is also used to show disrespect. The addressing terms that are used to disregard are especially designed for lower class by upper class or have bad connotation. In contrast, to show intimacy, the relations of the interlocutors are sometimes reciprocal or nonreciprocal. The dimension of solidarity is little bit different from power, because even the interlocutors are not stand in the same position they can use intimate addressing terms because their relations are close.


 


DISCUSSION


After analyzing the translation of addressing terms from the source text to target text, now the writer discusses the result of the analysis.


 


Comparison of Original and Translation


The research compares the field, tenor, and mode of Bumi Manusia and This Earth of Mankind. The concept of field, tenor, and mode are sociolinguistic dimensions of context of situation jointly characterizing a particular register. House (2009; 33) stated that the original and its translation should have an equivalent function whenever possible. He also said that text and context of situation are indeed separated, but the two interact with each other through inextricable connection between the social environment and the functional organization of language.


Before analyzing the register, it is needed to analyze the genre first. House (2009; 35) explained that genre connect an individual text with the larger cultural context of the linguistic and cultural community in which the text is embedded. The genre of Bumi Manusia is historical fiction but it is based on the reality. It included to historical story because the setting illustrated the situation of Indonesia in the late of nineteenth century. The author used particular time and places that make the story as if it was real. The story happened in 1890’s, when the national movement had been begun by native to fight against colonizer through non-violence way.


 


Field


The first dimension of register is field. Holmes (2009; 34) explained that field captures the subject matter or topic. It describes what the text is about and what kinds of thing are in text. The text was about Minke’s life. It describe Minke’s journey who is a naïve boy at first to be a mature person. In that process, Minke should face many problems dealing not only with himself but also his society and the colonizer. The complexities of Minke’s problem include the conflict of social judgments, hierarchy system, and racial conflict. The description of this story is not so much as historical text but an attractive, easily readable story. Evidence for this is the use of Malay language in telling the story rather than Javanese or Dutch. Malay was language of interracial communication which was used by many people weather Native or Eurasian. However, there were many terms that are not Malay, but they were only used as addressing term.


The choice of particular addressing term in Bumi Manusia shows the style of speaking and the purpose of the speaker, indeed the social status. Mevrouw, Juffrouw, Meester, and Meneer are some addressing terms that were borrowed from Dutch language, while Mas, Ndoro, Gus, Mas and Man are some addressing terms that were borrowed from Javanese language. The used of various addressing terms has function as the mark of power and solidarity. As seen in table 4.1.3 (see page 102) there are three functions of addressing terms, respecting, disrespecting, and showing intimacy. From that data, the relations of the interlocutors are mostly nonreciprocal, so it shows that social status is very important in colonial era because the nonreciprocal relations illustrate the difference power between addressor and addressee. The feudal and colonial system forced people to respect everyone who have more power. Geertz (1960: 282) explained that it is nearly impossible for language that applied etiquette system to say anything without indicating the social relationship between the speaker and the listener in terms of status and familiarity. In many nonreciprocal cases, the higher social status will get V form from the addressors to show their respect and say T form because they are not stand in the same position as the addressee. Juffrouw, Noni, Mevrouw, Nyai, Tuanmuda, Tuan, Ndoro, Menner, Sahaya, Sinyo, Abang, and Meester are addressing terms to show respect. The translation appears to be generally and decrease its local color because the absence of Dutch addressing terms as the marker of Dutch colonial. Even the translation of Dutch addressing terms have the same function to respect the addressee, the translation can not replace the emotion and the feeling of the original.


Except respecting, nonreciprocal relation is also used to show disrespect. The addressing terms that are used to disregard are especially designed for lower class by upper class or have bad connotation. For instance, Kowe is addressing term that was used by Dutch people to express disrespect toward Javanese. The translation of Kowe, you, can not express the same function as the original because this term is neutral addressing term.


 In contrast, to show intimacy, the relations of the interlocutors are sometimes reciprocal or nonreciprocal. The dimension of solidarity is little bit different from power. Even the interlocutors were not stand in the same position they can use intimate addressing terms because their relations are close. In Bumi Manusia, the relations of the people who used intimate addressing terms such as Mama, Papa, Gus, Abang, and Nak were nonreciprocal. Gus, Abang and Nak were used by older people to younger people. In Javanese, age is one of the main distinctions of nonreciprocal relation. The older people do not need to use polite form, but in this case Gus, Abang and Nak are polite addressing term that indicated close relationship between older and younger people. The translation of Abang (your friend) and Nak (child) can not full fill the same function as the intimate sign like the original did.


 


Tenor


House (2009; 34) stated that tenor refers to the nature of the participants, the author and his or her addressee, the relationship between them in terms of social power and familiarity, the author’s intellectual and affective position, that is, his or her personal viewpoint. The author was an Indonesian author of novels, short stories, essays, polemic and histories of his homeland and its people. The author seemed to be very aware of the conditions of his story. He attempted to create colonial atmosphere as same as the reality. The choice of the addressing terms included Dutch, Malay, and Javanese was the evident. By differing the addressing terms based on the ethnicity and social status, the author would like to inform the reader the ‘reality’ in the past. He wanted to show that there were social distance between poor and rich, also Javanese as the colony and Dutch as the colonizer. He persisted to use Dutch addressing terms rather than change it into Malay to create colonial atmosphere because at that time Dutch people make their language as exclusive language. The translator also tried to create colonial atmosphere by using Java and Malay addressing term that do not have equivalent in English. However, instead of using Dutch term as the author did, the translator change the addressing terms into English. Dutch and English are still in the same language family, so there are many terms of English and Dutch that have the same meaning. Mevrouw, Juffrouw, Meneer, and Meester are Dutch terms. Except Meester, they are denotatively equivalent. Mevrouw could be translated as Mrs, Juffrouw as Miss, and Meneer as Mr. They have the same referents in the real world, so it makes them denotatively equivalents. Although, the translator failed to capture that Dutch addressing term has special function as imperial impression. Ashcroft (2002; 7) stated that one of main features of imperial oppression is control over language. Dutch people, at that time, not only controlled for social, politic, and economic aspects but also controlled the language. They limit the used of their language for themselves and their offspring to marginalize their colonies. The translator did not catch the author’s aim that he wanted to show the great distance between Dutch and Javanese people. Instead of giving the Dutch colonial atmosphere, the translator gave mental image of British colonialism because the special terms that implicate Dutch colonialism had been translated in English terms.


Based on the table in 4.1 (see page 3), most addressing term translation dealt with cultural context. This problem arose because the translation and the original can not make the same psychological understanding for the readers. In addition, the translator used inconsistent term in his translations that primarily make the reader confused.


 


 Mode


House (2009; 34) defined Mode as a channel of communication. Equivalence in dimension of mode relates to the means whereby the communication is performed. In Bumi Manusia, there were some addressing terms that have different meaning than the lexical meaning because of the feeling of the speaker. Kowe actually is common addressing terms in Javanese society to address someone who is younger or have closed relation, but when it is used by Dutch people the function is changed from showing intimacy become disrespecting. When the Dutch people used Kowe in Bumi Manusia novel, the character always used it in high tension. However, the reader will not catch that Kowe has negative connotation directly because the translation term, you, is neutral addressing terms. The communication purpose of the term Kowe cannot easily catch. So, the irritation of the character could not be understood by the reader.


As seen from the mode, field, and tenor analyses above, it show that the original and the translation are not equivalence. The genre of the translation in translating addressing term is not so much as the original because some translation of the addressing terms can not reveal the atmosphere of Dutch colonial that become the main point in this equivalence problem.


 


Equivalence Problem in Translating Addressing Terms in Bumi Manusia


The analysis of register categories above clearly showed that the original and translation are not equal. Equivalence of source text and target has limited area because not all of the equivalence approaches can achieved all translation cases. The main factor that made the addressing in source text do not have suitable equivalence in target text is the special concept of Dutch colonial and Javanese culture. Nababan (1999: 99) said that the concept of source text can reveal a concept that is not well known in the target text. Some addressing terms from source text that has special concept are difficult to have their equivalence in target text because of the cultural concept of addressing term from Dutch and Javanese like Juffrouw, Noni, Mevrouw, Nyai, Ndoro, Meneer, Gus, Sinyo, Mas, Man, and Meester. Those terms can not easily be transferred to target text because those terms are created by certain condition in particular communities. Some of those terms, Juffrouw, Noni, Mevrouw, Ndoro, and Meneer have the same denotation with the translation term, but the original and translation addressing term have different connotation that make them share different interpretation.


The special concept that can not be replaced in target text lead to others related problem. The special concept of particular culture make the language concept of source text is not available in target text. Nababan (1999: 99) explained that the words of source text could be understand and recognized in target text but the target text does not have a term that can reveal the concept from source text. In this case, the term Sahaya and Kowe in source text have different concept from Aku and Kau. The target text do not differ the first and second singular pronoun that make the translation of Sahaya and Kowe have different function from source text. Even the concept of Sahaya and Kowe could be understand in the target text, but the term that have the same meaning and connotation with those term are not available. So, the translator used ‘I’ and ‘you’ in a pinch to replace Sahaya and Kowe even ‘I’ and ‘you’ also used to translate Aku and Kau.


The complexities of Javanese community that apply speech level also direct the translation to the equivalence problem because it makes difference of interpersonal perspective. Nababan (1999: 03) argued that interpersonal perspective is related to the relation of the participants in a text. In a language that really concern to etiquette like Javanese, Geertz stated that it is impossible to address someone without pay attention to the status of the addressee. Etiquette system force the people to create different term for one concept, so the participant can easily choose the right term to address someone that suitable for both the addressor and the addressee. For instance, in Bumi Manusia there are three different addressing terms to call male parent, Papa, Ayah and Ayahanda. The use of those addressing term could reflect the social status of the addressor and the addressee. Papa is used in western family who live Dutch East Indies, Ayah is used in middle-low family, while Ayahanda is used in Javanese aristocrat family. This difference of Papa, Ayah and Ayahanda can not be seen in the translation because the translator translated them as ‘father’.


The other problem of equivalence that appears because of the particular culture of the two languages is the difference of expressive meaning. According to Nababan (1999: 103) the words in source text and target text have the same proportional meaning but often they are different in expressive meaning. There are many addressing terms that have the same proportional meaning but they are different in expressive meaning because Malay terms differentiate the addressing terms based on the relationship and the social status. The term Nak has the same proportional meaning with child, but they are used in different intention. Nak is for showing intimacy but child dispose to create formal atmosphere rather than familiarity. Both terms have the same proportional meaning but they express different purpose and connotation.


The different perspective toward a concept will also lead the translation to equivalence problem (Nababan, 1999: 101). Furthermore, it is also the effect of special concept in source text. The term Man in Javanese context at that time was used to address Javanese adult male from middle-low status. In the translation text, the term Man translated as man because English does not distinguish the term man for rich or poor people. In the other hand, the translator also missed to capture the perspective of the character in choosing particular term when he translated Abang. The proportional meaning of Abang is addressing term to call elder brother but it could be used to call man or boy who is elder than the addressee. The translator translated Abangmu as your friend but from Nyai Ontosoroh’s point of view, she used Abangmu to make Annelies felt comfort and consider Minke as her own son. Changing the term Abangmu as your friend would lead the reader to different understanding because it seems that Nyai Ontosoroh treat Minke as only her guest.


The other factor except special concept of Dutch colonial and Javanese culture is the difference in grammatical system. Nababan (1999; 108) stated that grammatical equivalence focuses to the similar concept of source text and target text at the level of number, gender, person, tense, and aspect. In translating the addressing term, the problem appeared when source language and target language have different grammatical system. The term Nyai-Nyai became Nyais or Tuan-Tuan became Tuans is not equivalence because both term are Malay term. Malay and English apply different method to change the singular concept to be plural. The translator used free style translation and he missed to understand the language system of source text and target text because he translated Nyai-Nyai as Nyais and Tuan-Tuan as Tuans. Nyai and Tuan are not English term, so the plural form of Nyai and Tuan are not necessarily Nyais or Tuans because it is unclear whether Nyai and Tuan are countable or uncountable noun. Accountability concept is universal concept that can be understood by all people and can be expressed through lexical structure in all language, but not all languages have grammatical category for number and not all languages apply the same concept for number. Therefore, the translator should observe carefully whether one concept of a language could be applied to another language or not. The reader of the target text would feel unfamiliar because in some text, the translator used Nyai and Tuan for singular form, but after that those terms became Nyais and Tuans, whereas the reader could have another understanding rather than think that those terms are plural form because they never know the terms Nyais and Tuans before.


 


Double Perspective in Translating Bumi Manusia


Constructing the effective translation is one of the purposes of translation. Nababan (1999:88) stated that there are two main factors that determine the effectiveness of the translation. The first is dimension of linguistic and knowledge. Straight (as quoted in Nababan, 1999) said that fruitfulness in conveying the message depends on the knowledge about the context of culture and the language system  of source language and target language. In this case, the translator failed to capture that addressing term play important role because it reflects etiquette culture of Javanese and Dutch colonial culture in Dutch East Indies.


The second factor is purpose dimension. Nababan (1999, 87) stated that the translator should decide the purpose of the translation. Further, he explained that the purpose should meet this criteria; fruitful to the original,   use translation style that appropriate to source text, use suitable equivalence, and the readability level of translation fitted to the source text. However, the analysis in the previous part show that the translation of addressing terms dealt with many equivalence problems and shared different function and connotation from the original that make the translation become unreadable and confusing for the reader.


Both dimensions above can not be reached by the translator because he used more than one perspective in translating the addressing terms. Before translating a text, a translator had to analyze the source text to understand the content of the text. Then, the translator chose the approach that is suitable for source text. From the data in the table in 4.1 (see page 3), the writer found some addressing terms that have many equivalent problems. The translator may use more than one procedure in translating addressing terms because the procedure of translation is for sentences or smaller linguistics units as clause, phrase, word, etc. However, before determining the procedure, the translator should choose the perspective or method that he wants to apply in translating the source text. The method that the translator used will be a framework that guides the translator to translate the text in a line. The writer noticed that the translator used double perspectives that make his translation contradictory. In translating addressing terms such as Noni, Ndoro, Nyai, Tuan, Tuanmuda, Papa, Gus, Sinyo, and Mas, the translator used perspective that was focus on the original text. House (2009: 15) explained that a focus on the (original) texts mean analyzing it, and systematically linking its form and functions in order to reveal the original author’s motivated choices. The translator considered the reason of the author in choosing addressing terms and tried to find out the closest equivalence in target text, even for some addressing terms do not have any equivalence that make the translator insisted to use the original term.


In contrast, the translator also used perspective that focus on the process of interpretation. House (2009: 20) defined this perspective as the translator way to builds up an individual mental representation of its meaning. House added that the reconstitution of the ‘the meaning’ of a text to fit another language and context is not the central point. It is dealing more with the invention of the translator then discovery of what is already exist in a text. Therefore, when the translator used this perspective to translate some addressing terms such as Juffrouw, Noni, Mevrouw, Nyai-Nyai, Tuan-Tuan, Nak, Abang, Man, etc the translation become very different from the context in source text. This perspective also leads the translator to make confusing translation because the translation for one term becomes inconsistent. Moreover some addressing terms have different meaning and connotation from the source text.


In translating a text, translator should use only one perspective to make the synchronized translation. Double translation would lead the translator to different way in translating addressing term because one perspective deal with different  point of view to another perspective. In Bumi Manusia case, it is much better for the translator to only apply the perspective that focus on the source text since the background of the original can not be easily transferred to target text. Moreover, if the translator was consistent to use one perspective, he would not make ambiguity translation. By understanding the whole context of the story that include ecology, technology, material culture, social organization, myth, and linguistic system of source text, the translator would have better perceptive to make good translation that fruitful to the original but it is still readable for the target reader.


 


CONCLUSION


This study is conducted to describe how the phenomenon of translating addressing terms is rolled out in BumiManusia and This Earth of Mankind. The conclusion of this study is formulated based on the statement of problems. Some translation theory based on several authors (House; 2009; Machali 2000; and Nababan; 1999): translation perspective, equivalence in translation, equivalence problem, and register categories of field, mode, and tenor are combined to the theory of addressing term (Wardaugh; 2006), pronouns of power and solidarity (Brown and Gilman; 1960) and lexical relation (Kreidler; 1998)  to identify how the translator translated the addressing terms and the relation of the addressing terms toward the cultural context.  Then, the writer comes to a conclusion that:


The T and V approach also showed that power and solidarity become the main consideration for the characters in choosing addressing terms, so that the characters used different addressing terms depend on the status of the addressee and the relation among the characters. The translator used three patterns in translating addressing terms. In the first pattern, the translator used literal translation to translate Juffrouw, Noni, Mevrouw, Tuanmuda, Tuan, Ndoro, Meener, Papa, Ayah, Ayahanda, Sahaya, Aku, Kowe, and Nak. In second pattern, the translator used original terms, Noni, Nyai, Ndoro, Gus, Sinyo, and Mas in the target text. The last pattern is changing the addressing terms such as Nyai-Nyai, Tuan, Sahaya, Abang, Man, and Meester since the adaptation of target text. From the patterns above, it was found that the translator was inconsistent to translate some addressing terms because he translated one term used some different procedure that make the meaning of the addressing terms contradictory. Also he did not pay attention to the culture and the context that involve in addressing terms so he only did linguistic translation without concerning to the cultural influences.


The main factor that lead untranslatability of translating Bumi Manusia’s addressing terms is special concept of Javanese culture and Dutch colonial system that make the addressing terms can not be easily transferred to target. The difference of grammatical system of source language and target language also lead the translator to get difficulties in finding suitable equivalence for the addressing terms. Therefore the translator used double perspective to solve the equivalence problems. As a result double perspective that was expected to solve the problem instead made a larger problem because the translation of addressing terms become untranslatability and unreadable.


 


SUGGESTION


Addressing terms is general phenomenon which occurs in daily life. But, the analysis of translating addressing terms is still rarely discussed whereas linguistics and its branches is basically concerning with the use of language. From this study, the future researchers are suggested to be more interested in enlarging their knowledge dealing with applied linguistics, especially translating addressing terms which concerns with how translating addressing terms based on cultural context. Equally important, it is suggested for the readers to pay attention in choosing addressing terms based on the condition and the status of the addressee because the wrong addressing terms choices will make the addressee feel insulted or annoyed 


 


REFERENCES


Ananta Toer, Pramoedya. 2011. Bumi Manusia. Jakarta: Lentera Dipantara.


Ananta Toer, Pramoedya. 1996. This Earth of Mankind. New York: Penguin books Ltd.


Ashcroft, Bill and Griffiths, Gareth. 2002. The Empire Writes Back – Theory and practice in post-colonial literatures. New York and London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.


Bogdan, Robert. C and Sari Knopp Biklen. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods.Allyn and Bacon. Inc. USA


Brown, R., Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of Power and Solidarity. Thomas A. Sebeok, eds. Style in Language. Cambridge-Massachusetts: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 252-275.


Geertz, Clifford. 1960. Linguistic Etiquette. Thomas A. Sebeok, eds. Style in Language. Cambridge-Massachusetts: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 282-295


Holmes, Janet. 1992. An Inroduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman Group.


Hornby, A. S. (Ed.) 1948. Advanced Learner's Dictionary  (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.


House, Juliane. 2009. Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Machali, R. .2000. Pedoman Bagi Penerjemah. Jakarta: Grasindo.


Nababan, R. 1999. Teori Menerjemah Bahasa Inggris. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar


Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Retrieved on June 25, 2013 from site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramoedya_Ananta_Toer


Rothschild, Metthew. Interview with Pramoedya Ananta Toer. The Progressive Magazine. Retrieved on June 26, 2013 from site: http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv1099


Sugiyono. 2010. MetodePenelitianKuantitatif R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.


Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An Introduction to Sociolinguistic.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing


Widyastuti, Susana. Componential Analysis of Meaning: Theory and Applications. Online journal. Retrieved on June 25, 2013 from site: http://eprints.uny.ac.id/1174


W. Kreidler, Charles. 1998. Introducing English Semantic. London: Routledge.


 


 


 


 


Full Text: DOC

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.