Translation strategies employed by Mona Baker when translating the “Non-equivalence at word

level in to the target language.

C. Theoretical Framework

In “A Textbook of Translation,” Peter Newmark states that “Translation is rendering the meaning of a
text into another language in the way the author intended the text. Common sense tells us that this
ought to be simple, as one ought to be able to say something as well in one language as in another” (5).
In this thesis, the translator is not only required to translate the chosen novel, but also giving
commentaries on her translation work. This activity is called annotation. This thesis is focusing to the
problem of finding the exact meaning from SL word to TL word. Different kind of non-equivalence
requires different strategies since some words are straightforward, and some words are difficult to
handle (Mona Baker 20). The analysis is done by using the theory of Mona Baker in the non-equivalence
at word level by identify the specific problem and applying the most proper strategy. The strategies are
used to cope with the difficulty in finding the most suitable equivalent.

1. Problem of non-equivalence at word level

Non-equivalence at word level is a kind of translation problem’s where the TL has not direct equivalence
for a word in the source text (ST). There are eleven types of non- 7 equivalence at word level problem.
Every type of problem requires different strategies (Mona Baker 21).

The following are types of non-equivalence at word level problem:

a. Culture-specific concepts

Culture-specific concept is a concept in the SL that is unknown in the TL. It is the condition when the TL
could not provide the word which has the same concept as the word in the ST since it is not available in
the TL. The concept could be either abstract or concrete. It may relate to a religious belief, a social
custom, and a type of food.

Example

Source language: Panggil saya ‘mas’.

Target language: Call me ‘honey’.

The word mas means older brother and the word ‘honey’ in English is usually used to call the beloved
person. This concept is refered to a social custom and if the translator can not find the direct meaning, it
is possible to find a word in TL which can convey the same concept as in the SL (Widhiya Ninsiana 90)

b. The source language concept is not lexicalized in the target language

The source language concept is not lexicalized in the TL is a concept known in TL but not lexicalized.
There is no allocated word in the TL to express the concept of the SL.

Example

Source text: Salak ini rasanya sepet.

Target text: This snakefruit is still unripe and tastes weird.

The word ‘sepet’ in Bahasa indonesia has no equivalent in English and the concept is difficult to
illustrate. The translator is able to find the word that has the closest mening or explain the word so the
reader will understand the meaning even though it makes the TT less expressive.

c. The source language word is semantically complex

The common problem in translation is ‘The source-language word is semantically complex’. Words do
not have to be morphologically complex to be semantically complex (Bolinger and Sears, 1968).
Sometimes a single word which consists of a single morpheme 8 is able to express meaning which is
more complex than a whole sentence. A language will turn concise form into a complex concept if the
concept is quite important to be talked about frequently. A translator does not always realize that a
word can be semantically complex until she or he has to translate it into a TL which does not have an
equivalent for that word.

Example

Source language: Anak itu sedang tidur tengkurap di lantai.

Target language: That kid is sleeping with his body facing the floor.

A word is the smallest unit of language and sometimes a single word can express the more complex
meaning than a whole sentence as seen in the example above. The word tengkurap has no direct
equivalent in English and the translator chooses to translate it into words which are the explanation of
tengkurap, which is ‘sleeping with body facing ground’ (Widhiya Ninsiana 90)

d. The source and target language make different distinctions in meaning

The TL may have fewer distinctions or more distinction in meaning than the SL. Sometimes a concept in
the TL is considered as important that it has some distinction in meaning, but the SL does not think that
it is important so it does not make any distinction in meaning.

Example

Source text: Eko is going out in the rain when he does not bring an umbrella.

Target text: Eko kehujanan ketika tidak membawa payung

The word kehujanan is a condition where a person accidentally not bringing an umbrella and he
becomes wet because of the rain, but hujan-hujanan means going out in the rain on purpose and the
person who is hujan-hujanan seems to like that condition. But the SL does not make any distinction with
this word, all the English native speakers are only care that that person is wet because of rain, they do
not care about how the person can get wet. And the translator chooses kehujanan because Eko is
accidentally wet since he don not bring his umbrella (Mona Baker 22).

e. The target language lacks a superordinate

The TL may have the specific words (hyponym), but the TL does not have the general word
(superordinate).

Example
Source text: She had jewelry and several socks filled with guilders that she had saved and hidden in her
mattress.

Target text: Dia memiliki perhiasan dan beberapa kaus kaki berisi uang logam.

The word ‘guilders’ means the unit of money in the Netherlands in 17th century up to 2002 before being
replaced with euro and it has small units which are coins and paper money. The translator chooses to
translate it as uang logam because coins is the kind of money that is often being used in that era instead
of paper money (Widhiya Ninsiana 91).

f. The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

The TL has the general words (superordinate), but seems to be lacked of the specific words (hyponym).

Example

Source text: Nenekku pergi ke pasar naik bemo.

Target text: My grandmother takes a public transportation to traditional market.

Bemo is one of various public transportations in Indonesia. This transportation is not available in any
other countries and unfamiliar for people who live abroad. So, the translator chooses the general word
or superordinate from bemo into ‘public transportation’.

g. Different in physical or interpersonal perspective

Physical perspective is the way a translator choose the word which has more than one meaning or
synonyms. The chosen word depends on the relation of the people to one another or place, and things
to another things. For instance, ‘come/go’, ‘take/bring’, ‘arrive/depart’, and so on. The translator will be
able to choose the suitable word after she or he understand the concept or the ST.

Example

The word ‘come’ in English means getting closer to the place where the speaker is, while the word ‘go’
means getting away from the speaker. The same explanation for other pairs such as ‘take- bring’.
Vietnamese does not make a distinction in such pairs words (Widhiya Ninsiana 92).

h. Differences in expressive meaning

There are words in the TL which hav the same meaning in the SL, but it may have different expressive
meaning. The difference could be considerable or subtle. It could be better if the translator adds
expressive meaning rather than subtracts it. If the item of TL is neutral compared to the SL item, the
translator is able to add an equivalent modifier to make it more expressive.

Example

Source text: Laki-laki itu terlihat seperti banci.

Target text: That man looks so feminine.

The word ‘feminine’ has the similar concept as the word banci, but the word banci is used to mock a
man that acts or dressed like a woman, while feminine is having characteristics that are traditionally
thought to be typical and something suitable for a woman (Cambridge Dictionary). It is true that the
concept is the same but the object is different. The translator chooses the word that has the same
meaning even though it makes the content sound less expressive.

i. Differences in form

“There is no often no equivalent in the TL for a particular form in the ST. Certain suffixes and prefixes
which convey propositional and other types of meaning in English often have no direct equivalents in
other languages. It is relatively easy to paraphrase propositional meaning, but other types of meaning
cannot always be spelt out in a translation. Their subtle contribution to the overall meaning of the text is
either lost altogether or recovered elsewhere by means of compensatory techniques. It is most
important for translators to understand the contribution that affixes make to the meaning of words and
expressions, especially since such affixes make to the meaning of words and expressions, especially since
such affixes are often used creatively in English to con new words for various reasons, such as filling
temporary semantic gaps in the language and creating humor. Their contribution is also important in the
area of terminology and standardization.” (Mona Baker 24-25)

Sometimes a translator could not find the equivalent word in the TL. Some English suffixes and prefixes
often have no direct equivalent in other languages.

Example

English has many couplets, for instance, trainer/trainee, it also makes frequent use of suffixes such as –
ish (e.g. boyish) and –able (e.g. drinkable) (Mona Baker 24). The suffix and prefix in English help to
change a slight meaning of the word and still mantain it as a single word, but if it is translated into
Bahasa Indonesia, it will be different. For instance trainer/trainee becomes pelatih/yang dilatih, boyish
becomes seperti laki-laki, and drinkable becomes dapat diminum. It clearly shows that the suffix and
prefix in English does not make a single word still becomes a single word if it is translated into Indonesia,
in Indonesia that word still need the other words to help delivering the meaning of the suffix and prefix.

j. Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms

Even when a particular form of SL has the equivalent in the TL, there will be a difference in the
frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used.

Example

Source text: A mango tree is living in front of my house. In this afternoon, my dog is eating his food and I
am eating the mango.

Target text: Ada pohon mangga tumbuh di depan rumahku. Siang hari ini, anjingku sedang makan
makanannya dan aku makan mangga.

English uses the continuous –ing form for binding clauses mush more frequently than other languages
which had equivalents for it as seen in the text above (Mona Baker 25). The translation will be stilt and
unnatural if the Indonesian translation translating sedang for every ing in the text.

k. The use of loan words in the source text

The loan words in the ST could create a special problem in translation because it is not always possible
to find loan word with the same meaning in the TL. Once a word or expression is borrowed from a
language, the translator could not predict or control its development or the additional meaning.

Example

Source text: My mom likes Angelonia.

Target text: Ibuku menyukai bunga Angelonia.

The word ‘angelonia’ is the scientific name of its flower and it is not the English translation for this
plant/flower. The ST is using the loan word from its scientific name, so 12 does the TT. It is not possible
to find the exact meaning when the SL does not even have the translation for its word and borrowing
the original name is the best solution.