According to Larson (1984:15) translation method is divided into two categories. First category is from-based or literal translation. Secondly, it is meaning based or idiomatic translation. By literal translations, he means, the translation faithfully follows the form of the SL. On the other hand, the idiomatic translation tries to convey the meaning intended by the SL writer in a natural form of the receptor language.
Larson (1984: 16) then adds that in applying the literal translation, there is rarely a true literal translation. The methods spread in the continuum from very literal, to literal, to modified literal, to near idiomatic, idiomatic, and unduly free. The continuum is drawn as follow:
Larson (1984: 16-18) further explains:
1.Very literal is an interlinear translation. For some purposes, it is desirable to reproduce the linguistic features of the source text, as for example, in a linguistic study of that language;
2.Literal translation is a translation which its sounds like nonsense and has little communicative value. It may be very useful for the purposes related to the study of the source language, they are of little help to speakers of the receptor language who are interested in the meaning of the source language text;
3.Modified literal methods are a way to modify order and grammar of the source language in an acceptable sentence structure in the receptor language. However, the lexical items are translated literally.
4.Inconsistent mixture mixes literal and idiomatic translation in the final draft of translation.
5. Near idiomatic reproduces the meaning of the source language (that is the meaning intended by the original communicator) in receptor language without losing the natural form of the source language.
6.Idiomatic translation reproduces the meaning of the source language (that is the meaning intended by the original communicator) in the natural form of receptor language.
7.The unduly free translation adds extraneous information, which is not stated in the source text. It changes the meaning of SL; it distorts the fact of the historical and cultural setting of the source text.
Newmark (1988: 45-47) uses eight terms in his classification. They are word-for-word, literal, faithful, semantic, communicative, idiomatic, free, and adaptation that divided into two scopes –the methods closest to the source language and the methods closest to the target language. He put them in the form of a flattened V diagram as follows.
(1) The methods closest to the source language
a)Word-for-word Translation. The Source Language is translated word by word.
b) Literal Translation. The SL grammatical forms are converted to their nearest target language equivalent. However, the lexical words are translated out of context.
c)Faithful Translation. This method tries to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraint of the TL grammatical structures. It transfers cultural words and faithfully follows the SL grammatical forms.
d)Semantic Translation. This method concerns the aesthetic value-that is the beautiful and natural sound-of the SL text. In addition, the method compromises on an appropriate meaning. So, that no assonance, or repetition jars in the translation.
(2) The methods closest to the target language
a)Free Translation. Free translation is the translation, which is not, bonded structure and manner.
b)Adaptation. This method is the freest form of translation. It is frequently used for plays (comedies) and poetry.
c)Idiomatic Translation. Idiomatic translation reproduces the message of the source text but tend to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms.
d)Communicative translation. This method attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership.
Prior to Newmark and Larson, Robet Holmes (1970) cited in Gentzler (1993: 91) mentions that there are four methods of translation.
First method retains the form of the original.
The second attempts to discern the function of the text in the receiving culture and seeks parallel function within the target language tradition.
The third is content-derivative, taking the original meaning of the primary text and allowing it to develop into its own unique shape in the target language.
The fourth deliberately retains minimal similarity for other purposes, for which Holmes gives no example.
André Lefevere (1975) quoted in Gentzler (1993: 93) further enrich Holmes’ description. He states that there are seven methodologies which tend to govern the translation process –especially in the translation of poetry. They are:
1) Phonemic translation, which attempts to reproduce the SL precisely in TL.
2) Literal translation, which distorts the sense and the syntax of the original through word-for-word emphasis.
3) Metrical translation, which reproduce the SL metre.
4) Poetry into prose, which changes both of sense and syntax of the SL.
5) Rhymed translation, where the translator enters into a double bondage of metre and rhyme.
Blank verse translation. Again the restrictions imposed on the translator by the choice of structure are emphasized, although the greater accuracy and higher degree of literalness obtained are also noted.
7) Interpretation. Interpret the theme and re-writes it to make the text easier for reception.
Newmark (1981:22)
adds that there are two best methods translations. They are (1) Communicative translation, in which the attempts is to produce the same effect on the target language readers, and (2) Semantic translation, in which the translation attempts within the bare syntactic and semantic constraints of the target language, to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the author. From those methods above, both Newmark (1981: 23) and Larson (1984: 17) explain that the selection of the appropriate translation methods plays an important role in making a good translation. It means that the TL readers read the translation text with confidence that the text they read sounds like the original text.
Several Indonesian experts of translation, such as Machali (2000: 50) and Widyamartaya (1989: 20) notice that Newmark’s methods of translation are the clearest and it can be observed in a translation text.
The use of translation methods depends on the translator needs. Whatever method he/she uses, the main point in translation is to carry messages in source language into the target language well.
REFERENCES
Albakry, M. (2004). Linguistic and cultural issues in literary translation. Retrieved November 17, 2006 from http://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm
Bell, R. T. (1998). Psychological/cognitive approaches. In M. Baker (Ed), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A.D. (1984). On taking tests: what the students report. Language testing, 11 (1). 70-81.
Culler, J. (1976). Structuralist poetics: structuralism, linguistics, and the study of literature. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Graedler, A.L. (2000). Cultural shock. Retrieved December 6, 2006 from http://www.hf.uio.no/iba/nettkurs/translation/grammar/top7culture.html
Harvey, M. (2003). A beginner's course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound terms. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation. London & New York: Routledge.
Jaaskelainen, R., (2005). Translation studies: what are they? Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.hum.expertise.workshop.
Jaaskelainen, R., (1999). Tapping the process: an explorative study of cognitive and effective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in Humanities.
Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263-75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture bumps: an empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Loescher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies. Tuebingen: Guten Narr.
Newmark, P. (1988a). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. (1988b). Approaches to Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation: Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a science of translation, with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
Richards, et al (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. UK: Longman.
Seguinot, C. (1989). The translation process. Toronto: H.G. Publications.
Venuti, L. (1998). Strategies of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 240-244). London and New York: Routledge.
Zhongying, F. (1994). An applied theory of translation. Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching & Research Press.
