CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK, AND RESEARCH MODEL

1.1 Review of Literatures

Several articles and thesis concerning the field of translation studies are

reviewed in this chapter. These works provides some insights into various concepts

that have something to do with translation and terms of address analysis.

The thesis from Liswahyuningsih (2011) entitled “Indonesian V-V

Constructions in “Laskar Pelangi and their translations in “The Rainbow Troops” is

reviewed. This thesis is focused on the types of V-V constructions found in the novels

and the shifts in V-V construction found in the novel. She used the theory of verb in

English grammar and theory of shifts in translation by Catford (1965). To identify the

types of V-V constructions, the data were analyzed based on the semantic contribution

to the verbs construction and their equivalents. In analyzing the varieties of shift found

in translating the Indonesian V-V construction, the data were analyzed syntactically

and grammatically to show the structural differences of the constructions between

Indonesian and English. This study results in two types of shift in the translation of

Indonesian V-V construction into English found in the data source, they are

transposition; that can be divided into unit shift, category shift, and structure shift; and

the second is modulation; that can be divided into lexical loose and lexical dense.

This study is seen as appropriate reference to be used for this study especially

to see how to analyze shift in translation. The relevancies of this thesis for the further

study are the way this study classified the type of shift and how this study use the theory

of shift in translation by Catford (1965) to analyze shift in translation. Both the thesis

and this study use theory of shift and analyze what type of shift occurred in the

translation. The differences between the thesis with this research are the thesis only

analyzed the Indonesian V-V construction shift in English – Indonesian novel

grammatically while this proposal is focused on analyzing the shift of terms of address

in Balinese-English translation. This study is also analyzes the power and solidarity

semantic using the theory of attitude in appraisal theory supported by the theory of

power and solidarity in sociolinguistics by Brown and Gilman, while the previous study

only analyze the shift grammatically and syntactically. The benefit of using this study

as a reference is that it can give the sight in using the theory of shifts in translation

theory to analyze the data and how to sort the corpus data for this study.

The second study is from Arka (2005) entitled Speech Levels, Social Predicates

and Pragmatic Structure in Balinese: a Lexical Approach. This paper accounts for the

interaction between syntax and semantics/pragmatics in the speech styles of Balinese.

The analysis makes use of an explicit representation that accounts for the co-occurrence

restrictions on linguistic expressions which are imposed by social information

associated with the speech level system. It is proposed that social information be

treated in terms of social predicates and modeled using LFG-style parallel structures.

The social predicates are contained in what is called pragmatic structure (prag-str). It

is demonstrated that this approach can account for the plain as well as

the(dis)honouring use of linguistic forms in Balinese. This article is used for reference

because it provides detail information about Balinese speech level and how the

Balinese terms of address is used. This paper also shows the pragmatic agreement in

Balinese language, especially in social hierarchy and terms of address. It has shown

how the traditional speech-level system can be captured in a lexically-based model of

grammar. Arka (2005) proposed that social information representing speech-

participant relations (SPEAKER, ADDRESSEE, and possibly the referent of the event

being talked about) is part of a layer called prag-str. The analysis treats the social

information associated with the speech-level system in Balinese as a form of social

predicate. The social predicate places a restriction on an index associated with an

argument of a head predicate or the SPEAKER or ADDRESSEE.

This study is seen as the appropriate and relevant reference for this study. The

benefit in taking this article as a reference is that the concept about social pragmatic

structure in Balinese terms of address can be known. This is very important as

background knowledge in analyzing the power and solidarity semantic in the

translation of terms of address from Balinese into English which have different

pragmatic agreement. The difference between the paper and this study is this paper is

a translation study which use translation theory to analyze terms of address from two

different languages (Balinese and English) while the paper is not a translation study

and only analyze about terms of address in Balinese language using syntax and

pragmatics theory. Other difference is the paper is analyzing the terms of address more

from the syntax and pragmatic approach, which is in this study, the terms of address

will be analyzed from sociolinguistics approach using appraisal theory.

The next study is from an article entitled Signaling Politeness, Power, and

Solidarity through Terms of Address in Dagbanli by Salifu (2010). This study

identifies the key linguistic components in Dagbanli address forms: kinship terms,

names, and titles and discusses the social and cultural values attached to each. The

subject of this study is the Dagomba kin system in Dagbali, Northern Ghana. He used

the relationship between language and social relations by Brown and Levinson, and

also power and solidarity theory from Brown and Gilman. The address forms discussed

in this paper are generally predictable for people who know one another very well or

whose statuses are clearly defined by their age or position. In situations where these

variables are not so clearly defined the choices available to speakers are varied and

unpredictable and depend on the speaker’s attitude towards the addressee or his or her

view of the situation.

This study is used as a reference because of its relevance with the study; it

analyzes terms of address and also power and solidarity in sociolinguistics. The

differences are, this study conducted in only one language environment, Dagbali

language and it is only analyzed the power and solidarity through the rules of the

language (relationship between one person and the others) while this study conducted

in two language environments, Balinese and English. It is also analyzed the power and

solidarity not only from the Brown and Gilman’s theory, but also from the dimensions

of addresser attitude, by attitude in appraisal theory. This will produce a deeper

analysis especially in the equivalency of power and solidarity semantic in source and

target language.

The fourth study is from an article entitled The Analysis of Persian Terms of

address based on the Theory of Politeness by Moghaddom et. al. (2013). This study

examines the Persian terms of address based on the theory of politeness in three distinct

historical periods of Qajar (1791 – 1925), Pahlavi (1926 – 1979), and after the Islamic

revolution. This study used the theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987)

supported by Holms (1992). This study results in: Persian terms of address of different

historical periods are clearly divided into positive and negative types. Since terms of

address are believed to manifest social relationships as well as social changes, this set

shows different types of addition, deletion, and change in frequency in line with similar

changes in society, such as launching new jobs and occupations as well as improvement

in education. All types of positive terms of address including ‘personal names’, ‘terms

of intimacy’ and ‘kinship terms’ have increased in number. Negative terms of address

of ‘occupational’ and ‘zero terms of address’ have increased in frequency while ‘titles

of honorifics’, ‘educational and cultural’ and also ‘teknonyms’ show to have decreased

in frequency.

This study is seen as a relevant reference because it analyzes terms of address

in Persian language. The benefit in using this study as a reference is that the concept

of politeness in using terms of address can be known. This is important for the

background knowledge how people use terms of address in general and how it can

show politeness and cultural value attached in the language. The difference are this

study is only analyzes this study conducted in only one language environment, Persian

language trough the politeness theory in sociolinguistics. My research conducted in

two language environments, Balinese and English, as a translation study. It is also

analyzed the power and solidarity from the dimensions of addresser attitude, by attitude

in appraisal theory supported by Brown and Gilman’s power and solidarity in

sociolinguistics. This will produce a deeper analysis especially in the equivalency of

power and solidarity semantic in source and target language.

The last study is from an article written by Brata (2013) entitled “Exploring

Power and Solidarity Semantic in Translation of Bible’s Cultural Terms of Address”.

This study is focused on analyzing the power and solidarity semantic in translating

terms of address in the bible from English to Balinese. He used Appraisal Theory from

Martin (2000) and takes the segment Attitude from appraisal theory from Hope and

Read (2004) and Hong (2007). This study shows how power and solidarity semantic

implemented in the translation of terms of address and how shift of meaning triggered

by the addressers’ attitude in situational context.

This study is seen as an appropriate and relevant reference to be used for this

study because this study analyze the same smallest unit, terms of address, and show

how to analyze the power and solidarity semantic in translation. The former study is

also a good reference to know how the appraisal theory applied in analyzing the

translation the terms of address. The former study shows that how context of situation

can influence the use of the terms of address, which also may be found a lot in this

study. The difference is that my research proposal is not only focused in power and

solidarity semantic, but also the shifts in translation. This research will also map the

terms of address in English and Balinese based on the honorific and non-honorific

level.

1.2 Concepts

Three concepts are used in this study; the concept of Balinese terms of address,

the concept of power and solidarity, and the concept of equivalence in translation.

These three concepts are the most appropriate and related to the topic and problems of

the study.

1.2.1 Balinese Terms of Address

In general, terms of address are “words and phrases used for addressing

someone. They refer to collocutors and thus contain strong elements of deixis” (Braun,

1988:5). The emotions, feelings, and even the cultural background of the participants

can be seen from the terms of address used by the addresser (1st person) to address the

addressee (2nd person) or the person being spoken (3rd person).

In Balinese society, terms of address take an important role to increase the

degree of politeness. Apart from personal pronoun, Balinese terms of address also

include names, kinship terms, and occupation (Suastra, 1996:34). Balinese terms of

address are complicated. The selection of the address norms is determined by social

status and other social variables such as age, sex, generation, and so on (suastra,

1996:28). Caste systems also strongly influence the use of terms of address.

There are two factors which affect the application of the caste system in

Balinese society; namely warna ‘colour’ and title. The concept of ‘warna’ is more

importantly related to Hindu religion based on Karma (job or duty) and Guna (talent)

(Widja, 1986:81, Wiana & Santri, 1993:12, cited in Suastra, 1996:3). The notion of

the concept of title is primarily based on hereditary and endogamy (Suastra, 1996:3).

Brown and Gilman (1960) give a concept determined by “power and solidarity

semantic”. They introduced two variants, T for the familiar or intimate relationship

between speaker and addressee, while V designates a polite or distant form (Brown and

Gilman, 1960:255).

Tinggen (1995) defined Balinese language as three levels: basa alus, basa

kapara/andap, basa kasar. Basa alus (polite language) is divided into four: alus

singgih, alus madya, alus sor, and alus mider. Alus singgih is used to place someone

to be higher than us based on their caste or their job, mostly used to speak to God, priest

or someone from royal family (example: Ida nyingakin, nyuryanin (see)). Alus madya

is used when we talk to someone who has higher position than us but less honorable

than alus singgih, and the form is the derivative from alus singgih (example: tiang (I),

sampun (already)). Alus mider is the polite language that can be used in any social

status or social situation and have more neutral sense than alus singgih and alus madya

(example: rauh (come), eling (remember), lemat (knife)). Alus sor is used to ‘lower’

ourselves from the addressee or to place ourselves in lower position in the

communication (example: titiang (I), nunas (eat), peningalan (eyes)). Basa kepara is

the daily language that is used to someone who has close relation to us (example:

“Lakar kija, Tu?” (where are you going, Tu?)). Lastly is basa kasar, which used in

cursing or when we are angry (example: kikil (feet), polo (head)). The former

relationship between speaker and addressee of different status may be asymmetrical

seen from the T-V (tu-vous) distinction. In T-V distinction, T used in non-honorific

addressing for someone while V used in honorific addressing. For example, A gives

V to B and receives T that shows B has higher position than A. Later is a relationship

between speaker and addressee of equal status. It is also called symmetrical

relationship. For example A gives T to B and receives T which shows that they are in

the same position/social status (Brown and Gilman, 1960:254). Balinese, however, has

more than two variants like explained above, which has more than one variation of T

and V. The pattern of Balinese terms of address across castes can be seen from the

following picture:

(Adopted from Suastra, 1996:29)

The terminology might be extended to T, V1, V2, or in fact it may be extended

to T1/T2 and V1/V2, where the connotation of a V pronoun is very dependent on the

status of the other participant (Suastra, 1996:28). The use of Balinese terms of address

can be seen from the following table that shows a nonreciprocal relationship among

castes in Balinese language:

Brahmana

V2 V1

Ksatria

Ksatria

V2 T2/V1

Sudra

Brahmana

V2 V1

Wesia

Wesia

V1 T2/V1

Sudra

Ksatria

V2 V1

Wesia

Brahmana

V2 V1

Sudra

Balinese Terms of Address Variations

Personal

Pronoun

Variants English

Gloss T1 T2 V1 V2

1st pronouns Kai Icang

Cang

Waké

Tiang Titiang for

humble

‘I’

2nd pronouns Iba

Nani

Cai

(male)

Nyai

(female)

Ragané

Jero

Cokeridéwa

Ratu, atu

‘you’

3rd pronouns Poloné

Ia

Ia dané Ida for

refined,

ipun for

humble

‘s/he’

(Adopted from Suastra (1996:30))

The concept of Balinese terms of address from Suastra (1996) and Tinggen

(1995) that has explained above are used in this study to define what and how the

Balinese terms of address is.

1.2.2 Power and Solidarity Semantic

Another type of social relations encoded in language is social distance or

closeness between individuals, or relations of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’. Brown and

Gilman (1960) argue that in some European languages, beyond the deictic functions of

the second person pronouns tu (T) or vous (V), there are in the choice of either pronoun,

signals of relationships of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’, where ‘power’ reflects relative

superior status, social distance, unfamiliarity, and deference, and ‘solidarity’ reflects

closeness, familiarity, common experiences and shared intimacies.

Brown and Gilman (1960:25) stated that:

(1) The power of semantic refers to the nuance of meaning implied by the form

of linguistic variation chosen in the asymmetrical relation between the

addresser and the addressee. Such an asymmetrical relation causes the non-

reciprocal terms of address to vary: Non Honorific, or Honorific-Non-Honorific

in the TL.”

(2) The solidarity semantic refers to the nuance implied by the form of

linguistic variation chosen in the symmetrical relation between the addresser

and the addressee. Such a symmetrical relation causes the forms of linguistic

variants reciprocal: Non Honorific, or Honorific – Honorific in the TL.”

Braun (1988) adopted the model from Brown and Gilman and collected data

from 30 languages. She agrees that power and solidarity are universal features of

address forms. She then proposed the statement below:

Whenever variants expressing intimacy, juniority, low social status, or

inferiority are employed, they can signal—if not mutual intimacy—juniority,

low status, or inferiority of either speaker or addressee (or both) (Braun,

1988:35).

The definition of power and solidarity used in this study is the definition Brown

and Gilman (1960) to differentiate between address forms which show power or

solidarity pronouns in the text.

1.2.3 Equivalence in Translation

Equivalence is the most important thing in doing translation. According to

Brata (2014), a text is stated to be a translation if it is equivalent with another text (SL

text). They are not only equivalent in message but also in form. In particular cases,

form equivalence in the micro level can be created. A metaphor, for example should

be translated into metaphor in SL. However, if it is not possible, it can be translated

literally provided the message it contains the same (Brata, 2014:9). Baker (1992)

classifies equivalent into five levels; they are word, phrase, grammatical, textual, and

pragmatic (cited in Brata, 2014:9).

The concept of equivalence in translation by Brata (2014) and Baker (1992)

above are used in this study to define what equivalence in translation is.

1.3 Theoretical Framework

Theories used in this study are explained in this part. According to the problems

of the study, there are two main theories used: Appraisal Theory by Martin (2000) and

the theory of shifts in translation (Catford, 1965) and some related theories about power

and solidarity semantic and shifts in translation are also used in this study to support

the main theories in analyzing the problems.

The Appraisal Theory proposed by Martin (2000) is used to analyze the first

problem, the sense of power and solidarity semantic conveyed in the translation of the

terms of address from Balinese into English in the text. Theory of shift in translation

by Catford (1965) supported by theory from Brata (2014) is used to analyze the second

problem, the types of shifts in translation occurred in the translation of the terms of

address from Balinese into English in the text. How the theories are used in analyzing

the problem are explained below after the explanation and description of each theory.

1.3.1 Appraisal Theory

Brown and Gilman (1960, cited in Braun, 1988:15) regarding to their concept

about power and solidarity semantic had introduced the symbols T and V (French Tu

and Vous) for the “familiar” second person pronoun and the “polite” pronoun. From

this, they introduce the concept of power and solidarity semantic. Power semantic can

be described as: Superior gives T and receives V, while inferior gives V and receives

T. Upper class speakers addressed each other with reciprocal V, lower class speaker

addressed each other with reciprocal T (Braun, 1988:15).

Later, the selection of T and V came to be determined by factors other than

power. The re-evaluation of social features is called “solidarity semantic”, led to

reciprocity of address with mutual T in the case of intimacy and mutual V in the case

of distance (Braun, 1988:15).

To analyze power and solidarity semantic in the translation of terms of address,

Appraisal Theory from Martin (2000) will be used. Appraisal theory can determine

the effect caused by the terms of address used by the addressee to addresser by the

classification of affect, appreciation, and judgment. By analyzing those effects, the

power and solidarity can be determined and analyzed specifically.

Martin along with White (2005) later developed the Appraisal Theory and made

the appraisal framework that describes a taxonomy of the language employed in

communicating evaluation, explaining how users of English convey attitude (emotion,

judgment of people and appreciation of objects), engagement (assessment of the

evaluations of other people) and how writers may modify the strength of their

attitude/engagement.

Appraisal consists of three subsystems that operate in parallel: attitude looks at

how one expresses private state (one’s emotion and opinions); engagement considers

the positioning of oneself with respect to the opinions of others and graduation

investigates how the use of language functions to amplify or diminish the attitude and

engagement conveyed by a text (Read, Hope, & Carroll, 2007:94):

The model of appraisal theory is shown on the picture below:

Overview of Appraisal Theory framework (Adapted from Martin and White, 2005)

ATTITUDE is the major subsystem in appraisal framework and is the

superordinate term for evaluative language in attitudinal positioning in text. It has three

sub-systems: AFFECT (emotional response – like, fear etc), JUDGEMENT

(evaluation of human behaviour – corruptly, skilfully etc.), APPRECIATION

(evaluation of entities – beautiful, striking etc.)

The Attitude sub-system describes three areas of private state: emotion,

ethics and aesthetics. An attitude is further qualified by its polarity (positive or

negative). Affect identifies feelings—author’s emotions as represented by their

text. Judgement deals with authors’ attitude towards the behaviour of people;

how authors applaud or reproach the actions of others. Appreciation considers

the evaluation of things—both man-made and natural phenomena (Read, Hope,

& Carroll, 2007:94)

Referring to power and solidarity semantic terms of address, the two meanings

mentioned above can be explored from the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the

addresser’s attitude. Martin (2000:160) classifies attitude into three dimensions the

affect, appreciation, and judgment.

In the development of the Appraisal Theory, Hope and Read (2004) and Hong

(2007) classify the affect, appreciation, and judgment into several subsections as can

be seen in the following table:

Attitude in Appraisal Theory

Adapted from Hope and Read (2004), Hong (2007), and Brata (2011)

ATTITUDE

Affect In/Security:

(Emotion of Eco-social well-being)

[+] confidence

[+] trust

[-] anxiety

[-] fear

Un/happiness

(affair of the heart)

[+] happiness

[+] love

[-] sadness

[-] anger

Dis/satisfaction

(emotions associated with the pursuit of

goals)

[+] curiosity

[+] respect

[-] envy

[-] displeasure

Appreciation Reaction Impact

[+] exciting

[-] tedious

Quality [+] good

[-] nasty

Composition Balance [+] unified

[-] discordant

Complexity [+] simple

[-] simplistic

Valuation [+] profound

[-] shallow

Judgment Social Esteem Normality: how

unusual someone is

[+] fortunate

[-] hopeless

Capacity: how

capable someone is

[+] powerful

[-] weak

Tenacity: how

resolute they are

[+] resolute

[-] reckless

Social Sanction Veracity: how

truthful someone is

[+] truthful

[-] dishonest

Propriety: how

ethical someone is

[+] ethical

[-] immoral

The three dimensions of attitude (affect, appreciation, and judgment) are related

to the addresser’s feeling for the addressee or someone spoken about. According to

Brata (2011), affect expressing the feeling of a person that refers to the addresser’s

personal emotion which is more subjective. Appreciation refers to the expression

provided by the addresser from what has been done by the addressee or someone.

Judgment is connected with how someone’s behavior closely related to the socio-

culture of the environment where he/she lives.

The terms of address are analyzed based on the concept of attitude in the model

of appraisal theory to describe the power and solidarity semantic in the Balinese version

and English version. The use of address terms in Balinese are compared to its

translation in English. In analyzing power and solidarity semantic, the relationship and

social status between speaker and addressee context of situation is used as the

measurement. Next, the power and solidarity semantic can be seen by analyzing these

aspects: the translation of the terms of address in English, does the context of situation

can be carried on from SL into TL, the equivalencies, does the sense of power and

solidarity semantic in the SL equivalent with the sense in TL, and the effect given in

the translation of the terms of address from Balinese into English. From the analysis

using the concept of attitude appraisal theory, the sense of power and solidarity

semantic in the Balinese terms of address and its translation can be known.

1.3.2 Theory of Shifts in Translation

The theory of shifts in translation is used to analyze the first problem about

shifts that occurred in the translation of terms of address from Balinese into English.

The main theory used is the theory of shifts in translation by Catford (1965) supported

by the development of the theory from Molina & Albir (2002) and Brata (2014).

Shift represents some changes occurring in a translation process. Translation

shifts occur both at the lower level of language, i.e. the lexicogrammar, and at the

higher thematic level of text. Catford (1965: 73) states that “by shift we mean the

departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from the source

language to the target language”. Further, he states that basically, in shift of translation,

or transposition he says, it is only the form that is changed. In addition, he urges “the

translation shift is done to get the natural equivalent of the source text message into the

target text” (Catford, 1965: 76). Translation shifts also occur when there is no formal

correspondence to the syntactic item to be translated (Machali, 1998: 3). According to

Bell (1991: 33), “to shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the

forms”.

Nida and Taber (1969: 171) say that “some of the most common shifts in

meaning found in the transfer process are modifications which involve specific and

generic meaning.” Such shifts may go in either direction from generic to specific or

specific to generic. A shift may result from the difference of the system in both

languages. The difference can be in the form of vocabulary or structure, the shift

caused by the vocabulary results in a shift in meaning.

Catford (1965:73) divides the shift in translation into two major

types, level/rank shift and category shift. Level/rank shift refers to a source language

item at one linguistic level that has a target language translation equivalent at a different

level. In other words, it is simply a shift from grammar to lexis. Besides the changes

of rank (unit-shifts), Catford (1965) also stated that there are also changes of structure,

changes of class, and changes of term in systems, etc. Some of these—particularly

structure-changes-—are even more frequent than rank-changes. (Catford, 1965:76) .

These kinds of changes belong to the Category Shifts. The category shift is divided

again by Catford (1965) into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift, and intra-system

shifts.

Later, Molina & Albir (2002) and Brata (2014) developed the theory of shifts

from Catford and categorize shifts in translation into two: transposition (change in

grammatical category) and Modulation (change in point of view). The categorization

is used in this study to classify and analyze the data.

1.3.2.1 Transposition Shifts

Transposition shift is the change in grammatical category and the development

of Category Shift by Catford (1965). “Category shift refers to departures from formal

correspondence in translation. What is meant by formal correspondence is any

grammatical category in the target language which can be said to occupy the same

position in the system of the target language as the given source language category in

the source language system” (Catford (1965) in Machali, 1998: 13). The category

shift is divided again by Catford (1965) into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift,

and intra-system shifts.

Transposition is the process where parts of speech change their sequence when

they are translated (Molina & Albir, 2002:511). It is in a sense a shift of word class.

Grammatical structures are often different in different languages and this may cause

shifts in grammatical structure. Brata (2014) also developed the theory of shifts in

translation and classify it into transposition and modulation shift.

Transposition or the shift in grammatical category is divided into four:

Structure shift, Unit Shift, Class Shift, and Intra System Shift. The explanation for

each is explained below:

1.3.2.1.1 Structure Shift

Structure shift is the changing of words sequence in a sentence. In grammar,

structure-shifts can occur at all ranks. The following English-Gaelic instance is an

example of clause-structure shift:

SL text John loves Mary = (John) S | ((loves) P | (Mary) C

TL text Tha gradh aig Jain air Mairi = (Tha gradh aig) P | (Jain) S | (air Mairi)

CA

A rank-bound word-word back-translation of the Gaelic TL text gives us: Is love at

John on Mary. (taken from Catford, 1965:77).

Another example of structure shift is adopted from Simanjuntak (2011):

Source Language Target Language

That pretty doll is bought by my cousin

yesterday

Boneka yang cantik itu dibeli oleh

sepupuku kemarin

“Pretty doll” with its pattern Adj + Noun is translated into “Boneka yang cantik” which

is Noun + which + modifier. Shift of structure is occurred in this sentence.

Brata (2014) divides transposition structural shift into two, and their usage

depends to the linguistic ethic or system and also the social factors that affect the

society of the target language. Structural shift is obligatory due to the linguistic factor,

and is optional due to the cultural factor (Brata, 2014:25). They are:

1. Linguistic Factor

Transposition structural shift based on the linguistic factors means a shift in

structure because of the different linguistic/grammatical system in source and target

language. In the process of translation, a person actually decodes the source language

and tries to find the equivalent meaning of the word phrases and symbols and produce

it in the target language. In the linguistic, equivalence is achieved if the target language

(in specific linguistic medium) carries the same intending meaning or message that the

language carries. One example of structural shift in linguistic factor is taken from Brata

(2014)

Source language Target language

Everyone was filled with fear and they

praised God. “A great prophet has

appeared among us!” and “God has come

to save his people!”

Sakancan anake punika sami pada

karesresan, raris ngluihang Ida Sang

Hyang Widhi Wasa, sapuniki

pangucapipune: “Ada nabi luih suba

mijil di pantaran iragane muah Ida Sang

Hyang Widhi Wasa suba rauh

ngrahayuang parakaulan Idane.”

It can be overtly seen that in SL the head “prophet” is preceded by the modifier

“great”. However, in the TL the head “nabi” is followed by the modifier “luih”. The

structural shift done by the translator is obligatory due to the two different linguistic

system for the sake of intelligibility (Brata, 2014:26).

2. Social Factor

In the process of translation, a person decodes the source language and find its

equivalence in the target language in its society which affected by its social

background, such as religions, political system, ethnicity, family values, physical

attributes (skin color, body type, etc), education, locality, its economic status, etc. the

shift caused by social factor is often optional for the sake of acceptability of the

translation product.

Source language Target language

Beelzebul, the chief of the demons Ratun Setan ane madan Beelsebul

(Adopted from Brata, 2014:26)

Every language has its own way in addressing someone. Here, theme is a

starting point of the message, and rheme is the development of the theme (Brata,

2014:27). In the example above, the theme Ratun setan are followed by the rhemes

ane madan beelsebul. The theme – rheme shift is optional due to the translator’s

preference.

1.3.2.1.2 Unit Shift.

Unit shift is the changes of rank; that is, departures from formal correspondence

in which the translation equivalent of a unit at one rank in the source language is a unit

at a different rank in the target language (Catford, 1965:79). Brata (2014) stated that

unit shift “results from the different amounts of meaning components between the SL

and TL. According to Catford (1965), Unit Shift means the changes of rank or unit. It

means that the departures from formal correspondence in which the translation

equivalent of a unit at one rank/unit in the SL is in a different rank/unit in the TL.

Transposition Unit Shift also can be divided into two according to Brata. They

depend to the linguistic system behind the languages, both SL and TL, and the cultural

factor, which is basically affected the terms of language used to express words in both

languages. The two subdivisions are:

1. High to Low

The definition of High to Low means that the transformations of rank changes

that occur from SL to TL is from a clause or phrase in SL into a word in TL. Or it can

be transformed from a clause in SL into a phrase or a word in TL. The translation has

to be processed by finding the equivalence between the word phrase in SL and the

phrase or clause in TL so that it will not be ungrammatical in both languages’ linguistic.

The shift from a low to high unit results from the TL that has less meaning components

than the SL.

2. Low to High

The definition of Low to High means that the transformation of rank changes

occurred from SL to TL is from a word in SL into a phrases or a clause in TL, or it can

be transformed from a word to a phrase in SL into a clause in TL. The transformation

has to be processed by finding the equivalence between the word and phrase in SL and

the phrase or clause in TL so that it will not be ungrammatical in both languages

linguistic system and culture.

Example:

Source language Target language

Widow (word) Eluh balu (phrase)

(adopted from Brata, 2014:28)

Unit shift from low to high unit means that the TL has more meaning

components than the SL. It can be seen from the example above, the word “widow” is

translated into “eluh balu”, a phrase.

1.3.2.1.3 Class shift.

Class shift occurs when the translation equivalent of a source language item is

a member of a different class from the original item. Catford (1965) gives one example

of class shift in his book: e.g. Eng. a medical student = Fr. un etudiant en medecine.

Here the translation equivalent of the adjective medical, operating at M, is the adverbial

phrase en medecine, operating at Q ((L’adjectif qualificatif (qualifying adjective) in

French defines people or things with a certain quality; Q-adjectives are numerous in

French, very rare in English.); and the lexical equivalent of the adjective medical is the

noun midecine. (Catford, 1965:79).

Class shift according to Brata (2014:29) is a change of word class. In

translation, some shifts occur in the realization of SL system and structures in the TL.

(Al – Zoubi & Al – Hassnawi, 2001). This belongs to the transposition class shift.

Example:

Source language Target Language

They were all amazed and said to one

another, “what kind of words are these?”

With authority and powerthis man gives

order to the evil spirits, and they come

out!

Anake sami pada angob, tur pada, pakisi

sapuniki: “Beh, aeng sidin pangandikan

Idane.” Aji kawibawan muah kawisesan

Ida mrentah setane ento, tur setane pesu

uli sig anake ento!

(Adopted from Brata, 2014)

From the TL pronoun system it can be seen that there was a change in the word

class from the propositional noun “this man” into the expressive pronoun “Ida” (3rd

pronoun: honorific refined form) employing the TL speech level. This shift is

obligatory; otherwise, it will not be acceptable to the TL norm and cultural value.

1.3.2.1.4 Intra system Shift

Intra-system shift refers to the shifts that occurs internally, within the system;

that is for those cases where the source and the target language possess systems which

approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation

involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the target language system (Catford,

1965:80). This kind of shift often occurs in the translation from English into French

especially in singular/plural system, for example we say in English the case (singular)

or the cases (plural), but in French we use the correspondence le cas/les cas. Here are

other examples taken from Catford where the translation equivalent of English singular

is French plural or vice versa that show the shift in intra system:

Source language (English) Target language (French)

Advice (singular)

News (singular)

Trousers (plural)

The dishes (plural)

des conceils (plural)

des nouvelles (plural)

le pantalon (singular)

le vaisselle (singular)

Source: Catford (1965:80)

2.3.2.2 Modulation Shift

Modulation is a shift in point of view. Whereas transposition is a shift between

grammatical categories, modulation is a shift in cognitive categories. Vinay and

Darbelnet (in Molina and Albir, 2002:499) postulate eleven types of modulation:

abstract for concrete, cause for effect, means for result, a part for the whole,

geographical change, etc., e.g., the geographical modulation between encre de Chine

and Indian ink; Indian ink was first invented in China, although the source of materials

to make the carbon pigment in India ink was later often traded from India, thus the

term Indian ink was coined (Smith, 1992:23). French, however, prefer to called it encre

de Chine referring to the origin of the ink. Encre de chine and Indian ink, though, are

the same thing.

Molina & Albir also defines that “modulation consists of using a phrase that is

different in the source and target languages to convey the same idea. It changes the

semantic and shifts the point of view of the source language (Molina & Albir,

2002:510)” Through modulation, the translator generates a change in the point of view

of the message without altering meaning and without generating a sense of

awkwardness in the reader of the target text. For example, He will soon be back

translated into Spanish as No tardará en venir, changing the adverb soon for the verb

tardar, instead of keeping the adverb and writing: Estará de vuelta pronto (Molina &

Albir, 2002: 511). Modulation shift is a kind of shift that is caused by different point

of view between source language and target language which the concept is unknown

in the target language. Modulation is a variation of the form of the message, obtained

by a change in the point of view. “This change can be justified when, although a literal,

or even transposed, translation results in a grammatically correct utterance, it is

considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL” (Vinay & Dalbernet,

2000:89). According to Molina & Albir (2002:510), “to change the point of view,

focus or cognitive category in relation to the ST; it can be lexical or structural, e.g., to

translate فل ط جاب إلن ب تذاه as you are going to have a child, instead of, you are going أن

to be a father.”

Brata (2014) stated that there is a shift in translation caused by differences in

point of view, called Modulation. There are three types of modulation according to

Brata that will be used in analyzing the data in this study: lexical dense, lexical loose,

and emphasizing 2nd person role.

2.3.2.2.1 Lexical dense

The lexical density of a text tries to measure the proportion of the content

(lexical) words over the total words (Liswahyuningsih, 2011:34). Lexical dense makes

the meaning become more explicit in the text.

Example:

SL Where is your faith

Where question

TL Apa kranane cening tusing percaya teken Guru

What caused you not (-) believe with teacher

Why question

(Adopted from Brata, 2014:31)

In the SL, it starts with the lexical item where and positive structure but in the

TL, it starts with why and followed by negative structure. The addition of Guru might

make the implicit meaning explicit. (Brata, 2014:31).

2.3.2.2.2 Lexical loose

In lexical loose, the form of the text is more simplified in lexical. Instead of

making the meanings of words easy to understand, lexical loose is precisely hides them

behind the terms and uses less words than usual. This often found in poetry, novels,

and script.

Example:

SL You fool!

Pronoun

TL Jlema belog

Noun

(Adopted from Brata, 2014:32)

In this example, the explicit information was made implicit by changing the specific

subordinate you as a person into the generic superordinate jlema (human). (Brata,

2014:32)

2.3.2.2.3 Emphasizing 2nd person role

This kind of shift is emphasizing the 2nd person as the addressee in target

language what is his/her role in the conversation.

Example:

SL be afraid of him

(nil)

TL Ida ane patut takutin cening

He who deserved fear son

3rd person 2nd person

(adopted from Brata, 2014:33)

In SL, there are no 2nd person pronoun stated. The addition of ‘cening’ (son) in

the TL was meant to give more emphasis on the second pronoun as an actor (Brata,

2014:33).

From all theories and explanations about shifts in translation, the theory of

shifts from Catford (1965) is used to analyze the first problem in this study, supported

by other theories development that has stated above. The theory used in analyzing shift

that happened in the translation of the terms of address, both from linguistic factor or

social factor. The Balinese terms of address and its translation in English is compared

and analyzed which type of shift it belongs to; whether it belongs to shift in

grammatical (transposition) or shift in point of view (modulation).

2.4 Research Model

In order to give the detailed picture of the entire series of the way how this study

was conducted, it is considered to be important to feature it into diagram:

For the first problem, the power and solidarity semantic in each data was

analyzed and described thoroughly using the appraisal theory. The field of discourse

from the statement was determined, as well as the participants and the role of the

discourse. The terms of address variations in English version and Balinese version

were analyzed. From this, the data could be classified whether it belongs to affect,

SOURCE TEXT TARGET TEXT

TRANSLATION OF TERMS

OF ADDRESS FROM

BALINESE INTO ENGLISH

The power and solidarity semantic

in translating the terms of address

Appraisal Theory

(Martin, 2000)

FINDINGS

Types of shifts occurred in the

translation of terms of address

Shifts in Translation

(Catford, 1965)

appreciation, or judgment and which one shows the power or solidarity semantic and

the reason why based on the effect in the diagram of attitude theory.

Appraisal theory was used to analyze the power and solidarity in the terms of

address because it can determine the effect caused by the terms of address used by the

addressee to addresser by the classification of affect, appreciation, and judgment. By

analyzing those effects, the power and solidarity could be determined and analyzed

specifically.

In translating the second problem, types of shifts in translation occurred in the

translation of the terms of address from Balinese into English in the text, the theory

from Catford (1965) supported by other theory development about shifts in translation

were used. First, the data from source language and the target language were put side

by side between the SL and TL and the types of shifts occurred there were analyzed.

Then, the data was classified into the same categories of shift and were presented three

or four data in each category and the rest were put in the appendix. Next, the shifts of

translation were described below each presented data.