Sugeng Hariyanto
(This article is also published in http://www.translationdirectory.com/article638.htm)
Translating
literary works is, perhaps, always more difficult
than translating other types of text because literary
works have specific values called the aesthetic and
expressive values. The aesthetic function of the work
shall emphasize the beauty of the words (diction),
figurative language, metaphors, etc. While the expressive
functions shall put forwards the writer's thought
(or process of thought), emotion, etc. And the translator
should try, at his best, to transfer these specific
values into the target language (TL). As one genre
of literature, poetry has something special compared
to the others. In a poem, the beauty is not only achieved
with the choice of words and figurative language like
in novels and short stories, but also with the creation
of rhythm, rhyme, meter, and specific expressions
and structures that may not conform to the ones of
the daily language. In short, the translation of poetry
needs 'something more' than translating other genres
of literature. This simple writing will present in
brief some considerations in translating poetry and
the eight-stage procedure to translate a poem.
The Methods
In general, there are a lot of methods in translating
a text, but not all of them are appropriate to use
in translating a poem. Andre Lafevere (in Bassnett-McGuire,
1980: 81-82) noted seven methods adopted by English
translators in translating Catullus's poems: phonemic
translation, literal translation, metrical translation,
verse-to-prose translation, rhymed translation, free
verse translation, and interpretation.
Phonemic translation attempts to recreate the sounds
of the source language (SL) in the target language
(TL). And at the same time the translator tries to
transfer the meaning. According to Lafevere, in general
the result sounds awkward and sometimes leaves some
parts of the original meaning behind.
Literal translation means word-for-word translation.
This method will not be able to transfer the original
meaning; while the phrase and sentence structures
tend to fall by the wayside in the TL.
The metrical translation emphasizes the reproduction
of the original meter into the TL. And because each
language has its own specific stressing and pronunciation
system, this method will result in the inappropriate
translation in terms of meaning and structure.
Verse-to-prose translation has also some weaknesses.
The outstanding weakness is the loss of the beauty
of the original poem.
The next method is rhymed translation which emphasizes
the transferring of the rhyme of the original poem
into the translation in TL. The result will be appropriate
physically but tend to be semantically inappropriate.
The sixth method is free verse translation. With
this method the translator may be able to get the
accurate equivalents in the TL with a sound literary
value of the result. On the other hand, the rhyme
and meter tend to be ignored. So, physically the result
is different from the original, but semantically it
seems the same.
The last method noted by Lafevere is interpretation.
According to him there are two types: version and
imitation. A version of a poem in the TL will semantically
be exactly the same with the original, but physically
totally different. Further, an imitation is exactly
a different poem, but the title, topic, and starting
point are the same with the original poem.
Lafevere's explanation of the above methods seems
to reemphasize Cluysenar's opinion that the weaknesses
of the poetry translation methods are due to the emphasis
given to one or some of the poetic components in the
process of translating. The literal, metrical, and
rhymed translation seem to emphasize the "form"
or "poetic structure" of the poem; while
the rest emphasize on the transferring of the precise
meaning into the TL. It seems no methods described
above will cater the poetry translators' needs appropriately.
According to Suryawinata (in Aminuddin, 1990: 140),
among several translation methods proposed by experts
the communicative and semantic translation are worth
noting. The two are even said to be the only methods
that fulfill the two main aims of translation: accuracy
and economy (Newmark, 1981: 22, 1988: 47).
The term communicative and semantic translation themselves
are proposed by Newmark (1981: 38-56, 62-69). Communicative
translation attempts to render the exact meaning of
the original in such a way that the readers may not
find difficulties in understanding the message of
the translated text. In communicative translation,
therefore, the translator can generously transfer
the foreign element in the SL into the culture of
the TL where necessary. This type of translation is
best used for general argumentative and scientific
texts, which are also called informative and vocative
texts by Newmark.
The semantic translation, on the other hand, attempts
to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the
original by taking more account of the aesthetic values
and expressive component of the original poem, such
as peculiar choice of words, figurative language,
metaphors, sounds, etc. This type of translation is
best used for imaginative literatures, which are also
called expressive texts by Newmark. The writer, however,
agrees with Suryawinata (in Said, 1994: 41-42) stating
that a poetry translator, in fact, frequently functions
as the mediator of the communication between the poet
and the reader. Therefore, the translator should take
the readership into account. In short, he should try
to make the content and the beauty of the original
poem ready for readership.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aminuddin., ed. 1990. Pengembangan Penelitian Kualitatif
dalam Bidang Bahasa dan Sastra. Malang: YA3
Bassnett-McGuire. 1980. Translation Studies. NY:
Mathuen & Co. Ltd.
Finlay. F. Ian. 1971. Teach Yourself Books: Translating.
Edinburgh: The English Universities Press Ltd.
Frawley, William., ed. 1953. Translation: Literary
and Philosophical Perspectives. Associated University
Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. Textbook of Translation. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
