Analysis of the Effect of Translation Techniques on the Quality of Assertive Speech Translation using Impoliteness Theory in “The Silkworm” and “The Cuckoo's Calling” Novels
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35961/salee.v5i2.1478Keywords:
assertiveness, speech act, impoliteness, stored intent, communication interactionAbstract
The study of translation has been widely discussed and used as a research topic in the last decade, and this research contributes to that body of work. The focus of this study is on two detective novels, "The Silkworm" and "The Cuckoo's Calling.". The research focuses on utterances in the form of stating, mentioning, which are referred to as assertive utterances to express impoliteness. Building on Searle’s expansion of Austin's speech act theory, which categorizes speech acts into assertive, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative, this study analyzes assertive speech acts in both English and their translations, using Jonathan Culpeper's Impoliteness Theory. Data were collected by purposive sampling method and analyzed by content analysis. A focus group discussion (FGD) involving translation experts, raters, and supervisors with extensive experience in translation was conducted to identify translation techniques based on Molina & Albir's framework and to evaluate the translation quality of assertive speech acts representing impoliteness, using the assessment model proposed by Nababan et al. Descriptive-qualitative method was used to explain the research data and describe the analysis. The data found that the translation technique could have a significant effect on the quality of the translation.
References
Akbari, M. (2013). The role of culture in translation. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 13 - 21.
Ayd?no?lu, N. (2013). Politeness and impoliteness strategies: an analysis of gender differences in Geralyn l. Horton’s plays. PROCEDIA: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 473 - 482.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beqo, A. (2015). Impoliteness in: “A 14-Year-Old Groom” by Andon Z. Çajupi. Social and Natural Sciences Journal.
Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bloomer, A. P. (2005). Introducing Language in Use: A Coursebook. London: Routledge.
Burke, M. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Stylistics. New York: Routledge.
Cheung, A. (2013). A history of twentieth century translation theory and its application for bible translation. Journal of Translation, 1 - 15.
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 1545–1579.
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kadar, D. Z. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistics (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Djatmika. (2016). Mengenal Pragmatik Yuk!? Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Feren?ík, M. (2017). I’m not Charlie: (Im)politeness evaluations of the Charlie Hebdo attack in an internet discussion forum. Journal of Pragmatics, 54 - 71.
Fereydouni, S., & Karimnia, A. (2016). Process-oriented Translation Studies: A Case Study Based on Lorscher's Model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 102 - 110. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1750.7/tpls.0601.14
Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions. Pragmatics, 36 - 42.
Herman. (2015). Illocutionary Acts Analysis of Chinese in Pematangsiantar. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 41 - 48.
Hobjila, A. (2012). Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness in Didactic Communication – Landmarks in Teaching Methodology. PROCEDIA: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213 - 221.
Horn, L. R. (2006). The Handbook of Prgmatics. Victoria: Blackwell.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jary, M. (2016). Rethinking explicit utterance content. Pragmatics, 24 - 37.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Prgamatics, 1376 - 1394.
Liu, S. (2011). An experimental study of the classification and recognition of Chinese speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 1801 - 1817.
Molina, L., & Albir, A. H. (2002). Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach. META: Journal Des Traducteurs, 47(4), 498 - 512.
Nababan, M. (2004). Strategi Penilaian Kualitas Terjemahan. Jurnal Linguistik Bahasa.
Nababan, M. (2010). Pengembangan Model Peniaian Kualitas Terjemahan. Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia.
Norrick, W. B. (2011). Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
Wang, L. (2013). Cultural functions in the translation of metaphor. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 530 - 535.
Washbourne, K. (2016). Nonlinear Narratives: Paths of Indirect and Relay Translation. Erudite Meta, 607 - 625.
Wilss, W. (2016). Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Erudite Meta, 777 - 785.
Witek, M. (2015). An interactional account of illocutionary practice. Language Science, 43 - 55.
Xia, X. (2015). Meaning in context and nature of translation. Theory and Practices in Language Studies, 652 - 656.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Yoyok Sabar Waluyo, Ratna Widya Iswara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.