Since the presence of the Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980, 2003) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), people’s understanding of metaphor have been enhanced, that is, metaphor is not merely a linguistic matter, but also a cognitive device. Regarding its translation, metaphor brings about the debates among the translation scholars in the translation studies about metaphor problem of translatability. The traditional theory of metaphor to translation solely views metaphor as a matter of words and the linguistic differences between the ST and TT are the focus of this classic approach (Jensen, 2005). Since the publication of CMT, the translation of metaphor is no longer a matter of
linguistics, but pertains to the conceptual system (Schäffner, 2004). In the study of metaphor in the translation, the new perspective is that the translation does not merely focus to find the linguistic correspondences between the two distinct languages, but also to find the conceptual correspondences between the two distinct cultures (Marquez, 2010). This study aimed to identify the translation procedures employed by the translator in the translation of metaphorical English expressions into the Indonesian target text from the perspective of the CMT in the textbook of psychology applied to law. This study also seeks to investigate the frequency and the distribution of each translation procedures in the textbook with the aim to find out the extent to which the translator selected to translate by using the six translation procedures, and also to which level of professionalism the translator belongs in the conceptual metaphor translation. This thesis is a case study which explored the conceptual metaphor translation from English into Indonesian in the textbook of psychology applied to law (Constanzo, 2004) and its translated Indonesian version (Constanzo, 2006). Data of this study were in the form of metaphorical expressions and conceptual metaphors in the English ST and Indonesian TT. This study was conducted using methodological triangulation: The qualitative one seeks to identify the ways of English-Indonesian Translation of Metaphorical Expressions as Manifested in the Translation work
using the theory of comparative model of translation (Willian & Chesterman, 2002); theory of translation procedure of metaphor (Hiraga, 1991 & Marquez, 2007) and Non-numerical Content Analysis: coding (Cohen et al., 2007) and while the research question number 2 aims to investigate the frequency of occurrence and the distribution of each procedure of English-Indonesian translation of metaphorical expression as manifested in the translation work using the theory of the translation procedure of metaphor (Hiraga, 1991 & Marquez, 2010) and Numerical Content Analysis: categorizing, breaking down, & calculating (Cohen et al., 2007). The qualitative results of this study identified that the translator employed five translation procedures out of six. The most frequently used procedure is the TP1 (65%), namely the English metaphoric expressions were retained in Indonesian TT. The translator used more metaphorical solutions than non-metaphorical solution. Therefore, the translator belongs to the expert translators (Jensen, 2005). In general, the result shows that the correspondences of the translation occurred both in the conceptual level and in the linguistic level. Either English ST or Indonesian TT, generally, shared the conceptual metaphor and metaphorical expressions. Then, the result of the research question number two revealed that the frequency and the distribution of the identified five translation procedures of metaphor were different from one translation procedure of metaphor to another. The additional related finding of this present study revealed that out of the identified 171 English metaphorical expressions, there were 29 source
conceptual domains identified in the English ST with the total frequency of occurrence is 164 times, and out of 127 of Indonesian metaphorical expressions, there were 30 source domains of metaphors identified in the Indonesian TT with total frequency of occurrence is 125 times. |