ID
ayufsb@gmail.com
Keywords
How to Cite
- Abstract 482
- pdf 292
Abstract
This study aims to identify and analyze the mood and modality as the parts of interpersonal metafunction in translation of the English quotes of motivation into Indonesian. The documentation method was applied to collect the source and target language quotes in the forms of clauses, simple or complex sentences. Close reading technique is applied while collecting the quotes to understand the context of the motivational expressions. The collected data were qualitatively analyzed. In order to identify the translation of English quotes of motivation into Indonesian, the parts of sentence structures in the source and target languages were compared. Contrastive linguistics is relevant for this study in order to identify the difference between both languages. The mood and modality as the interpersonal function of the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) developed by Halliday were applied in analyzing the quotes of motivation. The quotes of motivation in English show the indicative mood, and so do their translations. There are 27 quotes of motivations found. All the quotes belong to the indicative mood, but there is only one quote that has the combination between indicative mood and imperative mood. Indicative mood consists of two sub-categories, they are declarative and interrogative. There is one quote started by a declarative statement, and then followed by the interrogative form, and the rest are declarative sentences. From the modality macro-function, there are eleven quotes in the forms of modal verbs. The quotes of motivation as the modality type show probability since it is given for a specific situation, and it is not used regularly. As the modulation type, it shows the obligation. In terms of the modality values, the high value is used more often than the median value. Most of the translations show similar modality types and modality values, however, there are only two quotes that show different modality types but the same modality values. The change is from the modalization type of probability ‘should’ to the modulation type of obligation ‘must’. The modality type shift does impact the reader’s understanding.
References
Brata, F. I. M. (2010). Textual and Contextual Meanings in Translation. Denpasar: Udayana University.
Chefor, V. M. (2019). Interpersonal Function in Paul Biya’s 2018 French Inaugural Speech and its English Translation. International Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2(2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.55637/ijsfl.2.2.1371.47-54
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd Ed). London: Continuum.
Halliday & Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistics Aspects of Translation. In On Translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Jianchang, Z. (2015). Coherence as a Parameter of Translation in the Context of Culture. Canadian Social Science, 11(8), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.3968/7448
Jupp, V. (2006). Documents and Critical Research. In Data Colection and Analysis (2nd Ed, pp. 271–290). London: SAGE Publications.
Kudrya, S. V., & Lyzhina, V. A. (2019). Contextual Analyisis of «Enjoy» for Translation Purposes in Cross-Cultural Quality of Life Studies. 6, 519–526. https://doi.org/10.22363/2712-7974-2019-6-519-526
Ma, Y., & Wang, B. (2016). A review of systemic functional translation studies from an interpersonal perspective. International Forum of Teaching and …, 12(1), 36–41. http://americanscholarspress.us/journals/IFST/pdf/IFOTS-1-2016/v12n1-art5.pdf
Malmkjær, K. (2018). Semantics and translation. In The Rouledge handbook of translations studies and linguistics (pp. 47–68). London & New York: Routledge.
Manson, M. (2016). The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck. New York: Harper One.
Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th Ed). London & New York: Routledge.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation (2nd Ed). Leiden: Brill.
Pym, A. (2014). Exploring Translation Theories. In Exploring Translation Theories (2nd Ed). London & New York: Routledge.
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik, Munich: M. Hueber, translated (2000) by E. F. Rhodes as Translation Criticism: Potential and Limitations. Manchester: St Jerome and American Bible Society.
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. In Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge.
Sang, Z. (2017). How Does the Context Make a Translation Happen? An Activity Theory Perspective. Social Semiotics, 28(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1336848
Svenson. (2021). Contextual Analysis: A Research Methodology and Research Approach. Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (2nd Ed). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility. London: Routledge.
Whiteley, P. (2002). Motivation. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
Wicakso. (2018). Sebuah Seni untuk Bersikap Bodo Amat (The Indonesian Translation of the English Book “A Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck” Written by Mark Manson in 2016). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Indonesia.
Widiastuti, N. M. A., & Indriani, K. S. (2023). The Lexical Equivalence in the Translation of the English Noun “Love” into Indonesian. Humanis Journal of Arts and Humanities, 27(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.24843/JH.20 23.v27.i01.p02