A Product or Process-Based Approach to Translation Class? A Glance on Translation Practice

donald jupply

Abstract


Makalah ini berangkat dari sebuah refleksi mata kuliah praktik penerjemahan dalam dua semester di sebuah program pasca sarjana, tempat penulis mengambil studi lanjut. Di program tersebut, metode lawas pengajaran praktik penerjemahan masih mendominasi. Pengajar membagikan teks sumber dari pelbagai bidang kepada mahasiswa tanpa diawali pemberian penjelasan-penjelasan tentang penugasan penerjemahan, melainkan penuh dengan “jebakan-jebakan”. Metode pengajaran demikian dikenal sebagai metode berpendekatan produk yang cenderung membuat mahasiswa tidak berkembang. Karena keterbatasan ini, beberapa pakar penerjemahan seperti Gile and Kussmaul mengklaim bahwa pengajaran praktik penerjemahan dengan pendekatan proses lebih cocok mengingat esensi terjemahan berkualitas sejatinya tidak berada di hasil akhir terjemahan, melainkan pada proses terjadinya produk akhir. Namun demikian, penekanan semata-mata hanya pada proses tanpa melihat produk akhir sebagai manifestasi proses penerjemahan tidak juga memberikan manfaat yang siknifikan bagi mahasiswa. Dalam pada itu, makalah ini menawarkan pendekatan ekletik terhadap pengajaran praktik penerjemahan.


Keywords


product-based approach; process-based approach; translation training; translation practice course

References


Al-Mijrab, R. A. 2005. A Product-Based Approach to Translation Training. Meta V, Vol 50 No 4.

Aveling, H. 2002. “Mistakes” in Translation: A Functionalist Approach. A Paper Prepared for the Third Workshop on “The Art of Translation”,London, 19-20 September 2002.

Chriss, R. 2002. Training Translators. Article XI on Translation as profession.

Caldaza Perez, M. 2005. Applying Translation Theory in Teaching New Voices in Translation Studies 1 (2005), 1-11.

Chesterman, A. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chesterman, A. 1993. Karl Popper in Translation Class, in DOLLERUP, C. and A. LODDEGAARD (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions Edited by Cay Dolleroup and Annette Lindegaard. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. P 89-96.

Davies, M. G. et al. 2001. Training in the Application of Translation Strategies for Undergraduate Scientific Translation Students. Meta, XLVI, 4, P 737-744

Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gile, D. 1993. The Process-oriented Approach in Translator Training in DOLLERUP, C. and A. LODDEGAARD (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions Edited by Cay Dolleroup and Annette Lindegaard. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. P 108-112.

Fraser, B and H. T. Beeth. 1999. The Hidden Life of Translators The quest for the roots of quality: Translation Service, European Commission

Hatim, B. & I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator, London & New York: Longman.

Hatim, B. & I. Mason.1997. The Translator as Communicator, London & New York: Routledge.

Hatim, B. & I. Mason. 2001. Teaching and Researching Translation, Harlow: Longman / Pearson Education Limited.

Hall, K. R. 1996. Cognition and Translation Didactics. Meta XLI,I. P.114-117

House, J. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tübingen, Gunter Narr.

House, J. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.

House, J.2001. Translation Quality Assessment:Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta, XLVI, 2, 2001

Hurtado Albir, A . 1996. ‘La traductología: lingüística y traductología’, TRANS 1: 151-160.

Hurtado Albir, A . 1999. Enseñar a traducir. Madrid: Edelsa.

Kiraly, D.C. 1995. Pathways to Translation, The Kent State University Press.

Kussmaul, P. 1995. Training The Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Li, D. 2002. Translator Training: What Translation Students Have to Say. Meta, XLVII, 4, P 514-531

Molina, L and A. Hurtado Albir. 2002. Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta: XLVII, 4,

Nord, C. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Nord, C. 1999. Translating as a Text-Production Activity in INNOVATION IN TRANSLATOR AND INTERPRETER TRAINING: Symposium Homepage.

Orozco, M. and A. Hurtado Albir. Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition. Meta, XLVII, 3, 2002

Pym, A. 1993. Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching. Teruel: Caminade.

Pym, A. 2003. Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age: In Defence of a Minimalist Approach’, Meta, 48(4): 481-497.

Pym, A. 2004. Text and Risk in Translation. http://www.fut.es/~apym/

Reiß, K./Vermeer, H. J.984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations theorie. Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Schäffner, C. 1997. From ‘Good’ to ‘Functionally Appropriate’: Assessing Translation Quality. CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE & SOCIETY Vol. 4, No 1, 1997.

Snel Trampus, R. D. 2002 Aspects of a theory of norms and some issues on teaching translation, in Alessandra Riccardi (ed) Translation Studies. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Cambridge: CUP,38-55.

Shreve, M.G. 1997. “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence,” in J.H. Danks et al. (eds.). Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Toury,G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Venuti, L. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation, London, Routledge.

Venuti, L. 2000. ‘¿Será útil la teoría de la traducción para los traductores?’, Vasos comunicantes 5(16):26-35.

Venuti, L. 2001. The Translator Reader. Manchester: Jerome.

Wilss, W. 1989. Towards a Multi-facet Concept of Translation Behavior, Target, 34. pp. 129-149.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21107/prosodi.v5i2.67

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.