34Formal-aesthetic equivalence. !

35Analysis of equivalence.!

In systemic functional linguistics, the term tenor refers to the participants in a discourse, their relationships to each other, and their purposes.

In examining how context affects language use, linguists refer to the context-specific variety of language as a register. The three aspects of the context are known as field, tenor and mode. Field refers to the subject matter or content being discussed. Mode refers to the channel (such as writing, or video-conference) of the communication. By understanding these three variables, the kind of language likely to be used in a particular setting can be predicted — and, Michael Halliday suggests, this is exactly what we do, unconsciously, as language users.^[1]

In analysing the parts of a metaphor, "tenor" has another meaning, unrelated to the meaning above. According to I. A. Richards, the two parts of a metaphor are the tenor and vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the subject from which the attributes are derived. Thus, they are broadly equivalent to the notions of target and source domains in conceptual metaphor theory.

How can we characterize language use? One way is to look at the relationship between language forms and the features of the context. The descriptive categories we use are Field, Tenor, and Mode. Based on Halliday's theory of language variation, we can describe web materials. Here is a summary of the descriptive categories to be used:

Field Field refers to the subject matter or topic. Field answers the question: "What is happening?" "What is the activity?" "What is the text/multimedia about?" We examine a language/literacy project on the web to find out its content and aims. The description of the content should be clear and detailed enough to give readers a sense that they have explored the site themselves. At this juncture we can begin to suggest how the content affects the vocabulary used. Finally, we address the question, what difference does the web make in the development of the content of the project? That is, what advantage does this environment have over more traditional contexts for learning this subject matter?

Tenor Tenor refers to the roles of the participants in an interaction. Tenor answers the question: "Who are participating and what is their relative status or power?" Examining the web site, we describe how learners interact with the material (who is in control?), or how students interact with one another and with teachers or others who are collaborating on the web. We should offer some insight into the relative status among any and all the participants. Does the designer control the action? Does the user have some agency in the activity? In short, how interactive is the site? And, how is the technology shaping or changing participation structures for learning?

Mode Mode refers to the channel of communication. Mode answers the questions: "What is the language doing?" Examining the material once more, we look more closely at the language itself. We describe the code (language) used-e.g., English, Spanish, sign language, or mixed codes. We describe the means (sometimes called the channel of communication): spoken, written, graphics/images, and/or a combination of these semiotic systems. We discuss the function of each system and point out which predominates. We ask, is the communication exchange different from other types of human interaction? What features in these forms of communication differ from others?

These three descriptive categories should lead us to a final evaluative comment about the pedagogical effectiveness of the material examined. Are there opportunities for users to be active learners? Does the material lend itself to achieving the stated goals? Does computer support enhance the achievement of these goals?

36The category of field. !

37The category of tenor. !

38The category of mode. !

39Register and contextual factor in translation.

When we communicate with other people, we use a language as a mean to express our feeling and ideas. But the use of language here is different between one and another. Everybody has their own style in expressing their languages in order to communicate with someone else. The differences are because of age, sex, status, state, size personality emotional state and so on. Beyond the individual differences, there is a characteristic about the way people speak in different regions and social group, we usually call it as dialect. Not only in verbal/oral communication, we deal with it, but also  in translation.

 In translating a text, we face the two dimensions of language. The first dimension is about the user of the language here, as a translator we have to consider about the setting where the writer lives ( the region), who is the writer (social class of the writer) and other aspects  that reflect the use of the language in the source text. For example in Indonesian literature, the letters of R.A Kartini translated into Dutch then made in a book by Multatuli. Now the book is known and become a historical book titled” HabisGelapTerbitlahTerang”.When Multatuli translated her letters, of course Multatuli knew well about Kartini’s life . Multatuli knew about her life background, social status and language used by R.A Kartini in her daily life.

The second dimension of variation in using language is about the use of language itself. Here we deal with the register. It is  a kind of style that is used by the speaker or the writer towards the hearers or readers of the subject matter. The writer uses the language for certain purposes of communication.  So, the writer will use a variety of language determined by the subject matter. A lawyer and a journalist will use different language in their job fields. They use a particular register in their words. In addressing the jugde in a  court, a lawyer will say “Your Honour” or “Yang Mulia” but a journalist will write or address” The Judge” or ” Bapak Hakim” .

Register is also access the situation the conversation or objective of the text. In another word, register mediates between language and situation. This is about the choice of using language in formal or informal way. In society, we have to know when we should use formal or informal language. When we attend a tribunal, a seminar or a ceremony of course we use formal language and sometimes we use different register, but when we communicate with our friends we use informal language or even we see on TV that people use informal language for entertainment. For example, Negeri Impian Show, it  is formatted as a kind of debate of the country’s candidates but using informal language and jokes. Another fact that shows we always deal with the use language is the purpose of the language itself. For example in persuading someone in speech and in advertisment using different language and style. In speech we often use the word ” we should….” to persuade someone else to make them agree with our ideas. But in advertisment we use a simple language and the language or the word must attract the audience and make them buy the product. As shown on TV, Sprite ads just give slogan” Kutahu yang kumahu” seems very simple but has implicit meaning and persuading us to drink that  kind of soft drink. But of course the visualization of the ads support the word/ slogan become more effective in persuading the consumers.

40The category of genre. !

41Overt and Covert translation. !

42The demands of overt translation (examples). !

43The demands of covert translation (examples). !

44, The concept of a cultural filter.45The function of a cultural filter in translation.

The Concept and Function of a Cultural Filter

The concept of a “cultural filter” is a means of capturing socio-cultural differences in

shared conventions of behavior and communication, preferred rhetorical styles and

expectation norms in the two speech communities. These differences should not be

left to individual intuition but should be based on empirical cross-cultural research.

Given the goal of achieving functional equivalence in a covert translation, assumptions

of cultural difference should be carefully examined before interventions in the

original’s meaning structure is undertaken. The unmarked assumption is one of cultural

compatibility, unless there is evidence to the contrary. To take an example, in

the case of the German and anglophone linguistic and cultural communities the

concept of cultural filter has been given some substance through a number of empirical

contrastive-pragmatic analyses, in which anglophone and German communicative

priorities along a set of hypothesized dimensions were hypothesized. Converging

evidence from a number of cross-cultural German-English studies conducted with

different data, subjects and methodologies suggests that there are German preferences

for rhetorical styles and conventions of communicative behavior which differ

from Anglophone ones along a set of dimensions, among them directness, contentfocus,

explicitness and routine-reliance. (cf. House 1996; 1998).

Given the distinction between overt and covert translation, it is obvious that

cultural transfer is only possible in the case of overt translation, where cultural items

are transported from L1 to L2 acting as a sort of “Verfremdung.” In covert translation,

however, there is no cultural transfer, but only a sort of “cultural compensation” for

L1 cultural phenomena in L2 with the means of L2.

In speaking of a “cultural filter,” we need to know, of course, what we mean by

“culture.” Given widespread postmodernist critiques of culture as an untenable idealization

and as something outdatedly relating to the nation state of the nineteenth

century, is it today still possible to talk of “the culture” of a language community?

Has not the extension of culture to modern complex societies brought about a

complexification and problematisation of “culture” which renders it useless as a

methodological and conceptual entity? Should we therefore not follow the argumentation

by Holliday (1999) who suggested substituting “non-essentialist” “non-reified”

“small cultures” for “culture”? Obviously there is no such thing as a stable social

group untouched by outside influences and group and personal idiosyncracies, and

obviously it is wrong to assume a monolithic unified culture of which all differentness

is idealized and cancelled out. Nevertheless, modernist relativation has in practice

never yet led to its logical conclusion: the annihilation of research concerned with

culture, nor has it prevented researchers from describing cultures as interpretive

translation quality assessment: linguistic description vs social evaluation 251

252 Meta, XLVI, 2, 2001

devices for understanding emergent behavior. Further, we cannot ignore the experiences

reported by “ordinary” members of a speech community, when they perceive

members of another cultural group as behaving “differently” in particular situated

discourse events.

46The problem of limits of equivalence. !

47Whorfian Hypothesis.!

Benjamin Whorf.The hypothesis offered by Whorf is:That the commonly held belief that the cognitive processes of all human beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and independently of comunication through language is erroneous. It is Whorf's view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world and how he thinks about it., Since these patterns vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views