©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 93 Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 ISSN 2442-8965 (P) ISSN 2442-8973 (E) A Pragmatic Equivalence of Violating Maxims in Novel Translation of Divergent Wuri Rahmawati (Corresponding Author) sarasamelati@gmail.com Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Indonesia Dwi Haryanti dwi.harjanti@ums.ac.id Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Indonesia Malikatul Laila malikatullaila@gmail.com Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta, Indonesia Abstract: This study covers the pragmatics equivalence and violation maxims in the Divergent novel. Classifying the forms of Grice maxim violations and describing the pragmatic equivalence of violation maxims in the Divergent novel are the objectives of this study. It is a qualitative paper that examines violation maxims and pragmatic equivalence in the novel Divergent. The data were direct-utterances infraction maxims in English and Indonesian. There are two types of data analysis techniques employed in this study. The analysis began with a document review, followed by an evaluation of the translation's quality based on pragmatic equivalence. As a result of the research, the following findings were discovered: 139 data were classified as violation maxims. The majority of the results (45,32.4%) involved violations of the quality standard. Second, based on the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence, a total of 137 out of 139 data points were deemed "accurate translation" and two out of 139 (1,43%) data might be regarded as "less accurate translation." This investigation uncovered no translations that may be deemed inaccurate. Keywords: Pragmatics; equivalence; translation; violation; maxim. A. INTRODUCTION Translation is an effort to find the equivalence of meaning between the source language and target language. Baker (2018: 59) underlines the term "equivalence" because of the meaning transferred in the target language. In this case, translators face text as a unit of meaning in the form of sets of words or sentences. Therefore, the translator should be capable of choosing suitable translation techniques or strategies to cope with the problem of translating the utterances. Catford (1965) and Haryanti (2013) https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al http://u.lipi.go.id/1421293761 mailto:sarasamelati@gmail.com mailto:dwi.harjanti@ums.ac.id mailto:malikatullaila@gmail.com ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 94 classified several kinds of strategies to achieve equivalence: shift, the addition of information, deletion of information, adoption, and adaptation. Translators must be proficient in both their native language and the target language. Newmark (1988:5) defined translation as the process of conveying the meaning of a work into another language in the manner the author intended. This case is also addressed within the discipline of pragmatics. Pragmatics examines the meaning and context of language. It is used to analyse the intent behind what people say and the context of their communication. The study of the link between language and context, as defined by Levinson (1983:21). The meaning of the speaker can be inferred not only from the statement but also from the context of the dialogue. Moreover, not all of the conversations run well as expected. Many people try to hide the truth information from other people and only understand the surface meaning of the speaker’s words. Yule (2014:146) explained that the implicature term indicates the speaker's intention, meaning that the speaker is not saying. As a result, their conversations cannot go well and smoothly. It is called violation maxims. When the listeners do maxim violation, the conversation between the speakers and the listeners can be unsuccessful since they will misunderstand each other. In violation of the maxim Thomas (2013) pointed out, speakers often use implicature in the conversation to misunderstand the listener if there is a misunderstanding between the speaker and the listener. Cutting (2000: 40) states that when a listener does not fulfil or obey the maxims, a listener is said to “violate” them. Violation is the condition in which the listeners do not purposefully fulfil a particular maxim. Since pragmatic equivalence plays an essential role in translation, consequently, giving the knowledge of pragmatic equivalence is necessary for a translator. She also describes that violating can happen in four sub- principles of maxim.There are violations of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Grice (1975:49) stated the speaker “will be liable to mislead” the listener. Violating the maxim lets the listeners misunderstand the information. Violation maxim of relation happens when the speaker does not answer the question relevantly to the topic of the conversation. Violation maxims aim to distract the listener and change the topic. Tupan and Natalia (2008: 68) were already set up violation markers based on Grice’s theory of the Cooperative Principle. They were also proposed several reasons https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 95 people violate maxims, such as saving face, covering up the secret, hiding the truth, pleasing the hearer, and envying other people. Fahmi (2016) explores what factors cause the violation of Gricean maxims and which of Gricean maxims are often violated in daily conversation. Linyan Fu (2017) tries to analyze the semantic equivalence problem in English- Chinese translation from five aspects: theory connotation, influencing factors, reliability, relativity and countermeasures of semantic equivalence and proves equivalence theory is of extensive significance as the standard and principle in translation. Triki (2013) explores the interface between pragmatism and translation, explicitly referring to English-Arabic / Arabic-English translations. Arezou and Saghebi (2014) aimed to investigate new ways of understanding the non-cooperative attitudes of the speakers and the violation of Cooperative Principal Maxims in actual Iranian psychological consulting sessions. Al-Qaderi (2015) focused on violating conversational maxims. The researcher displayed that the Gricean Theory of Conversational Implicature can be applied to Arabic, particularly the Yemeni dialect. It means that the current research is different to what is concerned by Al-Qaderi (2015). Wu (2017) dealt with research on the pragmatic meaning equivalence of translation in terms of associative meaning and the meaning equivalence of translation from two levels lexical equivalence and textual equivalence. Alwazna (2017) argued that following specific procedures of explications in the target language will equip the target reader with the relevant contextual information needed to draw the appropriate inferences from the utterance concerned, making the correct interpretation. Baker (2018: 205-206) stated that equivalence of cohesion and implicature in a text so that the translation results have the same effect of meaning and with the same context as the source text. He has chosen two that are believed to be particularly helpful in exploring the question of how a given text comes to make sense to a given readership and highlighting areas of difficulty in cross-cultural communication. These are coherence and implicature equivalence between targets to the source text. Nida and Taber (1982: 12) stated that translation is to reproduce in the recipient’s language the natural equivalent of the message in the source language. In this analysis, Baker's (2018) theory of pragmatic equivalence is combined with Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono's (2012) idea of translation quality. According to https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 96 Nababan (2012), three factors must be considered in evaluating translation quality elements: correctness, acceptance, and readability. Translation accuracy relates closely to equivalence and refers to the proper message in the target language. The translation is deemed acceptable when the original text is readable in the target language regarding grammar and culture. A translation may be included and legible when it can be easily read and understood by the intended audience. Based on the description, both theories can be blended, as Nababan's translation quality attempts to achieve message equivalence between the target and source languages and encompasses all texts. The detailed discussion of pragmatic equivalence by Baker (2018) and the theory of three translation quality aspects by Nababan can complement one another. The aim of this discussion regarding the translational equivalence of pragmatics and the emphasis of this study are cooperative principles centred on maxims of violation. B. RESEARCH METHOD This study is a descriptive qualitative approach through the pragmatic equivalence and translation on Divergent novel. The objects of this study are violations of Grice of translation and pragmatic equivalence in novel translation. The data were English and Indonesia violations of Grice maxims’ cooperative principle found in novel translation of Divergent. The data source in this research was an original English novel of Divergent written by Veronica Roth (2011) published by Harper Collins, and novel translation of Divergent written by Veronica Roth and translated into Indonesia by Prameswari (2014). Mizan published it with the same title: Divergent. There are two kinds of techniques for analyzing data used in this research. First, the analysis used document review, and the second is assessing/rating/judging the translation quality dealing with pragmatic equivalence. The analysis of the data was conducted through the following steps: (1) Determining the types of English and Indonesia violations of Grice maxims’ cooperative principle in novel translation. (2) Classifying the equivalence, less equivalence, and not-equivalence translations of novel translations in Divergent by used combines theory of Baker’s (2018) theory of pragmatic equivalence and Nababan, Nuraeni and Sumardiono’s (2012) theory of accuracy. (3) Classifying the strategy of translation by Catford (1965) and Haryanti (2013) used by translator in transferring the violations of Grice maxims’ cooperative principle of the novel translation of Divergent. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 97 In addition, the second technique of analyzing data, rating the quality of the translation is associated with pragmatic equivalence. In this step, this current study is done as follows: (1) the data of novel translation was decided to assess the pragmatic equivalence based on the parameter as explained. (2) synchronize the inter-ratters assessment of the pragmatic equivalence with the final judgment of translation equivalence. (3) conclude. C. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings After collecting 139 data found in the Divergent novel translation, those data were classified into four types of violation maxim: violation maxim of quantity, violation maxim of quality, violation maxim of relevance, and violation maxim of manner. The research finding also described the pragmatic equivalence that has been rated based on the pragmatic equivalence proposed in the previous explanation. Types of Violations Maxim Found in the Novel of Divergent The following table shows the result of counting the number of violations maxim of Grice’s maxims by each character in the novel Divergent. The researcher found 139 utterances violated maxims such as quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. Table 1. Types of Violation Conversation Maxims in Novel of Divergent No Maxims Total of Utterances Percentage 1. Quantity (VMQ1) 25 18.0% 2. Quality (VMQ2) 45 32.4% 3. Relevance (VMR) 32 23.0% 4. Manner (VMM) 37 26.6% Total 139 100 As table 1 presents the maxim of quality with allocating 45 times (32.4%) of utterance is the most violated in this novel by the characters of Divergent. The other maxims are manner violations with 37 times (26.6%), followed by violation maxim of relevance 32 utterances with a percentage of 23.0%. The last one is the violation of quantity has 25 utterances (18.9%). From the table above, most of the characters disobey the maxim is quality. This study found four types of violations maxim that had been translated. The elaboration of the research findings was follows. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 98 Violation Maxim of Quantity The utterance can be categorized as a violation maxim of quantity when the utterance has some reasons that the speaker failed to observe the maxim of quantity if the speaker talks not to the point, is uninformative, talks too short or too much and repeat certain words. Table 1 shows 25 data of violation maxim of quantity in the novel Divergent. a) Talk not to the Point Regarding violation maxim of quantity with the reason to talk not to the point has 7 data. One of the examples likes below: SL Beatrice: Wait, so you have no idea what my aptitude is? TL Beatrice: Tunggu, jadi kamu tidak tahu apa bakat kecakapanku? SL Tori: Yes and No, my conclusion. Is that you display equal aptitude for Abnegation, Dauntless, and Erudite. People who get this kind of result as Divergent. TL Tori: Ya dan Tidak, kesimpulanku. Kau menunjukkan tingkat kecakapan yang seimbang antara Abnegation, Dauntles, dan Euridite. Mereka yang memiliki hasil seperti ini adalah Divergent. The data above indicates talk is not to the point, Tori is confused about explaining the aptitude test result to Beatrice. She did not clarify that Beatrice is Divergent directly. She explains more about the characteristic of Divergent before. The Beatrice’s question is “Wait, so you have no idea what my aptitude is?” and Tori’s explanation is “Yes and No, my conclusion. Is that you display equal aptitude for Abnegation, Dauntless, and Erudite. People who get this kind of result as Divergent.” It is translated into “Tunggu, jadi kamu tidak tahu apa bakat kecakapanku?” and “Ya dan Tidak, kesimpulanku. Kau menunjukkan tingkat kecakapan yang seimbang antara Abnegation, Dauntles, dan Euridite. Mereka yang memiliki hasil seperti ini adalah Divergent.” The utterances are talk to the point, and the translation strategy is a literal translation. The translator translates a word or an expression word by word. b) Uninformative Uninformative is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quantity. In this novel, it has 7 data from 25 data of violation maxim quantity. The example is as follows: SL Tori: Drink this! TL Tori: Minum ini! SL Beatrice: What is this? What’s going to happen? TL Beatrice: Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi? SL Tori: Can’t tell you that. Just trust me. TL Tori: Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 99 The datum above prefers an uninformative utterance in violation of maxim quantity. Depended on the dialogue above Tori asks Beatrice to drink some water to the aptitude test. Beatrice is curious about the formula. Then, she asks to Tori, but she does not explain to Beatrice that it is serum formulation. So, Tori did not give information detail to Beatrice, it means the dialogue preferred to violation maxim of quantity. The utterances are “What is this? What’s going to happen?” and “Can’t tell you that. Just trust me.” translated into “Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi?” and “Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku.” The conversation above applies the strategy of translation use literal translation that focuses on each word. c) Repeats Certain Words Repeating certain words is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quality. In this case, speakers repeat their utterances with the same meaning. There are 6 data. The analysis of repeating certain words is: SL Al: You okay, Triss? You look a little …. TL Al: Kau baik-baik saja Tris? Kelihatannya kau sedikit …. SL Beatrice: A little what? TL Beatrice: Sedikit apa? The example above shows repeats certain words utterance that belongs to violation maxim quantity utterances. The utterances stated by Al and Beatrice. The Al’s utterace is “Al: You okay, Triss? You look a little ….” and Beatrice’s replay is “Beatrice: A little what?” Depend on the utterances before Beatrice repeats “A little” to make clear the Al’s question. Furthermore, the utterance is translated into “Kau baik-baik saja Tris? Kelihatannya kau sedikit ….” And “Sedikit apa?” the translator focuses on looks for the literal equivalent for every word in the source language that is conveyed into target language. There is no change in the word order from the source language into the target language. 1) Violation Maxim of Quality According to the data, the violation maxim of quality has 45 data with a percentage is 32.4%. There are some reasons for the violation maxim of quality in the novel Divergent such as: a) Lies or Says Something that is Believed to be False A lie is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quality. Almost of the utterances of lies or says Beatrice does something believed to be false. This reason has 16 utterances; the example is below. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 100 SL Caleb: Beatrice? What happened? Are you all right? TL Caleb: Beatrice? Apa yang terjadi? Kamu baik-baik saja? SL Beatrice: I’m fine. When the test was over, I got sick. Must been have that liquid they gave us. I feel better now, though. TL Betrice: Aku baik-baik saja. Saat tesnya selesai aku tidak enak badan. Mungkin karena cairan yang mereka berikan. Tapi sekarang, aku sudah baikan. The datum above shows a quality violation because Beatrice lies to Caleb about her condition after the aptitude test. She leaved the test early, because she is not sick. But Beatrice wants to hide her result to other people that she is divergent. Caleb’s question is “Beatrice? What happened? Are you all right?” the Beatrice’s answers “I’m fine. When the test was over, I got sick. Must been have that liquid they gave us. I feel better now, though.” It can be translated into Caleb’s question “Beatrice? Apa yang terjadi? Kamu baik-baik saja?” and Beatrice’s answers “Aku baik-baik saja. Saat tesnya selesai aku tidak enak badan. Mungkin karena cairan yang mereka berikan. Tapi sekarang, aku sudah baikan.” The utterances before applied literal translation and free translation. The example of free translation is “I feel better now, though.” Translated into “Tapi sekarang, aku sudah baikan.” The sentence structure has the same, and the translator paraphrase “though” become “tapi sekarang.” b) Denies Something Denies something is one reason for violating the maxim of quality. Based on the table, denies something gets 12 data. The following is an example of denying something in violation of maxim quality: SL Four: You’re Divergent. TL Four: Kau Divergent. SL Beatrice: What’s Divergent? TL Beatrice: Apa itu Divergent? SL Four: Don’t play stupid. I suspected it last time, but this time it’s obvious. You manipulated the simulation; you’re Divergent. I’ll delete the footage, but useless you want to wind up dead at the bottom of the chasm, you’ll figure out how to hide it during the simulation! Now, if you’ll excuse me. TL Four: Jangan pura-pura bodoh. Tadinya akau sudah menduga, tapi kali ini jelas sekali. Kau memanipulasi simulasi. Kau seorang divergent. Aku akan menghapus catatanya. Kecuali, kau mau berakhir mati dilempar dari tebing, lebih baik kau mencari cara bagaimana cara menyembunyikannya selama simulasi! The data is classified as a quality violation because the utterances deny something. Beatrice denies to Four that she is Divergent and tries to ask about the characteristic of https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 101 Divergent. Beatrice wants to hide her identity, but Four gives some statements that she can understand. The dialogues are Four’s statement “You’re Divergent.” Then, Beatrice’s denies “What’s Divergent?” Four gives more explanation to Beatrice “Don’t play stupid. I suspected it last time, but this time it’s obvious. You manipulated the simulation; you’re Divergent. I’ll delete the footage, but useless you want to wind up dead at the bottom of the chasm, you’ll figure out how to hide it during the simulation! Now, if you’ll excuse me.” The translators applied the deletion strategy to translate the utterance. Depending on the dialogue above, the sentence “Now, if you’ll excuse me.” is not translated. 2) Violation Maxim of Relevance Based on the analysis, the violation maxim has 32 data, and the percentage is 23.0%. In this novel, the reasons for violation maxim of relevance have 5 data. a) The Conversation Unmatched with Topic The conversation unmatched with the topic means the question, answer, statement and comment are different. Based on the analysis the conversation odd with the topic has 5 data. The following is an example: SL Christina: What is it with you today? TL Christina: Ada apa dengamu hari ini? SL Beatrice: Oh, you know. Sun shining. Birds chirping. TL Beatrice: Oh, tahu kan? Matahari bersinar cerah. Burung-burung berkicau merdu. The example above shows the conversation unmatched with the topic in violation of relevance. Christina and Will ask about Beatrice's feelings. On the other hand, Beatrice did not give attention to them. She even describes the weather at the time to show her feeling. Then, the question and the answer are unmatched. The utterance of Christina’s question “What is it with you today?” and Beatrice’s response “Oh, you know. Sun shining. Birds chirping.” The translator applied literal translation, because the translator focuses on the form and structure of the word without any addition to the target language. b) Changes Conversation Topic Abruptly In this section, the study presents one of the reasons the violation maxims indicated violation relevance. Based on the analysis of the data, this study noted that there are 7 data. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 102 SL Four: Four, its nice to meet you. TL Four: Four, senang bertemu dengan anda. SL Beatrice’s mother: Four, is that a nickname? TL Beatrice’s mother: Four. Apa itu nama panggilan? SL Four: Yes. Your daughter is doing well here. I’ve been overseeing her training. TL Four: Ya. Putri anda melakukan semuanya dengan baik disini. Saya mengawasi pelatihannya. The above example shows changes in conversation topic abruptly utterance that belongs to violation maxim of relevance. The utterance of Four’s greeting, “Four, its nice to meet you.” and Beatrice’s mother question “Four, is that a nickname?” Then, Four’s answer is “Yes. Your daughter is doing well here. I’ve been overseeing her training.” Based the Four’s response, he just said “Yes” about his name and did not explain his name detail. But, Four tried to change conversation abruptly by explaining Beatrice’s exercise more. c) Avoid Talking about Something Avoid talking about something reasons in violation maxim of relevance has 7 data. The following example is: SL Beatrice: Is this because I’m a …. TL Beatrice: Apa ini karena aku seorang …. SL Beatrice’s mother: Don’t say that word. Ever. TL Beatrice’s Mother: Jangan pernah menyebut kata itu. The above example shows a avoid talking about something utterance that belongs to violation maxim of relevance. Beatrice and her mother state the utterance. The dialogue of Beatrice’s statement is “Is this because I’m a ….” And her mother’s answer is “Don’t say that word. Ever.” Based on the dialogue before, Beatrice’s mother wants to avoid the conversation that Beatrice is Divergent. So Beatrice’s mother stops Beatrice’s question about Divergent. d) Hides Something or Hides a Fact Hiding something or hiding a fact is classified as a violation of relevance. Therefore, the speaker tries to hide the truth from the interlocutors. This reason gets 10 data. SL Beatrice: Were you transfer too? TL Beatrice: Apa kau pindahan juga? SL Four: I thought I would only have trouble with the Candor asking for many questions. Now, I’ve got stiffs, too? TL Four: Aku pikir, aku hanya akan bermasalah dengan orang candor yang bertanya terlalu banyak. Dan aku juga harus menghadapi Si Kaku juga? https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 103 The data above is categorized as a violation maxim of relevance to hide something. The dialogues above tell that Beatrice asks Four’s former faction. But he doesn’t want to tell himself. The utterance of Beatrice’s question is “Were you transfer too?” and Four’s answer is “I thought I would only have trouble with the Candor asking for many questions. Now, I’ve got stiffs, too?” based on the Four’s answer indicates that Four did not want to give information about the Four’s former faction. The utterance is translated into “Apa kau pindahan juga?” and “Aku pikir, aku hanya akan bermasalah dengan orang candor yang bertanya terlalu banyak. Dan aku juga harus menghadapi Si Kaku juga?" Therefore, the Indonesian version can also be categorized as a violation maxim of relevance. 3) Violation Maxim of Manner In this study violation, the maxim of manner gets 37 data, and the percentage is 26.6%. a) Uses Ambiguous Language Using ambiguous language makes the speaker's meaning difficult to understand. Using vague language gets 1 data; the following is an example of using imprecise language. SL Beatrice: We … just weren’t supposed to hurt people. TL Beatrice: Hanya saja, kita … tak seharusnya memiliki hati orang lain. SL Christina: I like to think I’m helping them by hating them. TL Christina: Aku lebih suka menganggap kalau aku menolong mereka dengan cara membenci mereka. The data above is one of the utterances that uses ambiguous language in violation maxim of manner. The speakers are Beatrice and Christina when they do some battle exercises. Some initiation gets battle on the arena while Christina and Beatrice talk about Peter and their friends for their former faction. Beatrice’s statement is “We … just weren’t supposed to hurt people.” and Christina’s responses “I like to think I’m helping them by hating them.” Both of them give their statements depending on themselves. The utterance is difficult to understand, furthermore, the utterance is translated into “Hanya saja, kita … tak seharusnya memiliki hati orang lain.” and “Aku lebih suka menganggap kalau aku menolong mereka dengan cara membenci mereka.” The Indonesia version can also be categorized as a violation maxim of manner. The translator applied additional translation to give the reader a more precise meaning. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 104 b) Uses Slang Using slang is also part of the reason in violation maxim of manner; slang is a way to distinguish you as part of a group or separate from another group. The characters uses slang to show their independence from their parents and give them and their friends a language they can call their own. This novel uses slang and has 8 data. The dialogues below are an example of uses of slang. SL Will: What took you so long? TL Will: Kenapa kalian lama sekali? SL Christina: Stumpy legs over here turned into an old lady overnight. TL Christina: Cewek kaki kuat ini berubah menjadi nenek-nenek dalam waktu semalam. The dialogue before was categorized as a manner violation because the reason uses slang. The speakers are Will, Christina, and Beatrice. Will waits Beatrice and Christina when the train moves quickly. Christina states the characteristic older man is pour that it is on Beatrice. It uses slang spoken by Christina. The utterance is “Stumpy legs over here turned into an old lady overnight.” It can be translated into “Cewek kaki kuat ini berubah menjadi nenek-nenek dalam waktu semalam.” c) Multiple Ways of Interpretation Multiple ways of interpretation are one of the reasons in violation maxim of manner. SL Uriah: Scared of the dark, Mar? TL Uriah: Takut gelap, Mar? SL Marlene: If you want to step on broken glass, Uriah, be my guest. TL Marlene: Kalau kau mau mengijak pecahan kaca, Uriah, silahkan saja. The data shows the reason for violation maxim of manner. The reason is multiple ways of interpretation. The dialogue above tells that Marlene uses a flashlight to direct the light to the ways. The English utterance is from Uriah’s question, “Scared of the dark, Mar?” and Marlene’s answer is “If you want to step on broken glass, Uriah, be my guest.” Based on the utterances before, Marlene’s answer indicates the multiple ways of interpretation in violation maxim of manner. Marlene brings a flashlight to protect her. Additionally, the utterance is translated into “Takut gelap, Mar?” and “Kalau kau mau mengijak pecahan kaca, Uriah, silahkan saja.” The translators use literal translation to translate utterances before. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 105 a. Pragmatic Equivalence of the Novel Translation of Divergent The data were judged or rated based on its pragmatic equivalence. This is one of the techniques to assess translation quality. Therefore, the following is the analysis of the data. 1) Accurate Translation The accurate translation parameter includes the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text that is transferred accurately into target-language text. Dealing with pragmatic aspect, an accurate translation should represent a coherent and cohesive translation. The following is an example. SL Tori: Drink this! TL Tori: Minum ini! SL Beatrice: What is this? What’s going to happen? TL Beatrice: Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi? SL Tori: Can’t tell you that. Just trust me. TL Tori: Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku. The datum above is an accurate translation. Since this study noted that single element, whether meaning of the word, phrase, clause or sentence of source language, text is transferred accurately into target language. The translation is coherent and cohesive. It also represents the intended meaning of the English speaker. For example, the English version of Beatrice’s utterance is “What is this? What’s going to happen?” and Tori’s explanation is “Can’t tell you that. Just trust me.” The translator transfers the English utterance into “Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi?” and “Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku.” The technique of the translation is literal translation strategy. Every word is translated into Indonesian without any strategy of shift. Based on the investigation, 137 data (98.56%) can be classified as “accurate translation.” 2) Less Accurate Translation In this parameter, the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is mostly transferred accurately into target-language text. However, distorted or equivocal meaning is still deleted, and it distracts the wholeness of the message. The following is an example. SL Christina: Sorry, am I being rude? I’m used to just saying whatever is on my mind. Mom used to say that politeness is deception in pretty packaging. TL Christina: Apakah aku kasar? Aku terbiasa mengucapkan apa pun yang ada di pikiranku. Ibuku pernah bilang sopan santun adalah kepalsuan yang dikemas dengan cantik. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 106 The data before is less accurate. It is due to the English violation maxim of manner utterance is not translated into Indonesian by the translator. In this case, the un- translated English violation maxim utterance diverts the translation. The translator did not solve the word “sorry” that Christina speaks it. The target language translated “Am I being rude?” without asking for forgiveness. Nevertheless, there is a possibility for the reader to just the whole meaning of the utterance. From 139 data, this study noted that there is two data (1.43%) that can be categorized as “less accurate translation.” 3) Not Accurate Translation A translation can be classified as inaccurate when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is not accurately transferred into the target language text or deleted. The pragmatic element of the source language text is not translated accurately into the target language text, so it causes misunderstanding (pragmatic failure). The translation, then, is not coherent and cohesive. Additionally, the implied speaker’s intention is not translated accurately. Based on this study's analysis, no translation was rated or judged as “not accurate translation.” Nevertheless, several data show that the utterances are not translated into Indonesian utterances; they still represent the whole speaker’s meaning or intention. The following chart shows the data of pragmatic equivalence of Divergent movie subtitle. Chart 1. Pragmatic Equivalence of Novel Translation of Divergent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Accurate Translation Less Accurate Translation Not Accurate Translation Accurate Translation Less Accurate Translation Not Accurate Translation Discussion Some of the research presented in this study focused on pragmatism, violating maxims, or, more broadly, pragmatism. Some of them highlighted the term pragmatic https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 107 equivalence, which is identical to the current investigation. In addition, the research was conducted using the same document-based method. However, what distinguishes this study from others are its purpose, data, and data source, as well as crucial parts of its method for data analysis and its conclusion. Comparing this study to several previous researchers, Al-Qaderi (2015) focused on violating conversational maxims. The researcher displayed that Gricean Theory of Conversational Implicature can be applied to the Arabic language, particularly the Yameni dialect. It means that the current research is different to what is concerned by Al-Qaderi (2015). This present study focused on the data of violation maxim proposed by Grice’s theory of maxims (1975). Furthermore, to analyse the data's pragmatic equivalence, the current study uses the combination of two theories at the same time: translation quality, especially equivalence (Nababan et al, 2012) and pragmatic equivalence (Baker, 2018). Based on the analyzed data, this current study found 139 data from the novel translation of Divergent. The data had been categorized as a cooperative principle in violation maxims. The data showed four types of violation maxims from English utterances translated into Indonesian utterances. The data showed no significant shift in the English version translated into Indonesia since the findings were violation maxim of quantity, violation maxim of quality, violation maxim of relevance, and violation maxim of manner. Grice (1975:49) said that the speaker “will be liable to mislead” the listener. Violating the maxim lets the listeners have misunderstood the information. Violating can also happen in four sub- principles of maxim. There are violations of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. This study confirms the theory since the study found all those types inside. According to Cutting (2002: 40), a speaker might violate the principle of quality by being insincere and providing incorrect information to an audience. The violation of the quality utterance maxim has many purposes. It not only functions as a lie or a statement that is considered untrue but also does irony or makes sardonic and sarcastic statements, as detailed in the preceding section. The data represented a unique adaptation of Divergent. There are four types of violation maxims, as previously mentioned. The dominant data in the novel violates the quality maximum; there are 45 data. The translator https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 108 rendered them as violation maxims such as violation maxim number, violation maxim quality, manner violation maxim, and relevance violation maxim. Pragmatic equivalence refers to words in both languages having the same effect on the readers in both languages. Baker (2018:235) selects two of the numerous concepts central to this particular field of language study that are believed to be especially useful for exploring the question of how a given text becomes comprehensible to a given readership and highlighting areas of difficulty in cross-cultural communication. These are coherence and implicature. This study combines Baker’s (2018) theory of pragmatic equivalence and Nababan, Nuraeni and Sumardiono’s (2012) theory of accuracy. Nababan (2012) states that three aspects need to be considered in assessing translation quality: accuracy, acceptability, and readability. The concept of translation quality assessment (i.e. accuracy) manifested into a particular instrument that deals with that aspect. The assessment is in the form of judging or scoring. The term pragmatic equivalence deals with two theories simultaneously: the theory of equivalence translation generally and pragmatic equivalence. Regarding to the novel translation of Divergent, the 139 data were rated or judged by an expert based on three parameters: accurate translation, less accurate translation, and not precise translation. There was the idea of the qualitative parameters of pragmatic equivalence. Furthermore, from 139 data, this study noted that there were 137 data of 98.56% that could be judged or rated as accurate translation based on the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence. But unfortunately, this study noted one piece of data as “less accurate translation” for some reasons. A translation can be rated as equivalence when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text are transferred accurately into target language text; there is no meaning distortion. The pragmatic element of the source language text is also moved accurately into the target language text. The translation represents a coherent and cohesive translation. The speaker's utterance is represented accurately as intended in the target language text. This study argues that the TL text fulfils all of the criteria or parameters. The subsequent discussion is about a less accurate translation. In this study, two pieces of data could be categorized as a less precise translation since there was a deletion to the TL text, which means that the translator did not translate the SL into TL. https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 109 In some cases, the TL would be equivalent since the information was omitted; however, the sentence was deleted or not translated. For example, an SL utterance, violation maxims or sentence was not translated to reach equivalent, but the information was included in the previous or the following TL text. A less accurate translation is when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is transferred accurately into target-language text. But there is still a distorted purpose or uncertain meaning that is deleted, and it distracts the wholeness of the message. The pragmatic element of the source language text is translated accurately into the target language text, but there are such misinterpretations in the target language (e.g. cultural understanding). Some translations take into account as coherent and cohesive, but some others do not. The translation does not fully represent the implied meaning of the speaker’s intention. It was just a minor “less accurate translation” since this study noted that two data could be rated according to the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence. So, there are two data or 1,43% data that belonged to this classification from overall data (139 data). This study did not find any translation that could be rated as not accurate. This study argues that the translator considers any Indonesian language norms or principles regarding to grammar. In this categorization, a translation would not be valid when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is not accurately transferred into target language text or deleted. The pragmatic element text so it makes misunderstanding (pragmatic failure). The translation, then, is not coherent and cohesive. The implied speaker’s intention is not translated accurately. This study noted no exact equivalence word, sentence or utterance from SL to TL. Therefore, a translator should give the touch of strategy to achieve equivalence. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded as follows. Firstly, this current study found 139 data from the novel translation of Divergent categorized as cooperative principle in violation maxims. The findings were dominated by violation maxim of quality. There had been found 45 data violation maxims of quality in novel translation. Secondly, in the novel translation, from 139 data, there were 137 data of 98.56% that could be judged or rated as “accurate translation” based on the qualitative parameter of ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 110 pragmatic equivalence. Two data from 139 (1,43% ) could be rated as “less accurate translation” according to the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence. This study did not find any translation could be rated as not accurate. This research limits on the analysis of violation maxim and pragmatic equivalence in the Divergent novel. Therefore, further researchers need to explore or discuss more pragmatic aspects of Divergent novel. REFERENCES Alwazna, R. Y. 2017. Pragmatic aspect of translation: the interpretation-based inference and its implications for translation. Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies, 1 (4), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol1no4.3 Al-Qaderi, Isaa Ali Umar. 2015. A pragmatic analysis of applying violating the maxims to the yemeni dialect. International Journal of Linguistics 6 (7), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v7i6.8762 Arezou, Sobhani., & Saghebi, Ali. 2014. The violation of cooperative principle and four maxims in iranian psychological consultation. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics(4), 91-99. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2014.41009 Baker, Mona. 2018. In other words: A course book on translation. New York: Routletge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619187 Catford, J.C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatic and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Fahmi, Rizal. 2016. An analysis of Grice’s maxims violation in daily conversation. Journal of Language and Language Teaching, 2 (4), 91-97. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v4i2.325 Fu, Liyan. 2017. On semantic equivalence in English-Chinese translation. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 117, 164-167. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In syntax & semantics III: Speech acts, ed. By Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 Haryanti, Dwi. 2013. Strategi kepadanan pesan pada linguistics across culture dan terjemahan. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics cambridge: Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 Nababan, M, dkk. 2012. Pengembangan model penilaian kualitas terjemahan. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 24 (1), 35-57. Nababan, Mangatur. 2004. Translation process, practices, and products of professional Indonesia translator. Public Research Paper: Victoria University of Wellington. Newmark, P. 1988. A textbook of translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Nida, E.A. & Taber. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Roth, Veronica. 2011. Divergent. Harper Collins: United States. Roth, Veronica. 2011. Divergent. Prameswari, Anggun. 2014. Mizan: Bandung. ©Wuri Rahmawati, Dwi Haryanti, & Malikatul Laila Available Online at https://journal.iaingorontalo.ac.id/index.php/al Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022 111 Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman. Triki, Manel. 2013. A pragmatic approach to the study of English/Arabic translation errors. Journal Academica Foundation, 3(1), 39-51. Tupan, Anneke H. & Natalia, Helen. 2008. The multiple violations of conversational maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of desperates housewives. Petra Christian University: Surabaya, Indonesia. Yule, G. 2014. The study of language. Cambridge: MPG Printgroup Ltd, Fifth Edition. Wu, Xue-Jing. 2017. A brief study of pragmatic meaning equivalence of translation in college English teaching. modern education and social science (3), 119- 122https://doi.org/10.12783/dtssehs/mess2017/12097