87 EEJ 6 (1) (2016) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej TECHNIQUE AND QUALITY OF ENGLISH – INDONESIAN TRANSLATION OF PUN IN TOLKIEN’S THE HOBBIT Rizky YolandaIssy Yuliasri English Language Education Postgraduate Program Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Received February 2016 Accepted March 2016 Published June 2016 ________________ Keywords: Pun, Translation, The Hobbit ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ Puns occupy a significant position in literature. The people are getting more and more excited when the novel uses puns. Pun, however, might be challenging for translators to translate pun which is closely related to the source language culture. Therefore this study is carried out in order to find out the kindsoftranslation techniques used, and to assess the quality of English – Indonesian translation English – Indonesian Tolkien‟s The Hobbit.The object of this study is English - Indonesian pun translation of J.R.RTolkien‟s The Hobbit.The result of the analysis shows that there are 243 puns found in J.R.R Tolkien The Hobbit.There are three kinds of pun are found in this novel. Paronymy dominates in 231 data, Homonymy with 11 data, Homophony with 1 datum. The analysis on translation techniques shows that there are six techniques used. Pun to Non Pun technique, Punoid, Pun to Pun, Non Pun to Pun, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero. The analysis on the translation quality shows that 56 translations are considered as accurate, and 187 translations are considered as less accurate. In acceptability level, 116 translations belong to acceptable, and 127 translations belong to less acceptable. Readability level shows that 133 translations are categorized as high readability, and 110 translations are categorized as sufficient readability. © 2016 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Correspondence: E-mail: khieyolanda@yahoo.com Kampus UNNES BendanNgisor, Semarang, 50233 p-ISSN 2087-0108 e-ISSN 2502-4566 Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 88 INTRODUCTION It is undeniable that pun as has shown its significance in the novel. The people are getting more and more excited when the novel uses puns. Regarding to this fact, translation demand has increased due to the translation purpose of facilitating people who come from different countries and speak different languages to understand the message intended in the source language. Pun, however, might be challenging for translators to translate pun which is closely related to the source language culture. Pun which can be found in the novel is not easy to translate since it is closely related to the source language (SL) culture and the SL system of grammar. Delabastita (1996: 129) states that puns are textual phenomena, meaning that they are dependent on the structural characteristics of language as an abstract system. He further says that languages are full of potential ambiguities and associations, which are not normally perceived as significant in ordinary, non- significant discourse. Further, wordplay or pun contrasts linguistic structures with different meanings on the basis of their formal similarity. Furthermore, a pun may be either vertical or horizontal. The formal similarity of two linguistic structures may clash by being co-present in the same portion of text (in this case it is vertical pun), or by being in a relation of contiguity by occurring one after another in the text (the horizontal pun). There have been a number of researches concerning with the phenomena of pun translation. One of the studies is conducted by Winarti (2011) that is „An Analysis of Pun Translation in the AnimationMovie Madagascar II Escape to Africa’. This research describes thetypes of pun, the translation technique, and the impact of the application of thetechniques on the accuracy level of the pun translation in the animation movie“Madagascar II Escape to Africa”. The result of the analysis in this study showed that Paronymy puns dominate the dialogue with 32 data or 80% of all 40 data.The analysis on translation techniques showed that there were twotechniques used namely pun rendered as non pun and pun rendered as zero pun.The analysis on the translation accuracy level showed that 35 translations(87,5%) were considered to be less accurate and 5 translations (12,5%) wereconsidered as inaccurate. Among the less accurate translations, 33 translations or82,5% of them were resulted from pun rendered as non pun technique and 1translation or 2,5% was resulted from pun rendered as zero pun. Among theinaccurate translation, 4 translations or 10% were resulted from pun rendered asnon pun technique, and 2 translations or 5% was resulted from pun rendered aszero pun technique. The analysis also showed that none of the translations wereconsidered to be accurate. Another study is conducted by Rushadi (2012) entitled A translation Analysis of English Pun in the TV Serial “Ally Macbeal”. This study emphasizes on the phenomenon of pun which is taken from TV series “Ally MacBeal” season 1-3. It is conducted to investigate the types of pun, the translation techniques used by the translator and to rate accuracy and acceptability level. From total data 23, there are 19 data (82, 6%) classified into vertical pun and the rest 4 data (13,4%) are horizontal pun. Meanwhile, based on degree Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 89 of similarity there are five types of pun: paronymic 15 (65, 21%), homophonic 3 (13,04%), polysemic 2 (8, 75%), nicknaming 2 (8, 75%) and homonymic 1 (4, 35%). In this study, there are four translation techniques applied: a SL pun translated into a similar TL pun, a SL pun copied into TL pun, a pun translated into a non-pun but keeping one of sense ambiguity only, and a pun translated into a punoidor pseudo- wordplay through the adaptation of rhetorical devices especially rhymes. The result of open-ended questionnaire to accuracy level shows that mostly of English pun are rendered accurately in Indonesia by average on the point 1.3. While, open-ended questionnaire to acceptability level shows that only a few of English pun are translated naturally in Indonesia. Moreover, it seems that this study is more interesting than the previous studies because it explores deeper and wider areas. This study does not only describe the kinds of pun used, but also describes pun translation technique used. Furthermore, this study will describe the quality of translation, in term of accuracy, acceptability and readability. Notions of Pun According to Delabastita (1996: 128) wordplay or pun is the general name for the various textual phenomena in which structural features of the language(s) use are exploited in order to bring about a communicatively significant confrontation of two (or more) linguistic structures with more or less similar forms and more or less different meanings. Wordplay or pun is a figure of speech which consists of a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious. It is a way of using the characteristics of the language to cause a word, a sentence or a discourse to involve two or more different meanings. Hence, humorous or any other effects created by wordplay or puns depend upon the ambiguities words entail. Understanding the context is important because verbal pun does not have a similar structure which is presented, it will be absent or co present. Kinds of Pun Regarding the kinds of pun, Delabastita (1996: 128) proposes there arefour categories of pun: homonymy, homophony, homograph, and paronymy.The kinds of pun are also proposes by the Chinese scholar Yuan Chuandao (2005), he claims that the creation of pun is connected not only to the meaning and the homophony of a word, but also to the context, manner of speech and logic. Hence, he singles out the following types of pun as homonymic pun (identical sounds and spelling), lexical meaning pun (polysemantic words), understanding pun (through the particular context implied meaning of a sentence is revealed, and figurative pun (a simile or a metaphor as its surface meaning and the figurative meaning as its deep meaning). While Schröter proposes the kinds pun are polisemy and paronymy. He states that polysemy is characterized by a clash of orthographically and phonetically identical structures with divergent meanings and etymologically connected (2005:181). Techniques in Translating Pun In the process of translation, translators usually face problems dealing Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 90 withlinguistic and cultural differences between the source language and the target language. The problems of translation are included in the translation process.Remembering there are so many translation problems would be found in processof translating pun, the translation strategies are needed here. Delabastita proposes thetranslation techniques of puns available for the translator‟s, they are: Pun to Pun, Pun to Non Pun, Pun to Zero, Pun in ST = Pun in TT, Pun = Related Rhetorical Device (Punoid), Non Pun to Pun, Zero to Pun, and Editorial Techniques. Translation Quality Assessment Translation is considered to be good when it meets three criteria; those are accuracy, acceptability, and readability. Accuracy of translation means the message of the source text is transferred into target text correctly. According to Shuttleworthand Cowie (1997: 3) accuracy is a term used in translation evaluation to refer to the extent towhich a translation matches its original, while it is usually refers to preservationof the information content of ST in TT, with an accurate translation beinggenerally literal then free, its actual meaning in the content of a given translationmust depend on the type of equivalence. Acceptability in translation means that the translation fulfils therequirement of „reading as an original‟ written in the target language and soundsnatural for the target reader rather than that of „reading as the original‟Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997: 2). Nababan (2012) defines readability as „how easily written materials can be read and understood‟. Translation cannot be separated from the term readability since the activity of translating is closely connected to the activity of reading METHOD This studyis descriptive qualitative research. This study focuses on describing accurately and factually about English – Indonesian translation of pun in Tolkien‟s The Hobbit. The source of data used in this study arethe original novel of The Hobbit or There and Back Again by Tolkien, published by Houghton Mifflin Company-New York in 2001 consists of 330 pages and its Indonesian translation The Hobbit atau Pergi dan Kembali tranlated by A.Adiwiyoto, published by PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama- Jakakta in 2002 which consists of 352 pages, and the respondents. The respondents are divided into two, they are expert raters (the lecturers) and target readers (the teenager). In collecting data, the researcher applies three methods. Note taking is used to collect the pun contained, and the techniques applied in English-Indonesian Tolkien‟s The Hobbit. The questionnaire is used to get the response of the readers, related to quality of pun translation. The researcher will use aaccuracy, acceptability and readability ratingiinstrumentsto determine the degree of pun translation quality. And in-depth interviewsare conducted with the expert readers to validate responses or statements they gave in the questionnaire. In this study, the data collected are analyzed by classifying kinds of pun as well as translation techniques applied in translating pun in J.R.R Tolkien‟s The Hobbit, reducing the data which is not suitable. Interpreting the data is also a part of data analysis, drawing an inferences from the results of the analysis based on Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 91 statement of the problems and provide the suggestion. FINDING AND DATA ANALYSIS Based on the kinds of pun from Delabastita (1996), there are three kinds of pun found in Tolkiens‟ The Hobbit. They are Homonymy, Homophony and Paronymy. The table below shows the distribution of each kind. Table 1 Kinds of Pun in J.R.R Tolkien‟s The Hobbit Kinds of Pun Number of Data Percentage Homonymy 11 data 4.5% Homophony 1 data 0.4% Paronymy 231 data 95.1% Total 243 data 100% From Table 1, it can be seen that Paronymy dominates in 95.1%, Homonymy 4.5% is in the second rank followed by Homophony 0.4%. The writer has found Paronymy was appeared often than others. The most kind of pun used in this novel is Paronymy, it is shown by the percentages 95.1%. Translation Technique Based on the technique in translating pun, Delabastita (1996:134) introduced several techniques namely Pun to Pun, Pun to Non Pun, Pun rendered as other rhetorical device, Pun to Zero, Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT, Zero to Pun, Non Pun to Pun, and Editorial Techniques. Among the eight techniques mentioned, the writer found six techniques used by the translator. They are; Pun to Pun, Pun to Non Pun, Pun rendered as other rhetorical device, Pun to Zero, Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT, and Non Pun to Pun. The table below shows the translation techniques of pun are used in J.R.R Tolkien‟s The Hobbit. Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 92 Table 2 Translation Techniques No Translation Techniques Number of Usage Percentage 1 Pun to Pun 12 4.8% 2 Pun to Non Pun 116 46.2% 3 Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid) 113 45.0% 4 Pun to Zero 1 0.4% 5 Pun in ST = Pun in TT 1 0.4% 6 Non Pun to Pun 8 3.2% Total 251 100% From the Table 2, it can be seen that Pun to Non Pun technique dominates in 46.2%, Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid) 45.0% is in the second rank followed by Pun to Pun 4.8%, Non Pun to Pun 3.2% is in the fourth rank, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero 0.4% for the last rank. The analysis of the techniques used will be shown in this sub chapter below: Translation Quality 1. Accuracy Accuracy indicates the degree of conformity. It deals with how accurate a translator transfers the message in ST into TT. In this case, the translator is required to translate the content of the text correctly. The concept of accurate leads to a conformity content or messages between ST and TT and no distortion of meaning. In this study, the scores that represent the accuracy level are given by four raters. Three raters are the expert raters coded as R1, R2, and R3, and another rater is the writer coded as R4. Dealing with accuracy level, the writer uses this following scale: 3 = Pun is transferred accurately into the target language and no distortion of meaning (Accurate). 2 = Pun has been transferred accurately into target language, but there is a distortion of meaning or double meaning or eliminated- meaning which disturb the wholeness of the message (Less Accurate). 1 = Pun is inaccurately transferred into the target languageor omitted (Inaccurate). Additionally, the following table shows the percentage of pun translation for accuracy level: Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 93 Table 3. Percentage of Accuracy Categories Number of Data Percentage Accurate 56 23% Less Accurate 187 77% Total 243 100% From 243 data, the writer have found 56 pun translations are considered as accurate (23%), and 187 are categorized as less accurate pun translations (77%). 2. Acceptability Acceptability refers to whether a translation has been translated appropriately with the rules, norms and the prevailing culture in the target language or not, and soundsnatural for the target reader. In this study, the scores that represent the acceptability level are given by four raters. 3 = Translation of pun is natural,it is commonly familiar to the readers and does not sound strange (Acceptable). 2 = In general, translation of pun already feels natural, but it is not familiar to the reader and a bit strange (Less Acceptable). 1 = Translation of pun is unnatural, it is not familiar to the reader and sounds very strange (Inacceptable). Moreover, the following table shows the percentage of pun translation for acceptability level: Table 4 Percentage of Acceptability Categories Number of Data Percentage Acceptable 116 47,7% Less Acceptable 127 52,3% Total 243 100% Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 94 From 243 data, the writer have found 116 pun translations are considered as acceptable (47,7%), and 127 are considered as less acceptable pun translations (52,3%). The explanations upon the data based on the acceptable level are as follow: 3. Readability Readability defines as „how easily pun translation can be read and understood‟. In this study, the scores that represent the readability level are given by four raters. Three raters are the expert raters and one rater is the writer. The scores that represent the readability level are also given by 16 target readers. 3 = Translated pun can be easily understood. The readers read fluently because the translation of pun is understandable (High Readability). 2 = Translated pun can be understood, however it should be read more than once to understand the translation. The readers stop for a while when they read the translation of Punbecause the translation is less understandable (Sufficient Readability). 1 = Translation is difficult to understand or cannot be understood at all (Low Readability). The following table shows the percentage of pun translation for readability level: Table 5. Percentage of Readability Categories NumberofData Percentage High Readability 133 54,7% Sufficient Readabilit y 110 45,3% Total 243 100% From 243 data, the writer have found 133 pun translations are considered as high readability (54,7%), and 110 are categorized as sufficient readability pun translations (45,3%). CONCLUSIONS The analysis on types of pun in J.R.R Tolkien‟s The Hobbit shows that there are three kinds of pun are found in this novel; they are Paronymy, Homonymy and Homophony. Paronymy dominates in 95.1% with 231 data, Homonymy 4.5% with 11 data is in the second rank followed by Homophony 0.4% with 1 datum. The writer has found Paronymy was often appeared than others. The analysis on translation techniques shows that there are six techniques used namely Pun to Non Pun, Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid), Pun to Pun, Non Pun to Pun, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero. Pun to Non Pun technique dominates in 116 times of use (46.2%), Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid) is used 113 times (45.0%) is in the second rank followed by Pun to Pun in 12 times of use (4.8%), Non Pun to Pun is used 8 times (3.2%) is in the fourth rank, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero each are used once (0.4%). The analysis on the translation quality shows that 56 translations (23%) are considered to be accurate, and 187 translations (77%) are considered as less accurate. In acceptability level, 116 translations are belong to acceptable (47,7%), and 127 translations are belong to less acceptable (52,3%). Readability level shows that 133translations (54, 7%) are categorized as high readability, and 110 translations (45,3%) are categorized as sufficient readability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my sincere thanks to PPS Unnes. I would also like to express my grateful appreciation to Dr. Rudi Hartono, SS, M.Pd. who has guided me and for encouragement and suggestions. Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 95 REFERENCES Baker, M. (1992).In other words: A course book on translation. London: Sage Publication. Bassnett, S.(1991). Translation studies.London: Routledge. Bell, Roger T. (1991). Translation and Translating. New York: Longman. Bosseaux, Charlotte. (2007). How Does it Feel? Point of View in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi BV. Chiaro, Delia. (1992). The Language of Jokes. New York: Routledge. Chuandao, Yuan. (2005). English Pun and Its Classification. Retrieved November 24, 2015, from http://www.languageinindia.com/april2 005/englishpun1.html Delabastita, D. (1993). There‟s a Double Tongue. Amsterdam: Rodopi BV. Delabastita, D. (1996). Traductio: Essays on punning and translation. United Kingdom: St.Jerome Publishing. Gambier, Yves, et al. (2010).Handbook of Translation Studies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Giorgadze, Meri. (2014). Linguistics Features of Pun, Its Typology and Classification:European Scientific Journal November 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition vol.2 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 Gooskeens, Inge. (2014). An analysis of translated puns in the Spanish dubbed version of the American sitcom The Simpsons (Unpublished) Hansen, Gyde, et al. (2004). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Hammond, Paul and Patrick Hughes.(1978). Upon the Pun (Dual Meaning in Words and Pictures). London: W.H. Allen & Co. Ltd. Jing, He. (2010). The Translation of English and Chinese Puns from the Perspective of Relevance Theory: The Journal of Specialised Translation Issue 13 – January 2010. Kjerkegaard, Stefan. (2011) Seven Days without a Pun Makes One Weak. Two Functions of Wordplay in Literature and Literary Theory: Literature, Language and Linguistics Volume 3, Issue 1, 2011, ISSN 1948-5778. Koren, Ana. (2012). An Honest Attempt to Grasp and Possibly Tame the Wild Animal of Punning Taxonomy.Slovenia: Ljubljana University Press. Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross language acquisition. New York: University Press of America Inc. Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters Ltd. Lunquist, Ingrid. (2014). Cunning Punning and Cultural References (Unpublished) Mei, Tun Yung. (2011). The Translation of Wordplay in Lewis Carroll‟s Alice‟s Advantures in Wonderland (Unpublished). Molina, L & Albir, H. (2002). Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta: Translators' Journal: 47/2. Munday, Jeremy. (2009). Translation Studies.Newyork: Routledge. Nababan, Mangatur. (1999). TeoriMenerjemahkan Bahasa Inggris.Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar. Nababan, Mangatur.(2012). Pengembangan Model Penilaian Kualitas Terjemahan: Jurnal KajianLinguistikdan Sastra.24: 39- 57. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice HallInternational. Nida, E & Taber, Chr, E. (1982).The theory and practice of translation.Leiden: E. J. Brill. Publishing. Noegel, Scott B. (1995). Wordplay and Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Job. Washington: Aula Orientalis http://www.languageinindia.com/april2005/englishpun1.html http://www.languageinindia.com/april2005/englishpun1.html Rizky Yolanda/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016) 96 Partington, A. S. (2009). A linguistic account of wordplay: The lexical grammar of punning.Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1794-1809. Perez, Fransisco Javier D. (1999). Translating Wordplay: Lewis Carroll in Galician and Spanish (Unpublished). Peterfy, Mergit. (2005). These things astonish me beyond words: Wordplay in William Carlos Williams‟s Poetry. Connotations Vol. 14.1-3. Radek, Lukes. (2013). Wordplay in Yes, Prime Minister (Unpublished). Rushadi, Dinar Fitria. (2012). A Translation Analysis of English Pun in the Serial TV “Ally Macbel” Season 1-3 (Unpublished Thesis of SebelasMaret University). Schroter, Thornsten. (2005). Shun the Pun, Rescue the Rhyme. Sweden (Unpublished Thesis of University of Sweden). Shuttleworth, Mark and Moira Cowie.(1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies.New York: Routledge SparknotesThe Hobbit J.R.R Tolkien. (2014). New York: Spark Publishing. Tolkien, J.R.R. (2001). The Hobbit: There and Back Again. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Vandaele, Jeroen. (2011). Wordplay in Translation.Oslo University (Unpublished Thesis of Oslo University). Williamson, Lee and Raquel de Pedro Ricoy. (2014). The Translation of Wordplay in Interlingual Subtitling. Babel 60: 2, 164– 192, DOI 10.1075/babel.60.2.03wil ISSN 0521–9744 E-ISSN 1569–9668 Winarty, NIken. (2011). An Analysis of Pun Translation in the Animation Movie “Madagascar II Escape to Africa (Unpublished Thesis of SebelasMaret University)