Language Circle October 2010.pdf THE TRANSFER OF MODALIZATION IN THE INDONESIAN TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH INTERPERSONAL CLAUSES Yan Mujiyanto Semarang State University ABSTRACT This study aims to provide explanation on the fransfer of modalization in restructuring interpersonal clauses. As a case study, it has been deliberately directed to analyze written clauses in English texts and their counterparts in Indonesian. Four major procedures were taken to manage the data withdrawn from the texts, i.e. (1) data reduction, (2) data display, (3) data analysis, dan (4) inferencing. Based on the procedures, it was found that in order to achieve functional equivalence, interpersonal clauses were translated by means of restructuring processes. The grammar of proposition has been restructured in three major modes, i.e. (1) the translation of polarity which includes affirmative, polar interrogative, wh- interrogative, and exclamative restructuring , (2) the restructuring of probability which includes the transfer of Modal adjunct, Mood adjunct, and Grammatical metaphor, (3) the transfer of usuality which was restructured according its different degrees. Key Words: modalization, proposition, functional equivalence, interpersonal clause INTRODUCTION Translation study can be focused on process or product. The process oriened study aims to psycho-physiologically explore what happens in the translator’s mind when processing message in one language to reproduce the same message in another language. The product oriented rendering, on the other hand, aims to provide explanation on the characteristics of translation product relative to its source. These orientations can then be focused on the language form, meaning, or function. A translation study that is focused on language function aims to explain how meaning realized in one language is rendered to another language so that the meaning comes to its target readers with minimal functional deviation or nonequivalence. In interlanguage translation, meaning may be transferred by implementing certain techniques to anticipate the linguistic and cultural differences in characteristics between the two languages. Meaning realized in a wording pattern in the source langiuage (SL) may be expressed in a relatively the same pattern in the target language (TL) resulting in formal correspondence between the two languages. However, the fact is generally the opposite so that a translator likely faces the fact that in order to achieve functional equivalence (s)he has to make use of certain techniques or strategies to reproduce meaning in the TL that functionally resembles that in the SL. Given the different linguistic characteristics between the SL and the TL, a translation effort needs to be supported by procedures of clause restructuring to make messages contained in the SL be transfered to the TL in such a way that they can be understood the way the source text is understood by its native readers. In other words, the implementation of techniques in the transfer of message and the clause restructuring in conveying the message in the TL are meant to produce meaning in the TL equivalent with that in the SL by fulfilling the three requirements of a “good” translation, i.e. accuracy, naturalness, and readibility. The purpose of translation studies is to disclose the achievement of such equivalence viewed from different perspectives. Among the perspectives is functional or dynamic equivalence. Based on such a view, this study is meant to solve the problem of how modalization is transferred in the effort of restructuring interpersonal clauses to result in functional equivalence in the rendering of English text into Indonesian. The main purpose of this study is thus to provide explanation on the ways in which SL interpersonal clauses are restructured to generate meaning in the TL which are functionally equivalent with their counterpart in the SL. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Modalization When exchanging information, we make a form of proposition, i.e. something that can be argued in a particular way. In this argument, something can be IS or IS NOT, meaning that something can only be affirmed or denied. However, in reality these poles of polarity are not always possible. There are a number of choices to realize degrees of certainty or usuality between the two poles. We refer to these degrees as modalization. In other words, modalization is used to argue about the probability or frequency of proposition. According to Halliday (1985: 85-9), modalization involves the expression of two kinds of meaning: (1) probability where the speaker expresses judgments as to the likelihood of something to happen or or be and (2) usuality where the speaker expresses jugements as to the frequency with which something happens or occurs. Probability may be represented by such modal operator as must, may, might or Mood Adjuncts like certainly, probably and possibly, while usuality by such adverbs as always, usually, and sometimes. Since these words can be in the finite category of Modal Operator or in the class of Mood Adjuct, their meaning can therefore be present in the clause in three possible ways: (1) through the choice of modal operator, (2) through the use of Mood Adjunct of probability, certainty, etc., or (3) through both together. Modalisation can also be realized explicitly by the use of what Halliday calls grammatical metaphor of modality. Such expressions as I reckon, I suppose, I’m sure, It is possible, It is probable, It is certain (that) are classified as metaphorical because being expressions of modality they are realized as complete clauses with their own MOOD/RESIDUE structure. Equivalence In the domain of translation study, the term equivalence has been defined in a number of ways. While defining the term as …, Nida distinguishes two different types of equivalence, i.e. formal equivalence—which is also referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a source language (SL) word or phrase. Nida and Taber (1982) make it clear that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the target text (TT) since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language (TL) wording will trigger the same impact on the TL audience as the original wording did upon the source text audience. They argue that 'frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200). Differenent from Nida and Taber’s, Catford's approach to translation equivalence had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach. His main contribution to the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed types of translation in terms of three criteria: (1) the extent of translation; (2) the levels of language involved in translation; (3) the grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established. Of the three types, the third concerns the concept of equivalence. In rank- bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for each word encountered in the ST. As far as translation shift is concerned, Catford (1965:73) defines them as departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL. He argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts and category shifts which are divided into (1) structure-shifts, (2) Class-shifts,(3) Unit- shifts, (4) Intra-system shifts, (Catford 1965:80). House (1997) argues that ST and TT should match one another in function. She suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. According to her, every text in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation. If the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent. She acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function' (1997:49) Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is no need to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must overtly be a translation' (1997:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC audience' (1997:194). House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, grammatical equivalence, textual equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence. Halliday (2001:.13) contrasts the linguist's interest in translation theories which involves "how things are" and a translator's interest in a theory which concerns "how things ought to be". With reference to the process of translation, Halliday (1967; Newmark1991: 65) suggests that translating proceeds by three stages: (1) item for item equivalence; (2) reconsideration in the light of the linguistic environment and beyond this to a consideration of the situation; (3) reconsideration in the light of the grammatical features of the target language where source language no longer provides any information. As far as translation quality assessment is concerned, Halliday (1967) points out that, the equivalence of units and of items is lost as soon as we go below the sentence; the further down the rank scale we go, the less is left of the equivalence. Then, in respect of the register variables – field, tenor and mood – in translation, Halliday (2001:17) emphasises the importance of contexts in deciding the "value" of different strata. He stipulates what can be seen as "a principle of hierarchy of values" when he observes that equivalence at different strata carries differential values; ...in most cases the value that is placed on it goes up the higher the stratum—semantic equivalence is valued more highly than lexicogrammatical, and contextual equivalence perhaps most highly of all; but ...these relative values can always be varied. And finally, Halliday (2001:15) justifies his view on translation equivalence by asking: "equivalence with respect to what?" Equivalence, he asserts, should be defined in respect of the metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, textual) (Halliday 2001:16). For him, although "in any particular instance of translation, value may be attached to equivalence at different ranks, different strata, different metafunctions," it is "usually at the higher lexicogrammatical units" in rank, and "typically" at the highest stratum within language, i.e. that of semantics in strata, that equivalence is most highly valued (Halliday 2001:17). With regard to the three metafunctions, Halliday thinks that "high value may be accorded to equivalence in the interpersonal or textual realms—but usually only when ideational equivalence can be taken for granted" (Halliday 2001:17). METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The term interlanguage translation signifies the effort of translators to analize a source text in order to comprehend its meaning, to seek the counterpart of the meaning in the target language, and to restructure clauses in the text to result in functional equivalence between the source text and its counterpart in the target language. Focusing the attention to translation as product, the term is refered to as clauses in the target language as a result of rendering act from the sourse language. Based on the notion, the object for this study is translation, i.e. Indonesian text as a result of rendering task from English. For this purpose, this study has deliberately chosen the translation of Harry Potter series to be the object of the study. The data for this study were clauses in Indonesian and their counterpart in English which were drawn from their sources. In order to disclose the meaning contained in the clauses, this study had deliberately chosen seven novel series of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and their Indonesian counterpart which were done by L. Srisanti. Due to the ample number of the data source, this study limited its data withdrawal merely from a number of chapters from each of the seven siries. The data were randomly drawn from the chapters based on the assumption that data homogenously spead over the chapters so that small precentage of sample will be adequate to represent the whole parts of the data source. The data were managed by means of the following procedures.Firstly, the data source in the form of chapters in the two languages were put side by side with the purpose of obtaining general picture on the completeness of the texts. The second step was identification of clauses as the largest unit of analysis. This step aimded to obtain ideas on clauses which were assumed to contain relevant aspects of the study. The clauses were then picked out to be put into the database for categorization based on the references of clause restructuring viewed from the systemic-functional grammar perspective. This step yieled categories and sub-categories of data ready for analysis, whose results were subsequently used as the basis to describe and explain phenomena in translation practices. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION In order to achieve functional equivalence, modalization of interpersonal clauses was transferred in at least three categories of restructuring modes. The restructuring of polarity includes affirmative, polar interrogative, wh- interrogative, and exclamative, that of modalization includes the employment of modal operators, mood adjuncts, and grammatical metaphor. The grammar of usuality was restructured by observing that of the SL. These three restructuring categories Are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Variations of Interpersonal Clauses Polarity Affirmative The grammatical structure of proposition consists of two main clause elements, i.e. Mood and Residue. Mood may be in the forms of (1) Subject, (2) Finite, and (3) expression of polarity, while Residue may be in the forms of (1) Predicator, (2) Complement, and (3) Adjunct. Each of the six elements is presented in sample (1). In this clause pattern, the expression of polarity is realized by the negator “not” attached to the Finite “had”. (1) a/b. GRAMMAR OF MODALIZATION POLARITY PROBABILITY AFFIRMATIVE POLAR INTERROGATIVE WH- INTERROGATIVE EXCLAMATIVE MODAL ADJUNCT MOOD ADJUNCT USUALITY GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR DEGREES They had (not) been given permission to show curiosity Mereka telah diberi izin untuk memperlihatkan keingintahuan Subject Finite (polarity) Predicator Complement Adjunct Mood Residue In sample (2) the Finite element is the past tense form represented by the suffix /-ed/ attached to the Predicator “give”. In this pattern, two complements are used to furnish the clause, i.e. “George” and “a book”. (2) a/b. Simon gave George a book too Subject Finite Predicator Complement Complement Adjunct Mood Residue It is quite possible that an element in the SL does not have any counterpart in the TL. For instance, in sample (3), the Finite “had” does not have any counterpart while the two complements, i.e. “his mother” and “the slip” were changed to circumstantial Adjunct “dari ibunya”, shifting an idiomatic expression to a literal one. (3) a/b. He ‘d given his mother the slip Dia kabur dari ibunya Subject Finite Predicator Complement Complement Adjunct Mood Residue In restructuring a clause like the one shown in sample (4), all elements of the clause in the SL were maintained so that the translation resulted in formal corresponce in the word, group, phrase, and clause levels. This had eventually yielded the highest level of equivalence, that is functuional one between the two languages. (4) a/b. Oh, come on, Hagrid, you might not want to tell us Oh, ayolah, Hagrid, kau mungkin tak ingin memberitahu kami, Cont Cont Voc Subject Finite (neg) Predicator Compl Residue Mood Residue Different from the sample shown above, in (5), each of the elements of the SL clause were provided with its counterpart in the TL resulting in semantic equivalence at word level. Nevertheless, the elements were restructured by reordering them resulting in a shift of word order. (5) a. It must have made sense to Dumbledore, though. b. Tapi Dumbledore pasti bisa mengartikannya. The Subject “It” for instance was moved to function as Complement “-nya” while the conjuctive Adjunct “though” which was originally in the final position of the SL clause was moved to the initial position in the TL clause. Besides that, the word “Dumbledore” as a part of the Complement in the SL clause was moved to the subject position in the TL. This restructuring process is illustrated in sample (6). (6) a/b. It must have made sense to Dumbledore though. -nya pasti bisa mengartikan Dumbledore Tapi Subj à Compl Finite Predicator Compl à Subject Final à Initial In sample (7), the Circumstantial Adjunct “into an uneasy sleep” was restructured by means of moving the noun “sleep” to the prosition of Predicator “tidur” while maintaining the adjunct “uneasy” in its original position of Circumstantial Adjunct by adding a conjunction “walaupun”. Meanwhile, the predicator “been drifting” which literally means “hanyut” was translated to “bisa” signifying the notion of “ability”. (7) a. Mr Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep. b. Mr Dursley mungkin saja bisa tidur, walau tak nyenyak. In sample (8), the word “however” whose meaning refers to contradiction was translated to “ternyata” which refers to the notion of ‘reality’. Besides that, the Circumstantial Adjunct in the form of the clause “(than) they’d thought” was restructured to become a nominal phrase “dugaan mereka” (their guess). (8) a. Quirrell, however, must have been braver than they'd thought. b. QUIRRELL, ternyata, lebih berani daripada dugaan mereka. These modes of translation had resulted in grammatical as well as semantic shifts. Nevertheless, they had provided their share to the achievement of functional equivalence because it is this type of equivalence that had been applied to reflect the ST writer’s thought in realizing meaning, instead of word and grammatical structure. Polar Interrogative Polar interrogative clauses were restructured in at least five major patterns, i.e. (1) “apa(kah) substitution, (2) Modal Adjunct placement, (3) Predicator placement, (4) negator “tidak(kah)” or “bukan(kah)” placement in initial position, and (5) the use of statement in interrogative intonation. These five patterns are illustrated in Figur 1. In one of the patterns, all the clausal elements were provided with their counterparts placed in the same positions as those in the SL clause except the finite “do” that was translated to the question word “apa” and optional particle “-kah” used for politeness purpose. ST TT Interogatif polar? Apa(kah) + Clause? Modal(kah) + Clause? Predicator(kah) + Clause? Tidak(kah) + Clause? Clause? Figure 2 The Restructuring Pattern of Polar Interrogative Clauses Using such patterns, interrogative clauses in the SL employing Finite like “is”, “can,” and “did” in initial position such as represented in sample (9), were restructured by using the question word “apa(kah)” maintaining the referential meaning of the Modal Adjunct in its original position. (9) a. Is Serious Black with--er--He-Who-Must- Not-BeNamed? b. Apakah Serius Black bersama—er—Dia yang Namanya Tak Boleh Disebut? Such polar interrogative clauses can also be restructured by shifting the Mood or Predicative element to the initial position and optionally adding the particle “-kah” to the word for politeness purpose. In sample (10), instead of using the question word “apa(kah)”, the SL clause was restructured by shifting the word “sudah” as the counterpart of the Finite “have” and adding the particle “-kah”, maintaining the rest of the clause elements in their original position. (10) a. Have you discussed this matter with the Dark Lord? b. Sudahkah kau membicarakan masalah ini dengan Pangeran Kegelapan? In sample (11), it is the Predicator “tahu” that had been shifted to the initial position with the particle “-kah” added to it. Meanwhile, in sample (12) it is the Negator “tidak” that was placed in initial position; the other clause elements were restructured according to the original position in the SL. (11) a. Do you know what I think, Potter? b. Tahukah kau apa pendapatku, Potter? (12) a. Don't you see? b. Tidakkah kau paham? Polar interrogative clauses may also be restructured to form a type of affirmative while adding to it the question mark (?) representing a change from a statement to a question. In sample (13), the interrogative clause signified by the inverted form of “Do you” was restructured to form an affirmative clause “Kau sering bertemu …?” completed with the question mark, instead of tentative interrogarives like “Apakah kau sering bertemu …?” or “Seringkah kau bertemu …?” The choice of such expressions is likely determined by a particular element within the clause to be emphasized or in other words thematized. (13) a. Do you see much of your uncle, Marcus? b. Kau sering bertemu pamanmu, Marcus? Based on such principles, it can be predicted that a clause like “Will you make the Unbreakable Vow?” which had been translated into “Apakah kau mau melakukan Sumpah Tak-Terlanggar?” might also be restructured to form hypotetical clauses like “Maukah kau melakukan Sumpah Tak-Terlanggar?" or “Kau mau melakukan Sumpah Tak-Terlanggar?” without reducing the degree of the functional equivalence. Wh- Interrogative In English, the question word “Wh-” functioning as Subject, Complement, or Adjunct of an interrogative is normally placed at the initial position of the clause. In translation, however, such a word may be flixibly placed at initial, medial, or final position depending on whether or not it is thematised. In sample (14), the question word “Who” is used to substitute and simultaneously placed in the Subject position. In the example, the word “yang” had been inserted between the question word “Siapa” and “bisa as the counterpart of the finite “can”. (14) a/b. Who can say that they know the real Harry Potter? Siapa (yang) bisa berkata bahwa mereka kenal Harry Potter yang sesungguhnya? Subject Finite Predicator Complement Mood Residue In sample (15), the question word “How” functioning as Circumstantial Adjunct in the clause was also placed in initial position followed by the inverted form of Subject – Finite construction of “Dumbledore” and “did”. In restructuring the clause, the Finite “did” was not given any counterpart in the TL so that the question word “Bagaimana” is directly followed by the Subject of the clause . (15) a/b. How did Dumbledore really meet his end? Bagaimana Dumbledore sebenarnya menemui ajalnya? Wh-/Adjunct Finite Subject Predicator Complement Residue Mood Residue Different from the restructuring pattern presented above, a “Wh-“ interrogative may also be restructured by inserting the particle “yang” and changing the verb into its passive form signified by the presence of the prefix “di-“ in the TL. In sample (16), the active verb “would … say” was restructured to form a passive construction “akan dikatakan”. (16) a. What would Ron and Hermione say about this? b. Apa yang akan dikatakan Ron dan Hermione tentang ini? Another mode of Wh-interogative restructuring is providing the counterpart of the question word and changing the interrogative structure (Finite + Subject) to affirmative (Subject + Predicator). In sample (17), the question word “How” was translated into “Bagaimana” while the interrogative structure “can I” was restructured to form an affirmative construction “saya bisa” (“I can”). (17) a. How can I help you? b. Bagaimana saya bisa membantu Anda? Instead of putting the question word in initial position, it is also possible to put it next to the Subject or Predicator of the clause. For instance, in sample (18) the question word “Where” was translated into “dari mana” and was restructured by positioning it next to the Predicator “to start” which had been translated to “mulai”. (18) a. Where to start! b. Mulai dari mana! Eventually, the restructuring process may also be made passible by replacing the question word used in the SL with another question word. In sample (19), for instance, the question word “What” which refers to an object is replaced by the question word “Kenapa” as the counterpart of the SL question word “Why” refering to reason. (19) a. What happened to his hand? b. Tangannya kenapa? To summarise the presentation above, in translation the interrogative structure in the SL can be restructured by means of (1) employing the particle “yang”, (2) passifying the verbal predicator, (3) shifting the interrogative to affirmative, positioning the question word next to the Subject or Predicator, or (5) replacing the question word with another one. These restructuring modes may be used to generate hypotetical translation of an SL “wh-“ interrogative like the ones illutrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 Alternative Translation of an SL “Wh-“ Interrogative Exclamative In exclamative clauses, the “Wh-“ element (“What” or “How”) is followed by the Complement or Adjunct within the Mood structure. For instance, in sample (20), the question word “What” is followed by the Complement “a surprise” and is positioned as Residue followed by the Mood element “it is”. (20) a/b. What a surprise it is! Wh-/Complement Subject Finite Residue Mood The residual element such as the one in the above example can stand by itself or is followed by a Mood element. For instance, in sample (21) the exclamative clause which merely consists of a “Wh-“ element and a complement was restructured by means of substituting the “Wh-“ element with the Adjunct “Sungguh” followed by the Complement “omong kosong” as the counterpart of “utter rubbish”. (21) a. What utter rubbish! b. Sungguh omong kosong! In such exclamative structure, the word “Sungguh” as the counterpart of the “Wh-“ element may optionally be dropped and a new element added to the clause. In sample (22), the question word “What” was eliminated while the expression “a shape” rendered to “bentuknya”; then an expression “ajaib” was added to function as a cohesive element of the move. (22) a. What a shape! b. Bentuknya ajaib! If there is a Mood element in the exclamative, the clause is restructured to form an interrogative. In sample (23), the Residue which was in the form of an expression “What madness” had been translated to “Kegilaan macam apa” while the Mood element “is this” was restructured to become “ini” functioning as an element of the so-called nonverbal clause in the TL. (23) a. What madness is this? b. Kegilaan macam apa ini? Exclamative clauses like “What a surprise it is!” can therefore be hypotetically redered to “Kejutan macam apa ini!”, “Sungguh ini suatu kejutan!” or “Sungguh suatu kejutan ini!” whichever context is appropriate to accommodate such variations. Probability Modal Operator In sample (24), the Modal Operator in the form of Finite “must” was positioned between the Subject “Filch” and Predicator “know”. (24) a/b. Filch must know a shortcut Filch pastilah tahu jalan pintas Subject Finite: Modal Predicator Complement Mood Residue The other Modal operators representing probability are among others “can”, “could”, “may”, “might”, “shall”, “should”, “will”, dan “would”. In translation, interpersonal clauses are restructured by means of (1) positioning the counterpart of Finite that is in the form of Modal operator between Subject dan Predicator, (2) moving the counterpart of the modal operator to the initial position, or (3) deleting the Modal operator. In sample (25), the clause was restructured by means of matching the Modal operator “must” with the word “pastilah” positioned between Subject dan Predicator resembling the position in the SL. (25) a. Filch must know a shortcut. b. Filch pastilah tahu jalan pintas. Different from the restructuring exemplified above, in sample (26) the word “pasti” as the counterpart of “must have” was placed in initial position, while the order of the other clause elements in the SL were maintained. (26) a. It must have been a trick of the light. b. Pasti itu tipuan cahaya. The grammatical structure of sample (27) is basically similar to that of the above example. In this clause, the idiomatic expression “It must’ve cost you a fortune” was restructured to form a literal expression “Pasti mahal sekali harganya” meaning “It’s very expensive” or “The price is so high”. (27) a. It must've cost you a fortune. b. Pasti mahal sekali harganya. In sample (28), the Modal operator in the SL, i.e. “might” is grammaticalized to form a grammatical metaphor “Siapa tahu” causing the restructure to result in a complex clause in the TL. (28) a. She might have gone for Filch. b. Siapa tahu dia menemui Filch. Different from the grammatical structure presented above, in sample (29) the Modal operator “shall” along with the Predicator “be leaving” was not provided with any counterpart in the TL yielding a non-modalized clause. (29) a. We shall be leaving before Harry. b. Kita berangkat sebelum Harry. Mood Adjunct In sample (30), the probablity element of the clause was represented by the Mood adjunct “probably” which was positioned between Subject and Finite. (30) a/b. Filch probably knew everything Filch mungkin tahu segalanya Subject Adjunct: Mood Predicator Complement Mood Residue In such example, the Mood adjunct “probably” used to express the speaker’s opinion about a degree of probablity on the existence of an action was positioned between the Subject “Filch” dan Predicator “knew”. Therefore, such Mood adjunct could also be placed at the initial position just like the one in example (31). (31) a/b. Maybe it only shows dead people. Mungkin cermin itu cuma menunjukkan orang-orang yang sudah meninggal Modal Adj Subject Adj Finite Predicator Complement Mood Residue Mood adjunct placed in such position are among others the Mood adjunct whose meanings are refered to the notion of probability (“probably”, “perhaps”, “possibly”, “maybe”, “definitly”, “undoubtedly”), readiness (“willingly”, “readily”, “really”, “gladly”, “actually”, “certainly”, “easily”), and obligation (“definitly”, “absolutely”, “surely”, “indeed”, “positively”). In sample (32), the Mood adjunct “probably” was translated into “mungkin”. Then, the clause was restructured by positioning the word between Subject and Predicator. (32) a. He probably knew everything. b. Dia mungkin tahu segalanya. In sample (33), the Mood adjunct “Mungkin” as the counterpart of the word “”Maybe” was placed in initial position. The clause was then restructured by moving the Subject “he” to the position of Complement in the TL. (33) a. Maybe he was imagining it. b. Mungkin itu cuma perasaannya. In sample (34), the word “certainly” which was positioned between the Finite “was” and the idiomatic expression “quick off the mark” was restructured by means of matching it with the word “jelas” positioned between the Subject “Skeeter” and Predicator “bergerak”. Meanwhile, in sample (35), the word “benar-benar” which was the translation of the word “indeed” was positioned between the Subject “Grawp” and Complement “raksasa” in a TL nonverbal clause. (34) a. Skeeter was certainly quick off the mark. b. Skeeter jelas bergerak sangat gesit. (35) a. Grawp was, indeed, an undersized giant. b. Grawp benar-benar raksasa berukuran terlalu kecil. In sample (36), the Mood adjunct “actually” was represented by italizing the Predicator “bilang” showing the representativeness of the Adjunct “actually” which refers to the notion of obligation. (36) a. Justin actually told him he'd been down for Eton. b. Justin bilang padanya dia sudah didaftarkan ke Eton. Mood adjunct can also be in the form of a prepositional phrase like “without doubt”, “beyond doubt”, “in fact”, “in effect”, “as a matter of fact”,”in truth”, and “in reality”. In clause restructuring, such phrases can be placed in initial, medial, as well as final position of the clause. For instance, in sample (37) the word “ternyata” as the counterpart of the phrase “in fact” was placed in initial position, while in sample (38), the word “malah” as the counterpart of the phrase “as a matter of fact” was placed in medial position, i.e. between Predicator and Circumstance. (37) a. In fact, their departure the following morning was smoother than usual. b. Ternyata keberangkatan mereka pagi berikutnya lebih lancar daripada biasanya. (38) a. It happened just around the corner from here, as a matter of fact. b. Terjadinya malah hanya di balik tikungan dekat sini. Combination of Modal Operator and Mood Adjunct Modal operator may go hand in hand with Mood Adjunct to take the role of a the Mood element of interpersonal clause. This may be used to express the speaker’s opinion in the probability of existence. For instance, in sample (39), the modal operator “would” and Mood adjunct “probably” were used together to express such opinion. (39) a/b. This would probably be the best Christmas he'd ever had Subject Modal Adj Mood Adj Predicator Complement Mood Residue Modalization is restructured by placing the two types of adjunct in relatively loose positions. It is possible to position the Mood adjunct between Subject and Finite such as in “Saya barangkali akan terlalu sibuk” as the counterpart of “I shall probably be too busy”, in initial position such as in “Mungkin ini bahkan akan jadi Natal paling menyenangkan …” as the counterpart of “This would probably be the best Christmas.” Grammatical Metaphor Modalization can be realized by means of clauses semantically referred to the speaker’s opinion on a certain phenomenon. For instance, clauses like “I think”, “I’m sure”, and other expressions consisting of the first person singular subject “I” followed by such mental processes as “believe”, “feel”, “consider”, “agree”, “suppose”, “assume”, “imagine”, “sense”, and “doubt” are constructed for that purpose. Clauses like that are commonly called grammatical metaphor of modality because these finite clauses function just like Adjunct modal and Mood adjunct do. For instance, in sample (40), the expression “I think” was positioned to function as Mood adjunct, and could also be substituted with expressions like “I’m sure”, “I believe”, “I feel” and the like. (40) a/b. I think I know who that one’s from. Mood Subject Finite Operator Complement Mood Residue In translation, such interpersonal clauses are restructured through the provision of a counterpart fulfilling the requirements of formal correspondence. In sample (41), the grammatical metaphor of modality “I think” which was followed by the main clause in the Mood system had been restructured to “Kurasa”, a variation of “Aku merasa”. (41) a. I think I know who that one's from. b. Kurasa aku tahu yang itu dari siapa. That is particularly true of the clause rendering of “I’m sure” to become “Aku/Saya yakin” followed by the main clause like the one presented in sample (42) in which the expression “it [the book] would help me” had been translated into “buku ini bisa membantu saya” without any formal shift. (42) a. I'm sure it would help me understand what you say. b. Saya yakin buku ini bisa membantu saya memahami apa yang Anda ceritakan. Sample (43) shows an interpersonal clause than could be translated into an expression whose literal meaning had been digressed from the meaning contained in the SL clause. The expression “I believe” which should have been translated into “Saya yakin” had instead been restructured to form the expression “Setahuku” signifying the shorter form of “Seperti yang saya tahu” or “Sejauh yang saya ketahui”. This type of restructuring would not reduce the degree of functional equivalence between the two languages so long as the meaning was positioned in an appropriate context. (43) a. I believe learned wizards study the matter in the Department of Mysteries. b. Setahuku para penyihir terpelajar mempelajari masalah ini di Departemen Misteri. Usuality Mood adjuncts like “usually”, “always”, “seldom”, and “never” may be employed to show a certain degree of usuality. This type of adverbs is commonly positioned in medial position, i.e. between Subject and Predicator. In sample (44), the Mood adjunct “never” and its counterpart “belum pernah” in the TL was positioned between the Finite “had” which does not correspond to any word in the TL and the Predicator “received” (“menerima”). (44) a/b. He had never received a birthday card in his life Dia belum pernah menerima kartu ulang tahun seumur hidupnya Subject Finite Mood adjunct Predicator Complement Adjunct Mood Residue Another instance, in sample (45) the Mood adjunct “usually” which is positioned between the Finite “were” dand the Complement “light and speedy” had been translated into “biasanya” which was placed between the Subject “Seeker” and the Complement “ringan dan gesit” in a nonverbal clause of the TL. (45) a/b. Seekers were usually light and speedy Seeker biasanya ringan dan gesit Subject Finite Mood adjunct Complement Mood Residue If the Negator “not” is attached to the Modal operator like “would”, such as the one in sample (46), the Mood adjunct “biasanya” as the counterpart of “usually” is positioned between the Subject and the Modal operator along with its Negator. (46) a. Grubbly-Plank wouldn't usually show them to us. b. Grubbly-Plank biasanya tidak akan memperlihatkan mereka kepada kita. However, instead of the placement of such adjunct in that position, such Mood adjunct as “belum pernah” can also be placed in initial position like the one in sample (47). (47) a. He had never been in a worse fix. b. Belum pernah dia dalam kesulitan sebesar ini. Mood adjunct like “sometimes” and its counterpart in the TL “kadang-kadang” can also be placed in initial postion such as presented in sample (48). (48) a. Sometimes he thought that the post- Lavender Ron might not mind too much b. Kadang-kadang dia berpikir bahwa Ron paska-Lavender mungkin tidak akan terlalu berkeberatan Mood adjunct like “sometimes” which is commonly placed in final position of the main clause may also be restructured by placing it in initial. In sample (49), the word “kadang-kadang” was placed in initial position, while in sample (50) the expression, “dari waktu ke waktu” as the counterpart of the SL word “sometimes” was placed in final position. (49) a. He caught it sometimes when hermione spotted him staring at ginny. b. Kadang-kadang dia melihatnya ketika Hermione memergokinya sedang menatap Ginny. (50) a. Third years at Hog—at my school are allowed to visit the village sometimes. b. Murid-murid kelas tiga di Hog—di sekolahku, diizinkan mengunjungi desa dari waktu ke waktu. The rendering of such adjunct as “never” into “tak…sanggup” shows nonequivalence at word level given that the word “never” is commonly understood to correspond with such expression as “tak pernah”. This fact, again, may not necessarily result in any shift at clause level because functional equivalence may also be yielded by employing formal shift or semantic nonequivalence below clause levels. (51) a. He'd never be able to drag his trunk all the way to London. b. Dia tak akan sanggup menyeret kopernya sampai ke London. Subsequently, Mood adjunct can also be matched with a word referring to opposite meaning. Then, the clause was restructured by substituting the verb with a word also of the opposite meaning. In sample (52), the Mood adjunct “never” was matched with “selalu” while the Predicator “missed”, referring to “failure” was translated into “berhasil” referring to a state of “success”. (52) a. You've never missed the Snitch before. b. Kau kan selalu berhasil menangkap Snitch sebelumnya." CONCLUSION In translation processes, a proposition is generally restructured my maintaining the whole clause elements in patterns which are appropriate with the ones employed in the SL. The functional equivalence at clause level can also be achieved by emplementing the notion of shift as well as nonequivalence at word, group, or phrase level. In rendering interpersonal clauses, the functional equivalence can be achieved by maintaining the structures of the SL so that formal correspondence is materialized at all grammatical levels. However, other efforts may also be made with a consequence of formal shift or nonequivalence. In this case, interpersonal clauses may be restructured by the placement of the three types of SL Adjunct in four modes, i.e. (1) word order maintenance, (2) shift of order, (3) elimination, (4) addition, (5) substitution. Although a proposition can be realized in the state of ‘IS’ or ‘IS NOT’, between the two poles there are spaces accomodating a number of choices on degrees of probability and usuality. Based on this notion, propositions can be expressed using certain types of modalization, covering the realization of two types of meaning, i.e. probability and usuality. The meaning of probability is realized by employing among the choices of (1) Modal adjunct in the form of Finite operator; (2) Mood adjunct representing probability; (3) a combination of Modal and Mood adjuncts. The flexibility in the placement of Modal adjunct and Mood adjunct in interpersonal clauses (be it discretely or in combination) has made it possible to hypotetically restructure SL clauses either through changes or word order, processes of permutation or substitution, or employment of word pair or correspondence. REFERENCES Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London: Routledge. Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press. Fawcett, P. 1997. Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing House, J. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, E. A. and C.R.Taber. 1969 /1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London, Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Revised Edition by Ch. M.I.M. Matthissen). London: Arnold. Hatim, B., and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. Wills, W. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.