Senin, 12 Januari 2009

Codes Uses in Communication Convey Difference Meaning Perspective According to Cultural Background of Its Speaker

All communication is cultural -- it draws on ways we have learned to speak and give nonverbal messages. We do not always communicate the same way from day to day, since factors like context, individual personality, and mood interact with the variety of cultural influences we have internalized that influence our choices.

1.1 Phenomenon
Communication is interactive, so an important influence on its effectiveness is our relationship with others. Do they hear and understand what we are trying to say? Are they listening well? Are we listening well in response? Do their responses show that they understand the words and the meanings behind the words we have chosen? Is the mood positive and receptive? Is there trust between them and us? Are there differences that relate to ineffective communication, divergent goals or interests, or fundamentally different ways of seeing the world? The answers to these questions will give us some clues about the effectiveness of our communication and the ease with which we may be able to move through conflict.
So, in the communication it is not just an act of transferring meaning via codes that the speakers use to communicate, but it is also convey cultural transfer. Because the meaning are in the speakers who use it, and its mean that in every language the meaning is the same but how they expressed the meaning are different. No matter what kinds of codes that they use the meaning that they use will always be influenced by the culture around him/her selves. Meaning is always the same in every people or language but the meaning sense is different according to their cultural background.

1.2 Theoretical Basis
As have mentioned before that all communication are cultural. It draws on ways we have learned to speak and give nonverbal messages. We do not always communicate the same way from day to day, since factors like context, individual personality, and mood interact with the variety of cultural influences we have internalized that influence our choices. "Culture" is often at the root of communication challenges. Our culture influences how we approach problems, and how we participate in groups and in communities. When we participate in groups we are often surprised at how differently people approach their work together.
According to Marcelle E. DuPraw and Marya Axner (1997) Culture is a complex concept, with many different definitions. But, simply put, "culture" refers to a group or community with which we share common experiences that shape the way we understand the world. It includes groups that we are born into, such as gender, race, or national origin. It also includes groups we join or become part of. For example, we can acquire a new culture by moving to a new region, by a change in our economic status, or by becoming disabled. When we think of culture this broadly, we realize we all belong to many cultures at once.
Our histories are a critical piece of our cultures. Historical experiences -- whether of five years ago or of ten generations back -- shape who we are. Knowledge of our history can help us understand ourselves and one another better. Exploring the ways in which various groups within our society have related to each other is key to opening channels for cross-cultural communication.
Further more they also mentioned that there are six fundamental patterns of cultural differences -- ways in which cultures, as a whole, tend to vary from one another -- are described below. The descriptions point out some of the recurring causes of cross-cultural communication difficulties. As you enter into multicultural dialogue or collaboration, keep these generalized differences in mind. Next time you find yourself in a confusing situation, and you suspect that cross-cultural differences are at play, try reviewing this list. Ask yourself how culture may be shaping your own reactions, and try to see the world from others' points of view.

1. Different Communication Styles
The way people communicate varies widely between, and even within, cultures. One aspect of communication style is language usage. Across cultures, some words and phrases are used in different ways. For example, even in countries that share the English language, the meaning of "yes" varies from "maybe, I'll consider it" to "definitely so," with many shades in between.
Another major aspect of communication style is the degree of importance given to non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication includes not only facial expressions and gestures; it also involves seating arrangements, personal distance, and sense of time. In addition, different norms regarding the appropriate degree of assertiveness in communicating can add to cultural misunderstandings. For instance, some white Americans typically consider raised voices to be a sign that a fight has begun, while some black, Jewish and Italian Americans often feel that an increase in volume is a sign of an exciting conversation among friends. Thus, some white Americans may react with greater alarm to a loud discussion than would members of some American ethnic or non-white racial groups.
2. Different Attitudes toward Conflict
Some cultures view conflict as a positive thing, while others view it as something to be avoided. In the U.S., conflict is not usually desirable; but people often are encouraged to deal directly with conflicts that do arise. In fact, face-to-face meetings customarily are recommended as the way to work through whatever problems exist. In contrast, in many Eastern countries, open conflict is experienced as embarrassing or demeaning; as a rule, differences are best worked out quietly. A written exchange might be the favored means to address the conflict.
3. Different Approaches to Completing Tasks
From culture to culture, there are different ways that people move toward completing tasks. Some reasons include different access to resources, different judgments of the rewards associated with task completion, different notions of time, and varied ideas about how relationship-building and task-oriented work should go together.
When it comes to working together effectively on a task, cultures differ with respect to the importance placed on establishing relationships early on in the collaboration. A case in point, Asian and Hispanic cultures tend to attach more value to developing relationships at the beginning of a shared project and more emphasis on task completion toward the end as compared with European-Americans. European-Americans tend to focus immediately on the task at hand, and let relationships develop as they work on the task. This does not mean that people from any one of these cultural backgrounds are more or less committed to accomplishing the task, or value relationships more or less; it means they may pursue them differently.
4. Different Decision-Making Styles
The roles individuals play in decision-making vary widely from culture to culture. For example, in the U.S., decisions are frequently delegated -- that is, an official assigns responsibility for a particular matter to a subordinate. In many Southern European and Latin American countries, there is a strong value placed on holding decision-making responsibilities oneself. When decisions are made by groups of people, majority rule is a common approach in the U.S.; in Japan consensus is the preferred mode. Be aware that individuals' expectations about their own roles in shaping a decision may be influenced by their cultural frame of reference.
5. Different Attitudes Toward Disclosure
In some cultures, it is not appropriate to be frank about emotions, about the reasons behind a conflict or a misunderstanding, or about personal information. Keep this in mind when you are in a dialogue or when you are working with others. When you are dealing with a conflict, be mindful that people may differ in what they feel comfortable revealing. Questions that may seem natural to you -- What was the conflict about? What was your role in the conflict? What was the sequence of events? -- may seem intrusive to others. The variation among cultures in attitudes toward disclosure is also something to consider before you conclude that you have an accurate reading of the views, experiences, and goals of the people with whom you are working.
6. Different Approaches to Knowing
Notable differences occur among cultural groups when it comes to epistemologies -- that is, the ways people come to know things. European cultures tend to consider information acquired through cognitive means, such as counting and measuring, more valid than other ways of coming to know things. Compare that to African cultures' preference for affective ways of knowing, including symbolic imagery and rhythm. Asian cultures' epistemologies tend to emphasize the validity of knowledge gained through striving toward transcendence.
Recent popular works demonstrate that our own society is paying more attention to previously overlooked ways of knowing. Indeed, these different approaches to knowing could affect ways of analyzing a community problem or finding ways to resolve it. Some members of your group may want to do library research to understand a shared problem better and identify possible solutions. Others may prefer to visit places and people who have experienced challenges like the ones you are facing, and get a feeling for what has worked elsewhere.
In communication of course we need a language. Language it selves is a mean of communication that contained with list of words and its world structure (grammar, syntax, etc) that represent the meaning. According to Brown and Yule as cited by Helen in her book Culturally Speaking (2000:2) there are two main function of language:
1. The Transactional (or information-transfering) function
2. The Interactional (or maintenance of social relationships) function

The goal of transactional language is to convey information coherence and accuracy, whereas the goal of international speech is to communicate friendliness and good will, and to make the participants feel comfortable and unthreatened.
In communication always involve social situation as well as its cultural identity inside of it. That is way in a multi cultural community the communication will convey different cultural aspect in regard to the cultural background of the speaker.

2. Discussion
As already mentioned before, in case of communicating in a multi cultural situation will always conveyed the differences in regard of the cultural background of the speaker who use the language, even though they are used the same language but their meaning perspective/sense will be influence by their cultural background. That is way we should be aware to interpret the message as well as to speak in communication across culture, otherwise, we will be misunderstanding.
Because in communication across-cultural sometime what is ‘do’ and what is ‘don’t’ are rather a vague. So, what is ‘do’ in our cultural perspective it would be ‘don’t’ in another cultural perspective and vise versa. For example, it quit common in regard of the interactional function of language as in Balinese cultural perspective to asking about such question as “where are you going”, “How many children do you have?”, etc. but it will be mean something rude or impolite question to be asked in another cultural perspective.
Why that the cultural background influence the meaning of it speaker? These several examples may answer this question. For example; a kind of vegetable that we in Bali familiar with ‘Jepang’, it is a kind of potato species. For both people in Denpasar and Singaraja knew very well about this kind of vegetable and they both refer this kind of fruit by the same name ‘Jepang’. In the era before 90th the People who are originally born and live in Denpasar if we mention about this kind of vegetable they will understand it as a kind of vegetable that it can be serve as a delicious vegetable for food. Meanwhile, for the people who are originally born and live in Singaraja only understand that kind of vegetable as only for a pig food. So what will be happen if the people in Denpasar invites the people from Singaraja to come to their house and treat them to have lunch by this kind of vegetable? And how about if the people in Denpasar invited to come to Singaraja and they see that the people in Singaraja are use this kind of vegetable as pig food.
Another example about the culture perspective affected the meaning sense of a word we can see it in the world ‘dog’ to refer somebody among the people in Singaraja which mean ‘mate/close friend’. This world is familiar and quite common that mean nothing sense rudeness. But it would be meaning different if we use this kind of world to refer somebody outside Singaraja even though we still use the same language. Or word that mean hungry in Balinese ‘seduk basange’ and ‘layah basange’. For those people that who are live and originally from seraya village the much prefer to say ‘layah basange’ instead of ‘seduk basange’ which mean that more acceptable and polite in the same social status of the speaker him/her selves than that last words ‘seduk basange’. But it would be mean so rude/rough if we say this word in Gianyar or in Denpasar.
As Linda Lantieri and Janet Patti (Beacon Press, 1996) mentioned that we all communicate with others all the time -- in our homes, in our workplaces, in the groups we belong to, and in the community. No matter how well we think we understand each other, communication is hard. Just think, for example, how often we hear things like, "He doesn't get it," or "She didn't really hear what I meant to say." "Culture" is often at the root of communication challenges. Our culture influences how we approach problems, and how we participate in groups and in communities. When we participate in groups we are often surprised at how differently people approach their work together.
Culture is a complex concept, with many different definitions. But, simply put, "culture" refers to a group or community with which we share common experiences that shape the way we understand the world. It includes groups that we are born into, such as gender, race, or national origin. It also includes groups we join or become part of. For example, we can acquire a new culture by moving to a new region, by a change in our economic status, or by becoming disabled. When we think of culture this broadly, we realize we all belong to many cultures at once.

3. Conclusion
Culture is one of the powerful forces that acts on us that affecting our behavior, perspective of meaning, point of view, etc. in other words, culture is central to what we see, how we make sense of what we see, and how we express ourselves.
As people from different cultural groups take on the exciting challenge of working together, cultural values sometimes conflict. We can misunderstand each other, and react in ways that so irritated. Oftentimes, we aren't aware that culture is acting upon us. Sometimes, we are not even aware that we have cultural values or assumptions that are different from others.
The key to effective cross-cultural communication is knowledge. First, it is essential that people understand the potential problems of cross-cultural communication, and makes a conscious effort to overcome these problems. Second, it is important to assume that one’s efforts will not always be successful, and adjust one’s behavior appropriately. For example, one should always assume that there is a significant possibility that cultural differences are causing communication problems, and be willing to be patient and forgiving, rather than hostile and aggressive, if problems develop. When things seem to be going badly, stop or slow down and think. What could be going on here? Is it possible I misinterpreted what they said, or they misinterpreted me? Often misinterpretation is the source of the problem.
Active listening can sometimes be used to check this out–by repeating what one thinks he or she heard, one can confirm that one understands the communication accurately. If words are used differently between languages or cultural groups, however, even active listening can overlook misunderstandings.
So, there is one way to avoid the misunderstanding in cross-cultural communication is by the awareness and understand the potential problems of cross-cultural communication.

Boski, Pawel et al. 2002. NEW DIRECTIONS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Polan: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Psychologii PAN Warszawa.
Spenser-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Culturally Speaking Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. New York: CONTINUUM



1. Introduction
The Basics. Framing theory and the concept of framing bias suggests that how something is presented (the “frame”) influences the choices people make. This idea is important because it is contrary to the central concept of rational choice theory. According to this theory, people always strive to make the most rational choices possible. Thus, rational choosers should always make the same decision when given the same data. Tversky and Kahneman (1981), however, conducted an experiment with undergraduate students that suggested something else. In the experiment, they gave different students the same decision. For some, however, the decision was phrased in positive terms as a choice between a sure gain and an uncertain gamble. The majority chose the sure gain option, a tendency called “risk aversion.” For others, the same choices were phrased in negative terms as a choice between a sure-loss option and the risky gamble. Here the majority chose the risky gamble, a tendency called risk seeking. Thus the way a decision was presented or “framed” affected the choice people made.
Frame analysis is neither a full-fledged theoretical paradigm, nor a coherent methodological approach. Rather, frame analyses are a number of related, even though sometimes partially incompatible methods for the analysis of discourses (Scheufele 1999: 118).

2. Framing and Interpreting
George Lakoff, a professor at UCBerkeley makes the following points about frames and framing:
“Communication itself comes with a frame. The elements of the Communication Frame include: A message, an audience, a messenger, a medium, images, a context, and especially, higher-level moral and conceptual frames. The choice of language is, of course, vital, but it is vital because language evokes frames — moral and conceptual frames.
Frames form a system. The system has to be built up over time. It takes a long-range effort. Conservative think tanks have been at it for 40 years. Most of this system development involves moral and conceptual frames, not just communicative frames. Communicative framing involves only the lowest level of framing.
Framing is an art, though cognitive linguistics can help a lot. It needs to be done systematically.
Negative campaigns should be done in the context of positive campaigns. To avoid negating the opposition's frame and thus activating it, do the following: Start with your ideal case of the issue given. Pick frames in which your ideal case is positively valued. The contrast will attribute the negatively valued opposite quality to the opposition as a nightmare case.”
The Internet has considerable material about framing and framing effects. The following basic material regarding framing effects is quoted from various pages on the website
“… Framing effects are perceptual. They are analogous to optical illusions in terms of whether the glass is half full or whether the glass is half-empty. The framing effects occur when a subject makes a different choice depending on whether the same outcomes are phrased as though they were gains versus as though they were losses. Sometimes framing effects are confused with reflection effects.
“Framing effects have been found in many situations. They vary according to task situations and are mostly moderate to small. One exception to this rule was Tversky and Kahneman's 1981 Asian disease problem, which consistently yielded strong effect sizes for framing.
Over time a considerable body of material has arisen around the original concept as other researchers have extended and modified the concept. Janneke Joly’s paper on “Framing and the Maintenance of Stable Solidary Relationships” reviews a number of the extensions:
“When psychologists examine framing effects, they generally refer to the relationship between context and information as it determines meaning [my underlining]. Minsky (1975) defined a frame as a template or data structure that organizes various pieces of information.
“Research also approaches framing from a constructivist standpoint. This point of view is especially common among sociologists and other communication researchers who also see framing as involving the organization of information, but simultaneously tend to focus on the way frames thematize accounts of events and issues. Gamson and Modigliani (1987) make this point clear when they say frames are the "central organizing idea or storyline that provides meaning" (1987, p. 143) or "a central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue" (1989 p 57). Their general idea is that a frame is an ever-present discursive device that channels the audience as it constructs the meaning of particular communicative acts.
“Nelson, et al. (1997) provide the best, most comprehensive common definition, and the one that shows the way toward linking framing and deliberation. They see framing as "the process by which a source defines the essential problem underlying a particular social or political issue and outlines a set of considerations purportedly relevant to that issue" (1997a p 222). In other words, "framing is the process by which a communication source … defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy" (1997b p 567). Because the ideas about organization and context are subsidiary to these statements, this definition elides some of the concerns raised earlier while it quickly pinpoints the heart of framing -- the construction of political issues.
“This idea of associations is critical to understanding the framing. A model of framing can be built on the premise that to frame a message in a given way entails that it contains certain associations rather than others. Using a rather simple example, a message describing taxation as a way to achieve equitable income distribution would strengthen or create associations between taxes, equality, and income. In this way, the concepts of taxes, income and equality are framed together. This idea can be applied to message content as well as individual level effects. To say a message constructs an issue, we are really saying that it has built-in particular associations between concepts. Thus, framing analyses is a careful examination of the way concepts are associated within discourse.”
If we talk about Interpreting we cannot separate it from Translation as the main trunk, translation is an operation that performed on language which is a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another. Translation in general covers written and oral rendering. Concept of Translation according to Nida (1974) (as cited in Budiarsa 2008:3) claims it is essential to recognize that each language has each own genius. Each language has certain distinctive characteristics, which give it special character, e.g. world building capacities, pattern of phrase order, techniques for linking clause into sentence, markers of discourse, and special discourse types of poetry, proverb and song. Translating consist in producing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style. It is aimed primary at reproducing the message. In order to reproduce the message the translator must make many grammatical and lexical adjustments in the process of translating. The translator must be able to strive for equivalence rather than identity. The concept of translating is that the meaning must be given priority.
By the same token, the process of translation refers to the automatic use of the translator’s knowledge of his native language structure which is transferred into the target language. When the structure in both languages are the same or near equivalence will result in correct form of translation. In transferring the message from one language to another; it is the content which must be preserve at any cost; the form, except in special cases such as poetry, is largely secondary, since within each language the rules for translating content to form are highly complex, arbitrary, and variable.
As mentioned by Larson (1984) (as cited in Budiarsa 2008:3) text has both form and meaning, there are main kinds of translations. One is form-based and other is meaning-based. Form-based translation attempt to follow the form of the source language are known as literal translation. Where as, meaning-based translation make every effort to communicate meaning of the source language text in the natural forms of the receptor language. Such translations are called idiomatic.
Clearly, then, any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language – general linguistic theory. General linguistic is, primarily, a theory about how languages work. Our starting point is a consideration of how language is related to human social situations in which it operates. Language is a type of patterned human behaviour. It is a way, perhaps the most important way, in which human beings interact in social situations (Catford 1978:1).
The specific type of behaviour in which language is manifested not only identifies the behaviour as language-behaviour but also defines the medium which the performer is using. The first type activity is a manifestation of language in spoken medium-the performer is a speaker, and his addressee(s) is/are hearer or hearers. The second type is a manifestation of language in the written medium-the performer is the writer, and his addressee(s) is/are a reader or readers.
Language then is an activity which may be said to impinge on the world at large at two ends. On the one hand, it is manifested in specific kinds of overt behaviour (e.g. vocal movements): on the other hand, it is related to specific objects, events, etc. in the situation. Both of this-vocal movements, and actual events, etc.-are outside of language itself. They are extralinguistic events. They are the phonic substance in which vocal activity is manifested, and situation (or situation substance) to which this activity is related.
• Interpreting
Interpreting is a way of oral rendering of translation which is delivered directly to transfer the message from source language to target language. An interpreter work to mediate participants of whom having different language background as well they do not speak the language acquire by each of them, so an interpreter is needed to mediate the gaps of communication between those participant whom having different languages.
Interpreting involve three ways communication speaker-interpreter (cover both function as hearer and speaker)-hearer. Language interpreting or interpretation is the intellectual activity of facilitating oral and sign-language communication, either simultaneously or consecutively, between two or more users of different languages. Functionally, interpreting and interpretation are the descriptive words for the activity. In professional practice interpreting denotes the act of facilitating communication from one language form into its equivalent, or approximate equivalent, in another language form. Interpretation denotes the actual product of this work, that is, the message as thus rendered into speech, sign language, writing, non-manual signals, or other language form. This important distinction is observed to avoid confusion.
Functionally, an interpreter is a person who converts a source language to a target language. The interpreter's function is conveying every semantic element (tone and register) and every intention and feeling of the message that the source-language speaker is directing to the target-language listeners.
Interpreting (oral translation) focuses on the time of the rendering immediately after the delivery of the utterances from the speaker, the interpreter renders the message of the speaker to the hearer. Interpreting as an oral translation is delivered in communication situation, where the needs of attention are focused on the message of utterances of the source-language and the transfer of the message to the target-language.
Interpreting has different mode to the written translation, this type of translation is conducted almost at the same time the message of the Source Language delivered. The stretch of time give to the interpreter is very short, so the interpreter should bare in mind the topic of subject that is going to be interpreted, who are involved in the communication and the context of situation where the communication takes place.
There are three types of interpreting: simultaneous, consecutive, and liaison (Hatim and Ian Mason, 1996 as cited in Puspani 2008:3).
• Simultaneous interpreting
In simultaneous interpreting, the transfer of message of SL to the TL is conducted at more or less at the same time.
• Consecutive interpreting
In consecutive interpreting the focus of the transfer come after the SL message has been delivered, and it tends to concentrate on the information relevant to the text structure and context.
• Liaison interpreting
The focus of interpreter at liaison interpreting is maintaining the continuity of exchange message of the participants in communication.

• Conclusion
A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation, that is a collection of stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. To clarify: When one seeks to explain an event, the understanding often depends on the frame referred to. If a friend rapidly closes and opens an eye, we will respond very differently depending on whether we attribute this to a purely "physical" frame (he blinked) or to a social frame (he winked).
Though the former might result from a speck of dust (resulting in an involuntary and not particularly meaningful reaction), the latter would imply a voluntary and meaningful action (to convey humor to an accomplice, for example). Observers will read events seen as purely physical or within a frame of "nature" differently than those seen as occurring with social frames. But we do not look at an event and then "apply" a frame to it. Rather, individuals constantly project into the world around them the interpretive frames that allow them to make sense of it; we only shift frames (or realize that we have habitually applied a frame) when incongruity calls for a frame-shift. In other words, we only become aware of the frames that we always already use when something forces us to replace one frame with another. So, in way of doing interpreting, that is about process we framing the message from the source language then interpret it to equivalent codes in target language.

Materi Matrikulasi (2008) Program Pascasarjana Magister Linguistik Universitas Udayana
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London: Routledge.
Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Venuti, Lawrence.2000. The Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge.



1. Pendahuluan
Ekolinguitik adalah suatu disiplin ilmu yang mengkaji lingkungan dan bahasa. Ekolinguistik merupakan ilmu bahasa interdisipliner, menyanding ekologi dan linguistik (Meko, Aron 2008:1). Berdasarkan hal itu bahasa sangat berkaitan erat dengan lingkungannya sendiri. Bahasa tersebut bisa hilang atau musnah apabila ekologi yang menunjangnya musnah pula.
Paper ini bertujuan sedikit tidaknya memberi gambaran atas pengertian tentang Ekolinguistik itu sendiri. Sebagai bahan penelitian disini saya mengambil bahasa Bali sebagai contoh konkrit. Bahasa Balipun saat ini mengalami suatu perubahan yang diakibatkan oleh perubahan ekologinya atau lingkungannya, seperti misalnya dalam bidang agraris: sawah atau subak-subak yang perlahan menyusut dan tergantikan oleh vila atau bangunan beton. Tentunya akibat perubahan ini berimbas nyata atas bahasa Bali itu sendiri.

2. Ragam Bahasa Bali Yang Sekarang Tidak Umum Dipergunakan.
Seperti yang telah dipaparkan diatas bahasa akan mengalami perubahan begitu ekologi yang menunjangnya berubah pula. Jadi dari ragam bahasa yang mengalami perubahan didalam ekologinya maka beberapa istilahnya akan menjadi tidak umum lagi dipergunakan oleh para penuturnya sehingga bagi penerus bahasa tersebut, mereka akan merasa asing apabila mendengar ragam bahasa yang dahulunya pernah dipergunakan didalam bahasanya sendiri.
Disini saya mengambil contoh didalam keluarga saya sendiri dan narasumbernya adalah ayah saya sendiri. Ada beberapa istilah bahasa Bali yang saya sendiri asing mendengarnya walaupun kami mempergunakan bahasa Bali sehari-hari dirumah. Adapun beberapa istilah-istilah yang saat ini menjadi tidak umum dipergunakan oleh para penutur generasi muda dari bahasa Bali tersebut adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Kelambi : Baju (umum: baju)
2. Kole, wake : Saya (umum: tiang, titiang, yang, icang, cang, rage).
3. Sige, kai : Kamu (umum: Cai, Cang, Ragane)
4. Telajakan : Jalan setapak.
5. Kekalen : Air mengalir ke sawah/irigasi
6. Pengalapan : Ruang yang dibuat untuk membuat air mengalir ke sawah.
7. Bulakan : Mata air.
8. Lonceng (jam besar) : Saat ini menjadi catur muka dahulunya menjadi patokan kota denpasar dan untuk menyebutkan posisi tempat tinggal warga.
9. Calung : Tempat menaruh garam
10. Capil : Topi (umum: topong)
11. Anggapan : sejenis alat pemotong padi
12. Bendo : Pisau besar
14. Nanang, pan : Bapak
15. Luweng : Anak perempuan
16. Cekot : Sendok
17. Telabah : Got, sungai kecil
18. Pengedangan : Sarana untuk menanak nasi dari tanah liat
19. Caratan : Teko dari tanah liat tempat menyimpan air
20. Jun : Sejenis tempanyan yang dahulunya dipergunakan untuk mengambil air dari
tempat yang jauh; dari sumber mata air seperti sumur warga, sungai, mata air)
21. Langgatan : Plafon atau sutu ruang di langit-langit bangunan yang dipergunakan untuk
menyimpan benda atau barang
22. Kekepe : Tempat menaruh uang bagi para pedagang
23. Teterek : Tanda yang diusapkan didahi biasanya berupa boreh atau pamor.
24. Plesir : Jalan-jalan (umum: melali)
25. Taban : Tempat tidur
26. Ngidu : Menghangatkan badan di perapian di dapur.
27. Tenggala : Bajak
28. Ngangon : Menggembala
29. Empelan : Bendungan
Masih banyak lagi ragam bahasa bali yang saat ini telah tidak umum dipergunakan. Sebagian besar diakibatkan oleh karena berubahnya ekologi yang dahulu menunjangnya. Sebagai contoh ’kelambi’ adalah istilah bahasa untuk baju yang pada era kurang lebih 60-an keatas umum dipergunakan di Bali. Istilah kelambi tersebut berasal dari bahasa Tamil Nandu yang dimana pada waktu itu dan masih ada pada saat ini adalah pedangang di pasar seputaran Jl. Gajah Mada. Sebagian besar etnis Tamil di Bali pada waktu itu berjualan bahan tekstil dan pakaian. Berikutnya pada tahun 70-an kebawah istilah ’kelambi’ untuk baju dalam bahasa bali mengalami pergeseran makna yaitu terkesan terbatas yaitu khusus untuk jenis baju tempo dulu yang ketinggalan jaman bagi generasi generasi selanjutnya yang padahal artinya yang sebenarnya adalah untuk segala jenis baju karena di Bali sendiri pada mulanya tidak mengenal istilah kelambi/baju ini merupakan jenis bahasa adopsi dari bahasa lain.

3. Kesimpulan
Beberapa ragam bahasa Bali yang yang disebutkan diatas terasa asing bagi saya meskipun saya dalam keseharian mempergunakan bahasa Bali dalam lingkungan keluaraga maupun di lingkungan pergaulan. Bahkan adik saya sendiri tak satupun mengenali arti dari istilah diatas sedangkan beberapa istilah yang saya dapatkan tersebut hanyalah sebagian kecil dari ragam bahasa Bali yang saat ini menjadi tidak umum. Saya yakin masih banyak lagi ragam bahasa Bali yang kini tidak umum lagi dipergunakan oleh para penuturnya sendiri. Hal ini tidak bisa saya kupas tuntas karena keterbatasan waktu. Dari fakta-fakta yang saya dapatkan, saya sadari betul bahwa bahasa itu tidak hanya semata-mata dipengaruhi oleh manusia tetapi ekloginya pun turut menunjang.
Segala perubahan yang terjadi didalam ekologi yang menunjang bahasa itu sendiri maka akan menyebabkan perubahan pada bahasa tersebut. Salah satu contoh yang paling kentara saat ini di Bali adalah akibat dari penyusutan lahan sawah dan subak. Subak dan sawah adalah kesatuan hegemoni yang banyak melahirkan budaya di Bali. Jadi dengan hilangnya subak dan menyusutnya lahan persawahan sudah barang tentu akan merubah bahasa yang dipergunakan disana secara keseluruhan. Seperi istilah tenggala yang berati bajak yang dimana generasi saat ini umum dengan istilah bajak, teraktor atau dalam bahasa bali menjadi traktor karena yang acap dilihat mereka saat ini adalah petani membajak sawah dengan mempergunakan teraktor. Seperti juga pada istilah kekalen yang berati air irigasi ke sawah. Empelan atau bendungan, dan sebagainya.



Bilingualism is the ability to speak or write fluently in two languages.. Bilingualism often occurs in a minority language community or in a multilingual community, whereas they need to understand more that one language in addition to their first language in order to communicate with the majority language group or because of another purpose. It can be said that a minority group tend to learn the majority language group deliberately or they ought to learned it as any purposes, otherwise they will unable to interact in the social live. While translation is an activity of delivering message or meaning from a source language to appropriate or equivalent target language code. In doing translation process a translator should act as a transfer medium of meaning. So, perhaps he or she must be a bilingual or understand in both of the language in SL (source language) or TL (target language). There are two kinds of translation processes: written translation and oral translation. The toughness of the translator in both of SL and TL will make him or her easier to find equivalent code of the meaning in SL to TL that he or she gone to transfer or translate it.

The term Bilingual can refer to an individual speaker who are uses two languages, a speakers in which mastering or has ability in speaking and writing in two different languages. So, A Bilingual person, in the broadest definition, is one who can communicate in more than one language, be it actively (through speaking and writing) or passively (through listening and reading). Bilingualism could be rigidly defined as being native-like in two or more languages. It could also be loosely defined as being less than native-like but still able to communicate in two or more languages.

Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a "translation," that communicates the same message in another language. The text to be translated is called the "source text," and the language that it is to be translated into is called the "target language"; the final product is sometimes called the "target text." Translation must take into account constraints that include context, the rules of grammar of the two languages, their writing conventions, and their idioms. A common misconception is that there exists a simple word-for-word correspondence between any two languages, and that translation is a straightforward mechanical process; such a word-for-word translation, however, cannot take into account context, grammar, conventions, and idioms. So, translation is a process of transferring message from source language code into equivalent target language code.

The Relationship between Bilingualism and Translation Study and its Significances.
Translation is a kind of everyday activity for many bilingual people. So, is a fact that bilingualism is a necessary condition for translation activity, to be a good translator a translator should be a bilingual in the language of source language he would like to translate to target language. A bilingual person, especially who are born as a bilingual will often produce high quality translation in two languages that he or she mastered as he became native of that two languages.
In a translation study is expected that the leaner must be a bilingual person. Bilingualism and translation are not in a separated function because translation required an ability of bilingualism and for a bilingual people translation is their everyday activity. So, only a bilingual people can do a translation in two different languages. It is mean that Bilingual speakers are able to translate from one language to another and to switch between their two languages in order to communicate.
Bilingualism and translation significances is that only a bilingual speaker able to do a better translation in two languages that he or she mastered and translation it selves is an everyday activity of a bilingual speaker. So, of course as he or she mastered in both language, it is easier for him or her to make a translation among those languages or even to make a high quality translation.