Senin, 12 Januari 2009



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 komentar: