BAB II
BODY
A. Coherence
1.
Coherence vs Cohesion
Like cohesion, coherence is a network of relation
which organize and create a text : cohesion is a network of surface realtion
which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and coherence
is a network of conceptual relation which underlie the surfice texts.
We will assume that cohesion is a property of the text
and that coherence is a facet of the reader evaluation of a texts. In other
words, cohesion is objective, capable in principles of automatic recognition,
while coherence is subjective and judgements conserning it may vary from reader
to reader.
2.
Is coherence a feature of text or situation ?
No text is inherently coherent
or incoherent. In the end,
it all depends on the receiver, and on his ability to interpret the indications
present in the way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a
way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a way which corresponds
with his idea of what it is that makes a sseies of actions into an integrated
whole.
The coherence of a text ia a result of the interaction
btween knowladge presented in the text and the text an the latter being
influenced by a variety of experienceof the world, a simple cohesive relation
of co-reference cannot be recognized, and therefore canno be said to contribute
to the coherence of a text, if it does not fit in with a readers prior
knowladge of the world. These are all factors which effect the coherence of a
text in varying degrees because, as human beings we can only make sense of new
information in terms of our own knowladge, beliefs, and previous experience of
both linguistic and non linguistic events.
3.
Coherence and processes of interpretation :
implicature
This is a perfectly coherent, if decontextualized,
piece of language. Charolles explains that anyone who hears or reads it will
reach the following interpretation : the speaker says that s/he went to the
cinema, that s/he drank beer at the cinema, and that the beer in question was
good. Note that we naturally provide the necessary links to render the
discourse coherent. There is nothing in the above utterance which tells us
explicity that the speaker drank the beer or that s/he did soat the cinema.
Charolles calls this type of minimal coherence,which he calls explanatory
coherence, which not only establishes continuty of sense but, unlike
supplemental coherence, also justifies it. The difference between supplemental
interpretations and explanatory interpretations.
Explanatory coherence is achieved when, given the
right context and the necessary knowladge of setting and participants, one can
reach an interpretation such as this: the speaker says s/he went to the cinema.
The film s/he can find to say about it is that the beer s/he drank there was
good. But how does a speaker signal or a hearer interpret
this kind of implied meaning ? how do we achieve explanatory coherence ?
One
of the most important notions which have emerged in text studies in recent
years is that of implicature – the
question of how it is that we come to understand more than what s/he literally says. Use s the term
implicature to refer to what the speaker means or implies rather than what s/he
literally says. Implicature is not to be confused with non-literal meaning, for
instance with idiomatic meaning. Idiomatic meaning is conventional and its
interpretation depends on a good mastery of the linguistic system in question
rather than on a successful interpretationof a partivular speakers intended
than or implied meaning in a given contect.
Indeterminacy aside,
grice details a number of factors which can contribute to our success or
failure in working out implicatures. These are :
1. The
conventional meaning of the words and structures used (i.e. a mastery of the
language system), together with the identity of
any references that may be involved :
2. The
co-operative priciple and its maxims ;
3. The
context, linguiticor otherwise, of the utterance ;
4. Other
items of background knowladge ; and
5. The
fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling under the previous
headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume
this to be case
B. Coherence, implicature and translation strategies
1. The
conventional meanings of words and structures and the identity of reference
a) The
conventional meanings of words and structures
This
is an obvicus point. If we do not understand the meaning of the words and
structures used in a text, we cannot work out in implied meanings. Knowladge of
the language system may not be suffiecient but itis essential if one is to
nderstand what is going to in any kind of verbal communication. This means that
any misttranslation of word and struktures in the source text may well affect
the calculability of implicatures in the target.
As
well as the conventional meaning words, each language also employs conveying
implicatures. In other words, in every language there will be conventional
associations between certin linguistic patterns and certain inferable meanings.
These patterns are identifiable and are sometimes recorded in grammars. They
are not necessarily associated with the same range of meanings in other languages.
b) The
identity of any references that may be involved
The
ability to identity references to participants and entities is essential for
drawing inferences and for maintaining the coherence of a text. Identifying
reference is not just a question of identifying roughly who or what the
referent is but, crucially, of knowing enough about the referent to interpret
the particular associations it is meant to trigger in our minds in a given
contexts. It is meant to beings and entities; they have specific histories,
physical and social features, and are associated with particular contexts. It
is the ability to interpret the significance of a given reference and that
contributes to the continuity of sense or coherence of a text and enables us to
draw any intended implicatures. The distinction between identifying reference
and other items of background knowladge is perhaps not a useful one to draw.
c) the
co-operative principle and its not maxims
Grice
suggest that the cooperative principle and its maxims are not arbitrary but are
a future of any rational behavior, be it linguistic or non lingualistic. The
suggest that the cooperative principle and its maxims are universal on the
behavior and that all human beings are rational. Levinsons (1993) seems to
support this sugesstion. The maxims of cuantity is usually abeance in at first
sarial court questioning.
The
exsistence of an additionals maxims/ be polite and the over reading inportant
it tends to assume in many cultures my explain intellegent decission taken in
the course of translation which could ather wise seems haphazard and
iresponsible.
d)
the context
linguistict other wise of the utterance
the
contect and utterance occurs determine the range of implicatures that may sensible by derived
from it. Sperber and wilsons suggest that the contect does much more than
filter out inappropriate interpretation it provides premises without which the
implicature cannot be infered at all (1986 : 37). Tse (1988) explains that the
in translating a text which describes an experiment in which the medical
histories of pattiens where recorded on micro-chip medical record card, one the
main difficulties resulted from differences in this source in the target
contexts. The text patients test micro-chip medical record ( the independence
28 april 1988), states : the Dr. robberts stevents whose studyin wales involves
one grup practice and one pharmacy said patients reactions to the card had been
favourlable.
In
the united kingdoms pharmacy is an esthablisment which this despenses medicine
on the basis for prespritions signed by a doctor. In additions to yhe actual
realitics of a situations, the contects also includes certains stategies that
people regularlly employ in order to
impose some kind of stucture on the world arround the.
e) other
items of background knowledge
in
order to make sense of any piece of information presented in a text , the
reader/hearer has to be able to integrate in into some model of the world, wheter
real or fictional. Text-presented information we already have. A text many
confirm, contradict, modify, or extend what we know about the world, as long as
it relates to it in some way
As
explained under7.3.1 above, there is a
great deal of overlap between
identifying reference accessing relevant background information. Wheter a
translator decides to explain a reference or not depend on wether the target
reader is assumed to be familiarwith it and the extend to which the translator
feels inelined to intervene. In the following example, from a hero from zero,
both the france and arab translator of the english source document must frence
and arab reader, or decided that it is inappropriate for them as translator to
comment directly on the source text. The sultan referred to in the extract
below is the sultan of brunei who, according to this document, gave mohamed
fayed a power of attorncy which put a considerable amount of this founs under
fayeds control.
CHAPTER III
CLOSING
A.
Conclusion
Like cohesion, coherence is a network of relation
which organize and create a text : cohesion is a network of surface realtion
which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and
coherence is a network of conceptual relation which underlie the surfice texts.
We will assume that cohesion is a property of the text
and that coherence is a facet of the reader evaluation of a texts. In other
words, cohesion is objective, capable in principles of automatic recognition,
while coherence is subjective and judgements conserning it may vary from reader
to reader.
No text is inherently coherentor incoherent. In the
end, it all depends on the receiver, and on his ability to interpret the
indications present in the way which seems coherent to him – in a way
understand it in a way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in
a way which corresponds with his idea of what it is that makes a sseies of
actions into an integrated whole.
The coherence of a text ia a result of the interaction
btween knowladge presented in the text and the text an the latter being influenced
by a variety of experienceof the world, a simple cohesive relation of
co-reference cannot be recognized, and therefore canno be said to contribute to
the coherence of a text, if it does not fit in with a readers prior knowladge
of the world.
B.
Suggestion
To all readers of this paper we expect criticism and
suggestions for our paper. For the sake of more efficient understanding. We are
sorry if our discussion is less understandable. Thank you
Berawal dari hobi mengumpulkan artikel tentang petualang yang berhubungan dengan olah raga mendaki gunung dari majalah Hai dan Intisari, seperti kisah perjalanan almarhum Norman Edwin dan kawan-kawan yang sedang berusaha menggapai 7 puncak tertinggi di beberapa benua, hingga akhir hayatnyadengan meninggalkan buku yang memberikan spirit bagi anak muda untuk mencintai kehidupan melalui olah raga mendaki gunung. 
MOST of the adventures recorded in this book really occurred; one or two were experiences of my own, the rest those of boys who were schoolmates of mine. Huck Finn is drawn from life; Tom Sawyer also, but not from an individual — he is a combina- tion of the characteristics of three boys whom I knew, and therefore belongs to the composite order of archi- tecture. The odd superstitions touched upon were all preva- lent among children and slaves in the West at the period of this story — that is to say, thirty or forty years ago. Although my book is intended mainly for the en- tertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in. 
