KRITIKAN TERHADAP HIPOTESIS PENGEKSPLISITAN: PENELITIAN HIPOTESIS BLUM-KULKA DALAM TERJEMAHAN [CRITICISM OF THE EXPLICITATION HYPOTHESIS: OBSERVATIONS ON BLUM-KULKA'S HYPOTHESIS IN TRANSLATION

Abstract

Explicitation like any other field in translation studies has its own level of development. The explicitation was first introduced indirectly by Vinay & Darbelnet which was later developed into a systematic study by Blum-Kulka through observations on the level of cohesion in the translated text. Blum-Kulka has proposed an explicitation hypothesis that assumes that the process of interpretations might lead to a target text which is more redundant than the source text regardless of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved. This hypothesis appears to have a significant impact on the domain of explicitation. However, Blum-Kulka's study especially her hypothesis has received a lot of support and questions. Several scholars have approached the matter directly and have various points of view in this regard. In order to present a thorough finding on the problems of this hypothesis, the research aims to conduct a comprehensive research of the critique of the Blum-Kulka explicitation hypothesis. The study focused on descriptive analysis with concentrating on the explicitation hypothesis Blum-Kulka and other related studies. The research process and the critical analysis of views will be drawn to the conclusion of the study. The overall findings of the discussion showed that the Blum-Kulka explicitation hypothesis was exposed to three serious shortcomings. Even so, this hypothesis has an undeniable part in shaping and enhancing the discourse of explicitation these days.