A Pragmatic Equivalence of Violating Maxims in Novel Translation of Divergent

: This study covers the pragmatics equivalence and violation maxims in the Divergent novel. Classifying the forms of Grice maxim violations and describing the pragmatic equivalence of violation maxims in the Divergent novel are the objectives of this study. It is a qualitative paper that examines violation maxims and pragmatic equivalence in the novel Divergent. The data were direct-utterances infraction maxims in English and Indonesian. There are two types of data analysis techniques employed in this study. The analysis began with a document review, followed by an evaluation of the translation's quality based on pragmatic equivalence. As a result of the research, the following findings were discovered: 139 data were classified as violation maxims. The majority of the results (45,32.4%) involved violations of the quality standard. Second, based on the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence, a total of 137 out of 139 data points were deemed "accurate translation" and two out of 139 (1,43%) data might be regarded as "less accurate translation." This investigation uncovered no translations that may be deemed inaccurate.

people violate maxims, such as saving face, covering up the secret, hiding the truth, pleasing the hearer, and envying other people. Fahmi (2016) explores what factors cause the violation of Gricean maxims and which of Gricean maxims are often violated in daily conversation.
Linyan Fu (2017) tries to analyze the semantic equivalence problem in English-Chinese translation from five aspects: theory connotation, influencing factors, reliability, relativity and countermeasures of semantic equivalence and proves equivalence theory is of extensive significance as the standard and principle in translation. Triki (2013) explores the interface between pragmatism and translation, explicitly referring to English-Arabic / Arabic-English translations. Arezou and Saghebi (2014)  It means that the current research is different to what is concerned by Al-Qaderi (2015). Wu (2017) dealt with research on the pragmatic meaning equivalence of translation in terms of associative meaning and the meaning equivalence of translation from two levels lexical equivalence and textual equivalence. Alwazna (2017) argued that following specific procedures of explications in the target language will equip the target reader with the relevant contextual information needed to draw the appropriate inferences from the utterance concerned, making the correct interpretation. Baker (2018: 205-206) stated that equivalence of cohesion and implicature in a text so that the translation results have the same effect of meaning and with the same context as the source text. He has chosen two that are believed to be particularly helpful in exploring the question of how a given text comes to make sense to a given readership and highlighting areas of difficulty in cross-cultural communication. These are coherence and implicature equivalence between targets to the source text. Nida and Taber (1982: 12) stated that translation is to reproduce in the recipient's language the natural equivalent of the message in the source language.
In this analysis, Baker's (2018) theory of pragmatic equivalence is combined with Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono's (2012) idea of translation quality. According to  Nababan (2012), three factors must be considered in evaluating translation quality elements: correctness, acceptance, and readability. Translation accuracy relates closely to equivalence and refers to the proper message in the target language. The translation is deemed acceptable when the original text is readable in the target language regarding grammar and culture.
A translation may be included and legible when it can be easily read and understood by the intended audience. Based on the description, both theories can be blended, as Nababan's translation quality attempts to achieve message equivalence between the target and source languages and encompasses all texts. The detailed discussion of pragmatic equivalence by Baker (2018) and the theory of three translation quality aspects by Nababan can complement one another. The aim of this discussion regarding the translational equivalence of pragmatics and the emphasis of this study are cooperative principles centred on maxims of violation.

B. RESEARCH METHOD
This study is a descriptive qualitative approach through the pragmatic equivalence  Catford (1965) and Haryanti (2013) used by translator in transferring the violations of Grice maxims' cooperative principle of the novel translation of Divergent.
In addition, the second technique of analyzing data, rating the quality of the translation is associated with pragmatic equivalence. In this step, this current study is done as follows: (1) the data of novel translation was decided to assess the pragmatic equivalence based on the parameter as explained.
(2) synchronize the inter-ratters assessment of the pragmatic equivalence with the final judgment of translation equivalence. (3) conclude.

Findings
After collecting 139 data found in the Divergent novel translation, those data were classified into four types of violation maxim: violation maxim of quantity, violation maxim of quality, violation maxim of relevance, and violation maxim of manner. The research finding also described the pragmatic equivalence that has been rated based on the pragmatic equivalence proposed in the previous explanation.

Types of Violations Maxim Found in the Novel of Divergent
The following table shows the result of counting the number of violations maxim of Grice's maxims by each character in the novel Divergent. The researcher found 139 utterances violated maxims such as quantity, quality, relevance, and manner.

Violation Maxim of Quantity
The utterance can be categorized as a violation maxim of quantity when the utterance has some reasons that the speaker failed to observe the maxim of quantity if the speaker talks not to the point, is uninformative, talks too short or too much and repeat certain words.

b) Uninformative
Uninformative is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quantity. In this novel, it has 7 data from 25 data of violation maxim quantity. The example is as follows: SL Tori: Drink this! TL Tori: Minum ini! SL Beatrice: What is this? What's going to happen? TL Beatrice: Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi? SL Tori: Can't tell you that. Just trust me. TL Tori: Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku.
The datum above prefers an uninformative utterance in violation of maxim quantity. Depended on the dialogue above Tori asks Beatrice to drink some water to the aptitude test. Beatrice is curious about the formula. Then, she asks to Tori, but she does not explain to Beatrice that it is serum formulation. So, Tori did not give information detail to Beatrice, it means the dialogue preferred to violation maxim of quantity. The utterances are "What is this? What's going to happen?" and "Can't tell you that. Just trust me." translated into "Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi?" and "Tak bisa ku beri tahu.
Percayalah padaku." The conversation above applies the strategy of translation use literal translation that focuses on each word.

c) Repeats Certain Words
Repeating certain words is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quality. In this case, speakers repeat their utterances with the same meaning. There are 6 data. The analysis of repeating certain words is: Kelihatannya kau sedikit …." And "Sedikit apa?" the translator focuses on looks for the literal equivalent for every word in the source language that is conveyed into target language. There is no change in the word order from the source language into the target language.

1) Violation Maxim of Quality
According to the data, the violation maxim of quality has 45 data with a percentage is 32.4%. There are some reasons for the violation maxim of quality in the novel Divergent such as:

a) Lies or Says Something that is Believed to be False
A lie is one of the reasons for violation maxim of quality. Almost of the utterances of lies or says Beatrice does something believed to be false. This reason has 16 utterances; the example is below. sudah baikan." The utterances before applied literal translation and free translation. The example of free translation is "I feel better now, though." Translated into "Tapi sekarang, aku sudah baikan." The sentence structure has the same, and the translator paraphrase "though" become "tapi sekarang."

b) Denies Something
Denies something is one reason for violating the maxim of quality. Based on the

2) Violation Maxim of Relevance
Based on the analysis, the violation maxim has 32 data, and the percentage is 23.0%. In this novel, the reasons for violation maxim of relevance have 5 data.

a) The Conversation Unmatched with Topic
The conversation unmatched with the topic means the question, answer, statement and comment are different. Based on the analysis the conversation odd with the topic has 5 data. The following is an example:

b) Changes Conversation Topic Abruptly
In this section, the study presents one of the reasons the violation maxims indicated violation relevance. Based on the analysis of the data, this study noted that there are 7 data. SL Four: Four, its nice to meet you. TL Four: Four, senang bertemu dengan anda. SL Beatrice's mother: Four, is that a nickname? TL Beatrice's mother: Four. Apa itu nama panggilan? SL Four: Yes. Your daughter is doing well here. I've been overseeing her training. TL Four: Ya. Putri anda melakukan semuanya dengan baik disini. Saya mengawasi pelatihannya. The above example shows changes in conversation topic abruptly utterance that belongs to violation maxim of relevance. The utterance of Four's greeting, "Four, its nice to meet you." and Beatrice's mother question "Four, is that a nickname?" Then, Four's answer is "Yes. Your daughter is doing well here. I've been overseeing her training." Based the Four's response, he just said "Yes" about his name and did not explain his name detail. But, Four tried to change conversation abruptly by explaining Beatrice's exercise more.

c) Avoid Talking about Something
Avoid talking about something reasons in violation maxim of relevance has 7 data.
The following example is: SL Beatrice: Is this because I'm a …. TL Beatrice: Apa ini karena aku seorang …. SL Beatrice's mother: Don't say that word. Ever. TL Beatrice's Mother: Jangan pernah menyebut kata itu. The above example shows a avoid talking about something utterance that belongs to violation maxim of relevance. Beatrice and her mother state the utterance. The dialogue of Beatrice's statement is "Is this because I'm a …." And her mother's answer is "Don't say that word. Ever." Based on the dialogue before, Beatrice's mother wants to avoid the conversation that Beatrice is Divergent. So Beatrice's mother stops Beatrice's question about Divergent.

d) Hides Something or Hides a Fact
Hiding something or hiding a fact is classified as a violation of relevance. Therefore, the speaker tries to hide the truth from the interlocutors. This reason gets 10 data.

3) Violation Maxim of Manner
In this study violation, the maxim of manner gets 37 data, and the percentage is 26.6%.

a) Uses Ambiguous Language
Using ambiguous language makes the speaker's meaning difficult to understand.
Using vague language gets 1 data; the following is an example of using imprecise language.

b) Uses Slang
Using slang is also part of the reason in violation maxim of manner; slang is a way to distinguish you as part of a group or separate from another group. The characters uses slang to show their independence from their parents and give them and their friends a language they can call their own. This novel uses slang and has 8 data. The dialogues below are an example of uses of slang.  Bahasa (e-Journal), Volume 7, No. 2, August 2022   105

a. Pragmatic Equivalence of the Novel Translation of Divergent
The data were judged or rated based on its pragmatic equivalence. This is one of the techniques to assess translation quality. Therefore, the following is the analysis of the data.

1) Accurate Translation
The accurate translation parameter includes the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text that is transferred accurately into target-language text. Dealing with pragmatic aspect, an accurate translation should represent a coherent and cohesive translation. The following is an example. Tori: Tak bisa ku beri tahu. Percayalah padaku. The datum above is an accurate translation. Since this study noted that single element, whether meaning of the word, phrase, clause or sentence of source language, text is transferred accurately into target language. The translation is coherent and cohesive. It also represents the intended meaning of the English speaker. For example, the English version of Beatrice's utterance is "What is this? What's going to happen?" and Tori's explanation is "Can't tell you that. Just trust me." The translator transfers the English utterance into "Apa ini? Apa yang akan terjadi?" and "Tak bisa ku beri tahu.
Percayalah padaku." The technique of the translation is literal translation strategy.
Every word is translated into Indonesian without any strategy of shift. Based on the investigation, 137 data (98.56%) can be classified as "accurate translation."

2) Less Accurate Translation
In this parameter, the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is mostly transferred accurately into target-language text. However, distorted or equivocal meaning is still deleted, and it distracts the wholeness of the message. The following is an example.

SL
Christina: Sorry, am I being rude? I'm used to just saying whatever is on my mind. Mom used to say that politeness is deception in pretty packaging. TL Christina: Apakah aku kasar? Aku terbiasa mengucapkan apa pun yang ada di pikiranku. Ibuku pernah bilang sopan santun adalah kepalsuan yang dikemas dengan cantik.
The data before is less accurate. It is due to the English violation maxim of manner utterance is not translated into Indonesian by the translator. In this case, the untranslated English violation maxim utterance diverts the translation. The translator did not solve the word "sorry" that Christina speaks it. The target language translated "Am I being rude?" without asking for forgiveness. Nevertheless, there is a possibility for the reader to just the whole meaning of the utterance.
From 139 data, this study noted that there is two data (1.43%) that can be categorized as "less accurate translation."

3) Not Accurate Translation
A translation can be classified as inaccurate when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is not accurately transferred into the target language text or deleted. The pragmatic element of the source language text is not translated accurately into the target language text, so it causes misunderstanding (pragmatic failure). The translation, then, is not coherent and cohesive. Additionally, the implied speaker's intention is not translated accurately.
Based on this study's analysis, no translation was rated or judged as "not accurate translation." Nevertheless, several data show that the utterances are not translated into Indonesian utterances; they still represent the whole speaker's meaning or intention.
The following chart shows the data of pragmatic equivalence of Divergent movie subtitle.  Al-Qaderi (2015). This present study focused on the data of violation maxim proposed by Grice's theory of maxims (1975). Furthermore, to analyse the data's pragmatic equivalence, the current study uses the combination of two theories at the same time: translation quality, especially equivalence (Nababan et al, 2012) and pragmatic equivalence (Baker, 2018).
Based on the analyzed data, this current study found 139 data from the novel translation of Divergent. The data had been categorized as a cooperative principle in violation maxims. The data showed four types of violation maxims from English utterances translated into Indonesian utterances. The data showed no significant shift in the English version translated into Indonesia since the findings were violation maxim of quantity, violation maxim of quality, violation maxim of relevance, and violation maxim of manner. Grice (1975:49) said that the speaker "will be liable to mislead" the listener. Violating the maxim lets the listeners have misunderstood the information.
Violating can also happen in four sub-principles of maxim. There are violations of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. This study confirms the theory since the study found all those types inside.
According to Cutting (2002: 40), a speaker might violate the principle of quality by being insincere and providing incorrect information to an audience. The violation of the quality utterance maxim has many purposes. It not only functions as a lie or a statement that is considered untrue but also does irony or makes sardonic and sarcastic statements, as detailed in the preceding section. The data represented a unique adaptation of Divergent.
There are four types of violation maxims, as previously mentioned.  (2012) states that three aspects need to be considered in assessing translation quality: accuracy, acceptability, and readability. The concept of translation quality assessment (i.e. accuracy) manifested into a particular instrument that deals with that aspect. The assessment is in the form of judging or scoring.
The term pragmatic equivalence deals with two theories simultaneously: the theory of equivalence translation generally and pragmatic equivalence. Regarding to the novel translation of Divergent, the 139 data were rated or judged by an expert based on three parameters: accurate translation, less accurate translation, and not precise translation.
There was the idea of the qualitative parameters of pragmatic equivalence.
Furthermore, from 139 data, this study noted that there were 137 data of 98.56% that could be judged or rated as accurate translation based on the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence. But unfortunately, this study noted one piece of data as "less accurate translation" for some reasons.
A translation can be rated as equivalence when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text are transferred accurately into target language text; there is no meaning distortion. The pragmatic element of the source language text is also moved accurately into the target language text. The translation represents a coherent and cohesive translation. The speaker's utterance is represented accurately as intended in the target language text. This study argues that the TL text fulfils all of the criteria or parameters.
The subsequent discussion is about a less accurate translation. In this study, two pieces of data could be categorized as a less precise translation since there was a deletion to the TL text, which means that the translator did not translate the SL into TL.
In some cases, the TL would be equivalent since the information was omitted; however, the sentence was deleted or not translated. For example, an SL utterance, violation maxims or sentence was not translated to reach equivalent, but the information was included in the previous or the following TL text.
A less accurate translation is when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is transferred accurately into target-language text. But there is still a distorted purpose or uncertain meaning that is deleted, and it distracts the wholeness of the message. The pragmatic element of the source language text is translated accurately into the target language text, but there are such misinterpretations in the target language (e.g. cultural understanding). Some translations take into account as coherent and cohesive, but some others do not. The translation does not fully represent the implied meaning of the speaker's intention.
It was just a minor "less accurate translation" since this study noted that two data could be rated according to the qualitative parameter of pragmatic equivalence. So, there are two data or 1,43% data that belonged to this classification from overall data (139 data).
This study did not find any translation that could be rated as not accurate. This study argues that the translator considers any Indonesian language norms or principles regarding to grammar. In this categorization, a translation would not be valid when the meaning of the word, technical term, phrase, clause, sentence or source language text is not accurately transferred into target language text or deleted. The pragmatic element text so it makes misunderstanding (pragmatic failure). The translation, then, is not coherent and cohesive. The implied speaker's intention is not translated accurately. This study noted no exact equivalence word, sentence or utterance from SL to TL. Therefore, a translator should give the touch of strategy to achieve equivalence.

D. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded as follows. Firstly, this current study found 139 data from the novel translation of Divergent categorized as cooperative principle in violation maxims. The findings were dominated by violation maxim of quality. There had been found 45 data violation maxims of quality in novel translation.
Secondly, in the novel translation, from 139 data, there were 137 data of 98.56% that could be judged or rated as "accurate translation" based on the qualitative parameter of