10
2
Orang yang membawa tas itu direktur kami.
3
Dia direktur yang baru dilantik bulan lalu.
4
Direktur baru itu ingin memperluas perusahaan yang nyaris gulung tikar.
5
Dia kehilangan pekerjaan yang menjadi sumber kehidupan keluarganya.
6
Dia akan pindah ke rumah yang terletak di ujung jalan itu.
3. Theory of Translation Methods
In conducting the translation, a translator should employ several methods in order to produce a good translation product that may be understood well by the non-
native speakers. There are several methods, of course, that a translator might employ and the followings are the common ones.
a. Formal Equivalence
Formal equivalence is a method of translation that strives to keep the target text as original as possible from that of the source text. Therefore, the meaning will
be kept in order to maintain the idea from the source text and that of the target text. Hatim and Munday 2004 have described the formal equivalence as follows:
This attitude to translatability and comprehensibility has given rise to dynamic equivalence, a translation method that may helpfully be seen in terms of its
counterpart – formal equivalence. The latter also referred to as ‘structural correspondence’, is a relationship which involves the purely ‘formal’ replacement
of one word or phrase in the SL by another in the TL. According to Nida, this is not the same as literal translation, and the two terms must therefore be kept
distinct. …
In a similar manner, Catford also states the definition of equivalence in translating
source text into target text as follows as cited in Basil, 2001, p.13: We can … distinguish between situational features which are linguistically
relevant, and those which are functionally relevant in that they are relevant to the communicative function of the text in that situation. For translation
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
equivalence to occur, then, both source language and target language texts must be relatable to the functionally relevant features of the situation. A
decision, in any particular case, as to what is functionally relevant in this sense must represent our present state of knowledge remain to some extent
a matter of opinion.
Formal equivalence is similar to formal correspondence. It is clear that formal correspondence can be only approximate and that it can be most easily established at
relatively high levels of abstraction; then, a formal correspondent is any target language, later will be named as TL in the analysis, category which may be said to
occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the economy of the TL as the given source language, later will be named as SL in the analysis, category occupies in the
SL Catford, 1974, p.32. In other words, if there are two languages operate with grammatical units at five ranks for example: sentence, clause, group, word and
morpheme, then one may state that there is formal correspondence between both languages and each of them has the same number of ranks and the same kind of
relationship between units of the different ranks. From these definitions, it has been clear that formal equivalence means that a
translator should preserve the meaning of source text in the target text. Formal equivalence is different to that of literal translation, in a sense that literal translation
tends to be word-per-word translation while formal equivalence tends to find the exact match in the target text as a replacement for the source text during the
translation process.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
b. Adjustment
