i. Differences in form
Certain suffixes and prefixes which give propositional and types of meaning do not have equivalent meaning in target language. For example, English has
–able suffix, like in the words „retrievable‟ and „drinkable‟. In Arabic, the translator will
paraphrase them, „can be retrieved‟ and „suitable for drinking‟ 1992:24. j.
Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms It happens if the target language has different use of word in frequency, even
though it is equivalent with source language. This can cause unusual language for the target text readers. English uses
–ing form frequently. Therefore, if it is applied in German
–ing form, it can make the word sounds unnatural 1992:24. k.
The use of loan words in source text Target language loans words from source language. In other words, some words
in source language are not translated into target language because equivalent words from target language are unlikely to be found. For instance, the English
word „sensible‟ has different meaning with the German „sensibel‟ which means „sensitive‟ 1992:25.
4. Translation Informativeness
As said by Carroll, a translation is informative if it has high fidelity in which it should have very small possibility of misrepresentation of the source text
Carroll, 1966:57. It means that the informativeness of a translation is shown by its conformity to the source text, that it does not give distortion of the original
text.
According to Carroll in An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations in Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, focusing
on informativeness in translation needs to consider some informativeness scales. There are two indicators of informativeness assessment used. They are assessed
from how target people consider the target text has any differences in conveying the meaning.
Table 2.1. Indicators of Informativeness by Carroll with modification
Score Informativeness Indicators
1 The target text is as informative as the source text. There is
not any different meaning from the words chosen, grammar, and sentence structure between the target text and the source
text.
2 There are words chosen in target text which are not
appropriate. They make the target text less informative and cause the target people to have different understanding. The
target text has different meaning from the meaning intended in the source text.
There are also two categories of informativeness assessed from the average score of each data.
Table 2.2. Category of Informativeness Based on Scores with modification
Score Category
1.00 - 1.50 Informative
1.51 - 2.00 Not informative
To be able to know the category of the score obtained, there is an equation:
M =
M stands for mean, the average point. is for the total numbers of
informativeness scores per data. N is used for the total numbers of the data. The result of the M will show what informativeness category the text is.
C. Theoretical Framework
The definitions of translation according to Hatim 2004, Nida 1974 and Catford 1965; the definitions of equivalence as stated by Catford 1965 and the
definition of informativeness as said by Carroll 1966 are applied as the basic of the topic discussed in this present study. The aim is to know what translation,
equivalence, and readability are. The theory of non-equivalence by Baker 1992, including her eleven non-equivalence problems, are also needed as the indicators
of equivalence and non-equivalence to answer the first problem formulation. The indicators of informativeness by Carroll 1966 are used to answer the second
problem formulation.
