connector, 4 samples of hesitation markerfillers, 2 samples of repair marker, 2 samples of attitude marker, 2 samples of topic-switcher, 1 samples of intimacy-
signals, 1 samples of confirmation seeker. The table below was an example of the questionnaire of equivalence:
No Data
Source Text No
Data Target Text
Score
1 2
15 I had a bad experience
once, Katie said. Dating a guy from
work, I mean. Since then, Ive kind of made
it a rule not to do it again.
118 Aku pernah punya
pengalaman buruk, kata Katie. Maksudku,
berkencan dengan cowok teman kerjaku. Sejak itu,
sudah jadi prinsipku untuk tidak
melakukannya lagi.
Table 3.2. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Equivalence
The table below was an example of the questionnaire of readability and there was no need to write the ST:
No Data Target Text
Score
1 2
3 325
Kupikir juga begitu, Jo melanjutkan. Butuh waktu untuk terbiasa dengan Southport.
Maksudku,
aku selalu menyukainya, tapi aku memang penyuka kota-kota kecil.
Table 3.3. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Readability 4.
Data Analysis
There were two steps used in order to answer the problem formulations in the study. In order to answer the first problem, the researcher listed all the DMs
found in both original and translated novel in table. Then, the data will be
assessed on the questio nnaires by using Nababan‟s equivalence rating instrument
with some modification. Second, in order to answer the second problem, the researcher distributed
questionnaires of readability. The data on the readability questionnaires were the same as the data on the equivalence questionnaires. The data on the questionnaires
will be assessed using Nababan‟s equivalence rating instrument with some modification.
22
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
There are 7 functions of Discourse Marker that are studied in this study. Those 7 functions are discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-
signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markersfillers, repair markers, and attitude markers. The researcher found 157
data of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven.
Those data included 75 data of DMs as dicourse connector, 27 data as hesitation markersfillers, 17 data as repair markers, 12 data as attitude markers,
10 data as topic switcher, 9 data as intimacy-signals, and 7 data as confirmation- seekers.
The data are collected and assessed in order to find out whether the translations of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven are equivalent
and readable or not. The assessment of equivalence is based on the equivalence indicator which is based on the theory of dynamic equivalence proposed by Nida
in which it focuses not only on the structure but also on the meaning from the context of the discourse itself. The assessment of readability is based on the
readability indicator proposed by Nababan which is based on Richard‟s theory
that readability is how people can simply understand the meaning of a text. Richard in Nababan, 1999:62
Questionnaires of equivalence and readability were distributed to thirteen respondents in order to get a valid data. However, the researcher will also assess
the samples of both equivalence and readability. Researcher distributed the
equivalence questionnaires to three respondents and readability questionnaires to ten respondents.
In this chapter, the analysis will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss about equivalence, while the second part discusses about the
readability.
A. Translation Equivalence
There are 25 samples that are assessed in this part. The result for the equivalent assessment is 1.4 which is categorized as equivalent translation. This
part is divided into two parts, which are equivalent translation and not equivalent translation.
1. Equivalent Translation
a. Discourse Connector
From the total 25 samples, there are thirteen samples which are considered as discourse connector. From those thirteen samples of discourse
connector, there are eight samples considered as equivalent translations. For the equivalent translation, there are three data which are given score
1 by all three respondents. Those data are 1212-13CON, 1630CON, and 113122CON. The tables below are the table of those three samples with the
analysis for each datum:
No Data Source Language
No Data Target Language
12ST 12-
13CON So what brought you to
Southport? Im sure it wasnt the exciting career
potential at Ivans. Do you have any family around
here? Parents? Brothers or sisters?
12TT 28CON
Jadi, kenapa kau pindah ke Southport?
Tentunya bukan karena potensi karier di Resto
Ivan, kan? Apa kau punya keluarga di
sekitar sini? Orangtua? Kakak atau adik?
No, Katie said. Just me. Tidak, kata Katie.
Hanya aku. Following a boyfriend?
Mengikuti pacarmu? No.
Tidak.
So you just... moved here?
Jadi kau pindah kemari begitu saja?
Yes. Ya.
The average score for the datum above is 1, which means the translation is considered as an equivalent translation. As shown in the datum above, the DM so
is translated into jadi in the TL. This datum is equivalent because so in SL is translated into jadi in TL in which both of so and jadi are used to connect the
recent discourse to the prior discourse in which someone asked Katie the reason why she moved to Southport. Therefore, this datum is equivalent and all
respondents also give score 1 to this datum. There are two other data with similar analysis and the same average score.
The same with the previous data, this datum is considered as equivalent with the average score 1.3. Different from the previous data in which all
respondents give score 1 equivalent to the datum, one respondent R1 gives score 2 not equivalent and only the rest two respondents give score 1 to this
datum.
