29
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter answers the problems formulated in chapter one. First section discusses the significant differences of the translation results and second
section students’ competence. The first section concerns with the significant differences of translation
results that were done by Non-medical and Medical School students. It is designed to measure whose translation is more readable. There are 13 sentences
that were translated into target text by two respondents, but since this research concerns on medical text, the sentences that are not containing medical text are
reduced. This research uses 10 sentences that contain medical words, phrases, and clauses which mean that the amount of the data is 20. Afterward, the data are put
into table to make it easier to be compared and assessed. Besides, the assessment from six participants are added to support the result.
The second section concerns with the competence of Non-medical and Medical School students. Their competence is assessed by using Angelelli’s
scoring rubric. This theory categorizes its rubric into five which aims to include all important elements to be scored. The results of this analysis draw summary
whether students’ background affects their competence in translating medical text or not.
30
A. Significant Differences of the Non-medical and Medical School Students
in Translating Medical Text
In this part, the data from Non-Medical and Medical School students are discussed in order to answer the first problem formulation. After the translations
from both students are sorted, 10 sentences are collected. Since there are two respondents, the data that need to be assessed are 20. Only the data which contains
medical terms are discussed in this research. The data are assessed by comparing and paying attention to both translations so that the difference can be seen. The
theories explained in third chapter also help the writer in gaining the understanding and analyzing this part. Besides, this part also provides the analysis
of readability assessment done by participants who have filled in questionnaire forms. It aims to make sure whose translation is more understandable according to
the readers. There are some differences found in their translations. It can be drawn
that Non-Medical School student NM tends to mostly use certainty equivalent technique CET and deletion technique DT. Native borrowing technique
NBT, addition technique AT, and category shift technique CST are applied some times, but Latin borrowing technique LBT and pure borrowing technique
PBT are never used. It means that NM uses two languages, Indonesian and English as the equivalence by applying CET and NBT. Technical terms formed by
one word are usually translated by applying NBT and DT. If formed by more than one words, the terms are translated by using some techniques such as CET, DT,
NBT, AT and CST. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31
Meanwhile, Medical School student M mostly applies CET and AT. All the techniques including CET, DT, NBT, AT, CST, LBT and PBT are used.
Bahasa Indonesia, English, and Latin are used as the equivalence. She applies NBT and CET when translating the terms formed by one word. If the terms are
formed more than one words, she mixes CET, DT, NBT, AT, CST, LBT and PBT.
This is the percentage of translation readability chart of NM and M in translating medical text. This following chart shows that translation readability
percentage of NM is 47 and M is 53.
Chart 2. The Percentage of Translation Readability of Non-medical and Medical School Students
The chart shows that Medical School student’s translation gets larger portion in the chart which means that her translation is more readable than Non-
medical student’s. Voters who mostly choose Medical School student’s translation
53 47
M edical School st udent English Let ters student
32
are people having medical background, meanwhile voters who mostly choose Non-medical student’s translation are people who do not have medical
background. The readability score is given by six participants. Each participant is asked to choose the translation which is more readable. After that, the readability
score in each data is summed up to get total score. The score is converted to percentage form to simplify the calculation. Here is the calculation of both
translations. 1.
The readability of Non-medical student’s translation Σ
= × 100
Σ
= 28
6 × 100
Σ
= 46,7
2. The readability of Medical School student’s translation
Σ
= × 100
Σ
= 32
6 × 100
Σ
= 53,3
It is noted that total score is the number of readable sentence for each respondent based on questionnaire filled in by participants. In this readability
assessment, it involves six participants. That is why in the calculation above it is written “6”.
Σ is the symbol for final score for readability assessment. If the final score of both respondents are summed up, it is reached 100. From the results
33
above, it can be drawn that 53,3 of M’s translation is readable, meanwhile NM’s translation is 46,7.
The following pages discuss the significant difference between the translations of Non-Medical NM student and Medical student M. Their
translations are presented in tables. The sentences written in bold are the ST. NumberTTA is the translation done by NM, meanwhile NumberTTB is the
translation done by M.
1ST: Prenatal Factors in Singletons with Cerebral Palsy Born at or near Term
1TTA 1TTB
Faktor-Faktor Pranatal Pemicu Lumpuh Otak Pada Bayi Tunggal Non-Prematur
Faktor prenatal bayi dengan CP pada kehamilan
tunggal aterm
atau preterm
In writing this title, NM capitalizes each word. According to the table above, NM uses some techniques in translating medical terms in 1TTA. “Faktor-
faktor pranatal” is translated by using native borrowing technique NBT since the TT term is naturalized from ST. “Singleton” is translated by applying certainty
equivalent technique CET. Besides, CET is also applied when translating “lumpuh otak.” This TT term belongs to lay term since it is available in
dictionary. Deletion technique DT is used when translating “at or near term” into “non-prematur.” It can be seen that some words are omitted in TT.
Meanwhile M does not capitalize each word, only the first word and the acronym of “cerebral palsy” are capitalized. M translates “prenatal factors” into
“faktor prenatal” by using NBT as seen in the word “faktor” and PBT in the word “prenatal.” “Bayi dengan kehamilan tunggal” is the application of two tecniques.