[3] ST : Melchizedek watched a small ship that was plowing its way out of the port.
TT : Melchizedek mengamati sebuah kapal kecil yang sedang menjajaki jalan keluar pelabuhan.
[2] ST Version
TT Version Suggested Version
The owner of the bar approached him, and
the boy pointed to a drink that had been
served in the next table. Pemilik kedai mendekati
dia, dan si bocah menunjuk minuman yang
disajikan di meja sebelah. Pemilik kedai meng-
hampirinya dan ia pun menunjuk minuman yang
disajikan kepada pe- ngunjung yang duduk di
sebelahnya.
Table 5: Suggested translation for case [2]: Errors caused by differences in expressive meaning
3. Errors caused by differences in form
Murphy 1997 stated that there is no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text. The statement was apparently true in any case
of translation and the researcher found a good example for the case.
Figure 12: An example of errors caused by differences in form
Murphy 2005 states that we use that or which in a relative clause when we are talking about things p. 184. Since the header is that, therefore this type of
relative clause would be referred to as relative clause with relativizer that. On the contrary, Sugono 2009 states that “anak kalimat keterangan pewatas menyertai
nomina, baik nomina itu berfungsi sebagai subjek, predikat, maupun obyek; ciri penanda anak kalimat ini ialah konjungsi yang atau kata penunjuk itu” p. 191.
From the statement, the researcher might infer that this type of anak kalimat follows the noun nomina either the noun serves as a subject, a predicate, or an
object and this function is similar to that of relative clause with relativizer that. In Figure 4.3, the author was talking about a small ship and the small ship
was plowing its way out of the port. When the two events were combined, the
sentence would be “a small ship that was plowing its way out of the port.” On the contrary, in the TT version, the translator referred “a small ship” to “sebuah kapal
kecil” and the whole relative clause was written as follows: “”sebuah kapal kecil yang sedang menjajaki jalan keluar pelabuhan.” The researcher found that the
translation seemed quite acceptable; however, there was a slight difference in the form and the difference was in the word “plowing” from the source language and
the word “menjajaki” in the target language. Certainly, people are fully aware that the meaning of “plow” in Bahasa Indonesia is “membajak;” which refers to an
activity of cultivating the land before starting the planting season. When the author used the present participle “plowing” in the sentence, he might referred to
an activity of opening the way out of the port instead of “finding the way out of the port” as having been implied by the clause “yang sedang menjajaki jalan
keluar dari pelabuhan” from the target language. Based on the explanation in the previous paragraph, the researcher would
like to state that the translator might employ some sort of adjustment in order to produce a better translation. The researcher would like to provide one of the
possible alternatives.
[3] ST Version
TT Version Suggested Version
Melchizedek watched a small ship that was
plowing its way out of the port.
Melchizedek mengamati sebuah kapal kecil yang
sedang menjajaki jalan keluar pelabuhan.
Melchizedek mengamati sebuah kapal kecil yang
membuka jalan keluarnya dari pelabuhan.
Table 6: Suggested translation for case [3]: Errors caused by differences in form
Out of the problems of the translation being discussed above, the researcher also found two other aspects that a translator should pay attention to,
namely the equivalence and the structures. Referring to Baker’s 1992 statement saying that there are two types of equivalence namely equivalence at word level
and equivalence above word level, the researcher would like to state that the equivalence in the translation process of relative clauses with relativizer that from
English into anak kalimat keterangan pewatas in bahasa Indonesia occurred above word level. The reason was that the researcher rarely found equivalence at
word level, namely the one occurred in the form of word-per-word translation. Furthermore, it seemed that it would be awkward if the translator chose word-per-
word translation because employing such method would ruin the whole meaning of the relative clauses with relativizer that. Moreover, the researcher was aware
that the translator would like to keep the contextual meaning along with the collocations. Therefore, the researcher was certain that the equivalence in the
research occurred above word level, namely in the level of sentence or, more specifically, on the level of relative clauses with relativizer that.
Speaking about structures, it seemed that the translator did not manipulate the structure of the source language, in this case the relative clauses with
relativizer that, during the process of translation into the target language in this case anak kalimat keterangan pewatas. The researcher did only change the
structure of relative clauses with relativizer that and active verbs into anak kalimat keterangan pewatas with passive verbs. For example, the sentence “There
are probably other things in the world that the sheep can’t teach me, thought the boy as he regarded the old merchant” would be translated as “Rupanya ada
banyak hal di dunia ini yang tak dapat diajarkan oleh domba-domba itu padaku,
pikir si bocah” instead of “Rupanya ada banyak hal di dunia ini yang tak dapat domba-domba itu ajarkan padaku, pikir si bocah.” The reason was that bahasa
Indonesia have not employed suffix –kan for verbs; therefore, it would be awkward if the translator employed “ajarkan” for the translation of “teach”
instead of “diajarkan.” In order to bridge the meaning properly, the translator opted for “diajarkan” and the sentence would be comprehensible for the readers.
56
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The chapter consists of two parts. The first part provides the conclusion of the research. Then, the second part provides the suggestion for English teachers,
translators and future researcher.
A. Conclusions
The research was conducted in order to obtain a description of translation process from English into Bahasa Indonesia. In conducting the research, the
researcher employed a case study approach and the researcher chose Coelho’s The Alchemist and the translation Sang Alkemis, translated by Lesmana, as the
research objects. From the research findings, the researcher found that there have been 268 relative clauses with relativizer that and 268 translated relative clause
respectively with the following composition:
148 relative clauses with relativizer that, 87 relative clauses with relativizer who, 6 relative clauses with relativizer which, 3
relative clauses with relativizer whom, 1 relative clause with relativizer whose and 23 relative clauses with relativizer where
along with the translation. The researcher took relative clauses with relativizer that since these clauses occupied the largest
portion and, therefore, these clauses were eligible to analyze. The researcher found that there were 115 items 77.70 of relative
clauses with relativizer that that have been properly translated. On the other hand, the researcher also found that there were 33 items 22.30 of relative clauses
