relativizer that and not properly-translated relative clauses with relativizer that as follows:
Criteria Example
Original Version English
Translated Version Bahasa Indonesia
Properly-translated 77.70
115 items He owned a jacket, a
book that he could trade for another,
and a flock of sheep. Dia punya jaket, buku
yang dapat ditukarkan dengan yang lain, dan
kawanan domba.
Not properly- translated
22.30 33 items
The boy mumbled an answer that allowed
him to avoid responding to her
question. Si bocah menjawab
dengan menggumam- gumam tak jelas supaya
dia bisa mengelak untuk menjawab
pertanyaan gadis itu.
Table 3: The Percentage of Properly-translated Relative Clauses with Relativizer That and Not Properly-translated Relative Clauses with
Relativizer That
Looking at the results above, the researcher argued that the translator seemed to employ several ways in order to produce a good translation product.
The researcher believed that a good translation product would be the one that has attained equivalence in both of the source text and the target text. In other words,
the translator would have to maintain the equivalence between both texts if she would like to produce a good translation product. Then, there were several ways
that the researcher has found being employed by the translator.
1. Employing formal equivalence
Hatim and Munday 2004 defines that formal equivalence is a relationship which involves the purely ‘formal’ replacement of one word or phrase in the
source text by another in the target text. Unfortunately, many people would misinterpret this type of translation method with that of literal translation. In order
[1] ST : He transformed himself into a stone that rolled up to the miner’s foot.
TT : Dia mengubah dirinya menjadi batu yang menggelinding di kaki penambang itu.
[2] ST : “Because there is a force that wants you to realize your destiny; it whets
your appetite with a taste of success.” TT
: “Karena ada kekuatan yang menginginkanmu mewujudkan Legenda
Pribadimu; kekuatan itu merangsang seleramu dengan rasa sukses.
to provide a strict difference between formal equivalence and literal translation, Nida 1964 in Hatim and Munday 2004 states that formal equivalence is not the
same as literal translation, and the two terms must therefore be kept distinct. Similar to the explanation above, the translator had shown the use of
formal equivalence as shown in the following figure.
Figure 1: The 1
st
example of formal equivalence employed in the translation
In Figure 4.1, the researcher clearly found that the translation had been equivalent. The word “that rolled up to the miner’s foot” had been replaced by the similar
form in Bahasa Indonesia: “yang menggelinding di kaki penambang itu.” The word “yang” itself is a marker for anak kalimat keterangan pewatas Sugono,
2009 that has similar function to that of relative clause Murphy, 2005. Similarly, the translator preserved formal equivalence in almost all of the
translation products. As a result, the translator found many relative clauses translated by means of formal equivalence. Another example of the method
employed in the translation process was as follows.
Figure 2: The 2
nd
example of formal equivalence employed in the translation
In Figure 4.2, the researcher found another proof and could see the formal equivalence in the phrase “that wants you to realize your destiny” and the
[3] ST : He had remembered that one of the crystal merchant’s suppliers transported
his crystal by means of caravans that crossed the desert. TT : Dia ingat salah satu dari pemasok toko itu mengangkut kristal dengan
karavan yang melintasi gurun.
translation: “yang menginginkanmu mewujudkan Legenda Pribadimu.” Both of the clauses and the translations are equivalent, therefore the relationship between
both of the source text and the target text is a formal one. In addition, the researcher had also found that the formal equivalence was
similar to the idea of formal correspondence as having been stated by Catford 1974. The researcher found that the formal correspondent of target language was
able to occupy the ‘same’ place of in the source language. Even though the formal correspondence might only occur in the relatively high level of abstraction, the
researcher found that the following relative clause along with the translation was quite appropriate.
Figure 3: The 3
rd
example of formal equivalence employed in the translation
Here, the translator still employed the same formal equivalence method. The researcher concluded the fact that the translator employed the same formal
equivalence method by the clause “that crossed the dessert” and the translation “yang melintasi gurun.”
The figure above had also matched the Catford statement. Catford 1965 in Hatim 2001 states that we do not ‘transfer’ meaning between languages; we
merely ‘replace’ a source language meaning by a target language meaning that can function in the same way in the situation at hand. In other words, the
translator had kept the form as well as the meaning equivalent. As a result, the
translator would be able to produce a good translation product and the reader would not be confused as well.
2. Employing adjustment
