Theories of Discourse Marker

conversation. ” http:www.culingtec.uni-leipzig.de Some examples of this marker such as like, you know, I mean. Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv, 2004:7 3. Hesitation markersfillers : markers that are used to mark a hesitation on the part of the speaker. “It indicates that the speaker are formulating what they want to say. “ Davis, Boyd H. and Margaret Maclagan, 2010:189 Lan-Fen Huang, in her thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 2011 entitled “Discourse Markers In Spoken English: A Corpus Study of Native Speakers and Chinese Non-Native Speakers”, she states there are some characteristics of DMs proposed by Schourup 1999 and Fung and Carter 2007. One of the characteristics is the flexibility of position. The flexibility of position means DMs can appear at any point such as in the initial position, in the middle, or even in the final position of a sentence. Fung and Carter, 2007 Examples: “I eat a lot.” “I eat a lot, you know.” “You know, I eat a lot.” Erman in Jucker 1998:2 states “‟pragmatic expression‟ tends to be used for markers that consist of more than one word such as you know, you see, I mean .” Some words are found as discoure markers such as stated in Jucker‟s Discourse Marker: Introduction” Discourse Markers: Description and Theory: Schiffrin 1987 : because, and, then Schourup 1985 : aha, hey Blakemore 1987: Ch. 4 : therefore, so, after all, moreover Andreas H. Jucker and Sara Smith : yeah, ok, really?, like, you know, I mean Despite of its function as discourse marker, in some cases because, so and and are also used as conjunction. Therefore, there should be a clear explanation in what circumstances because, so and and can be categorized as discourse markers. Based on the theory of discourse marker stated by Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, discourse marker has no particular grammatical function and it is syntactically independent. It means that discourse marker should be analyzed on the level of a discourse rather than a sentence. Therefore, because, so and and are categorized as discourse markers when they are used to connect one discourse with another discourse. On the other hand, when because, so and and are used to connect one sentence with another sentence, they are categorized as conjunction. The examples below are the use of because, so and and as conjunction: “I have stopped writing to her, because she never answers me.” “I told her I wanted to sleep, so she went home.” “My fishing line got snagged on the boat as it was pulling out, and I did not want to lose my fishing rod.” Sparks, 2011:34 The next examples are the use of because, so and and as discourse marker: Kristen : “I don‟t want to hurt any butterflies. I like butterflies. Alex : “We don‟t have to hurt them. We can let them go.” Kristen : “Then why catch them in the first place?” Alex : “Because it‟s fun.” Sparks, 2011:118 Katie : “It‟s not so bad. I‟m used to it by now.” Jo : “I hope I get used to it. So, what brought you to Southport? ...” Sparks, 2011:12 Alex : “Are you sure you want to do that? You‟re purple.” Kristen : “I‟m okay. And we‟re supposed to build castles at the beach.” Sparks, 2011:92

C. Theoretical Framework

In order to answer the first problem which is to assess the equivalence of the discourse markers‟ translation, the researcher needs to find the DM in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven. The researcher uses the theory of functions of discourse marker based on Jucker. After that, the researcher finds the translation of those DMs in the translation novel Suaka Cinta. Then, the researcher uses theory of equivalence to assess the equivalence of the DMs. In order to answer the second problem which is to assess the readability of the translation of DMs, the researcher uses the theory of readability and the indicator of readable translation as proposed by Nababan with some modifications on it.

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

A. Areas of Research

This study applied the research area of text analysis and translation. It focused on the equivalence and readability of the translation of Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven done by Rosemary Kesauly. Based on the research area of text analysis and translation, this study focused on comparing the translation to its source text Williams and Chesterman, 2002:6.

B. Object of the Study

The object of the study is the discourse markers taken from the Indonesian version of Safe Haven by Nicholas Sparks‟ which is Suaka Cinta which was translated by Rosemary Kesauli. Discourse marker is a words or phrases that is used to direct or redirect the flow of conversations and has no particular grammatical function and syntactically independent Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv, 2004:117.

C. Method of the Study

This study applied two kinds of method. Those were library research and field research through questionnaire. The first method was done to collect the theories and informations on discourse markers in order to be able to analyze the object in both texts. Library research was also done in order to find theories of equivalence and readability which later were used to assess the the translations of discourse markers in the text. The second method, field research, was done in order to find out whether the translation of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven are equivalent and readable or not. The data in this study were primary data. It means that the data were not taken from other studies or researches. The data were collected by the researcher from the English version of Safe Haven and the Indonesian version which was Suaka Cinta .

D. Research Procedure

1. Types of Data

The data in this research were divided into two types, those were:

a. Objective Data

Objective data were taken from Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven and their translation which were taken from Suaka Cinta. The original book was published in 2010 by Grand Central Publishing. It consisted of 340 pages. The translation book was translated by Rosemary Kesauly and published by Gramedia Pustaka Utama in 2014. It consisted of 480 pages. The data contains DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven were classified based on their functions.

b. Affective Data

The affective data were collected through questionnaires to find responses of the readers toward the translation version of Safe Haven. The data were used to strengthen the researc her‟s assessment on equivalence and readability of the translation of DMs which were based on the theories of