12 16
16 28
4 8
12 4
Readability
Data with Average Score 1.1 Data with Average Score 1.2
Data with Average Score 1.3 Data with Average Score 1.4
Data with Average Score 1.5 Data with Average Score 1.6
Data with Average Score 1.7 Data with Average Score 1.8
hmm , respondents will easily understand the meaning of the word, and also the
whole conversation. To sum up the analysis of readability, below are charts showing the
readability of the translations of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe
Haven . There are two charts, which is divided based on data and respondents.
Chart 4.4. Readability Average Score
The data on the Chart 4.4. are classified based on the average score of each datum. Based on the chart above, out of the total 25 samples, there are 12 of the
data or three data are scored 1.1 for the average score, 16 or four data scored 1.2, 16 or four data scored 1.3, 28 or seven data scored 1.4, 4 or one datum
scored 1.5, 8 or two data scored 1.6, 12 or three data scored 1.7, and 4 or
one datum scored 1.8 for the average score. From the percentage above, it shows the overall average score for readability is considered as readable.
Chart 4.5. The Distribution of Respondents’s Readability Average Score
The chart above shows the readability average score of the respondents. This average score is taken from the data of average score of the respondents. The
average score of Respondent 1 R1 is 1, R2 is 1.44, R3 is 1.04, R4 is 1.48, R5 is 2.32, R6 is 1.12, R7 is 1.2, R8 is 1.04, R9 is 1.84, and R10 is 1.4. This chart
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9 1
1.1 1.2
1.3 1.4
1.5 1.6
1.7 1.8
1.9 2
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
2.5 2.6
2.7 2.8
2.9 3
R1 R2
R3 R4
R5 R6
R7 R8
R9 R10
Average Score
R1 R2
R3 R4
R5 R6
R7 R8
R9 R10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11
Readable Quite Readable
Not Readable
suggests that the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven still leaves a problem, because there are some data considered as quite readable by the
respondents.
Chart 4.6. Readability Category of Discourse Marker
The data on the Chart 4.6. are classified based on their functions as discourse markers. Based on the chart above, out of the total 25 samples, there are
eleven data of DM as discourse connector considered as readable and two data as quite readable, one datum of DM as confirmation-seekers considered as readable,
one datum of DM as intimacy-signals considered readable, two data of DM as topic-switchers considered readable, three data of DM as hesitation markersfillers
considered readable and one datum as quite readable, one datum of DM as repair markers considered readable and one datum considered quite readable, and two
data of DM as attitude markers considered readable.
57
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION
This study finds out that the translation of 7 functions of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven is equivalent and readable. The average score for
equivalence is 1.4 and the average score for readability is 1.3. The average score for equivalence is higher than the average score for readability. It means that the
translation of discourse markers is Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven is considered as more equivalent rather than readable.
There are 7 functions of discourse markers that are studied here. Those functions are discourse marker as discourse connector, confirmation-seekers,
intimacy signals, topic switchers, hesitation markersfillers, repair marker, and attitude marker. In this study, the researcher wants to assess the equivalence and
readability of the translation of those functions of discourse markers. The result for the average score for equivalence assessments shows there
are sixteen data considered equivalent and nine data considered as not equivalent. The data considered as equivalent because they meet the criteria of dynamic
equivalence as mentioned earlier; the translation should give the same effect to the TL readers the same as the effect given by the ST to the SL readers. The data
considered as not equivalent because they do not meet the criteria of dynamic equivalence.
The result for the average score for readability assessment shows there are twenty one data considered as readable and four data considered as not readable.
The data considered as readable is simply because the respondents can easily understand the text and they do not get confused when they read the text.
However, the data considered as not readable because the respondents find it quite hard andor really hard to understand the text.
Thus, based on the questionnaires on equivalence and readability, the researcher concludes that the translation of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟
Safe Haven are equivalent and readable because the translations of the DMs give
the same effects to the TL readers and it can be understood by the readers.
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baiat, G. Esfandiari, M. Coler, M. Pullen, S. Tienkouw and L. Hunyadi. “Multimodal Analysis of
“well” as a Discourse Marker in Conversation: A Pilot Study”. n.p.. n.d.. http:www.culingtec.uni-leipzig.de. June 2015.
Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman, 1991.
Corley, Martin and Oliver W. Stewart. Hesitation Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech: The Meaning of um
. HESITATION DISFLUENCIES. n.p.. n.d.. http:www.homepages.ed.ac.ukmartincoffprintscs_llc.pdf. June 2015.
Davis, Boyd H. and Margaret Maclagan. Pauses, fillers, placeholders and formulaicity in
Alzheimer’s Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V, 2010. Typological Studies in Language
. https:books.google.co.idbooks. June 2015. Djohar, Winda Adeputri
. “The Equivalence and The Acceptability of the Translation of Discourse Markers In John Boyn
e‟s The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas”. Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
Elkins, Margareth. Readability in Translation. London: Routledge, 2001. Huang, Lan-Feng.
“Discourse Markers In Spoken English: A Corpus Study of Native Speakers and Chinese Non-
Native Speakers”. Graduate Thesis. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham, 2011.
Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv. “Discourse Marker: Introduction”. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory
. Ed. Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2004.
Nababan, M.R. ”Strategi Penilaian Kualitas Terjemahan” in Jurnal Linguistik Bahasa.
Vol. 2 No. 1. Mei 2004. Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret, 2004. pp.54-65. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International,
1981. Nida, Eugene and H. Taber. Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1974. Sari, Aluysia Vicka Tunjung. “The Domisticated Translation of the Terms Related to
„Tools‟ In Toer‟s This Earth of Mankind: A Study of Accuracy and Readability”. Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University, 2013.
Sparks, Nicholas. Safe Haven. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2011. Sparks, Nicholas. Suaka Cinta. Indonesian translation by Rosemary Kesauli. Jakarta:
PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2014.
