and readability of seven functions of the discourse markers found in the Sparks‟
Safe Haven . Moreover, this study is also different from the second study because
this study does not look for the accuracy and advantages of using domesticated strategy applied in the novel but the readability of the translation of all discourse
markers found in Sparks‟ novel.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theories of Translation
According to Roger T. Bell, translation is “the expression in another
language or target language of what has been expressed in another source language, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalences” 1991:5. It means a
translation is not only about transfer language and culture, but also to make the TT equivalent with the ST.
Meanwhile, according to Nida and Taber in their book: Translating consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest
natural equivalent of the target language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style 1974:12.
It means translation is a process to deliver a message from one language
SL to another language TL with the closest same meaning.
2. Theories of Equivalence
Eugene A. Nida in his book, states that translating consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language
message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style 1974:14.
According to him, there are two types of equivalence. First, formal equivalence, focuses on the meaning and both form and content of the text. It
means the translation of the structure from ST must be as close as possible to the TT. Formal equivalence is also called word-to-word translation. The example of
formal equivalence is the translation of “sliced chilli”. In Bahasa Indonesia, it is translated into potongan cabai.
The second type of equivalence is dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence focuses on the meaning and the context of the discourse. It does not
focus on the form of the sentence. For example, the sentence “It is raining cats and
dogs” is translated into Hujannya sangat deras. Thus, the translation of DMs cannot be
analyzed by Nida‟s formal equivalence. DMs cannot be translated by word-to-word translation since DMs are
not only connected to the content but the context as well. To be able to measure that the translation is equivalent, Nababan proposes
his equivalence rating instrument with some modification as to find the equivalence score of the translation in the TT. The researcher modifies the
equivalence indicator such as follows:
Score Equivalence Indicator
1 The TT has the same function as what the ST has. Regardless the
form.
2 The TT has different function as what the ST has. Regardless the
form.
Table 2.1. Table of Equivalence Indicator Modification of Nababan’s
translation quality assessment indicator
The researcher modifies the equivalence indicator because all data in this study are assessed using dynamic equivalence. Since the data are assessed using
dynamic equivalence, the form of the structure does not have to be exactly the same as the source text.
The range of the average score to measure the equivalence score proposed by Nababan is also modified. The aim of modifying the score range category is to
make it more detail than the original version.
Score Equivalence Category
1.00 – 1.50
Equivalent 1.51
– 2.00 Not Equivalent
Table 2.2. Table of Equivalence’s Score Category Modification of Nababan’s
translation quality assessment’s scale and indicator
3. Theories of Readability
Richard in Nababan 1999:62 states that readability is how people can simply understand the meaning of a text, while according to Elkins,
“readability is simply how your masterpiece is easily comprehends
” 2001:1. From the definitions above it is clear that a text is considered as readable if the reader does
not get confused when they read the text. To be able to measure that the translated text can be read and understood,
Nababan provides his readability rating instrument with some modification as to find the readable score of the translation in the TT such as follows:
