Consecutive Interpreting Analytical Construct

such TQA includes three aspects accuracy, acceptability, and readability for assessing the translation quality, this research only uses two of the three aspects accuracy and acceptability, with some modifications. The readability aspect is not included here since it is considered less appropriate to be applied in interpreting assessment. The first principle aspect in translationinterpreting is the accuracy and the second one is the acceptability Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 52. In this research, both accuracy and acceptability aspects are employed in order to assess the quality of interpreting containing some techniques of adjustment, including additions, subtractions, and alterations. In this research, the term „accuracy’ is specified into „meaning accuracy’ and the term „acceptability’ is specified into „expression acceptability’. Both aspects are explained as follows.

a. Meaning Accuracy

In terms of meaning accuracy, translation or interpreting is categorized into three categories: accurate, less accurate, and inaccurate. 1 Accurate Firstly, translation or interpreting is considered accurate if the content of the message in the source language is accurately conveyed to the target language and there is no meaning distortion Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 50. For example, the expression “I want to meet Intan” is interpreted as “Aku mau bertemu kak Intan ”, the back translation is “I want to meet kak to address an older person Intan”. The addition „kak’ in the target expression TE, which does not exist in the source expression SE, is used to address an older person required in the target language. In the source language, English, a child for example twelve years old is not required to use any proper name for addressing another older child for example fourteen years old. In other hand, the use such proper name, „kak’, is obligatory in the target language. Since the function of the addition „kak’ in the TE is not as an additional meaning, the interpreting is considered accurate. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 50, the assessment score for this category, accurate, is 3 three. 2 Less Accurate Secondly, the translation or interpreting is considered less accurate if most of the content of the message in the source language is accurately conveyed to the target language but there are some meaning distortions, meaning additions, or meaning omissions Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 50. For example, the expression “I want to read the book you are reading now” is interpreted as “Aku mau membaca buku itu”, the back translation is “I want to read that book”. In this example, although the main message in the source expression SE is accurately transferred into the target expression TE, the adjective clause “that you are reading now” in the source expression SE is deleted in the target expression TE. Consequently, the content of message in the source expression SE is not completely transferred to the target expression TE and the interpreting is considered less accurate. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 50, the assessment score for this category, less accurate, is 2 two. 3 Inaccurate Lastly, translation or interpreting is categorized as inaccurate if the content of the message in the source language is inaccurately conveyed to the target language or is deleted Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 50. For example, the expression “I cannot meet your father” is interpreted as “Aku tidak mau menemui ayahmu ”, the back translation is “I don’t want to meet your father”. In this example, the negative modal verb “cannot” in the source expression SE is changed by the negative verb “tidak mau” “don’t want” in the target expression TE. Consequently, both source expression SE and target expression TE have different purposes in which the SE shows that the speaker has a problem or another activity that makes himher cannot meet, whereas the TE shows that the speaker intentionally rejects to meet. In this example, the interpreting is considered inaccurate. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 50, the assessment score for this category, inaccurate, is 1 one.

b. Expression Acceptability

In terms of expression acceptability, translation or interpreting is categorized into three categories: acceptable, less acceptable, and unacceptable. 1 Acceptable Firstly, translation or interpreting can be considered acceptable if the translation or interpreting sounds natural; the technical terms used by the translator or interpreter sound familiar to the readers or listeners; the phrase, clause, or sentence used by the translator or interpreter is in accordance with the rules of the target language Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 51. For example, the expression “The use of monosodium glutamate endangers the human brain” is interpreted as “Penggunaan penyedap rasa pada makanan secara berlebihan bisa membahayakan otak manusia ”, the back translation is “The use of taste stimulus for foods overly can endanger the human brain”. Although there are some alterations and additions in the target expression TE, the interpreting sounds natural and there is no unfamiliar term in the target expression. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 51, the assessment score for this category, acceptable, is 3 three. 2 Less Acceptable Secondly, translation or interpreting is considered less acceptable if the translation or interpreting generally sounds natural but there are some grammatical mistakes Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 51. For example, the expression “what causes a chemical imbalance” is interpreted as “apa yang menyebabkan ketidak seimbangan daripada zat kimia”. In this example, the interpreting sounds less natural. Such expression will sound natural if it is interpreted as “apa penyebab dari ketidak seimbangan zat kimia”. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 51, the assessment score for this category, less accurate, is 2 two. 3 Unacceptable Lastly, translation or interpreting is considered unacceptable if the translation or interpreting sounds unnatural or sounds as a translation or interpreting; there are some unfamiliar technical terms; the phrase, clause, or sentence used by the translator or interpreter is not in accordance with the rules of the target language Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 51. For example, the expression “I receive no message” is interpreted as “Saya menerima tak ada pesan ”. In this example, the interpreting is categorized unacceptable since it sounds unnatural in which the target expression still uses the grammatical structure of the source language which does not correspond to the grammatical structure of the target language. Such expression will sound natural if it is interpreted as “Saya tidak menerima pesan apa pun”. Furthermore, according to Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012:51, the assessment score for this category, unacceptable, is 1 one.

8. Analytical Construct

To show the structures of ideas and to describe the way this research analyzes the phenomenon, the analytical construct was shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Analytical Construct Meaning Accuracy: - Accurate - Less Accurate - Inaccurate Expression Acceptability: - Acceptable - Less Acceptable - Unacceptable Alterations Additions Subtractions Footnotes Polysemiotic Monosemiotic Translating Interpreting Isosemiotic Diasemiotic Intralingual Interlingual Translation Intersemiotic Intrasemiotic Techniques of Adjustment Bahasa Indonesia Expressions English Expressions Target Text: Rewiring the Brain’s Bahasa Indonesia Interpreting by Reuben Supit Source Text: Rewiring the Brain by Barbara O’Neill Consecutive Simultaneous Whispered Community Conference Court Escort Media Remote Retour Relay Bilateral Sign-Language Spoken-Language Mode Setting Directionality Language Modality 57

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

A. Study Type

This research uses mixed methods as the research approaches, in which the qualitative method is the primary method and the quantitative method is the secondary one. Firstly, the role of the qualitative research in this research is to describe the techniques of adjustment used by the interpreter and to describe the accuracy and the acceptability of the interpreting produced by the interpreter using such techniques. Secondly, the role of the quantitative method in this research is to provide some statistics in order to support and strengthened the qualitative data. The statistics are used to know the frequency of the adjustment techniques used by the interpreter and to know the frequency of the accuracy and the acceptability levels.

B. Data and Data Sources

The data in this research are in the form of sentences showing that the interpreter using techniques of adjustment. The data were collected from the thirteenth session of Barbara O’Neill’s Seminar Kesehatan which has sixteen sessions. The session is entitled Rewiring the Brain. From this session, the researcher collected two data sources. The first source is the spoken utterances by Barbara O’Neill and the second source is the spoken utterances by the interpreter whose name is Reuben Supit. The first source is in English which plays role as the source text, while the second source is in Bahasa Indonesia which plays role as the target text.

C. Research Instruments

Since the primary method in this research is the qualitative method, the research instruments are designed based more on the qualitative method. According to Moleong 2009: 9, in qualitative method, the researcher plays the role as the designer, the data collector, the analyst, the data interpreter, and the reporter of the research findings. Therefore, in this research, the researcher is the main instrument whose role is to describe and explain the data. The second instrument is the data sheet used to record and classify the data. The example of the data sheet format is shown in Table 1. Table 1 . Data Sheet C o d e Dat a Techniques of Adjustment Meaning Accuracy Expression Acceptabi- lity Additions Subtractions Alterations Ac cu rat e L ess Ac cu rat e In ac cu rat e Ac ce p tabl e L ess Ac ce p tabl e Unacc ep tabl e 1 . F ill E llip E x p 2 . O bli g a to ry Sp a ce 3 . B y g ra m r estr uct 4 . Amp E x p  Im pl 5 . Ans w re tho ric 6 . Co nn ec tiv es 7 . Do ub let 1 . Repit it io ns 2 . Sp ec if ic Ref 3 . Co njunct io ns 4 . T ra ns it io na ls 5 . Vo ca ti v es 6 . F o rmula e 1 . Ca teg o ries 2 . Wo rd Cla ss 3 . Cls Snt Str uct 4 . Sem. Sg l Wo rds 5 . Sem. E x o ce nt ric S E : T E : This data sheet is used as a list of the data collected which are classified based on some classification by putting a tick √. Firstly, the classification is based on the techniques of adjustment, including: additions, subtractions, and alterations. The next classification is based the accuracy, including: accurate, less accurate, and inaccurate. The last classification is based and the acceptability, including: acceptable, less acceptable, and unacceptable. Then, the third instrument is the data questionnaire used to evaluate the accuracy and the acceptability of the interpreting produced by the interpreter in Barbara O’Neil’s Seminar Kesehatan held in September 3-8, 2012. The example of the data questionnaire is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Data Questionnaire Code Data Score of Accuracy Score of Acceptability SE: TE: Comment: Here, the respondents were asked to give scores to each datum, first in terms of accuracy and second in terms of acceptability. The scores of both accuracy and acceptability are between the numbers of 3, 2, and 1. Then, the comments are primarily given to the data which scores are between 2 and 1. The fourth instrument is the guidelines used by the respondents to fill the data questionnaire. The guidelines consist of two types of parameters adopted from Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono 2012: 39-57, with some modifications. The first one is used to assess the interpreting in terms of accuracy and the second one is in terms of acceptability. The first one, the Accuracy Assessment Scoring System, is shown in Table 3. Table 3. The Accuracy Assessment Scoring System adapted from Nababan, Nuraeni, and Sumardiono, 2012: 50 Translation Criterion Score Explanation Accurate 3 The semantic content of the message in the source expression SE is accurately conveyed into target expression TE; there is no meaning distortion. Less Accurate 2 Most of the semantic content of the message in the source expression SE is accurately conveyed into target expression TE; however, there are some meaning distortions, meaning additions, or meaning omissions. Inaccurate 1 The semantic content of the message in the source expression SE is inaccurately conveyed into target expression TE or is deleted. In Table 3, there are some accuracy parameters used as the guidelines for the respondents to evaluate the interpreting accuracy. Here, the accuracy is classified into three levels: accurate score 3, less accurate score 2, and inaccurate score 1. The second parameter, the Acceptability Assessment Scoring System, is presented in Table 4.