The Equivalence and readability of the translation of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks` Safe Haven.

xiii ABSTRACT

PAKASI, MARCELLA RUTH STEPHANIE. The Equivalence and Readability

of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2015. This study is about the equivalence and readability of the translation of Discourse Markers (DM) found in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven in the translation version Suaka Cinta. The researcher chooses to analyze this novel because it contains many informal conversations containing various DM. There are seven functions of DM that will be studied in this study. Those functions are discourse marker as discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, repair markers, and attitude markers.

There are two problems that are analyzed in this study. The first problem is the equivalence of the translation of the DMs in Safe Haven and the second problem is the readability of the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

The method applied in this study is the combination of two kinds of research. Those are the field research through questionnaire and library research. The field research is used to find out the translation equivalence and readability, while the library research is used to find the theories needed such as theories of equivalence, readability, discourse marker, translation, and so on.

There are two findings of this research. The first finding is that the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven is equivalent with the average score 1.4. It means the translation of DMs in this novel gives the same effect to the Target Language readers as the effect given to the Source Laguage readers when they read the Source Text. However, the translation of DMs in this novel turns out not only equivalent but readable as well, as the second finding of this study. The translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven is readable with the average score 1.3. It means the readers of the Target Language can understand the translation version of the novel and they do not get confused when they read the text.

xiv ABSTRAK

PAKASI, MARCELLA RUTH STEPHANIE. The Equivalence and Readability

of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2015.

Studi ini membahas mengenai kesetaraan dan keterbacaan terjemahan

Discourse Markers (Penanda Wacana) yang ditemukan dalam novel Safe Haven

karya Nicholas Sparks pada novel terjemahannya Suaka Cinta. Peneliti memutuskan untuk menganalisis novel ini sebab novel ini memiliki banyak percakapan tidak formal dengan banyak penanda wacana di dalamnya. Ada tujuh fungsi penanda wacana yang dibahas dalam studi ini. Fungsi-fungsi tersebut adalah penghubung wacana, pencari kesepakatan, pensinyalan keakraban, pengambil/pengalih hak berbicara, penanda keraguan, penanda perbaikan, dan penanda sikap.

Terdapat dua permasalahan yang dianalisis dalam studi ini. Yang pertama adalah kesetaraan terjemahan penanda wacana yang terdapat dalam novel Safe Haven, yang kedua adalah keterbacaan terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel karya Nicholas Sparks yang berjudul Safe Haven.

Metode yang diterapkan dalam studi ini adalah kombinasi dari dua jenis penelitian, yaitu studi lapangan melalui kuesioner dan studi pustaka. Studi lapangan digunakan untuk mengetahui kesetaraan dan keterbacaan terjemahan, sedangkan studi pustaka digunakan untuk mencari teori-teori yang diperlukan, seperti teori keberterimaan, keterbacaan, penanda wacana, terjemahan, dan lain-lain.

Ada dua hasil yang ditemukan dalam studi ini. Yang pertama adalah terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel Safe Haven ini ekuivalen dengan nilai rata-rata 1.4. Hal tersebut menunjukan bahwa terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel tersebut memberi efek yang sama kepada pembaca dari bahasa sasaran, sama seperti efek yang diberikan oleh teks asli kepada pembaca dari bahasa sumber. Lebih lanjut, diketahui bahwa terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel ini tidak hanya ekuivalen tetapi juga terbaca. Hal ini merupakan hasil kedua yang ditemukan dalam studi ini. Terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel Safe Haven

ini terbaca dengan nilai rata-rata 1.3. Hal tersebut menunjukan bahwa pembaca dari bahasa sasaran dapat memahami dan mengerti teks novel versi terjemahan dan mereka tidak merasa bingung saat membaca teks tersebut.

THE EQUIVALENCE AND READABILITY OF THE

TRANSLATION OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN NICHOLAS

SPARKS’

SAFE HAVEN

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

In English Letters

By

Marcella Ruth Stephanie Pakasi Student Number: 114214014

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2015

ii

THE EQUIVALENCE AND READABILITY OF THE

TRANSLATION OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN NICHOLAS

SPARKS’

SAFE HAVEN

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

In English Letters

By

Marcella Ruth Stephanie Pakasi Student Number: 114214014

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2015

v

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I certify that this undergraduate thesis contains no material which has been previously submitted for the award of any other degree at any university, and that, to the best of my knowledge, this undergraduate thesis contains no material previously written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text of the undergraduate thesis

Yogyakarta, August 26, 2015

vi

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma Nama : Marcella Ruth Stephanie Pakasi

Nomor Mahasiswa : 114214014

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul

THE EQUIVALENCE AND READABILITY OF THE TRANSLATION OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN NICHOLAS SPARKS’ SAFE HAVEN

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin kepada saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal 6 Agustus 2015 Yang menyatakan,

vii

“

The greatest

pleasure in life is

doing what others

say you cannot

do.”

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank Jesus Christ for His blessing on me during the whole process of this undergraduate thesis writing. There is nothing more beautiful than the way the ocean refuses to stop kissing the shore line, no matter how many times it is sent away. Just like His.

I also want to thank my advisor, Harris Hermansyah Setiajid, S.S., M.Hum. who never gives up on me during all this thesis writing time. My grateful thanks are also expressed to my co-advisor, Dr. Bernardine Ria Lestari, M.Sc.

My deepest gratitude goes to my parents, sisters, aunts, grandmother, and all my family for the unconditional love and support that I seriously do not dare to live my life without you guys. Thank you for always believing in me. Sorry that I can never give all of you back anything but my prayer.

Last but not least, thank you for my dearest friends, Lanny, Nina, Enji, Tio, and Muvi. Thank you for being my best companion. Thank you for the memories that will last forever. May God bless us abundantly.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... ii

APPROVAL PAGE ... iii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ... v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ... vi

MOTTO PAGE ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix

LIST OF TABLES, CHART, AND ABBREVIATIONS ... x

ABSTRACT ... xiii

ABSTRAK ... xiv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 3

C. Objective of the Study ... 3

D. Definition of Terms ... 4

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 6

A. Review of Related Studies ... 6

B. Review of Related Theories ... 8

1. Theory of Translation ... 8

2. Theory of Equivalence ... 8

3. Theory of Readability ... 10

4. Theory of Discourse Marker ... 11

C. Theoretical Framework ... 15

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... 16

A. Areas of Research ... 16

x

C. Method of the Study ... 16

D. Research Procedure ... 17

1. Types of Data ... 17

2. Data Collection ... 18

3. Population and Sample ... 19

4. Data Analysis ... 20

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 22

A. Translation Equivalence ... 23

1. Equivalent Translation ... ₂₃

2. Not Equivalent Translation ... 34

B. Readability Translation ... 42

1. Readable Translation ... ₄₂

2. Quite Readable Translation ... 49

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ... 57

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 59

APPENDICES ... 61

Appendix 1: Data and Collection ... 60

Appendix 2: Equivalence Assessment Questionaire ... 103

Appendix 3: Recapitulation of Equivalence Questionnaires ... 111

Appendix 4: Readability Assessment Questionaire ... 112

Appendix 5: Recapitulation of Readability Questionnaires ... 117

List of Tables and Charts Table 2.1. Table of Equivalence Indicator ... 9

Table 2.2. Table of Equivalence’s Score Category ... 10

Table 2.3. Table of Readability Indicator ... 11

Table 2.4. Table of Readability’s Score Category ... 11

Table 3.1. Table of Example of Data Collection ... 19

Table 3.2. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Equivalence ... 20

Table 3.3. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Readability ... 20

xi

Chart 4.2. The Distribution of Respondents’ Equivalence Average Score ... 40

Chart 4.3. Equivalence Category of Discourse Marker ... 41

Chart 4.4. Readability Average Score ... 53

Chart 4.5. The Distribution of Respondents’ Readability Average Score ... 54

Chart 4.6. Readability Category of Discourse Marker ... 55

List of Abbreviations ATT : Attitude Marker CON : Connector

CS : Confirmation-Seekers DM : Discourse Marker

HES : Hesitation Markers/Fillers IS : Intimacy-Signals

R1 : Respondent 1 R2 : Respondent 2 R3 : Respondent 3 R4 : Respondent 4 R5 : Respondent 5 R6 : Respondent 6 R7 : Respondent 7 R8 : Respondent 8 R9 : Respondent 9 R10 : Respondent 10 REP : Repetition Marker SL : Source Language ST : Source Text

xii TL : Target Language

TS : Topic-Switchers TT : Target Text

xiii ABSTRACT

PAKASI, MARCELLA RUTH STEPHANIE. The Equivalence and Readability of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2015. This study is about the equivalence and readability of the translation of Discourse Markers (DM) found in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven in the translation version Suaka Cinta. The researcher chooses to analyze this novel because it contains many informal conversations containing various DM. There are seven functions of DM that will be studied in this study. Those functions are discourse marker as discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, repair markers, and attitude markers.

There are two problems that are analyzed in this study. The first problem is the equivalence of the translation of the DMs in Safe Haven and the second

problem is the readability of the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

The method applied in this study is the combination of two kinds of research. Those are the field research through questionnaire and library research. The field research is used to find out the translation equivalence and readability, while the library research is used to find the theories needed such as theories of equivalence, readability, discourse marker, translation, and so on.

There are two findings of this research. The first finding is that the

translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven is equivalent with the average score 1.4. It means the translation of DMs in this novel gives the same effect to the Target Language readers as the effect given to the Source Laguage readers when they read the Source Text. However, the translation of DMs in this novel turns out not only equivalent but readable as well, as the second finding of this study. The translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven is readable with the average score 1.3. It means the readers of the Target Language can understand the translation version of the novel and they do not get confused when they read the text.

xiv ABSTRAK

PAKASI, MARCELLA RUTH STEPHANIE. The Equivalence and Readability of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Nicholas Sparks’ Safe Haven.

Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2015.

Studi ini membahas mengenai kesetaraan dan keterbacaan terjemahan

Discourse Markers (Penanda Wacana) yang ditemukan dalam novel Safe Haven

karya Nicholas Sparks pada novel terjemahannya Suaka Cinta. Peneliti memutuskan untuk menganalisis novel ini sebab novel ini memiliki banyak percakapan tidak formal dengan banyak penanda wacana di dalamnya. Ada tujuh fungsi penanda wacana yang dibahas dalam studi ini. Fungsi-fungsi tersebut adalah penghubung wacana, pencari kesepakatan, pensinyalan keakraban, pengambil/pengalih hak berbicara, penanda keraguan, penanda perbaikan, dan penanda sikap.

Terdapat dua permasalahan yang dianalisis dalam studi ini. Yang pertama adalah kesetaraan terjemahan penanda wacana yang terdapat dalam novel Safe Haven, yang kedua adalah keterbacaan terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel karya Nicholas Sparks yang berjudul Safe Haven.

Metode yang diterapkan dalam studi ini adalah kombinasi dari dua jenis penelitian, yaitu studi lapangan melalui kuesioner dan studi pustaka. Studi lapangan digunakan untuk mengetahui kesetaraan dan keterbacaan terjemahan, sedangkan studi pustaka digunakan untuk mencari teori-teori yang diperlukan, seperti teori keberterimaan, keterbacaan, penanda wacana, terjemahan, dan lain-lain.

Ada dua hasil yang ditemukan dalam studi ini. Yang pertama adalah terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel Safe Haven ini ekuivalen dengan nilai rata-rata 1.4. Hal tersebut menunjukan bahwa terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel tersebut memberi efek yang sama kepada pembaca dari bahasa sasaran, sama seperti efek yang diberikan oleh teks asli kepada pembaca dari bahasa sumber. Lebih lanjut, diketahui bahwa terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel ini tidak hanya ekuivalen tetapi juga terbaca. Hal ini merupakan hasil kedua yang ditemukan dalam studi ini. Terjemahan penanda wacana dalam novel Safe Haven

ini terbaca dengan nilai rata-rata 1.3. Hal tersebut menunjukan bahwa pembaca dari bahasa sasaran dapat memahami dan mengerti teks novel versi terjemahan dan mereka tidak merasa bingung saat membaca teks tersebut.

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Language takes a very important role in our life. We use language every day to communicate with other people, to share our stories, to convey our thoughts, and so on. Language is a medium of communication in both oral and verbal used by people in a particular region.

In every part of the world, people speak different languages. For example, people in United States use English in their everyday conversations while in Indonesia, people use Bahasa Indonesia to communicate with each other. Thus, when there is a communication between two different languages, sometimes it gives some difficulties in understanding the meaning and ideas from one language to another.

In such circumstances a translator is needed. Roger T. Bell in his book states that: a translator is a “bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication participants in two different language communities” (1991:15). It means a translator is the mediator and able to understand the languages that are going to be translated and also to transfer the ideas from one language to another. Newmark in his book states that: “both written message and statement in one language must be translated into another language with the same meaning” (1981:7). Therefore, a translator does not only translate the text from the source text (ST) into the target text (TT), but he also has to transfer the ideas of the text

itself, so the TT readers will completely understand and have the same understanding and they will have the same impact as ST readers will when they read the ST. It means the translation should be equivalent.

According to Bell, translating a text should “preserve semantic and stylistic equivalences” (1991:5). Eugene Nida divides equivalence into two types; formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence focuses on the message, both form and content while dynamic equivalence focuses on the meaning of a text seen from the context of the discourse itself.

Discourse marker is an example related to context. Discourse marker (DM) is word(s) or phrase(s) that is used to direct or redirect the flow of conversations and has no particular grammatical function and syntactically independent (Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, 2004:117).

In translating the DM in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven, the translator tries to find the most equivalent translation. For example:

ST

John : "Hey, Katie. How are you?"

Katie : "I'm fine. And yourself?" (Original version, 2011:49-50) TT

John : "Hai, Katie. Apa kabar?"

Katie : "Aku baik. Dan kau sendiri?" (The translation version, 2010:75) In the example, the DM and in the ST is translated into dan in TT. The translator might think that the translation above is an equivalent translation because both of the DMs and and dan in both texts are used to connect the prior discourse with the recent discourse.

The example shows how a translated text can be equivalent seen from the context of the discourse. However, there are some translations that are considered as equivalent but not readable. Therefore, this study wants to analyze whether the translation of the DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven are equivalent and readable or not.

The novel entitled Safe Haven which is written by Nicholas Sparks contains many informal conversations using discourse markers; therefore the researcher chooses to use this novel as the source of the data. The language used in this novel is easy to understand and there are many daily conversations using discourse markers. There are also some untranslated English DMs found in this novel that makes the researcher interested in analyzing the equivalence and readability of those discourse markers.

B. Problem Formulation

Thus, the problems are formulated as follows:

1. How equivalent is the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven? 2. How readable is the translation of DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven?

C. Objectives of the Study

There are some aims that this research wants to achieve. The first aim is to analyze whether the translations of DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven is equivalent with the Indonesian version which is titled Suaka Cinta or not. The

second aim is to find out whether the translations of DMs in Nicholas Sparks‟

Safe Haven is readable or not.

D. Definition of Terms

According to Roger T. Bell, translator is a “bilingual mediating agent between monolingual communication participants in two different language

communities” (1991:15). It means a translator should be the mediator and be able

to understand the languages that are going to be translated and also be able to transfer the ideas from one language to another.

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

translation is not only about transfer language, but also to make the TT equivalent with the ST.

Eugene A. Nida 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). Based on

Nida‟s theory, there are two types of equivalence. First is formal equivalence, in which its focus is the message on both form and content of the text. The second is dynamic equivalence, in which it focuses not only on the structure but also on the meaning from the context of the discourse itself.

According to Richard, “readability is how people can simply understand the meaning of a text. Margareth Elkins in her book, states that 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.

According to Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, discourse marker is a word(s) or phrase(s) that is used to direct or redirect the flow of conversations and has no particular grammatical function and syntactically independent.

6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Review of Related Studies

There are two related studies done by other researchers on similar topic. The first study is related to the translation of discourse markers done by Winda

Adeputri Djohar (2012) entitled “The Equivalence and The Acceptability of The Translation of Discourse Markers in John Boyne‟s The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”. In this study, Djohar explains about five out of ten functions of

discourse markers as stated by Andreas H. Jucker in his book Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Those functions are discourse marker as discourse connector, turn-takers, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, prompters, repair markers, attitude markers, and hedging devices. However, in this study, Djohar only chooses the first five functions of discourse marker as her focus. She also gives an analysis of the data found in the translation of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. The analysis does not come only from Djohar herself, but also from other people as the correspondents of her questionnaires to assess the equivalence and acceptability of the translation of discourse markers as her focus on her study.

The second study is conducted by Aluysia Vicka Tunjung Sari (2013)

entitled “The Domesticated Translation of the Terms Related to “Tools” in Toer‟s

This Earth of Mankind: A Study of Accuracy and Readability”. In this study, Sari

English version of Pramoedya Ananta Toer‟s novel The Earth of Mankind. She assesses those terms by the accuracy and readability to find the advantages of

applying such domesticated strategy in Toer‟s novel. It results that there are two

advantages of applying the domesticated strategy in Toer‟s The Earth of Mankind; the first is it enables the readers to comprehend the text easily and second; it minimizes the unfamiliarity of foreign text. From the readability aspect, she

mentions that the domesticated strategy applied in Toer‟s The Earth of Mankind

makes the terms can be understood easily, even though some terms are still considered as not quite readable due to the fact that there are still some foreign terms.

In this thesis, the researcher focuses on the translation of discourse

markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ novel Safe Haven in order to find out whether the translation of the discourse are equivalent and readable or not. The researcher chooses seven out of ten functions of discourse marker as stated by Andreas H. Jucker in his book “Discourse Marker: Introduction”. Discourse Markers:

Descriptions and Theory. Those seven functions are discourse marker as discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, repair markers, and attitude markers. The researcher assessed the translation based on the readability and equivalence indicator purposed by Nababan with some modifications in it. This study is different from the previous study done by Djohar because she discussed the equivalence and acceptability of the translation of discourse markers. She only discussed five out of ten functions of discourse markers while this study discusses the equivalence

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:

Table 2.3. Table of Readability Indicator (Nababan, 2004:54-65, with modification)

The average score to measure the readability score proposed by Nababan is as follows:

Score Readability Criterion

1 – 1.6 Readable

1.7 – 2.3 Quite Readable 2.4 – 3 Not Readable

Table 2.4. Table of Readability’s Score Indicator (Nababan, 2004:54-65, with modification)

4. Theories of Discourse Marker

Discourse marker is a word(s) or phrase(s) 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) It means that discourse marker should be analyzed on the level of a disourse rather than a sentence.

According to them, there are ten functions of discourse marker; discourse connector, turn-takers, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers,

Score Readability Criterion

Readability Indicator

1 Readable

Text is easy to read and can be understood by the reader.

2 Quite Readable

Text is not easy to be understood, indicated by ambigous meaning.

hesitation markers/fillers, prompters, repair markers, attitude markers, and hedging devices.

Winda Adeputri Djohar in her undergraduate thesis, “The Equivalence and The Acceptability of The Translation of Discourse Markers in John Boyne‟s The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas”, explains some of the functions as follow:

1. Confirmation-seekers : markers that are used by the speaker to confirm what he has said, such as isn’t it?, right?, okay?, etc.

2. Intimacy-signal : words that are used by the speakers and other participants as to show the closeness among them, such as names, babe, love, daddy, etc.

3. Topic-switchers : discourse markers which are used by the speaker to change or switch the topic from the previous topic into another topic.

4. Discourse connector : connecting the prior discourse and the current utterance, such as so and therefore. (Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv, 2004:2)

Other explanations from some resources explain the other funtions as follow:

1. Attitude marker : markers that are used to “make a comment on the

message conveyed by a speaker or writer.”

(legacy.australianetwork.com)

2. Repair marker : markers that are used “when speakers need to repair, correct or edit their utterance in the process of having a

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 markers/fillers : 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

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, becauseshe never answers me.” “I told her I wanted to sleep, soshe went home.”

“My fishing line got snagged on the boat as it was pulling out, and I

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 : “Becauseit‟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 word(s) or phrase(s) 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 researcher‟s assessment on equivalence and readability of the translation of DMs which were based on the theories of

equivalence and readability. There were 25 samples chosen to be assessed in the equivalence and readability questionnaires. Equivalence questionnaires were distributed to three respondents (the respondents should mastered both English and Bahasa Indonesia) and readability questionnaires were distributed to ten respondents (the respondents came from different range of ages, and should not understand English). The respondents were chosen based on their ages, starting from 18-46 years old. This range of age is based on the criteria of

the readers of Nicholas Sparks‟s Safe Haven which is from late teenage until adult. The background of the respondents are vary such as students and workers.

2. Data Collection

The researcher read and reread the original book to understand the content of the book. Then, the researcher identified the DMs on the original book. After that the researcher reread the original book to make sure all the DMs had been identified.

All the DMs in the ST that had been identified were typed. The researcher gave code to each datum. The code consisted of the number of the datum and the page where the datum was found. After that, the researcher found the translation of those DMs in the translation book. The researcher typed all the translation of the DMs in the column on the right side of ST data and gave code to each datum. The code given to the data of the translation of DMs had the same format as the code given to each data in the ST. The data will be arraged in the table as follows:

No

Data Source Text

No

Data Target Text

1//5// REP

"I had a bad experience once," Katie said. "Dating a guy from work, I mean. Since then, I've kind of made it a rule not to do it again."

1//18// REP

"Aku pernah punya

pengalaman buruk, kata Katie. "Maksudku, berkencan dengan cowok teman kerjaku. Sejak itu, sudah jadi prinsipku untuk tidak melakukannya lagi."

Table 3.1. Table of Example of Data Collection

The code on the Source Text meant it was the datum number 1 and it was found on page 5 on the original book. Meanwhile the code on the Target Text meant it was the data number 1 and it was found on page 18 on the translation book.

3. Population and Sample

The populations of this study were discourse markers found in Nicholas

Sparks‟ Save Haven. The total population of the data in this novel was 157 data. The population was divided into 7 functions of DM which were discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, repair markers, and attitude markers. Samples were taken for the questionnaires since the data are many. Purposive sampling was done in order to get at least one datum for each function of DMs. The samples were taken using some steps, those were found out the DMs that were included in that function, analyzed the translations of those DMs, chose at least one datum of each function and put it on the questionnaires. The researcher got 25 total samples for both equivalence and readability assessment; 13 samples of DMs as discourse

connector, 4 samples of hesitation marker/fillers, 2 samples of repair marker, 2 samples of attitude marker, 2 samples of topic-switcher, 1 samples of intimacy-signals, 1 samples of confirmation seeker.

The table below was an example of the questionnaire of equivalence: No

Data Source Text

No

Data Target Text

Score

1 2

1//5

"I had a bad experience once," Katie said. "Dating a guy from work, I mean. Since then, I've kind of made it a rule not to do it again."

1//18

"Aku pernah punya pengalaman buruk, kata Katie. "Maksudku, berkencan dengan cowok teman kerjaku. Sejak itu, sudah jadi prinsipku untuk tidak

melakukannya lagi." Table 3.2. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Equivalence The table below was an example of the questionnaire of readability and there was no need to write the ST:

No Data Target Text Score

1 2 3

3//25

"Kupikir juga begitu," Jo melanjutkan. "Butuh waktu untuk terbiasa dengan Southport. Maksudku, aku selalu menyukainya, tapi aku memang penyuka kota-kota kecil."

Table 3.3. Table of Example of The Questionnaire of Readability

4. Data Analysis

There were two steps used in order to answer the problem formulations in the study. In order to answer the first problem, the researcher listed all the DMs found in both original and translated novel in table. Then, the data will be

assessed on the questionnaires by using Nababan‟s equivalence rating instrument with some modification.

Second, in order to answer the second problem, the researcher distributed questionnaires of readability. The data on the readability questionnaires were the same as the data on the equivalence questionnaires. The data on the questionnaires

will be assessed using Nababan‟s equivalence rating instrument with some

22

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

There are 7 functions of Discourse Marker that are studied in this study. Those 7 functions are discourse connector, confirmation-seekers, intimacy-signals, topic-switchers, hesitation markers/fillers, repair markers, and attitude markers. The researcher found 157 data of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟

Safe Haven. Those data included 75 data of DMs as dicourse connector, 27 data as hesitation markers/fillers, 17 data as repair markers, 12 data as attitude markers, 10 data as topic switcher, 9 data as intimacy-signals, and 7 data as confirmation-seekers.

The data are collected and assessed in order to find out whether the

translations of discourse markers in Nicholas Sparks‟ Safe Haven are equivalent and readable or not. The assessment of equivalence is based on the equivalence indicator which is based on the theory of dynamic equivalence proposed by Nida in which it focuses not only on the structure but also on the meaning from the context of the discourse itself. The assessment of readability is based on the readability indicator proposed by Nababan which is based on Richard‟s theory that readability is how people can simply understand the meaning of a text. (Richard in Nababan, 1999:62)

Questionnaires of equivalence and readability were distributed to thirteen respondents in order to get a valid data. However, the researcher will also assess the samples of both equivalence and readability. Researcher distributed the

equivalence questionnaires to three respondents and readability questionnaires to ten respondents.

In this chapter, the analysis will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss about equivalence, while the second part discusses about the readability.

A. Translation Equivalence

There are 25 samples that are assessed in this part. The result for the equivalent assessment is 1.4 which is categorized as equivalent translation. This part is divided into two parts, which are equivalent translation and not equivalent translation.

1. Equivalent Translation a. Discourse Connector

From the total 25 samples, there are thirteen samples which are considered as discourse connector. From those thirteen samples of discourse connector, there are eight samples considered as equivalent translations.

For the equivalent translation, there are three data which are given score 1 by all three respondents. Those data are 12//12-13//CON, 16//30//CON, and 113//122//CON. The tables below are the table of those three samples with the analysis for each datum:

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

12//ST// 12-13//CON

"So what brought you to Southport? I'm sure it wasn't the exciting career potential at Ivan's. Do you have any family around here? Parents? Brothers or sisters?"

12//TT// 28//CON

"Jadi, kenapa kau pindah ke Southport? Tentunya bukan karena potensi karier di Resto Ivan, kan? Apa kau punya keluarga di sekitar sini? Orangtua? Kakak atau adik?" "No," Katie said. "Just me." "Tidak," kata Katie.

"Hanya aku."

"Following a boyfriend?" "Mengikuti pacarmu?"

"No." "Tidak."

"So you just... moved here?"

"Jadi kau pindah kemari begitu saja?"

"Yes." "Ya."

The average score for the datum above is 1, which means the translation is considered as an equivalent translation. As shown in the datum above, the DM so

is translated into jadi in the TL. This datum is equivalent because so in SL is translated into jadi in TL in which both of so and jadi are used to connect the recent discourse to the prior discourse in which someone asked Katie the reason why she moved to Southport. Therefore, this datum is equivalent and all respondents also give score 1 to this datum. There are two other data with similar analysis and the same average score.

The same with the previous data, this datum is considered as equivalent with the average score 1.3. Different from the previous data in which all respondents give score 1 (equivalent) to the datum, one respondent (R1) gives score 2 (not equivalent) and only the rest two respondents give score 1 to this datum.

No

Data Source Language No Data Target Language

22//ST //35 //CON

"I want to thank you for what you did."

22//TT// 55-56//CON

"Aku ingin berterima kasih atas apa yang kaulakukan." "I didn't do anything," she

protested.

"Aku tidak melakukan apa-apa," protes Katie.

"Yes," he said. "You did. Had you not been looking at the monitor, I wouldn't have known what was happening. I might not have reached him in time. And also, thank you for taking care of Kristen. She's the sweetest thing in the world, but she's sensitive. I'm glad you didn't leave her alone. Even when we had to go up and change."

"Ya," kata Alex. "Kau berjasa. Seandainya kau tidak mengawasi monitor, aku tidak akan tahu apa yang terjadi. Aku mungkin terlambat menolongnya. Selain itu, terima kasih karena sudah menjaga Kristen. Ia gadis kecil yang sangat manis, tapi ia

sensitif. Aku lega kau tidak meninggalkannya sendirian. Bahkan saat kami berganti pakaian."

As shown in the table above, the DM and also in SL is translated into

selain itu in TL. Two out of three respondents give score 1 (equivalent) to this datum. However, one respondent (R1) give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum. R1 thinks the DM and also in SL should be translated as oh ya in TL because if it is translated into selain itu as in the SL, it sounds less familiar in daily conversation in the TL.

However, this datum is still considered as an equivalent translation because both the DM and also and its translation selain itu are used to connect the discourse with the prior discourse. Moreover, selain itu in Bahasa Indonesia is used when someone is talking to other person whose relation is not too close to each other. Meanwhile oh ya as suggested by R1 is commonly used in daily conversation when the speakers have a close relationship or when the speakers are

younger than the other speakers. The average score for this datum is 1.3 which means this datum is equivalent.

b. Confirmation Seekers

Confirmation seekers are markers that are used by the speaker to confirm what he has said. From the total 25 samples, there is only one DM as confirmation seekers.

This datum is considered as an equivalent translation since the average score for this datum is 1. It means all the respondents give score 1 to this datum. As shown as in the table below, the DM okay in SL is translated into ya in TL. The translation is equivalent because the context of using okay in ST as to asking for an agreement with the other speaker is also translated into the same context in TL by using ya. Therefore this datum is equivalent and got score 1 as the average score.

c. Intimacy Signals

Intimacy signals are the DMs used by the speaker and other participants to show the closeness among them. From the total 25 samples, there is one sample there are considered as intimacy signals.

No

Data Source Language

No

Data Target Language 62//ST//

83//CS

"But no more freebies, okay? You've done more than enough for me already."

62//TT// 115//CS

"Tapi jangan ada lagi barang gratis, ya. Kau sudah melakukan banyak hal buatku."

As shown in the table above, the word sweetie in ST is translated into

sayang in TT. This datum is equivalent because sweetie in SL is used to address someone special with a close relationship. As in the table above, the speaker

(Daddy) responds the other participant‟s request (his daughter) with the DM

sweetie to show their close-relationship between a father and daughter. The same thing happens in daily conversation in TL culture. Parents usually address their children sayang as to show their endearment towards the children. Therefore, this datum is equivalent and get 1 (equivalent) for the average score.

d. Topic-Switchers

DM as topic-switchers is used by the speaker to change or switch the topic from the previous topic into another topic. From the total 25 samples, there are two data as topic-switcher. From those data, only one datum is considered equivalent translation with 1.3 for the average score.

No

Data Source Language

No

Data Target Language

14//ST// 13//TS

"Makes sense to me. Sometimes starting over is exactly what a person needs. And I think it's admirable. A lot of people don't have the courage it takes to do something like that." "You think so?"

14//TT// 28//TS

"Menurutku masuk akal. Kadang-kadang seseorang butuh memulai segalanya dari awal. Menurutku itu mengagumkan. Banyak orang tidak punya keberanian melakukan sesuatu seperti itu." No

Data Source Language

No

Data Target Language 77//ST//

89//IS

"Hey, Daddy?" she asked. "Can we get the barbecue

started? I'm really hungry." 77//TT// _125//IS

"Hei, Daddy," katanya. "Kita mulai berbekyunya yuk, aku lapar banget." "Sure, sweetie." "Tentu, Sayang."

"I know so," she said. "So, what's on your agenda today? While I'm whining and unpacking and cleaning until my hands are raw."

"Menurutmu begitu?" "Jelas," kata Jo. "Jadi apa rencanamu hari ini? Sementara aku

menggerutu, mengeluarkan barang-barang, dan bersih-bersih rumah sampai tanganku perih."

As shown in the table above, the DM so in the SL is translated into jadi in TL. The average score for this datum is 1.3 (equivalent). Two out of three respondents give score 1 (equivalent) to this datum. However, one respondent (R1) give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum. According to R1, jadi in SL is not necessary and it should be omitted.

However, this datum is equivalent because jadi in TL has the same function with so in SL, which is to change the topic from the current topic (talking

about Jo agrees with Katie‟s previous discourse) into another topic (Jo asks Katie

about Katie‟s agenda at that day). In contradiction with R1, the researcher gives score 1 to this datum because if jadi was omitted in TL, the conversation would not run as smooth as it is.

The function of jadi in the table above is different from jadi in the previous datum as discourse connector. Eventhough so is translated into jadi in both data, but their functions are different. Jadi in the previous datum is used as a discourse connector, while jadi in the datum above is used as a topic-switcher.

e. Hesitation Markers/Fillers

Hesitation markers/fillers are markers that are used to mark a hesitation on the part of the speaker. When the speaker uses this marker, he indicates that he is thinking about what he is going to say. From the total 25 samples, there are four data that are considered as hesitation markers. Only two of them are considered as equivalent translations. Those are the data number 68//ST//83//HES and 7//TT//12//HES.

No

Data Source Language No Data Target Language

68//ST// 83//HES

"That's the thing about life. A lot of the time, it isn't easy at all. We just have to try to make the best of it. Do you know what I mean?"

68//TT// 116//HES

"Hidup memang seperti itu. Seringnya memang tidak mudah. Kita hanya perlu berusaha melakukan yang terbaik. Kau paham kan maksudku?"

"Yeah," she said. "I think I do."

"Yeah," kata Katie. "Kurasa aku paham."

As shown in the table above, the DM yeah in SL is not translated and only rewritten in the ST. Two out of three respondents give score 1 (equivalent) to this datum and one respondent (R1) give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum. R1 thinks the translation yeah is better to be translated into baiklah since baiklah is commonly used in daily conversation in TL.

However, this datum is equivalent because yeah in both texts are used to give respond to the previous discourse (as discourse connector) and also as a pause/break before the speaker continue her next utterance (as hesitation

marker/filler). The DM yeah in this conversation indicates that the speaker is uncertain about what she is going to respond to the previous discourse. In this conversation, the DM yeah gives some times for the speaker to think and formulate the next utterance that she is going to say. Thus, this datum is equivalent and get score 1.3 (equivalent) for the average score.

The same with the previous datum, the average score for the following datum is also 1.3 (equivalent).

No

Data Source Language

No

Data Target Language

7//ST// 12//HES

"No, but it's a small town and Ivan's is an institution. Besides, the longer you live here, the more you'll understand that there are no such things as secrets in this place. Everyone knows everyone's business, and some people, like, let's say... Melody... have raised gossip to an art form. It used to drive me crazy. Of course, half the people in Southport are the same way. There isn't much to do around here but gossip."

7//TT// 27// HES

"Tidak, tapi ini kota kecil dan resto Ivan sudah terkenal dari dulu. Selain itu, semakin lama kau tinggal di sini, kau akan semakin paham bahwa tidak ada rahasia di tempat ini. Semua orang tahu urusan orang lain, dan beberapa orang, seperti, katakanlah... Melody... sudah

menganggap gosip sebagai karya seni. Dulu itu

membuatku gila. Tentu saja, separuh penduduk Southport seperti itu. Tidak banyak yang bisa dilakukan di sini kecuali bergosip."

As shown in the table above, the DM like in SL is translated into seperti in TL.

Two out of three respondents give score 1 (equivalent) to this datum and 1 respondent (R1) gives score 2 (not equivalent). R1 thinks the DM like will be better to be translated into kayak in TL. The researcher agrees with R1 to use the word kayak instead of seperti because kayak is commonly used in daily

conversation in TL culture, eventhough some people also use seperti. Both like

and seperti in the SL and TL show that the speaker is thinking before she continues her utterance. It indicates the speaker needs some time to think and formulate what she wants to say next. Thus, this datum is equivalent with the score 1.3 for the average score.

f. Repair Marker

As mentioned earlier, repair marker is used when the speaker needs to repair, correct or edit their utterance in the process of having a conversation. From the total 25 samples, there are two data as repair markers.

No

Data Source Language

No

Data Target Language

1//ST// 5//REP

"I had a bad experience once," Katie said. "Dating a guy from work, I mean. Since then, I've kind of made it a rule not to do it again."

1//TT// 18//REP

"Aku pernah punya pengalaman buruk, kata Katie. "Maksudku, berkencan dengan cowok teman kerjaku. Sejak itu, sudah jadi prinsipku untuk tidak melakukannya lagi." The average score for the datum above is 1, which means the translation is considered as an equivalent translation. As shown in the datum above, the DM I mean is translated into maksudku in the TL. This datum is equivalent because I mean in SL is translated into maksudku in TL in which both of I mean and

maksudku are used to repair the speaker‟s earlier utterance (“I had a bad

experience once,...”) to the next utterance (“Dating a guy from work,...”). Therefore, this datum is equivalent and all respondents also give score 1 to this datum.

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

121//ST// 134//REP

"Maybe we'll come in and bother you again."

"You didn't bother me at all." She peered at him over the top of her wineglass. "Well, the kids didn't bother me, anyway. As I recall, you were complaining about the quality of service."

121//TT// 177//REP

"Mungkin kami akan datang dan

mengganggumu lagi." "Kalian tidak

menggangguku sama sekali." Katie menatap Alex dari balik gelas anggur. "Well, yang jelas anak-anak tidak

menggangguku.

Seingatku kau mengeluh soal kualitas pelayanan kami."

This datum is equivalent and got 1.3 (equivalent) for the average score. In the ST, the DM well is used to repair the previous utterance said by the speaker (“You didn’t bother me at all.”). The speaker repairs her previous utterance with the next utterance (“...The kids didn’t bother me, anyway,...”). By using the word

well in both SL and TL, the current discourse are being connected and repaired. However, R1 thinks well should be translated into dong instead because if it is rewritten only, there will be redundancy to the discourse. As an additional information, DM well is not only used as repair marker. Well can also be used as topic switcher as well. For example, A and B are discussing the C‟s new car and

A suddenly change the conversation by asking A the utterance like, “Well, do you have any plan tonight?”.

g. Attitude Marker

Attitude markers are used to make a comment on the message conveyed by a speaker or writer. From the total 25 samples, there are two data as attitude markers but only one datum that is considered as an equivalent translation.

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

41//ST// 57//ATT

She glanced at the total on the register. "Are you sure you rang them up?"

41//TT// 84//ATT

Katie melirik jumlah total di mesin kasir. "Apa kau yakin kau sudah

menghitung sayur-sayurannya?" "Of course." "Tentu saja." "Because the total isn't any

more than it usually is."

"Karena jumlah totalnya sepertinya masih seperti biasanya."

"I gave you the introductory price."

"Aku memberimu harga perkenalan."

As shown in the table above, the DM of course in ST is translated into

tentu saja in TT. This datum is given score 1 (equivalent) by two respondents and score 2 (not equivalent) by one respondent (R2). However, this datum is equivalent because both of of course and tentu sajaare used to show the speaker‟s

comment on the utterance previously spoken by the other participant. The word of course in SL shows that the speaker is sure about his answer to the other

participant‟s question in the previous discourse.

As mentioned previously, DM as attitude marker shows the speaker attitude on the utterance conveyed by the other participants. It can be in the form of apology, agreement/disagreement, opinion, and also the way the speaker expresses a strong believe or opinion. In this datum, the DMs of course in SL and

believe of his answer (“Of course.”) to the other participant‟s question ("Are you sure you rang them up?"). The speaker is sure that his calculation is right. The same function happens to the translation text. Therefore, this datum is equivalent and get score 1.3 (equivalent) for the average score.

2. Not Equivalent Translation a. Discourse Connector

From the total 25 samples, there are five not equivalent translations of discourse connector. There are four data with score 1.7 (not equivalent) for the average score and one datum with score 2 for the average score.

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

52//ST// 71//CON

"Are you okay?" Jo asked.

52//TT// 101//CON

"Apa kau baik-baik saja?" tanya Jo.

"I'm fine," Katie answered. "I was just thinking that I'm glad you came over."

"Ya," jawab Katie. "Aku senang sekali kau datang." Jo peered at her. "I think

you might be tipsy." "I think you might be right," Katie agreed. "Well, okay then. What do you want to do? Since you're obviously tipsy and ready for fun."

Jo mengamati wajahnya. "Kurasa kau sedikit mabuk." "Kurasa kau benar," Katie setuju.

"Well, baiklah kalau begitu. Apa yang ingin kaulakukan? Karena kau sedikit mabuk dan siap untuk bersenang-senang."

The average score for the datum above is 1.7, which means this datum is not equivalent. R1 and R2 give score 2 (not equivalent) while R3 give score 1 (equivalent) for this datum. This datum is not equivalent because if then is translated into kalau begitu like in the TL, it sounds too formal for the daily conversation in the TL. The researcher and R1 agree that the DM then is better to be omitted and not to be translated in order to make it sounds more natural as a common respond in TL culture.

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

24//ST// 39//CON

"I went shopping."

24//TT// 61//CON

"Aku pergi belanja." "I can tell. Did you find

anything you liked?"

"Kelihatan. Apa kau menemukan barang yang kau sukai?"

"Kurasa begitu," Katie mengaku.

"Well, jangan duduk saja dong,tunjukkan padaku belanjaanmu."

"I think so," Katie confessed.

"Well, don't just sit there, show me what you bought."

As shown in the table above, the DM well in the TL is rewritten in the TL. All of the three respondents give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum. This datum is not equivalent because in the TL there are two translations of DM, those are well and dong. The use of “double” translations makes the discourse in TL gives different effect to the TL readers. In TL, the utterance spoken by the speaker gives the effect as if she forced too much to the other participant. The researcher and R1‟s suggestion is to translate the word well into kalau begitu and to omit the word dong.

b. Topic-Switchers

From the total 25 samples, there is one datum of DM as topic-switchers considered as not equivelent.

No Data Source Language No Data Target Language

37//ST// 45-46//TS

Katie thought about that. "Just so we're clear, I'm officially taking back my offer to help you paint your house."

37//TT// 69//TS

Katie merenungkan hal itu. "Perlu kugarisbawahi, aku menarik tawaranku

membantumu mengecat rumah."

"You already said you'd do it."

"Kau sudah bilang kau akan melakukannya." "I know, but I'm taking

back the offer."

"Aku tahu, tapi aku menarik kembali tawaran itu."

Jo laughed. "Okay," she said. "Hey, what are you doing tonight?"

Jo tertawa. "Oke,"

katanya. "Hei, kau ngapain nanti malam?"

As shown in the table above, the DM hey in SL is translated into hei in TL. R1 and R3 give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum while R2 give score 1 (equivalent). This datum is not equivalent because the translation of DM hei in TL sounds not familiar and not natural in the TL culture. In the TL culture, people will commonly use another word to switch a topic in such conversation, like, eh or

ngomong-ngomong, for example, instead of hei

.

Changing the translation of the DM hey from hei into eh is the alternative translation suggested by the researcher. Therefore, this datum is not equivalent and got score 1.7 for the average score.

c. Hesitation Markers / Fillers

From the total 25 samples, there are two data of DM as hesitation markers/fillers considered as not equivalent.

No

Data Source Language No Data Target Language

23//ST //38//

HES

Katie reached the porch and put the bags down. "Where've you been?"

23//TT// 60//HES

Katie ke beranda dan menaruh barang-barang belanjaannya. "Kau dari mana saja?"

Jo shrugged. "You know how it goes. Late nights, early mornings, going here and there. Half the time, I feel like I'm being pulled in every direction."

She motioned to the rockers. "You mind? I need a break. I've been cleaning all

morning and I just hung that thing. I like the sound, you know."

Jo mengangkat bahu."Kau tahu sendirilah. Pulang larut, pergi pagi-pagi, ke sana kemari. Aku sering merasa ditarik ke berbagai arah."

Jo menunjuk kursi goyang. "Kau keberatan tidak? Aku perlu istirahat. Aku

membersihkan rumah sepagian ini dan baru saja menggantung benda itu. Aku suka bunyinya, kau tahu."

As shown in the table above, the DM you know in SL is translated into kau tahu in TL. There are two respondents who give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum and one respondent gives score 1 (equivalent).

This datum is not equivalent because in SL culture, the use of DM you know is very common in a conversation. It is also commonly placed at the end of a sentence. On the other hand, in the TL culture people do not use kau tahu at the final position of an utterance. It is commonly used in the beginning of an utterance. For example, people in TL culture will say “Kamu tahu aku suka

bunyinya.”, instead of “Aku suka bunyinya, kau tahu.” as written in the TT. The average score for this datum is 1.7, which means this datum is not equivalent. d. Attitude Markers

From the total 25 samples, there is one datum of DM as attitude markers considered as not equivalent.

No Data Source Language No

Data Target Language

53//ST// 71//ATT

"You don't want to meet people?"

53//TT //101//

ATT

"Kau tidak mau bertemu orang-orang?"

"I'm better off alone." "Aku lebih baik sendiri." Jo ran her finger around the

rim of the mug before saying anything. "Trust me on this: no one is better off alone."

Jo mengusap pinggiran mug sebelum berkata lagi. "Percayalah, tidak

seorang pun lebih baik sendiri."

As shown in the table above, the DM trust me on this in SL is translated into percayalah in TL. There are two respondents (R2 and R3) who give score 2 (not equivalent) to this datum and one respondent (R1) who gives score 1 (equivalent) to this datum. Even though this datum is considered as not equivalent, the researcher thinks this datum is equivalent. It is because both of the translations of the DMs in SL and TL give the same effect to the readers of both texts. Both of them have the same function as to show the speaker‟s attitude. The speaker believes of what she has said is true.

Nomor Teks Bahasa Indonesia Skor

1 2 3

1

"Bagaimana dengan Melody? Apa ia masih saja mengoceh tentang betapa cakepnya para pelanggan?"

"Setiap shift."

"Dan Ricky? Apa ia masih menggoda para pelayan baru?" Waktu Katie mengangguk lagi, Jo tertawa. "Tempat itu tidak pernah berubah."

2

"Jadi, kenapa kau pindah ke Southport? Tentunya bukan karena potensi karier di Resto Ivan, kan? Apa kau punya keluarga di sekitar sini? Orangtua? Kakak atau adik?"

"Tidak," kata Katie. "Hanya aku." "Mengikuti pacarmu?"

"Tidak."

"Jadi kau pindah kemari begitu saja?" "Ya."

3

"Bagaimana menurutmu, Daddy?" Kristen menarik-narik kaki celananya sambil mengangkat boneka.

"Wow! Dia cantik sekali." Alex berjongkok di sebelah Kristen. "Dan aku suka sekali matel itu. Vanessa kadang-kadang kedinginan, kan?"

"Tul," kata Kristen. "Tapi ia bilang ia mau naik ayunan, jadi ia mungkin perlu ganti baju."

4

"Tali pancingku tersangkut di kapal yang bergerak menjauh dan aku tidak mau kehilangan alat pancingku. Kupikir talinya akan langsung putus, tapi aku malah terseret dan tercebur. Aku menelan banyak air. Lalu aku tidak bisa bernapas dan rasanya ada yang menarikku ke bawah." Josh kelihatan ragu. "Kayaknya pancingku jatuh ke sungai."

5

"Aku ingin berterima kasih atas apa yang kaulakukan."

"Aku tidak melakukan apa-apa," protes Katie. "Ya," kata Alex. "Kau berjasa. Seandainya kau tidak mengawasi monitor, aku tidak akan tahu apa yang terjadi. Aku mungkin terlambat menolongnya. Selain itu, terima kasih karena sudah menjaga Kristen. Ia gadis kecil yang sangat manis, tapi ia sensitif. Aku lega kau tidak meninggalkannya sendirian. Bahkan saat kami berganti pakaian."

6

"Aku pergi belanja."

"Kelihatan. Apa kau menemukan barang yang kau sukai?"

"Kurasa begitu," Katie mengaku.

"Well, jangan duduk saja dong,tunjukkan padaku belanjaanmu."

7

"Kau pasti menemukan ini di toko Anna Jean. Aku suka sekali tempat itu."

"Dari mana kau tahu aku pergi ke toko Anna Jean?"

"Karena toko-toko di sekitar sini tidak akan menjual barang-barang sebagus ini. Ini pasti berasal dari lemari seseorang. Pasti dari lemari perempuan kaya raya. Sebagian besar barang di situ lumayan baru."

8

Katie terkikik. "Apa kau mau aku ke situ dan membantumu?"

"Tentu saja tidak. Aku memang ahli menunda-nunda pekerjaan, tapi aku tidak ingin kau menganggapku tidak mampu. Karena sebenarnya aku lumayan jago dalam bidangku."

9

"Kau harus mengantar Miss Katie pulang," kata Kristen. "Ia tidak punya mobil dan hujannya deras sekali."

"Apa kau mau kuantar pulang?" kata Alex.

10

"Apa kau baik-baik saja?" tanya Jo.

"Ya," jawab Katie. "Aku senang sekali kau datang."

Jo mengamati wajahnya. "Kurasa kau sedikit mabuk."

"Kurasa kau benar," Katie setuju.

"Well, baiklah kalau begitu. Apa yang ingin kaulakukan? Karena kau sedikit mabuk dan siap untuk bersenang-senang."

11 "Luar biasa sekali!" kata Josh. "Aku menangkap ratusan kupu-kupu! Lalu kami pergi berenang."

12

"Mungkin kami akan datang dan mengganggumu lagi."

"Kalian tidak menggangguku sama sekali." Katie menatap Alex dari balik gelas anggur. "Well, yang jelas anak-anak tidak menggangguku. Seingatku kau mengeluh soal kualitas pelayanan kami." 13

"Ini satu-satunya hari liburku dan kau memilih hari ini untuk ke salon di tengah kota! Lalu

14

Katie ke beranda dan menaruh barang-barang belanjaannya. "Kau dari mana saja?"

Jo mengangkat bahu."Kau tahu sendirilah. Pulang larut, pergi pagi-pagi, ke sana kemari. Aku sering merasa ditarik ke berbagai arah." Jo menunjuk kursi goyang. "Kau keberatan tidak? Aku perlu istirahat. Aku membersihkan rumah sepagian ini dan baru saja menggantung benda itu. Aku suka bunyinya, kau tahu."

15

"Silahkan ambil. Bagaimana acara mengecatnya?" "Well, ruang tengah sudah selesai. Tapi setelah itu, hariku kurang mulus."

16

"Hidup memang seperti itu. Seringnya memang tidak mudah. Kita hanya perlu berusaha melakukan yang terbaik. Kau paham kan maksudku?"

"Yeah," kata Katie. "Kurasa aku paham."

17

"Tidak, tapi ini kota kecil dan resto Ivan sudah terkenal dari dulu. Selain itu, semakin lama kau tinggal di sini, kau akan semakin paham bahwa tidak ada rahasia di tempat ini. Semua orang tahu urusan orang lain, dan beberapa orang, seperti,

katakanlah... Melody... sudah menganggap gosip sebagai karya seni. Dulu itu membuatku gila. Tentu saja, separuh penduduk Southport seperti itu. Tidak banyak yang bisa dilakukan di sini kecuali bergosip."

18

"Aku pernah punya pengalaman buruk, kata Katie. "Maksudku, berkencan dengan cowok teman kerjaku. Sejak itu, sudah jadi prinsipku untuk tidak melakukannya lagi."

19

"Mungkin kami akan datang dan mengganggumu lagi."

"Kalian tidak menggangguku sama sekali." Katie menatap Alex dari balik gelas anggur. "Well, yang jelas anak-anak tidak menggangguku. Seingatku kau mengeluh soal kualitas pelayanan kami." 20

"Kau tidak mau bertemu orang-orang?" "Aku lebih baik sendiri."

Jo mengusap pinggiran mug sebelum berkata lagi. "Percayalah, tidak seorang pun lebih baik sendiri."

21

Katie melirik jumlah total di mesin kasir. "Apa kau yakin kau sudah menghitung sayur-sayurannya?" "Tentu saja."

"Karena jumlah totalnya sepertinya masih seperti biasanya."

22

"Menurutku masuk akal. Kadang-kadang seseorang butuh memulai segalanya dari awal. Menurutku itu mengagumkan. Banyak orang tidak punya keberanian melakukan sesuatu seperti itu."

"Menurutmu begitu?"

"Jelas," kata Jo. "Jadi apa rencanamu hari ini? Sementara aku menggerutu, mengeluarkan barang-barang, dan bersih-bersih rumah sampai tanganku perih."

23

Katie merenungkan hal itu. "Perlu kugarisbawahi, aku menarik tawaranku membantumu mengecat rumah."

"Kau sudah bilang kau akan melakukannya." "Aku tahu, tapi aku menarik kembali tawaran itu." Jo tertawa. "Oke," katanya. "Hei, kau ngapain nanti malam?"

24

"Hei, Daddy," katanya. "Kita mulai berbekyunya yuk, aku lapar banget."

"Tentu, Sayang."

25 "Tapi jangan ada lagi barang gratis, ya. Kau sudah melakukan banyak hal buatku."

APPENDIX 5: RECAPITULATION OF READABILITY

QUESTIONNAIRES RESULT

No No Data R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

1 6//11//CON 1 2 1 2 2

2 12//12-13//CON 1 1 1 2 3

3 16//30//CON 1 2 1 2 2

4 19//34//CON 1 2 1 2 3

5 22//35//CON 1 1 1 1 3

6 24//39//CON 1 1 1 1 3

7 25//39//CON 1 1 1 1 2

8 26// 40//CON 1 1 1 1 2

9 43//58//CON 1 2 1 2 2

10 52//71//CON 1 1 1 1 2

11 113//122//CON 1 2 1 1 1

12 122//134//CON 1 2 1 2 3

13 143//160//CON 1 2 1 1 2

14 23//38//HES 1 1 2 1 1

15 49//68//HES 1 3 1 2 3

16 68//83//HES 1 1 1 2 3

17 7//12//HES 1 1 1 2 3

18 1//5//REP 1 1 1 2 2

19 121//134//REP 1 2 1 2 3

20 53//71//ATT 1 1 1 1 3

21 41//57//ATT 1 1 1 1 2

22 14//13//TS 1 2 1 1 1

23 37//45-46//TS 1 1 1 1 1

24 77//89//IS 1 1 1 2 3

25 62//83//CS 1 1 1 1 3

Total Score

25 36 26 37 58 Average Score

No No Data R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Total Score

Average Score

1 6//11//CON 1 1 1 3 2 16 1.6

2

12//12-13//CON 1 1 1 1 1 13 1.3

3 16//30//CON 2 1 1 2 2 16 1.6

4 19//34//CON 2 2 1 2 1 17 1.7

5 22//35//CON 1 1 1 1 1 12 1.2

6 24//39//CON 1 1 1 1 2 13 1.3

7 25//39//CON 1 2 1 3 1 14 1.4

8 26// 40//CON 1 1 1 2 1 12 1.2

9 43//58//CON 1 1 1 2 1 14 1.4

10 52//71//CON 1 1 1 1 1 11 1.1

11 113//122//CON 1 1 1 3 1 13 1.3

12 122//134//CON 1 1 1 3 2 17 1.7

13 143//160//CON 1 2 1 2 1 14 1.4

14 23//38//HES 2 2 1 2 2 15 1.5

15 49//68//HES 1 1 1 2 3 18 1.8

16 68//83//HES 1 1 1 1 2 14 1.4

17 7//12//HES 1 1 1 2 1 14 1.4

18 1//5//REP 1 1 1 1 1 12 1.2

19 121//134//REP 1 2 1 2 2 17 1.7

20 53//71//ATT 1 1 1 2 1 13 1.3

21 41//57//ATT 1 1 1 1 1 11 1.1

22 14//13//TS 1 1 1 2 1 12 1.2

23 37//45-46//TS 1 1 1 2 1 11 1.1

24 77//89//IS 1 1 1 1 2 14 1.4

25 62//83//CS 1 1 2 2 1 14 1.4

Total Score 28 30 26 46 35 Average Score 1.12 1.2 1.04 1.84 1.4

Table Readability’s Score Category Score Readability Criterion

1 – 1.6 Readable 1.7 – 2.3 Quite Readable