Areas of Research Object of The Study
26
compared in the data table. After comparing both translations, the theory of medical term translation technique was applied. Next, the questionnaire’s results
were analyzed. Each sentence which was mostly selected was summed to find out whose sentence was more readable. After whole sentences were summed, they
were calculated by using Microsoft Excel 2013 to meet readability percentage of each respondent. After the calculation was done, each sentence was discussed as
well. The first problem formulation was solved. The translations done by two respondents were analyzed by applying
Angelelli’s translation competence. Specifically, each datum was elaborated with linguistic, textual, pragmatic, and strategic competence theories. It would discuss
the problem appeared in the translation and then relate it to the theories. After all data were analyzed, it was scored by using
Angelelli’s scoring rubric. This was done by matching the analysis into the indicator to get suitable score. In scoring
each datum, it was important to pay attention to explanations served in the indicator. It is done repeatedly in all sentences. After the translations were
assessed based on each aspect, the results then are calculated using Microsoft Excel 2013. Besides, from the results it would be known whether the background
of the respondents influence their competence in translating medical text or not. The following is the explanation of the score of each aspect. This explanation
develops Angelelli’s scoring rubric. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
Number of
Sentence Source
Text Meaning
Style and Cohesion
Situational Appro-
priateness Grammar
and Mechanics
Translation Skill
NM M
NM M
NM M
NM M
NM M
1 3
4 3
4 3
4 3
4 3
5
In the table above, NM gets score 3 in aspect of source text meaning. It is because in NM translation, there is evidence of occasional errors in interpretation,
but the overall meaning of the ST appropriately communicated. Meaning to say, NM has general understanding in interpreting the ST. Meanwhile, M gets higher
score in this aspect. It happens since the meaning of ST proficiently communicated in her translation. Her translation reflects complete understanding
of the themes. In style and cohesion, NM gets lower score which is 3. There are some
errors in rendering the ST into TT. Since some meaning are omitted, it makes the translation inconsistent with the whole text. Meanwhile, the score of M is 4. Her
translation is well organized into sentence. She is able to reproduce the ST meaning into TL.
NM gets the score of 3 in situational appropriateness aspect. Some of the translated medical terms are mostly appropriate. It means that his translation
shows a good ability to address intended TL readers. In the other hand, M gets higher score which is 4. It is because the discourse, register, and word choice she
uses are consistently appropriate. The translation shows a proficient ability to address the intended meaning in TL.