Comparative Analysis of Two Indonesian Translation Texts of Sydney Sheldon's 'Windmills of The Gods'.

(1)

PREFACE... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS... iii

ABSTRACT... iv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Background of the Study... 1

Statement of the Problem... 5

Purpose of the Study... 5

Method of Research... 6

Organization of the Thesis... 6

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 8

CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO INDONESIAN TRANSLATION TEXTS OF SIDNEY SHELDON’S WINDMILLS OF THE GODS... 12

Mistranslated Words Found in TT1... 13

Mistranslated Words Found in TT2... 29

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION... 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 56

APPENDICES... 58

(2)

ABSTRACT

Teks terjemahan banyak dijumpai dalam kehidupan kita sehari-hari. Perlu kita sadari bahwa sebuah teks terjemahan sangatlah penting karena teks tersebut berisi pesan dan informasi dari penulis dengan bahasa yang berbeda dari bahasa kita. Jika kita ingin menjadi seorang penerjemah yang baik, kita perlu memahami bahwa melalui sebuah teks terjemahan yang kita buat, banyak orang dapat mengerti dan memahami dengan lebih baik dan jelas isi pesan dari penulis asli teks tersebut. Oleh karena itu, sebuah teks terjemahan haruslah berisi inti pesan atau gagasan yang sama dengan yang diberikan oleh penulis aslinya. Jika inti pesan atau gagasan dalam teks terjemahan tidak sama dengan teks aslinya, berarti kita sebagai seorang penerjemah tidak melakukan tugas kita dengan baik.

Dalam skripsi ini, saya melakukan perbandingan terhadap dua teks terjemahan dalam bahasa Indonesia dari karya Sidney Sheldon yang berjudul Windmills of the Gods. Teks terjemahan pertama berjudul Embusan Angin Surga dan teks terjemahan kedua berjudul Kincir Angin Para Dewa. Kedua teks terjemahan tersebut memiliki beberapa perbedaan dalam pemilihan kata, dan saya ingin membandingkan keduanya untuk mendapatkan salah satu yang lebih ekivalen dengan teks sumber. Ekivalensi kedua teks terjemahan ini saya dasarkan

(3)

pada arti harafiah atau arti dalam kamus (referential meaning) dan juga arti sesuai konteks (contextual meaning).

Hasil yang saya dapatkan dari perbandingan kedua teks terjemahan tersebut adalah bahwa teks terjemahan pertama sedikit lebih baik daripada teks terjemahan kedua. Sebenarnya kedua teks terjemahan tersebut sama-sama cukup baik karena mengandung inti pesan atau gagasan yang kurang lebih sama dengan teks asli. Dalam kedua teks terjemahan tersebut juga hanya terdapat sedikit kesalahan teknis yang tidak lain hanyalah akibat faktor kecerobohan dan hal ini tidak terlalu mempengaruhi inti pesan atau gagasan keseluruhan dari kedua teks tersebut.

(4)

APPENDICES

1. List of Mistranslated Words Found in TT1 Both in the Referential and Contextual Meanings.

No ST TT1

Referential Meaning

Contextual Meaning

x x

1 Harry Lantz is a

maverick. (p. 53)

Harry Lantz seorang

petualang. (p. 57) 2 It was more than two

weeks before Harry Lantz…. (p. 59)

Nyatanya diperlukan waktu lebih dari

seminggu bagi Harry Lantz.… (p. 62) 3 250 rolls of

confetti…. (p. 401)

Dua ratus gulung confetti.... (p. 201)

(5)

2. List of Mistranslated Words Found in TT1 in the Referential Meaning.

No ST TT1

Referential Meaning

Contextual Meaning

x √

1 He gave it to her

slowly. (p. 105)

Dan Pengawas dengan teliti memberikan nomor teleponnya kepada wanita itu. (p. 117)

2 You look comfortable. (p. 142)

Tampaknya anda santai sekali. (p. 145)

3 “Helium,” the stranger said curtly. (p. 402)

“Helium.” Orang asing itu menjawab singkat. (p. 203)

4 I thought she looked

weird. (p. 420)

...seorang wanita yang

begitu jelek. (p. 225) 5 Mike said to

McKinney,

excitedly.... (p. 420)

Mike berkata pada McKinney, tegang. (p. 226)

6 She was like an

enraged animal. (p. 425)

Ia bagaikan seekor binatang buas yang

dilukai. (p. 233)

(6)

7 I have some

interesting plans in mind for you…. (p. 431)

Aku ada beberapa rencana penting sekali

untukmu.… (p. 241)

3. List of Mistranslated Words Found in TT2 Both in the Referential and Contextual Meanings.

No ST TT2

Referential Meaning

Contextual Meaning

x x

1 I’m not here to hand over my country to the damned Commies, mister. (p. 24)

Saya tak berada di sini untuk menggadaikan negara saya kepada

orang-orang dungu

keparat, Mister. (p. 41) 2 …the Israelis have

offered a million-dollar reward for him, dead or alive. (p. 52)

…orang-orang Israel telah menawarkan

setengah juta dollar

bagi yang dapat

menyerahkannya, hidup atau mati. (p. 76)

(7)

3 I’ll be there in half an hour. (p. 114)

Saya akan tiba di sana dalam seperempat jam. (p. 153)

4 Mary swallowed nervously. “Please.” (p. 418)

Mary menelan ludah dengan gugup. “Jangan lama-lama.” (p. 526) 5 We’d better talk about

the problem we’re having with the Romanian commerce

minister. (p. 432)

Sebaiknya kita

mendiskusikan masalah yang timbul antara kita dengan Menteri

Keuangan Rumania. (p. 543)

4. List of Mistranslated Words Found in TT2 in the Referential Meaning.

No ST TT2

Referential Meaning

Contextual Meaning

x √

1 His mistress is not only the ugliest broad in all of South

America, but she’s a

Wanita piaraannya bukan saja betina terjelek di seluruh Amerika Selatan,

(8)

lush. (p. 64) tapi juga sangat rakus. (p. 91)

2 ...there’s this Cinderella who comes out of nowhere.... (p. 401)

...seperti Cinderella dari

kampung. (p. 281)

3 …leave this

nightmare behind. (p. 409)

…meninggalkan neraka

ini. (p. 516)

4 ...the children

upstairs. (p. 415)

...anak-anaknya ke

kamarnya. (p. 521) 5 You mean he. (p. 426) Perempuan? (p. 536) 6 He felt cheated.

(p. 427)

Dia merasa terhina. (p. 538)

7 We have suffered a

setback…. (p. 433)

Kita telah gagal…. (p. 545)

(9)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The topic of my thesis is “Comparative Analysis of Two Indonesian Translation Texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods”. The original novel, the source text, is written in English, while both of the translation texts are written in Indonesian. The first translation text is Embusan Angin Surga, translated by Aranya Darih. It is published by Team Group. The second translation text is Kincir Angin Para Dewa, translated by Irina M. Susetyo and Widya Kirana. It is published by PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

I choose this particular topic because I think it important for us as English learners to know more about translation. Translation is important because it carries messages and information from other languages. Through translation, people will understand clearly the message which is given by the writer from another language. Thus, it is essential that the message be transferred to another language containing exactly the same idea. Otherwise, there will be losses and

(10)

gains in the content of the message if the translator does not transfer it appropriately from the original novel or the source text.

Some possible problems occur when the target text, Indonesian, does not have the equivalent word to the source text, English. For example, there is no equivalent word in Indonesian to the word foot, which actually means ‘the terminal part of the vertebrate leg upon which an individual stands’ (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981:443). Indonesian people just generalize the word

foot and state it as kaki (Kamus Lengkap 7.500.000, 1991:68). Another word

which has the same translation as the word foot is leg. Leg is also translated as

kaki (Kamus Lengkap 7.500.000, 1991:95). Actually, leg has its own meaning,

which is ‘the part of the vertebrate limb between the knee and foot’ (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981:650). Therefore, we can see that Indonesian people tend to do the generalization to the things connected to feet.

Another possible problem occurs when there are several words in the target text which can describe the word from the source text. For example, the word female has several similar words in Indonesian such as wanita, perempuan, and betina (Kamus Lengkap 7.500.000, 1991:66). In this case, what we need is the right understanding of the context. As Zaky says, ‘A translator must, therefore, look for a target-language utterance that has an equivalent communicative function, regardless of its formal resemblance to original utterance as far as the formal structure is concerned.’ <http://www.accurapid.com/journal/14theory .htm>.

(11)

Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods is translated into two versions in Indonesian and both of them have some differences, especially in diction. The two translation texts become different after I observe them by comparing the meanings of the two translation texts to the source text through referential meaning, which is supported by the contextual meaning.

In this thesis, I would like to observe the two translation texts more deeply in order to know whether the meaning of the source text is lost or not. If the meaning of the source text is lost, the translation text is not equivalent to the source text and the readers may not know what the writer actually wants to say through his or her novel. The ultimate goal of this research is to know which translation text has fewer mistranslated words or which has the more equivalent meaning to what is originally described by the writer. I hope my thesis can serve as a model for translation learners in translating texts. I look for the more equivalent translation text because in translating texts, a translator has several options before deciding to use one word instead of another. He or she may look for the word which has the closest meaning.

This research is significant for translators, translation teachers, and translation learners. It is expected that they will get knowledge and they can see, know, learn, and become aware that a translation text must be equivalent in meaning to the original text both in the referential and in the contextual meanings. Since a writer’s message is the most important element in a text, a translator must translate it appropriately so that there will be no losses or gains of meaning.

(12)

In doing the research, I use some translation and semantic theories. Translation is ‘…an activity comprising the interpretation of the meaning of a text in one language -the source text- and the production, in another language, of a new, equivalent text -the target text, or translation.’ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Translation>; while Semantics is ‘…the study of meaning.’ <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Semantics>. There are two types of meaning, namely the referential and connotative meanings.

For my analysis, I am going to deal with just the referential meaning without including the connotative meaning. Referential meaning, according to Nida, ‘…(otherwise known as denotation) deals with the words as signs or symbols.’ (cited from Hatim and Munday, 2004:35). Besides dealing with the referential meaning theory, I am going to use the contextual meaning theory to get the relation between the elements of the story. Based on Catford’s opinion, ‘The contextual meaning of an item is the groupment of relevant situational features with which it is related.’ (Catford, 1965:36).

Contextual meaning is also particularly used, for example, when there are two possible words in the target text that can describe the word from the source text, such as the word stoned which has two possible translations in the Indonesian language, dilempari batu and mabuk (Kamus Lengkap 7.500.000, 1991:146). In this case, I use contextual meaning in getting the real message from the writer, namely the person is drunk or the person is thrown by stones.

There is also another potential case concerning the two kinds of meaning, the referential and contextual meanings; for example, when the source text states

(13)

the phrase flower of the village and the Indonesian translator translates the phrase into gadis tercantik di desa instead of kembang desa. Based on the componential analysis, the phrase gadis tercantik di desa does not consist of the same components as the source text, flower of the village, while the phrase kembang

desa has exactly the same components as the source text. Therefore, through the

referential analysis we know that the translator here is not accurate in translating the phrase. But, when we see from the contextual meaning, the translation text is not totally wrong because it has the same proposition as the source text. The translator just wants to try another way in explaining the source text by stating the phrase gadis tercantik di desa. The translator may think that if he does it in that way, the readers can understand the text more easily.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1. What are the differences in diction between the two Indonesian translation texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods?

2. What words are mistranslated in the two Indonesian translation texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods in terms of referential and contextual meanings?

3. Which translation text contains the more equivalent meaning to the source text in terms of referential and contextual meanings?

(14)

1.3 Purpose of the Study

1. To know what the differences in diction between the two Indonesian

translation texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods are.

2. To know what words are mistranslated in the two Indonesian translation

texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods in terms of referential and contextual meanings.

3. To know which translation text contains the more equivalent meaning to

the source text in terms of referential and contextual meanings.

1.4 Method of Research

In gathering the data, first I read the two Indonesian translation texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods, which becomes Embusan Angin Surga, translated by Aranya Darih and Kincir Angin Para Dewa, translated by Irina M. Susetyo and Widya Kirana. Second, I list the differences in diction from the two Indonesian translation texts. Third, I look for the mistranslated words in both of them. Fourth, I analyze the mistranslated words in both of the two Indonesian translation texts and also analyze their differences in diction to know which one has the more equivalent meaning to the original text. In doing the analysis, I get supporting references from books as well as the Internet. Finally, I write the research report.

(15)

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction to the subject matter in which it includes Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two presents the theoretical framework underlying the topic of the thesis. It elaborates some theories of translation as well as explaining the things related to the novel as the core of the research. Chapter Three informs the research findings and their analysis. This chapter presents the result of the data analysis in order to answer the research questions. Chapter Four conveys some conclusive points drawn from the previous chapters. This thesis ends with the Bibliography and the Appendices.

(16)

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

Having discussed the comparison between the two Indonesian translation

texts of Sidney Sheldon’s Windmills of the Gods in the previous chapter, I would

like to make some concluding remarks.

As my research is to find out which one of the two translation texts has the

more equivalent meaning to the source text, I base the equivalency of meaning on

the correct meaning both in the referential and the contextual meanings. The

equivalent meaning is also taken from the acceptable contextual meaning,

although the referential meaning is not considered right. From my analysis in the

previous chapter, we see that TT1 has nineteen data which are equivalent to the

source text, while TT2 has just seventeen. The percentage of TT1’s equivalent

meaning is 86.36%, from the scale of 100%, while TT2 is just 77.27%. TT1 also

has fewer non-equivalent meanings both in the referential and contextual

meanings because it just has three data, while TT2 has five data. The percentage

of TT1’s non-equivalent meaning is 13.64%, from the scale of 100%, while TT2

(17)

is 22.73%. The following table shows the final result of the equivalent and the

non-equivalent meanings both in TT1 and TT2.

Equivalent Referential Contextual Total Percentage

and Non-Equivalent Meaning Meaning Meaning

in TT1 and TT2

√ √ 12

TT1 x √ 7

x x 3 13.64%

√ √ 10

TT2 x √ 7

x x 5 22.73%

Based on the table above, I conclude that TT1 is more equivalent to ST

than TT2, although it is not too significant. Basically, the equivalency of TT1 and

TT2 are almost the same. The percentage of TT1’s equivalent meaning, 86.36%,

is much bigger than the percentage of TT1’s non-equivalent meaning, 13.64%. It

is almost the same case as TT2 because the percentage of TT2’s equivalent

meaning, 77.27%, is also much bigger than the percentage of TT2’s

non-equivalent meaning, 22.73%. Therefore, I also conclude that although TT2 is less

equivalent to ST than TT1, TT2 is still acceptable as a good translation.

In analyzing the data, I get two kinds of condition in which a translation is

considered acceptable. The first condition is when the meaning is correct both in

the referential and the contextual meanings, and the second condition is when the

(18)

meaning is acceptable in the contextual meaning but it is not considered right in

the referential meaning. From here I see that the contextual meaning has to be

right in order that the translation can be equivalent to the source text. Therefore, I

conclude that contextual meaning has a bigger role in terms of equivalency than

the referential meaning. I do not mean to underestimate the referential meaning,

but in reality, many words have more than one referential meaning. Consequently,

we need a more specific measurement. If we only translate the referential

meaning, we are likely to mistranslate the word because it might relate to other

things, and it will also cause some misunderstanding about the whole text. What a

translator should do is interpret the context correctly as how the word is used in

the source text. In this case, the contextual meaning has its role.

Another potential mistake which can be made by a translator is when the

meaning is correct in the referential meaning but it is incorrect in the contextual

meaning. However, I do not find such data in the previous chapter. Therefore, I

see that the translators in both TT1 and TT2 are aware of thinking about the

contextual meaning. They have already considered the context of the text and they

can interpret it correctly.

Yet, there are a few data which show mistranslation which I think is

basically caused by human errors. The mistranslation of such words as maverick,

Commies, please, and commerce into petualang, orang-orang dungu, jangan lama-lama, and keuangan respectively shows that sometimes the translators interpret the context incorrectly because the meaning of the translations has no

relation with what is written in the source text.

(19)

Besides, I find four data in which neither the referential nor the contextual

meanings are acceptable. I think there are several reasons which can be assumed

from those mistranslated words. First, it might be caused by the translators’

carelessness. A translator might misread some words because she does not pay

much attention to what is originally written in the source text or she might

mistype the translation. Therefore, they are unaware that they translate the text

incorrectly. Some examples of this case can be seen in the previous chapter,

namely in the second data in the mistranslated words found in TT1, which states

seminggu as the translation of the phrase two weeks from ST, and the third data, which states dua ratus as the translation of the word 250. There is also one data, the third data, in the mistranslated words found in TT2, which states seperempat jam as the translation of the phrase half an hour from ST. The second possible reason, which is still related to the first one, namely the inconsistency of the

translators when they translate a text, can be seen in the second data in the

mistranslated words found in TT2. The translators do not translate the phrase a million-dollar, the value of the reward, consistently. They translate it into

setengah juta dollar on page 76, but on page 93, the translation is sejuta dollar. Therefore, as a suggestion, when we translate a text, first, we must always

think that our translation has to be equivalent to the source text. Second, in giving

the equivalent meaning, we must see not only from the referential meaning but

also from the contextual meaning because the two types of meaning support each

other in building the understanding of the readers. However, the meaning is still

acceptable only when the contextual meaning is considered right, because the

(20)

contextual meaning, as I have said earlier, has the bigger role in terms of

equivalency. Consequently, it is more effective in building the understanding of

the readers about the whole text.

(21)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES

Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Davies, Peter. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1969.

Fahmi, Sadad. Kamus Lengkap 7.500.000. Surabaya: Karya Ilmu, 1991.

Hatim, B. and Munday, J. Translation: An Advanced Resources Book. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hurford, J. R. and Heasley, B. Semantics: A Course Book. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Great Britain: British Library Cataloguing, 1988.

Nida, E. A. and Taber, C. R. Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Walpole, Huge. The Nature of Words and Their Meanings. New York: Harvard University, 1941.

Webster, Merriam. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1981.

(22)

Zaky, Magdy M. Translation and Meaning. 2 March 2007 <http://www.accurapid.com/journal/14theory.htm>

Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2005. Semantics. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 5 June 2006

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics> The Concept of Translation. 25 April 2006

<http://www.sil.org/translation/TrTheory.htm> Translation. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 5 June 2006

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation>

PRIMARY TEXTS

Sheldon, Sidney. Windmills of the Gods. New York: Time Warner Book Group, 1987.

---, trans. Embusan Angin Surga. Team Group (no publication year).

---, trans. Kincir Angin Para Dewa. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 1989.

(1)

is 22.73%. The following table shows the final result of the equivalent and the non-equivalent meanings both in TT1 and TT2.

Equivalent Referential Contextual Total Percentage and Non-Equivalent Meaning Meaning Meaning

in TT1 and TT2

√ √ 12

TT1 x √ 7

x x 3 13.64% √ √ 10

TT2 x √ 7

x x 5 22.73%

Based on the table above, I conclude that TT1 is more equivalent to ST than TT2, although it is not too significant. Basically, the equivalency of TT1 and TT2 are almost the same. The percentage of TT1’s equivalent meaning, 86.36%, is much bigger than the percentage of TT1’s non-equivalent meaning, 13.64%. It is almost the same case as TT2 because the percentage of TT2’s equivalent meaning, 77.27%, is also much bigger than the percentage of TT2’s non-equivalent meaning, 22.73%. Therefore, I also conclude that although TT2 is less equivalent to ST than TT1, TT2 is still acceptable as a good translation.

In analyzing the data, I get two kinds of condition in which a translation is considered acceptable. The first condition is when the meaning is correct both in the referential and the contextual meanings, and the second condition is when the

(2)

meaning is acceptable in the contextual meaning but it is not considered right in the referential meaning. From here I see that the contextual meaning has to be right in order that the translation can be equivalent to the source text. Therefore, I conclude that contextual meaning has a bigger role in terms of equivalency than the referential meaning. I do not mean to underestimate the referential meaning, but in reality, many words have more than one referential meaning. Consequently, we need a more specific measurement. If we only translate the referential meaning, we are likely to mistranslate the word because it might relate to other things, and it will also cause some misunderstanding about the whole text. What a translator should do is interpret the context correctly as how the word is used in the source text. In this case, the contextual meaning has its role.

Another potential mistake which can be made by a translator is when the meaning is correct in the referential meaning but it is incorrect in the contextual meaning. However, I do not find such data in the previous chapter. Therefore, I see that the translators in both TT1 and TT2 are aware of thinking about the contextual meaning. They have already considered the context of the text and they can interpret it correctly.

Yet, there are a few data which show mistranslation which I think is basically caused by human errors. The mistranslation of such words as maverick, Commies, please, and commerce into petualang, orang-orang dungu, jangan lama-lama, and keuangan respectively shows that sometimes the translators interpret the context incorrectly because the meaning of the translations has no relation with what is written in the source text.

(3)

Besides, I find four data in which neither the referential nor the contextual meanings are acceptable. I think there are several reasons which can be assumed from those mistranslated words. First, it might be caused by the translators’ carelessness. A translator might misread some words because she does not pay much attention to what is originally written in the source text or she might mistype the translation. Therefore, they are unaware that they translate the text incorrectly. Some examples of this case can be seen in the previous chapter, namely in the second data in the mistranslated words found in TT1, which states seminggu as the translation of the phrase two weeks from ST, and the third data, which states dua ratus as the translation of the word 250. There is also one data, the third data, in the mistranslated words found in TT2, which states seperempat jam as the translation of the phrase half an hour from ST. The second possible reason, which is still related to the first one, namely the inconsistency of the translators when they translate a text, can be seen in the second data in the mistranslated words found in TT2. The translators do not translate the phrase a million-dollar, the value of the reward, consistently. They translate it into setengah juta dollar on page 76, but on page 93, the translation is sejuta dollar.

Therefore, as a suggestion, when we translate a text, first, we must always think that our translation has to be equivalent to the source text. Second, in giving the equivalent meaning, we must see not only from the referential meaning but also from the contextual meaning because the two types of meaning support each other in building the understanding of the readers. However, the meaning is still acceptable only when the contextual meaning is considered right, because the

(4)

contextual meaning, as I have said earlier, has the bigger role in terms of equivalency. Consequently, it is more effective in building the understanding of the readers about the whole text.