Students` mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

STUD EN DEP FAC ENTS’ MA FR Presented to O NGLISH LA PARTMEN CULTY OF SA ASTERY IN ROM INDO A

d as Partial F Obtain the Sa in English

Arum Student N

ANGUAGE E NT OF LAN

F TEACHER ANATA DH YO N TRANSLA ONESIAN IN A THESIS Fulfillment o arjana Pend Language E By Kusumawar Number: 05 1

EDUCATIO NGUAGE AN RS TRAINI HARMA UN GYAKART 2011 ATING REL NTO ENGL

of the Requir didikan Degr

Education

rdani 1214 096

ON STUDY ND ARTS E ING AND E NIVERSITY TA LATIVE CL LISH rements ree Y PROGRA EDUCATIO EDUCATIO Y LAUSES M ON ON

STUD EN DEP FAC ENTS’ MA FR Presented to O NGLISH LA PARTMEN CULTY OF SA ASTERY IN ROM INDO A

d as Partial F Obtain the Sa in English

Arum Student N

ANGUAGE E NT OF LAN

F TEACHER ANATA DH YO i N TRANSLA ONESIAN IN A THESIS Fulfillment o arjana Pend Language E By Kusumawar Number: 05 1

EDUCATIO NGUAGE AN RS TRAINI HARMA UN GYAKART 2011 ATING REL NTO ENGL

of the Requir didikan Degr

Education

rdani 1214 096

ON STUDY ND ARTS E ING AND E NIVERSITY TA LATIVE CL LISH rements ree Y PROGRA EDUCATIO EDUCATIO Y LAUSES M ON ON

ii A Thesis on

iv

To Babe, Mom, Aak, Gunk, and Belok

“DREAM

BIG

!

TAKE RISKS!”

– Ron Clark –

v

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, March 10, 2011 The Writer

Arum Kusumawardani 05 1214 096

vi ABSTRACT

Kusumawardani, Arum. (2011). Students’ Mastery in Translating Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

As teacher candidates, the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University are required to master the four competences in Communicative Competence, including Grammar Competence. Competence in English Grammar consists of the mastery of many grammar topics, including relative clauses. Moreover, it is found in the syllabus of the fifth semester that students should be able to translate complex sentences both from English into Indonesian and Indonesian into English, including Relative Clauses construction.

This study is aimed at answering two research questions namely: (1) How is mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Study Program in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English? (2) What types of errors are found in the students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English? In doing the research, the researcher used a descriptive qualitative method using a test as the instrument. The participants of the study were the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The result of the test done by the fifth semester students were used to answer the two research questions.

The first research question was answered based on the result of the test. The result of the test shows that the fifth semester students have insufficient mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. They were included in Category E of Mastery (poor). The second research question was answered based on the students’ translation result on the test. The test result shows that there are some common errors that the students encountered. The errors were categorized into Error in Relative Clauses Construction and Error in Translation. Error in Relative Clauses Construction is divided into Error in Relative Pronoun Use and Error in Comma Use. Error in Translation is divided into Grammatical Error (Omission and Punctuation) and Error in Meaning (Diction and Spelling).

Based on the result of the test, in can be concluded that the fifth semester students have not mastered the ability of translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. The writer adds that to gain an idiomatic translation one cannot solely depends on grammatical knowledge but also on others, like knowledge on vocabulary and context. As suggestion for future studies, future researcher may study the translation of relative clauses in form of passage.

vii ABSTRAK

Kusumawardani, Arum. (2011). Students’ Mastery in Translating Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Sebagai calon guru, mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma diharapkan mengusai empat kompetensi yang terkandung dalam Communicative Competence, salah satunya adalah kompetensi tata bahasa (Grammar Competence). Kompetensi dalam tata bahasa Bahasa Inggris meliputi penguasaan materi berbagai bahasan termasuk penguasaan Relative Clauses (Klausa Sematan). Lebih lanjut, disebutkan dalam silabus semester lima bahwa mahasiswa harus dapat menerjemahkan kalimat majemuk baik dari Bahasa Inggris ke Bahasa Indonesia maupun dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris, termasuk kalimat majemuk yang mengandung relative clauses.

Studi ini bertujuan untuk menjawab dua pertanyaan, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana penguasaan mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma terhadap kegiatan menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris? (2) Jenis error apa sajakah yang dapat ditemukan pada hasil terjemahan relative clauses mereka dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris? Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode descriptive qualitative dengan menggunakan tes sebagai instrumen penelitian. Partisipan dalam studi ini adalah mahasiswa semester lima program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma. Hasil dari tes digunakan untuk menjawab kedua pertanyaan di atas.

Pertanyaan pertama dijawab menggunakan hasil dari tes. Hasil tes menunjukkan bahwa tingkat penguasaan mahasiswa semester lima dalam menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris cukup rendah (Kategori E). Pertanyaan kedua dijawab menggunakan data hasil terjemahan dari tes. Dari hasil tes diketahui beberapa error yang kerap muncul. Error tersebut dikategorisasikan ke dalam Error in Relative Clauses Construction dan Error in Translation. Error in Relative Clauses Construction dibagi menjadi Error in Relative Pronoun Use dan Error in Comma Use. Error in Translation terbagi atas Grammatical Error (Omission dan Punctuation) dan Error in Meaning (Diction dan Spelling).

Berdasarkan data dari tes, dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa semester lima masih belum menguasai kemampuan menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris. Penulis menambahkan, untuk memperoleh idiomatic translation mahasiswa tidak bisa hanya mengandalkan kemampuan tata bahasa tapi juga kemampuan lain seperti kemampuan dalam kosakata dan konteks. Sebagai saran untuk penelitian lebih lanjut, peneliti di masa datang diharapkan meneliti hasil terjemahan relative clauses dalam bentuk bacaan.

viii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Arum Kusumawardani

Nomor Mahasiswa : 051214096

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

STUDENTS’ MASTERY IN TRANSLATING RELATIVE CLAUSES FROM INDONESIAN INTO ENGLISH

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 dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 10 Maret 2011 Yang menyatakan

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, my deepest gratitude goes to my Creator, who has given me life full of rocks and valleys and gifted me an extraordinary family. My endless learning in this life is much a blessing to me, including completing this thesis. My greatest gratitude goes to my family, Babe, Mom, Aak, and Agung for their enduring love and sacrifice, especially for my study. I could never thank them enough.

My appreciation also goes to my thesis sponsor Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum. for her assistance during the writing of this thesis. I owe a great deal of thanks to Laurentia Sumarni, S.Pd., Fidelis Chosa Kastuhandani, S.Pd., and Nugraha Krisdiyanta, S.Pd., M.Hum. who have permitted me to conduct research in their classes, and to the fifth semester students, especially those in Structure V (D), Translation I (A), and Morpho-syntax (B) classes for being the participants of this study. I wish to thank Maria Martarina Pramudani and Chatarina Artilantari for helping me with the permission letters and other formal documents.

My heartiest thanks to my classmates (Lindut, Ntris, Mamaq, Yebe, Rindang, Ruma, Andre, Indro, Panda, Sano, Dinar, Mega, Puri, Koko, Putri, Frans Wuri, Sancrut, Bunga, Imel, Molen, Taju, Ari, and Rere) for being the best of friends in the world. I would like to express my special feeling of gratitude to Gregoria Mayang ‘Cint’ Dwiandhesti and Dinar ‘c.q.’ Ratnasari for the last-battle-moments we shared.

x

I am grateful to have friends in Pringgading 9 (P9), especially Chris, Risang, Jody – Stella, Koko – hamsters, and Bocong – Kanya for the witty talks, discussions, jokes, scrabbles, and sharings which enrich me, personally. I would also like to thank Nancy Paula Herin for her assistance and companions during the toughest time in my struggling for this thesis. I would like to extend my thanks to my thesis-mates, Triast and Wiwin, for the sharings. My deepest appreciation to my boardinghouse mates (Reta, Redy, Nenen, Ndong, Tante, Windru, Tri, Ike, Mbak Lida, Nana, Jeng Ebie, Anas, Juju, and Mbak Bek) for the sharing of movies, games, jokes, gossips, nail-polishing-times and laughter. Those moments really helped me passed the hard times I experienced during this thesis completion.

My gratitude also goes to my CEC friends especially Ms Retno (Kakak), Ms Widdy, Ms Susan and Ms Neesa for the support and learning experiences. I would also extend my deepest appreciation to Dra. Lanny Anggawati, Dra. Wena Cintiawati, and Endang Widyawati, S.Pd for giving me the opportunity, encouragement and suggestion I could never get from others.

I must acknowledge a personal debt to Stefanus Angga ‘Belok’ Badara Prima for his massive help, companion, strength, encouragement and warm love. Without him, I doubt myself to finish this stage by now. My appreciation also goes to all other living angels and invisible hands that help me through times in completing this thesis, my thanks go beyond words. May God grant His blessing to us all.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAANPERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

LIST OF TABLES ... xv

LIST OF FIGURES ... xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION A.Research Background ... 1

B.Problem Formulation ... 4

C.Problem Limitation ... 4

D.Research Objective ... 5

E.Research Benefits ... 6

F. Definition of Terms ... 7

1. Mastery ... 7

2. Relative Clauses ... 8

xii

4. The Fifth Semester Students ... 9

5. Indonesian ... 9

6. English ... 10

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A.Theoretical Backgrounds ... 10

1. Grammar Mastery ... 11

2. Translation Theory ... 13

a. Definition of Translation ... 13

b. Kinds of Translation ... 14

c. Criteria of a Good Translation ... 16

3. Relative Clauses ... 16

a. Relative Clause in English ... 16

1) Defining Relative Clause ... 16

2) Non-defining Relative Clause ... 17

3) Other Types of Relative Pronouns ... 18

4) Zero Relative Clause ... 19

b. Relative Clause in Indonesia ... 20

4. Error Analysis ... 22

a. Description of Error ... 22

b. Errors Categorization ... 23

B.Theoretical Framework ... 25

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY A.Research Method ... 27

xiii

B.Research Participants ... 28

C.Research Instruments ... 29

1. Validity of the Test ... 30

a) Content Validity ... 30

b) Construct Validity ... 31

c) Face Validity ... 32

2. Reliability of the Test ... 32

3. The Scoring Procedure for the Test ... 35

D.Data Gathering Technique ... 35

E.Data Analysis Technique ... 36

F. Research Procedure ... 36

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A.Students’ Mastery on the Translation of Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English ... 39

B.Types of Errors Found in the Students’ Translation Result of Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English ... 43

1. Students’ Errors in Relative Clauses Construction ... 43

a. Errors in Relative Pronouns ... 43

1) Errors in Subject Relative Pronouns ... 44

2) Errors in Object Relative Pronouns ... 66

b. Error in Comma Use ... 47

2. Students’ Errors in Translation ... 48

a. Grammatical Errors ... 48

xiv

2) Punctuation ... 50

b. Errors in Meaning ... 52

1) Diction ... 52

2) Spelling ... 54

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A.Conclusion ... 56

B. Suggestion ... 58

1. Suggestion for English Teachers and Instructors ... 58

2. Suggestion for Future Study ... 59

xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 List of Score Category ... 13

Table 2.2 Uses of Relative Pronoun (Yule, 2004) ... 20

Table 2.3 The Categorization of Errors ... 24

Table 4.1 The Summary of the Students’ Achievement in the Test ... 40

Table 4.2 The Participants’ Score in Relation to the Category of Mastery ... 41

Table 4.3 Percentage of Errors in Relative Pronouns ... 44

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Continuum Stages of Translation According to Larson (1984) ... 15 Figure 2.2 The Computation of the Participants Average Score of the Test ... 42

xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Permission Letter to Conduct Research (Surat Ijin Penelitian) ... 63

Appendix B Syllabus of Structure V ... 64

Appendix C Syllabus of Translation I ... 65

Appendix D Syllabus of Translation II ... 67

Appendix E The Test Blueprint ... 69

Appendix F Test Item ... 71

Appendix G Answers Key of the Test ... 73

Appendix H Participants’ Score in the Pilot Test ... 74

Appendix I Reliability Computation of the Pilot Test ... 75

Appendix J Participants’ Score of the Test ... 76

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information and rationale for this study. It encompasses six sections. The six sections are background of the study, problem formulation, problem limitation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University aims at educating future teachers. As teacher candidates, the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University are required to master the four competences which are included in communicative competence. They are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. As one of the four competences in communicative competence, grammatical competence should be mastered by the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. Grammatical competence is “knowledge of the rules of the code, including vocabulary and word-formation, pronunciation/spelling and sentence structure i.e. the knowledge and skills required to understand and express the literal meaning of utterances” (Bell, 1991).

Thus, grammar as one of linguistic code has to be mastered. Rutherford, as stated in Purpura (2004) says:

Grammar was used to mean the analysis of a language system, and the study of grammar was not just considered an essential feature of language learning, but was thought to be sufficient for learners to actually acquire another language.

It means mastering grammar is essential in language learning. There are so many topics to study in grammar. One of the topics is relative clauses. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) state “You’ll need to know a great deal about relative clauses as a teacher of ESL/EFL. This construction is – first and foremost – a type of complex postnominal adjectival modifier used in both written and spoken English.” This means that relative clauses are often used. Since the students of the English Language Education Study Program are teacher candidates for ESL/EFL learners, it is important for them to master relative clauses. By mastering relative clauses they will be able to explain it correctly and clearly to their students.

In the curriculum of the English Language Education Study Program, senior students are required to master all topics discussed in Structure Courses, including relative clauses. The students should be able to construct complex sentences using relative clauses, and thus should also be able to translate them from Indonesian into English. As teacher candidates whose native language is Indonesian, they need to master translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English to be able to explain it clearly and help Indonesian learners clearly understand the topic.

Translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English is included in the syllabus of the fifth semester students. From the writer’s experience, translating relative clauses, especially from Indonesian into English, is difficult

because it is complicated in terms of the relative pronouns used in the clauses and tense marker which does not exist in Indonesian language. There are two types of relative clauses, defining and non-defining relative clauses. Each type has some rules to obey. The complexity of relative clauses makes the clauses difficult to learn and to construct, hence difficult to translate.

Based on the informal interview the writer conducted on August 2009 to some senior students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, relative clauses are still problematic for them. Translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English is difficult for them because they are confused by many relative pronouns to choose and when to use comma in the clauses, which make them difficult to produce a natural translation.

Because the ability to translate relative clauses is essential for the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University to master, it is important to measure their capability of translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English through a study. This study would show whether the students have the ability to translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English or not. The study was conducted to the fifth semester students with consideration they have learned and internalized relative clauses comprehensively through their Structure and Translation courses. They are supposed to master relative clauses and to be able to use it correctly. The result of the study was used to give suggestion, especially to the students of the English Language Study Program.

B. Problem Formulation

Considering that the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University still find difficulties in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English, the writer formulates two problems in this research. They are:

1. How is the mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English?

2. What types of errors are found in the students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English?

C. Problem Limitation

In accordance with the problems that have been formulated above, this research will focus on the mastery and errors made by the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. Relative clauses in English are categorized into two major types, i.e. defining relative clauses and non-defining relative clauses. Each type is distinguished into four types, i.e. subject relative, object relative, possessive relative, and after-preposition relative (Yule, 2004).

Because the scope of the topic is too wide, it will not be feasible for the writer to study all of those types. Therefore, this study will only investigate the

translation of two types of relative clauses, i.e. subject relative and object relative, both in defining and non-defining relative clauses.

The study is focused on two main points. The two points are the students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English and the errors found in their translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English. The study was conducted to the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University of the academic year 2009/2010. The instrument that the writer used to gather the data was a test. The test result was to conclude whether the students were able to translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English or not and to find out the errors they made.

D. Research Objective

The objective of this research is to study how the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English. By conducting this study, the writer intends:

1. to find out the mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

2. to discover the errors found in the students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

E. Research Benefit

The writer hopes that this study would be beneficial for many people who read this paper. This research is intended to give meaningful contribution to the study of linguistics. The writer also hopes that this research would be beneficial for teachers and students, for other researchers, and for English language education.

Since this study is a linguistics analysis, it would contribute to the study of linguistics in general. It provides an in-depth discussion on the translation of relative clauses and provides information related to the translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

For teachers and teacher candidates, this research can be used as a reference for their teaching. It provides discussion on grammar field, specifically on the topic of relative clauses. The writer intentionally hopes that it would help them in teaching the topic.

For students, this study is expected to help them in learning English by providing information about relative clauses. They may use it as a reference to their study. Through this research, students would find problems which are commonly occurred and encountered by students and they can learn from those problems.

For other researchers, this study offers discussion on relative clauses. They may use it as reference. This research also offers them the challenge for further research on the subject being discussed.

This study is also intended to contribute to the better development of English language education in Indonesia, especially for the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. It is expected that this study would help English teacher candidates to be better prepared in their professional performance.

F. Definition of Terms 1. Mastery

Mastery in language learning is considered as one of many points that a test might be characterized into (Payne, 1969). Payne (1969) further mentions that mastery is about the learners’ basic knowledge and skills. In this study, the researcher intended to find out the mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. It aimed at measuring the students’ basic knowledge of English relative clauses and tested their skills in grammar and translation.

In this study, one is said to have mastered translating relative clauses if he or she understands the rules of relative clauses and is able to use relative clauses correctly in sentences, hence is able to translate it naturally into the target language. As it is written in Peraturan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta (2002), the minimum standard of mastery is fifty-six percent (56%), while the overall grading system is determined by the lecturers. If the students’ scores are below the minimum standard of mastery, it means that they still have

difficulties in translating relative clauses and they have not mastered the relative clauses.

2. Relative Clauses

Relative clauses or adjectival clauses are clauses that modify nouns (Jackson, 1990). Hewings (2001) adds that a relative clause gives more information about someone or something referred to in a main clause. According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) “relative clauses thus give us a means to encode complex adjectival modifiers that are easier to process than complex attributive structures and that are less wordy than two independent clauses”.

In this study, relative clauses refer to clauses that modify nouns in sentences which are shown in the research instrument, i.e. the test. The researcher intends to discuss relative clauses from Indonesian into English. English, as the target language, has many relative pronouns to describe relative clauses. The various types of the relative pronouns often bring confusion to Indonesian learners, especially when translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

3. Translation

Larson (1984) states that “translation is a process which begins with the source language text, analyzes the text into semantic structure, and then restructures the semantic structure into appropriate forms in order to create an

equivalent receptor language text.” According to Bell (1991), translation is “the expressions in another language of what has been expressed in another.” In this study, translation is seen as a process of linguistic and cultural adaptation. The students were to translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English through a test. Here, translation is used to test the students’ mastery of relative clauses. As Purpura (2004) states:

… at one point in time, knowledge of grammar was assessed through the ability to recite rules; at another, through the ability to extrapolate a rule from samples of the target language; and yet another, knowledge of grammar was tested through the ability to provide an accurate translation.

4. The Fifth Semester Students

The participants of this study were the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The fifth semester students are chosen based on their competency in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English, in relation to their taking Structure V and Translation I in the fifth semester.

5. Indonesian

In this study, the term Indonesian refers to Indonesian language, also known as Bahasa Indonesia. This language is the national language of Indonesian people, therefore is also their first language. Jones (1994) states “In 1928 young nationalists declared Bahasa Indonesia, their new name for Malay, to be the national language. … independence came in 1945, and Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) was decreed to be the national language”.

6. English

The term English in this study refers to English language. It has been widely known that English is worlds’ lingua franca. It is used throughout the world in any occasion.

11 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter consists of two parts, i.e. theoretical description and theoretical framework. Theoretical description elucidates the theories underlying the study. Theoretical framework elucidates how the theories counterpart the study.

A. Theoretical Description

At this point, the writer elaborates some relevant theories underlying the study. In relation to the first research question, the writer felt the need to give an account for theory about grammar mastery. Since the focus of this study is analyzing the translation of relative clauses, thus the elucidation of translation theories should be stated here. Theories of relative clauses are also essential to be presented. Nevertheless, the writer would also convey some theories of error analysis in relation to the second research question.

1. Grammar Mastery

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) concur that “teachers will be better prepared to meet their students’ learning needs if they have a firm grounding in the grammar of the language they are teaching.” As future teachers of English language to Indonesian learners, it is important for the fifth semester students of the English Language Study Program of Sanata Dharma University to

master grammar, including relative clauses, and be able to translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

Mastery in language learning is considered as one of many points that a test might be characterized into (Payne, 1969). Payne (1969) further mentions that mastery is about the learners’ basic knowledge and skills. Bloom as cited in Kulik (1969) says that

If students are normally distributed in aptitude for a subject and all receive exactly the same instruction for the same amount of time, then, the end result will be a normal distribution on achievement in the subject. The final differences in achievement will reflect the initial differences in aptitude.

In this study, the researcher intended to find out the mastery of the fifth semester students in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. It aimed at measuring the students’ basic knowledge of English relative clauses and tested their skills in grammar and translation.

In relation to the study, one is said to have mastered relative clauses if he or she understands the rules of relative clauses and is able to use relative clauses correctly in sentences. As it is written in Peraturan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta (2002), the minimum standard of mastery is fifty-six percent (56%), while the overall grading system is determined by the lecturers. The following is the list of score category which is used to classify the students’ scores.

Table 2.1 List of Score Category

Score Category 80-100 very good (A)

70-79 good (B)

56-69 sufficient (C) 50-55 insufficient (D)

≤ 49 poor (E)

Based on the list above, if the students’ scores are below the minimum standard of mastery, it means that they still have difficulties in translating relative clauses and they have not mastered the relative clauses.

2. Translation Theory

This study focuses on the students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English. Hence, the elucidation of the translation theory underlined the study should be presented here. Here, the writer elaborates the definition of translation, kinds of translation, and criteria of a good translation.

a. Definition of Translation

In defining translation, Bassnett (1991) states:

translation involves the transfer of ‘meaning’ contained in one set of language signs into another set of language signs through competent use of the dictionary and grammar, the process involves a whole set of extra-linguistic criteria also.

Meanwhile, Catford (1974) defines translation as the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language

(TL). According to Larson (SIL International), translation is “a process based on the theory that it is possible to abstract the meaning of a text from its forms and reproduce that meaning with the very different forms of a second language”.

Koller as cited in Hatim (2001) defines translation as “the result of a text-processing activity, by means of which a source-language text is transposed into a target-language text”. Further, he states that between the resultant text in L2 (the target-language text) and the source text in L1 (the source-language text) there exist a relationship, which can be designated as a translational, or equivalence relation.

Nida and Taber (1974) add that translation “consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style.” There are many similar definition of translation proposed by linguists around the globe. As a conclusion, translation is reproducing the message of the text from source language into target language without changing the meaning of the text. In this study, the source language is Indonesian and the target language is English.

b. Kinds of Translation

Larson (1984) classifies translation into two types, i.e. form-based translations and meaning-based translations. Form-based translations make every effort to follow the form of the source language. It is also called as literal translations. Meaning-based translations attempt to communicate the meaning of

unduly free idiomatic near idiomatic inconsistent mixture

modified literal literal very literal

the source language text in the natural forms of the receptor language. This kind of translations is called idiomatic translations.

Larson (1984) suggests good translations are often a mixture of literal translation of the grammatical units and the idiomatic translation of the meaning of the text. Moreover, Larson proposed a set of translation continuum as seen in the figure below:

Figure 2.1 Continuum Stages of Translation According to Larson (1984)

From the figure above, translators’ goal is to achieve idiomatic stage. In this stage, the result is idiomatic translation, in which the meaning in the source language text does not change in the target language text. This stage also produces a natural translation in the target language style. Unduly free translation is not considered to be acceptable translation for most purposes because this kind of translation often omits and adds the content of the text during the translation from the source language into the target language, hence often changes the meaning.

c. Criteria of a Good Translation

From many theories about translation, many linguists seem to agree to the criteria of a good translation. To meet the criteria of a good translation, a translation result should be accurate and natural. To make an accurate and natural translation needs a long process of preliminary and on-going study of the project.

In this study, the participants were required to make a good translation as described above. Because the goal is to produce an idiomatic translation, accuracy and naturalness of the participants’ translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English are taken into account.

3. Relative Clauses

Since this study discusses the translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English, there are two viewpoints will be stated, relative clauses in English and relative clauses in Indonesian.

a. Relative Clauses in English

Relative clauses in English are also known as adjective clauses. A relative clause is a clause that modifies a noun. Hewings (2001) states it “gives more information about someone or something referred to in a main clause”. English relative clauses are categorized into two major types, i.e. defining relative clauses and non-defining relative clauses.

1) Defining Relative Clauses

One of the types of relative clauses is defining relative clauses. A defining relative clause, also called restrictive relative clause, describes “the preceding noun in such a way as to distinguish it from other nouns of the same class” (Thomson and Martinet, 1995). According to Graver (1984), this kind of relative clause is “an essential part of the whole definitions, and cannot be omitted if the sentence as a whole is to make useful sense”. For example:

(a) A conductor is a person who collects fares on a bus or tram.

In the example above (a), the words in italic is the relative clause. If we omit the relative clause, the sentence will be unclear and the sentence will be incomplete, as stated below:

(b) A conductor is a person.

In (b) the sentence is not clear because the meaning of ‘a person’ is too general. ‘A person’ is not always a conductor. Thus, the defining relative clause gives a clear understanding of the noun, as in the example (a). Example (a) and (b) are taken from Graver (1984). Hewings (2001) adds that defining relative clauses “are used to specify which person or thing we mean, or which type of person or thing we mean”. Therefore, there is no need to use comma here.

Defining relative clauses may describe a noun as subject or object. In constructing defining relative clauses, there are relative pronouns that can be used. They are who, whom, which, and that. Relative pronouns who and whom describe person, while relative pronoun which describes things. Relative pronoun that may

describe both person and things. Nonetheless, it is common to omit the relative pronoun as in the following example taken from Hewings (2001):

(c) He showed me the rocks (which/that) he had brought back from Australia.

(d) He showed me therocks hehad brought back fromAustralia.

In (c), the relative pronouns in the brackets can be omitted (example (d)) without changing the meaning of the sentence. However, this omission can only be applied if the position of the relative pronoun in the sentence is as object relative, while it cannot be applied in contradiction if the position of the relative pronoun in the sentence is as subject relative.

Relative pronoun that is only used in defining relative clauses. This special relative pronoun may also be used to refer to subject and object after the words something and anything. Words such as all, little, much, no and none used as nouns and superlatives may also used relative pronoun that. Relative pronoun which is also used to describe the same thing, but it less commonly occurs.

2) Non-defining Relative Clause

The other type of relative clauses is non-defining relative clauses, also known as non-restrictive relative clauses. Thomson and Martinet (1995) state “Non-defining relative clauses are placed after nouns which are definite already”. Contrasting to defining relative clauses, non-defining relative clauses are enclosed by commas. Fabb (1994) adds “English nonrestrictive relative clauses differ from

restrictive relatives most obviously in that they are spoken with an intonational break (like parentheticals)”. See example below:

(e) Peter, who had been driving all day, suggested stopping at the next town. (Thomson and Martinet, 1995)

In example (e) the words in italics is the relative clause. Non-defining relative clause does not modify the nouns but solely gives additional information to the noun. If we omit the relative clause in that sentence, the sentence is still complete. See the following example:

(f) Peter suggested stopping at the next town.

In non-defining relative clause, the relative pronoun cannot be omitted. Relative pronouns used in this construction are who, whom, and which. Relative pronouns who (subject) and who/whom (object) describe person, while which describe things. Non-defining relative clauses are formal forms and commonly found in written English.

3) Other Types of Relative

There are other relative pronouns used in relative clauses construction. They are whose, when, where, etc. Relative pronoun whose is used to show possessive (Azar, 1989). Example as follows:

(g) I know the man whose bicycle was stolen.

In example (g), the relative clause modifies the noun ‘the man’. It can be seen that the bicycle belongs to the man. Relative pronouns when and where are often used in informal relative clause construction, but in formal English they are often

replaced by a phrase with preposition + which. See how the example (g) and (h) below differ without changing the meaning.

(h) This was the place where we first met. (Informal) (i) This was the place at/in which we first met. (Formal)

4) Zero Relative Clauses

As stated before in defining relative clauses, it is common to omit the relative pronoun in the relative clauses (See example (d)). The omission of the relative pronoun in relative clause construction thus is called zero relative clauses, usually indicated with the symbol ‘ø’.

Zero relative clauses can only occur in defining relative clauses positioned as object relative. It cannot occur in the defining relative clauses positioned as subject relative. It also cannot occur in the non-defining relative clauses. In conclusion, the uses of relative pronouns are shown in the following table:

Table 2.2 Uses of Relative Pronouns (Yule, 2004)

Subject relative

Object

relative After-preposition relative

Possessive relatives Fronted Stranded

who ø (to) which ø … (to) whose

that that (to) whom that … (to) of which

which which who … (to)

whom which … (to)

b. Relative Clauses in Indonesian

In Indonesian, relative clauses are parts of “Klausa Sematan” (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988). In English, Klausa Sematan is

called subordinate clause. Klausa sematan marks some of relationships between clauses, such as conditional relationship, causal relationship, showing-time relationship, attributive relationship, etc. Indonesian relative clauses assign attributive relationship whereas the subordinate clause (klausa sematan) serves as a modifier (pewatas) to the nouns. It is called as an attributive modifier, using subordinator ‘yang’. For example:

(j) Pamannya yang tinggal di Bogor meninggal kemarin. (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988)

~ His uncle who lives in Bogor died yesterday.

(k) Istrinya, yang datang bersama dengan dia itu, seorang insinyur. (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988)

~ His wife, who came with him, is an engineer.

(m) Makalah yang ditulis oleh para mahasiswa (itu) menyinggung perasaan Rektor. (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988) ~ The paper which is written by the students hurt the Dean’s feelings. From the examples above ((j), (k), and (m)), it is clear that the subordinator ‘yang’ represents both person and things, unlike English relative pronouns which differ from one relative clause into another in terms of the nouns being modified.

There are two types of Indonesian relative clauses (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988). Similar to the English relative clauses, the two types of Indonesian relative clause are restrictive (bersifat membatasi) and non-restrictive (bersifat tidak membatasi). Examples (j) and (m) are restrictive

relative clause, while (k) is the example of non-restrictive relative clause. Like the English relative clauses, the two types are distinguished by commas. Restrictive relative clauses as seen in (j) and (m) use no commas, while non-restrictive relative clause in (k) use commas.

Also part of the modifier subordinate clause (klausa sematan pewatas) is the possesive subordinate clause (klausa sematan posesif). In English, this is represented by the relative pronoun whose, while in Indonesian it is still described by subordinator ‘yang’. This construction is marked by the adding of particle –nya to the nouns which is placed after subordinator ‘yang’. See the example below:

(n) Para pegawai yang gajinya kecil tidak wajib memberi sumbangan. (Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1988)

(o) The employees, whose salary is small, are not obligatory giving donation.

4. Error Analysis

This study investigates students’ errors in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. Thus, it is essential to state some theories of errors in second language acquisition.

a. Description of Error

In language learning, students committing errors is inevitably. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) affirm that “Errors are the flawed side of learner speech or writing”. However, errors differ from mistakes. According to Corder as cited in

Gass and Selinker (2001), similar to slip of the tongues mistakes are generally occur once, while an error is systematic that it may take place time after time without being noticed by the learner.

There are two main purposes of studying learners’ errors (Dulay, et. al, 1982):

1) it provides data from which interferences about the nature of the language learning process can be made

2) it indicates to teachers and curriculum developers which part of the target language students have most difficulty producing correctly and which error types detract most from a learner’s ability to communicate effectively. (Dulay, et. al, 1982)

Erdoğan (2005) states there are two major sources of errors. They are interlingual transfer and intralingual transfer. Further, Erdoğan explains interlingual transfer as to be the result of language transfer caused by the learner’s first language, known as interference. It may cover the errors of phonological, morphological, grammatical, and lexica-semantic elements transfer from source language into target language. On the other hand, intralingual errors happen as a result of the learner’s inadequate knowledge and experience of the target language, for example simplification and over generalization.

b. Errors Categorization

Errors are classified based on language components and particular linguistic constituent affected by errors (Dulay, et al, 1982). Language components take account of phonology (pronunciation), syntax and morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and vocabulary), and discourse

(style). On the other hand, constituents include the elements that comprise each language component. Additionally, Dulay, et al. state the most common errors are:

1) Omitting grammatical morphemes e.g.: He hit car.

2) Double marking e.g.: (past tense)

She didn’t went back. 3) Regularizing rules

e.g.: womans for women 4) Using archiforms

e.g.: I see her yesterday. Her dance with my father. 5) Using two or more forms in random alternation

e.g.: the random use of he and she regardless of the gender of the person of interest

6) Misordering

e.g.: What you are doing?

They are all the time late. (Dulay, et al, 1982)

Because of the time limit, in this study the writer simplified the categories. However, the categorization that the writer proposed here still adapts Dulay’s basic categorization. The writer attempts to relate it to the subject being discussed, i.e. relative clauses and the translation of the relative clauses. The categorization is shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 The Categorization of Errors

Errors in Relative Clauses Errors in Translation Errors in Relative

Pronoun Use

Errors in Comma Use

Grammatical

Errors Errors in Meaning • incorrect use

of relative pronoun

• incorrect use of comma

• omission • punctuation

• diction • spelling

B. Theoretical Framework

There are two research problems to answer in this research. In answering the two research questions the writer used the aforementioned theories.

The first research question seek to find out the mastery of the fifth semester students in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. In answering the question, the researcher used a test as the instrument to gather the data. In analysing the data, the writer referred to the list of score category in Table 2.2 to determine the participants’ mastery. The score category was based on Peraturan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta (2002).

In scoring the test, the writer corrected participants’ works based on the theory of relative clauses stated above, especially the theory of English relative clauses stated by Azar (1989), Hewings (2001), Graver (1984), and Thomson and Martinet (1995). The essence of the first research question was not solely on the participants’ ability in constructing relative clauses but more in their ability in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. In analyzing the participants’ translation, the writer referred to the aforementioned continuum stages of translation proposed by Larson (1984). The goal of a good translation according to Larson was an idiomatic (natural) translation.

The data of the test was also used to answer the second research question. First, the writer categorized the errors using the error categorization adapted from categorization of errors by Dulay et al (1982), based on the most common errors to occur. Second, after categorizing the errors the writer examined the types of errors that the participants made in translating relative clauses using theories of

relative clauses, especially the theory of English relative clauses. The result of the whole translation of the participants’ work in one sentence was examined based on the Larson’s theory of translation and his continuum stages of translation. The categorization of the participants’ erroneous answers can be seen completely in the appendices (see Appendix K).

27 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter elaborates the rationale of the methods of the research and analysis. It covers six sections. The sections are method used in this study, participants of the study, instruments to gather the data, technique of gathering the data, technique of analyzing the data, and procedure of the research.

A. Research Method

This study is a descriptive qualitative research. Sprinthall, Schmutte, and Sirois (1991) mention that when the primary objective of the research is description and not looking for differences between groups or relationship among variables, then the research is typically called descriptive. This study seeks to find out the mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. The writer also intends to uncover the problems that they came upon when doing the translation.

This study was aimed at answering two research questions. The first research question tried to find out the fifth semester students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. The second research question seek find out types of errors found in the fifth semester students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

This research would not only describe the findings but also dig deeper from the data gathered. After gathering the data, the writer examined the findings to find out the core problems causing the students’ making errors in doing translation of relative clauses in English. Consequently, this research is a qualitative study.

In accommodating the study, the writer used survey method using one qualitative instrument to gather the data. The instrument was a test. The test was intended to answer the two research problems.

B. Research Participants

The participants of this study were the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, of the academic year of 2009/2010. It would not be feasible to study the entire population which consists of all members of the fifth semester students. Therefore, the writer decided to select a sample as the representative of the entire population. The sample was a portion of the entire population of the fifth semester students which was chosen based on the participants attending the test, taken from two classes.

The participants were chosen because they are regarded as senior students who were considered to have learned and internalized some Basic English structure, including relative clauses. As senior students, the fifth semester students’ are expected to be able to construct complex sentences using relative clauses. It is also found in the curriculum and the syllabus of the fifth semester

students that they learned to translate relative clauses from Indonesian into English in that semester.

Other reason was in the following semester, the students are going to have their practice teaching in Micro Teaching course and Program Pengalaman Lapangan. These programs require them to master grammar topics, at least those included in the junior and high school curriculum. One of the topics is relative clauses. In order to be able to deliver and explain the topics to Indonesian learners, these teacher candidates need to be able to master translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

C. Research Instrument

In carrying out the study, the writer constructed a test as the instrument. A test is “a method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given domain” (Brown: 2004). In relation to the study, the writer constructed a translation test consisting twenty items. The twenty items consist of sentences containing relative clauses that should be translated from Indonesian into English. The items were taken from reliable sources, i.e. grammar textbooks, such as Fabb (1994), Graver (1984), Hewings (2001), Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), and Yule (2004). The test was intended to answer the two research questions.

As to make the research valid and reliable, the instrument also has to be valid and reliable. The followings are the description of the validity and reliability

of the test that the writer used. The writer also presents the scoring procedure for the test.

1. Validity of the Test

Gronlund as cited in Brown (2004) says that validity is “the extent to which inferences made from assessment results are appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment”. Hughes (1989) states “a test is said to be valid if it measures accurately what it is intended to measure”. Further, he argues there are four types of test validity, namely content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity, and face validity.

To found out whether the test that the writer constructed was valid and reliable the writer conducted a pilot test on November 19, 2009 in Structure V Class. From the result of the pilot test, it was found that the test only covers three out of the four types of validity. The following is the description of the validity that the test covered.

a) Content Validity

Content validity refers to the content of the instrument, which is the test. Hughes (1989) states that content validity constitutes “a representative sample of the language skills, structures, etc. with which it is meant to be concerned.” Further, Hughes argues that the content validity of a test can be seen from the specification of the skills, structures, or other elements.

From the result of the pilot test, the writer found that the test used in this study covered the content validity. The test in this study was to measure the students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English and to find out errors that they made when doing the translation. The content of the test specifies on grammar element, i.e. relative clauses. The participants were to translate twenty items (sentences) in the test from Indonesian into English. All sentences in the test contained relative clause.

The test in this research covered content validity because the participants were able to do the test. The participant could do the test because they were familiar with the constructions. It was shown from the test result.

b) Construct Validity

A test is said to have construct validity if “it can demonstrate that it measures just the ability which it is supposed to measure” (Hughes, 1989). The test in this study was designed to measure the mastery of the fifth semester students’ in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

From the result of the pilot test, the test used in this study has the construct validity. It was intended to measure the fifth semester students’ mastery on grammar and translation. The fifth semester students are considered to have learned and internalized the construction of relative clauses and the translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English in their courses, hence were able to do the test.

c) Face Validity

Face validity covers the looks of the test. If it looks as if it measures what it is intended to measure then it has face validity (Hughes, 1989). Since the test used in this study measures students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English, it was constructed in form of sentences. The students were to rewrite while translate the test items from Indonesian into English.

From the result of the pilot test, the writer found that the participants could understand clearly how to do the test and thus were able to do it. It means that the participants knew what to do when they got the test sheets. The looks of the test can be seen in the appendices (See appendix F).

2. Reliability of the Test

Discussing reliability of a test, Brown (2004) suggests that it should be “consistent and dependable”. While validity concerns on accuracy, reliability is about consistency. A test is said to be reliable when it gives a more or less the same overcome when it is administered to the same subjects on different occasion.

Ebel (1979) states that “there are at least five methods have been used for obtaining the independent measurements necessary for estimating test reliability.” The methods are reader reliability, test-retest, equivalent forms, split-halves, and Kuder-Richardson. The test that the writer conducted used the split-halves method. According to Ebel (1979), in split-halves method the test was split into two equivalent halves which then produce two independent scores used to

estimate reliability. This method is simpler than the other methods because it requires only one administration of one test.

A test is said to be reliable if it yields the same result when the test administered to the same students or matched students on two different occasions (Brown, 2004). Thus, the split-halves method, although only administered once, gives the students two scores on the test. The two scores are derived from the two halves of the test. The first half scores are from odd numbered items, which then labelled X. The other half scores are from even numbered items, then labelled Y. The distribution of the test items can be seen in the blueprint of the test (See Appendix E).

In determining the reliability of the test used in this study, the writer used the Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation to estimate the correlation between the two-halves. The formula is shown below:

where

r = Pearson r

ΣX = sum of scores in X-distribution ΣY = sum of scores in Y-distribution

ΣXY = sum of the products of paired X- and Y-scores ΣX2 = sum of the squared scores in X-distribution ΣY2

= sum of the squared scores in Y-distribution N = number of paired X- and Y-scores (subjects)

After estimating the correlation between the two-halves, the writer estimated the reliability of the split-half test using the Spearman-Brown split-half reliability formula. The following is the formula of the Spearman-Brown split-half reliability estimate:

where:

= the Spearman-Brown split-half reliability estimate = the correlation between the two halves

To determine the reliability of the test, the writer conducted a pilot test. The preliminary test was conducted in November 19, 2009 in Structure V Class. The time allocation was 45 minutes from 9 o’clock until 9.45 in the morning. There were thirty students carried out the test, including the shoppers. Out of the thirty students there were eighteen students from the fifth semester. The other twelve were shoppers (students other than the fifth semester).

The writer used the test result of the eighteen students to estimate the reliability of the test. The result of the pilot test showed that reliability score for the test was 0.31, which means the test was reliable. The participants’ score in the pilot test and the computation of the test reliability can be seen in the appendices (See Appendix H and Appendix I).

3. The Scoring Procedure for the Test

The scoring procedure for the test was based on the point being measured, i.e. the students’ translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English. There were 20 items (sentences) to translate in the test. The goal of each item was a natural translation, or as Larson (1984) said, an idiomatic translation. The points to consider were correctness (grammatical) and naturalness (meaning).

Based on the points above, the score for each item is one (1) for the correct translation and zero (0) for the incorrect one. If the student answer correctly all the 20 items, the maximum score the student can get was 100, derived from the total 20 correct answers multiplied by 5.

D. Data Gathering Technique

To obtain the data, the writer distributed a test to the participants. The participants were the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The test then distributed to two classes, regardless the non-fifth semester students. Out of the population of the whole fifth-semester students, the writer took sixty four students as the sample. Those sixty four students were all the fifth semester students who were chosen randomly based on their taking part in doing the test.

As stated before, the test was conducted in two classes. They were Translation Class and Morphosyntax Class. The test in both classes were conducted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 10.00 – 10.45 for Translation Class and on Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 08.00 – 08.45 for Morphosyntax Class.

There were 36 students in Translation Class and 44 students in Morphosyntax Class attending the test. From the total 80 students, 64 of them are the fifth semester students while the rest are shoppers.

Before administering the test, the writer asked for permission to the lecturers who teach in the chosen classes. On the day the participants did the test, the writer did not solely distribute the test but also monitor the process. The time allotment for the test was forty-five minutes. After the test was administered, the writer sorted the fifth semester students’ works from the other students from the non-fifth semester students. Then, the writer checked their works and analysed them using the key answers and scoring criteria.

E. Data Analysis Technique

The instrument in this study, i.e. a test, was to gather the data needed. After gathering the data, the writer examined the findings from the test. In analysing the test, the writer firstly checked the sample’s works one by one. After checking each number of each sample’s work, the writer then scored the test. After the scoring done, the writer examined the errors in their works then distinguishes the errors according to the types of error as discussed in Chapter II.

F. Research Procedures

The completion of this research followed some procedures. The procedures of this research were explained briefly below.

1. Studying Related Literature

Library study or book research was done to collect information from written sources related to relative clauses and translation. It was also done to check the syllabus of the fifth semester students of the English Language education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.

2. Designing the Test

As stated above, this study used a test as the instrument. After doing the library research, the writer designed a test. Then the test was distributed to the participants to collect the data.

3. Collecting Data

The data were collected from the test designed. The test was conducted to two classes. They were Translation Class and Morphosyntax Class. The test was distributed to all students including the shoppers (students who are not the fifth semester students.). After the data was collected, only the result of the fifth semester students were examined and used in this study.

4. Analyzing and Interpreting the Data

As stated before, the data for this study were collected through a test. After collecting data from the test, the writer discussed the findings. Firstly, the writer analyzed the data. Secondly, the writer interpreted the data.

5. Reporting the Result

After stating all the findings, interpreting the data, and discussing the problems, the writer came to the conclusion. This includes the summary of the findings, the answer of the research problems, and suggestions for further study.

39   

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter elaborates the findings of the study from the data gathered and discusses the findings further. It is divided into two parts, namely students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English and students’ errors in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

A. Students’ Mastery in Translating Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English

The first research question seeks to find out the students’ mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. Their mastery can be seen from their translation result in the test the writer had conducted. The test was conducted to two classes of the fifth semester students of the English Language Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, on November 24 and November 26, 2009. The test consists of only one part. The students were required to translate sentences from Indonesian into English. There were 20 items to translate in the test. The total students who became the participants were 64 students. The students’ achievement in the test can be seen in Table 4.1 below.

   

Table 4.1 The Summary of the Students’ Achievement in the Test Range of Final

Score

Number of Participants

Achieving the Range of Scores Percentage

90 – 100 - 0%

80 – 89 1 2%

70 – 79 4 6%

60 – 69 4 6%

50 – 59 8 13%

40 – 49 17 27%

30 – 39 18 28%

≤ 29 12 19%

TOTAL 64 100%

In the test, the correct answer on each number was scored one (1) and the incorrect one was scored zero (0). Hence, the maximum total score on the test was 20. Then, the final score was multiplied by 5 thus reach a maximum final score of 100. The categorization of mastery of the participants’ test result was based on Peraturan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta (2002).

From table 4.1, it can be seen that there was no participant (0%) achieved the score which falls on the range of 90 – 100. There were 12 participants achieved the lowest score on the range of 0 – 29. There was only one participant (2%) achieved the scores on the range of 80 – 89. Four participants (6%) were on the range of 70 – 79, the same number of participants were on the range of 60 – 69. On the range of 50 – 59, there were eight (13%) participants. Seventeen (27%) participants were on the range of 40 – 49. Most participants obtained the scores on the range of 30 – 39. There were eighteen (28%) participants who were in this range.

   

According to Peraturan Akademik Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta (2002:14), the minimum standard of mastery is fifty-six percent (56%). The complete list of the category is shown in chapter 2, table 2.1. Based on the scoring category, the students who achieved 56% of the highest score are classified into the category of sufficient (C). If the students only achieved 50% of the highest score, they are classified into the category of insufficient (D). The minimum score for the category of good (B) and very good (A) is determined by the lecturers. The scoring category above was applied to classify the students’ achievement in the test. The students’ scores in relation to the category of mastery are presented in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 The Participants’ Score in Relation to the Category of Mastery

Score Category of Mastery Number of Participants

Achieving the Category Percentage

80 – 100 very good (A) 1  1.56% 

70 – 79 good (B) 4  6.25% 

56 – 69 sufficient (C) 4  6.25%  50 – 55 insufficient (D) 8  12.50% 

≤ 49 poor (E) 47  73.44% 

TOTAL 64 100% 

From Table 4.2 it was clear that there was only one participant (1.56%) in the category very good (A). There were four participants (6.25%) in the category good (B), as well as in category sufficient (C). Eight participants (12.50%) were in category insufficient (D). The biggest number was in category poor (E). There were forty-seven participants (73.44%) in this category. In short, there were nine participants (14%) on the Category A to C, which is above the

   

minimum standard of mastery. The other 55 participants (86%) are included in Category D and E, which is below the minimum standard of mastery.

To determine the level of the participants’ mastery on translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English, the writer used the measurement of central tendency using descriptive statistics. The measurement of central tendency consists of the computation of the average score of the test (mean), mid score of the test (median), and the most frequent score in the test result (mode). In this study, the writer only needed the computation of the average score of the test (mean) to determine the level of participants’ mastery on translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

The computation of mean is derived from adding all of the participants’ final score, divided by the total number of the participants. Thus, the computation of the mean is as follows:

mean: ′

h h 0.

Figure 4.1 The Computation of the Participants’ Average Score of the Test

It is shown above that the mean score, or the average of the total correct answers achieved by each participant, was 40.3. The score was below the minimum standard of mastery, which is 56%. This result indicates that most of the fifth semester students of the academic year 2009/2010 have insufficient mastery in translating relative clauses and thus are unable to produce a natural (idiomatic) translation of relative clauses from Indonesian into English.

   

B. Types of Errors found in the Students’ Translation Result of Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English

The second research question seeks to find out the students’ errors in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. In answering the question the writer categorized the errors into two major types according to the subject being studied, i.e. relative clauses construction and the translation of relative clauses. The error categorization adapts the categorization of errors proposed by Dulay et al. (1982).

1. Students’ Errors in Relative Clauses Construction

Students’ errors in constructing relative clauses are divided into two parts based on the two points being analyzed. The two parts are errors in relative pronoun and errors in comma use. These points are considered to be essential features of relative clauses, hence influence the participants’ production of relative clauses.

a. Errors in Relative Pronouns

As stated before, one of the difficulties in learning relative clauses is because there are many kinds of relative pronouns used in the construction of relative clauses in English. This often causes students making errors because of the complexity of the relative pronouns.

From the result of the test the writer had conducted, the participants showed some errors in using relative pronouns in the relative clauses construction.

   

The percentage of the participants’ errors in relative pronouns in the test can be seen in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 Percentage of Errors in Relative Pronouns

Error in Subject Relative

Categ

o

ry

Relative Pronoun

The First Half The Equal Half

Item No Correct Incorrect Item No Correct Incorrect

Def

ini

n

g

who/that

item 1 29 (45%) 35 (55%) item 20 52 (81%) 12 (19%) item 5 61 (95%) 3 (5%) item 16 49 (77%) 15 (23%)

No

n-defi

ning

who item 7 59 (92%) 5 (8%) item 14 58 (91%) 6 (9%) which item 9 52 (81%) 12 (19%) item 12 52 (81%) 12 (19%)

Error in Object Relative

Catego

ry

Relative Pronoun

The First Half The Equal Half

Item No Correct Incorrect Item No Correct Incorrect

Defini

ng

who/ whom/ that/ø

item 11 63 (98%) 1 (2%) item 10 61 (95%) 3 (5%) which/

that/ø

item 3 61 (95%) 3 (5%) item 18 63 (98%) 1 (2%) item 13 64 (100%) 0 (0%) item 8 64 (100%) 0 (0%) who/that

/ø item 15 53 (83%) 11 (17%) item 6 62 (97%) 2 (3%)

Non-def

ini

n

g who/

whom item 17 54 (84%) 10 (16%) item 4 55 (86%) 9 (14%) which item 19 45 (70%) 19 (30%) item 2 46 (72%) 18 (28%)

1) Errors in Subject Relative Pronouns

In the blueprint of the test, it is shown the distribution of the relative pronouns in the test. The distribution is categorized into two main distinctions,

Error in Meaning 

Diction  Spelling 

Item 

No  Intended Meaning  Error in Diction  F  Error in Spelling  F 

      amusement  1       

      attracting  1       

      enjoyment  2       

      funny  1       

      good view  2       

      happiness  3       

      interesting  2       

      joy(ful)  8       

      pleasant  1       

      pleasure(able)  23      

      something fresh/nice  3       

   eyes  seeing  3       

      view  2       

13  good  beautiful  1  ‐  0 

14  died  death  1  teached/teachs  2 

      passed away  18 mathe matic  1 

15  kindest  best  6  kindman  1 

      greatest  1  friiend  1 

      kindness  3  thee  1 

      most generous  3  kindness  1 

      most kindman  3       

      most nicest  1       

      nicest  1       

   know  meet/met  2       

      recognized  4       

16  confidence  belief  12 tought  5 

      believe(s)  9  beliefe  2 

      certain  2       

      convenience  3       

      conviction  4       

      convince  2       

      faith  12      

      sure  6       

   someone  (a) person  12      

      anyone  1       

      everyone  1       

Appendix K: Students’ Erroneous Answer 88   

Error in Meaning 

Diction  Spelling 

Item 

No  Intended Meaning  Error in Diction  F  Error in Spelling  F 

      other  1       

      people  16      

      personality  1       

      somebody  2       

      the man  1       

      those  1       

   speaks  convey  4       

      explain(ing)  3       

      expliciting  1       

      express(es)  13      

      inforum  1       

      presents  1       

      reveal  3       

      share(s)/(d)  11      

      show(ing)  2       

      speak up  3       

      state  1       

      support  2       

      tell  5       

   mind  idea  2       

      opinion  3       

      taught  3       

      thinking  1       

      thought  26      

17  suspected  accused  2  ‐  0 

      curioused  2       

      distructed  3       

      distrusted  2       

      suspect  1       

      suspended  1       

      suspicion  2       

      suspicious(ed)  3       

      under suspicion  3       

   turned out  actually  8       

      apparently  3       

      certainly  1       

Error in Meaning 

Diction  Spelling 

Item 

No  Intended Meaning  Error in Diction  F  Error in Spelling  F 

      evidently  1       

      in fact  4       

      obviousely  1       

      proven  2       

   innocent  clear  1       

      didn't fault  2       

      not false  1       

      not guilty  24      

      not mistaken  2       

      not wrong  8       

      unguilty  6       

18  showed  addressed  1  ‐  0 

      point out  1       

      pointed  1       

      recommend  1       

19  gave  bought  1  net(ted)  5 

   knitted  made  7  jamper  1 

      neated  2  jymper  1 

      net(ted)  5  knnited  1 

      saw  3  neated  2 

      sew(n)/sown  7  her self  2 

      sewed  2       

      swoon  1       

      wovon  1       

20  next to  beside  20 grandchildrens  2 

      near  2  grandchilds  3 

   grandchildren  grandson (& granddaughters)  2       

Blank and Unfinished Answers  Item 

No  Blank  F  Unfinished  F

1  √  1  ‐  0

2  ‐  0  √  2

Appendix K: Students’ Erroneous Answer 90   

Blank and Unfinished Answers  Item 

No  Blank  F  Unfinished  F

4  ‐  0  ‐  0

5  ‐  0  √  2

6  ‐  0  ‐  0

7  √  1  √  1

8  ‐  0  √  2

9  ‐  0  √  8

10  ‐  0  ‐  0

11  ‐  0  ‐  0

12  √  1  √  3

13  ‐  0  ‐  0

14  ‐  0  √  1

15  ‐  0  ‐  0

16  √  2  √  9

17  √  1  √  1

18  ‐  0  ‐  0

19  √  1  √  3

vi

ABSTRACT

Kusumawardani, Arum. (2011). Students’ Mastery in Translating Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

As teacher candidates, the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University are required to master the four competences in Communicative Competence, including Grammar Competence. Competence in English Grammar consists of the mastery of many grammar topics, including relative clauses. Moreover, it is found in the syllabus of the fifth semester that students should be able to translate complex sentences both from English into Indonesian and Indonesian into English, including Relative Clauses construction.

This study is aimed at answering two research questions namely: (1) How is mastery of the fifth semester students of the English Language Study Program in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English? (2) What types of errors are found in the students’ translation result of relative clauses from Indonesian into English? In doing the research, the researcher used a descriptive qualitative method using a test as the instrument. The participants of the study were the fifth semester students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The result of the test done by the fifth semester students were used to answer the two research questions.

The first research question was answered based on the result of the test. The result of the test shows that the fifth semester students have insufficient mastery in translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. They were included in Category E of Mastery (poor). The second research question was answered based on the students’ translation result on the test. The test result shows that there are some common errors that the students encountered. The errors were categorized into Error in Relative Clauses Construction and Error in Translation. Error in Relative Clauses Construction is divided into Error in Relative Pronoun Use and Error in Comma Use. Error in Translation is divided into Grammatical Error (Omission and Punctuation) and Error in Meaning (Diction and Spelling).

Based on the result of the test, in can be concluded that the fifth semester students have not mastered the ability of translating relative clauses from Indonesian into English. The writer adds that to gain an idiomatic translation one cannot solely depends on grammatical knowledge but also on others, like knowledge on vocabulary and context. As suggestion for future studies, future researcher may study the translation of relative clauses in form of passage.

vii ABSTRAK

Kusumawardani, Arum. (2011). Students’ Mastery in Translating Relative Clauses from Indonesian into English. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Sebagai calon guru, mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma diharapkan mengusai empat kompetensi yang terkandung dalam Communicative Competence, salah satunya adalah kompetensi tata bahasa (Grammar Competence). Kompetensi dalam tata bahasa Bahasa Inggris meliputi penguasaan materi berbagai bahasan termasuk penguasaan Relative Clauses (Klausa Sematan). Lebih lanjut, disebutkan dalam silabus semester lima bahwa mahasiswa harus dapat menerjemahkan kalimat majemuk baik dari Bahasa Inggris ke Bahasa Indonesia maupun dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris, termasuk kalimat majemuk yang mengandung relative clauses.

Studi ini bertujuan untuk menjawab dua pertanyaan, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana penguasaan mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma terhadap kegiatan menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris? (2) Jenis error apa sajakah yang dapat ditemukan pada hasil terjemahan relative clauses mereka dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris? Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode descriptive qualitative dengan menggunakan tes sebagai instrumen penelitian. Partisipan dalam studi ini adalah mahasiswa semester lima program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma. Hasil dari tes digunakan untuk menjawab kedua pertanyaan di atas.

Pertanyaan pertama dijawab menggunakan hasil dari tes. Hasil tes menunjukkan bahwa tingkat penguasaan mahasiswa semester lima dalam menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris cukup rendah (Kategori E). Pertanyaan kedua dijawab menggunakan data hasil terjemahan dari tes. Dari hasil tes diketahui beberapa error yang kerap muncul. Error tersebut dikategorisasikan ke dalam Error in Relative Clauses Construction dan Error in Translation. Error in Relative Clauses Construction dibagi menjadi Error in Relative Pronoun Use dan Error in Comma Use. Error in Translation terbagi atas Grammatical Error (Omission dan Punctuation) dan Error in Meaning (Diction dan Spelling).

Berdasarkan data dari tes, dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa semester lima masih belum menguasai kemampuan menerjemahkan relative clauses dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris. Penulis menambahkan, untuk memperoleh idiomatic translation mahasiswa tidak bisa hanya mengandalkan kemampuan tata bahasa tapi juga kemampuan lain seperti kemampuan dalam kosakata dan konteks. Sebagai saran untuk penelitian lebih lanjut, peneliti di masa datang diharapkan meneliti hasil terjemahan relative clauses dalam bentuk bacaan.