Ppt Translation Quality Assessment

TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

GROUP 11 RULI (0203517013) WIGATI MARTINA (0203517023) RULIA IVA DHALINA (0203517053)

The Overview of Translation Quality Assessment • According to Juliane House, translation is the result of a linguistic-textual operation in which a text in one language is recontextualized in another language. • Equivalence is important in the result of translation process • Translation quality assessment (TQA) is used to assess the equivalence in the translation

Approaches in Translation Quality Assessment Psycho-social Approaches  Mentalist views Mentalist views emphasize the belief that the quality of translation depends largerly on the translation subjective decisions. Response-based Approaches  Behavioristic Views This view is based on the belief that a ‘good’ translation is one leading to ‘equivalence of response’  Functionalist, ‘skopos’-related views This approach downplays ‘equivalence’ to a special form of ‘adequacy’ or completely abandoned it.

Text and Discourse-oriented Approaches Descriptive Translation Studies It emphasizes on the appropriateness of the translation in the target culture. Philosophical and socio-cultural, sociopolitical approaches it focuses on the ‘hidden persuaders’ in texts whose ulterior, often power-related motives are to be brought into the open.  Linguistically oriented approaches Linguistic approaches attempt to explicate the relationship between the text or features of it and how these are perceived by authors, translators and readers.

Some Specific Proposals for TQA Katharina Reiss For determining the quality of a translation it is first of all necessary to determine its function and the text type of the source text Koller He emphasizes the necessity of developing a comprehensive, linguistic model of translation quality assessment. Wilss For the objectification of translation quality assessment, the norm of usage in a given language community with reference to a given situation should be taken as a yardstick Van den Broeck He proposes a tripartite procedure featuring a contrastivepragmatic analysis of source and translation text which is then taken as the basis for the ensuing critical evaluation of the translation.

Larosee The purpose of the translation is the most important aspect for measuiring its quality Jamal Al-Qinai He has set up an ‘eclectic’ approach to translation quality assessment in which he suggests a comprehensive textual analysis, looking at source and target texts as products.

The Original House Model of TQA • This model is based on theories of language use • It is an eclectic model and it is based on the pragmatic theory, Hallidayan SFL, register theory, stylistic, discourse analysis, and the framework of Prague school of language and linguistics. • Equivalence is the core concept of TQA • Equivalence here, is related to the two terms: • Doubly constrained translation to the source text and recipients’ communicative conditions • The preservation of ‘meaning’ across two different lingua-cultures. There are three aspects of this meaning: semantic aspect, pragmatic aspect, and textual aspect • So, it can be concluded that, translation is the replacement of text in source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language.

The Design of the Original House Model of TQA Dimensions of language user 1. Geographical origin 2. Social class 3. Time Dimensions of language use 1. Medium: simple/complex 2. Participation: simple/complex 3. Social role relationship 4. Social attitude 5. Province

The Revised House Model of TQA Generally, the basic concept is similar with the original house model of translation quality assessment translation is the replacement of text in source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. The additional parameters to assess the translation text. They are field, mode, and tenor (theory of functional language by Halliday)

The Design of the Revised House Model of TQA

The Criticism of the TQA by House It is too subjective, because the evaluation and interpretation of the TQA are controlled by the assessor according to functional theory It is difficult to achieve the ‘functional equivalence’ in the translation, because of the difference of sociocultural background of the source and the target language audience It seems like the comparison process of register analysis It is confusing and ‘scientific’

Another Proposal for TQA Mangatur Nababan (2004) has proposed the system of translation quality assessment. The system of Nababan’s TQA is based on the parameters in assessing the translation by Larson and other translation experts. There are 3 parameters in TQA according to Nababan: Accuracy Acceptability Readability

Accuracy The accuracy of translation means that whether the translation text is equivalent with the text from source language or not. This term ‘equivalent’ is the equivalence of meaning that consist in the source language and target language. High accuracy = high quality translation The translation technique that can improve accuracy: Deletion Addition

Acceptability The acceptability of translation means that whether the norms and cultures in the translation text are suitable with those in target language Equivalence = Accuracy Accuracy ≠ Acceptability Equivalence ≠ acceptability In TQA, high acceptability = high quality translation

Readability Nuttall (1989) states that the term “readability” is often used to refer to the combination of structural and lexical difficulty. It forces on the easiness with which a text can be read. Features affecting readability are: Prior knowledge Reading skill Motivation interest

In TQA, high readability = high quality translation

An analysis of students Translation Quality (Accuracy, readibility And Acceptability) in translating an Informatif Text entitled YSEALI to Indonesian

Yola Savitri, Ujang Suparman, Hery Yufrizal University of Lampung Jalan Sumantri Brojonegoro No 1, gedong Meneng, Bandar Lampung [email protected]

Introduction  - Helping people who cannot The advantages of translation

The objectives of the research

Subject of the research • Research problems

speak foreign language • - Students have to translate in oral and written text form To explore the students’ translation quality in translating text entitled YSEALI to Indonesian considering 3 aspect; accuracy, readability, and acceptability

• The sixth semester students of English education study program

• The translation quality of students was undertermined; misstranslation and untranslated words were found

Methodology The research is descriptive – qualitative study The instrument to collecting the data is a translation text The data analyzed by Nababan’s scale The raters are the lecturers of English Education Study programs

Result Accuracy Table 1. The Accuracy level of Students’ translation Scale Scale

Category

Subtotal

Percentage

3

Accurate

256

47%

2

Less Accurate

258

48%

1

Inacurrate

26

5%

Total

540

100%

Con’t • From the table above, it can be seen that the persentages of the accurate data and less accurate data are in the similar number • ( 47 accurate and 48 less accurate) meanwhile inaccurate are 5% • The problem was about misstranslation and words selection. • The translated text contained different idea than the source text therefore It was less accurate. • The resulted that the source language meaning is less accurately conveyed in the target language

Readability Table 2. The readability level of students’ translations Scale

Category

Subtotal

Percentage

3

Readable

334

62%

2

Less Readable

202

37%

1

Unreadable

4

1%

Total

540

100%

Con’t Based on the table above, 62% data were readable, 37% data were less readable, 1% as unreadable The result show that the readability aspect achieved the higher than score compared to the accuracy aspect. Means that the ideas and meaning were not correctly accurate but the syntac of target language met the reader expectation.

Acceptability Table 3. The acceptability level of students’s translation Scale

Category

Subtotal

Percentage

3

Acceptable

347

64%

2

Less acceptable

183

34%

1

Unacceptable

10

2%

Total

540

100%

Con’t Based on data above , it can be seen 64% data are acceptable, 34% data are less acceptable and unacceptable only 2%. This result indicated that most most of the students followed the norms of English in translating the text.

DISCUSSION The translation of quality assessment was fair, It was not bad and it was not good Quality in readability was good and translation quality in acceptability aspect was good The analysis of data showed that most of the accurate, readable and acceptable data simple sentences. Acceptability and readability was good however accuracy was not good. Fair is the best judment for the sixth semester students of English Education Study program Universitas Lampung

Conclusion The percentage of accurate data and less accurate data was high ( 47% accurate and 48% less accurate) The translation quality in translating text about Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSALI) was fair

Suggestion 1. The students They have to learn translation theory 2. For the lecturer It is recommended to review and revised the curriculum 3. For further researcher It is recommended to conduct extend research by including the methods and techniques of translation.

The Weakness of The Journal The researcher did not put some examples of the translation text among students The researcher did not explained the number of students as the participants of the research

TECHNIQUE AND QUALITY OF ENGLISH – INDONESIAN TRANSLATION OF PUN IN TOLKIEN’S THE HOBBIT

English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej Rizky Yolanda & Issy Yuliasri English Language Education Postgraduate Program Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Introduction BACKGROUND

THE OBJECTIVES

DEFINITION OF PUN

PREVIOUS STUDIES

• A novel is interesting when using pun. • Due to that, translation demands is increasing. • Translating pun is very challenging. • To find out the kinds of translation techniques used, and to assess the quality of English – Indonesian translation English – Indonesian Tolkien‟s The Hobbit. • The object of this study is English - Indonesian pun translation of J.R.RTolkien‟s The Hobbit

• Pun is wordplay. • Pun is textual phenomenon which is dependent on structural characteristics of language as an abstract system • Puns may be neither horizontal or vertical. • Winarti (2011) that is An Analysis of Pun Translation in the Animation Movie Madagascar II Escape to Africa. • Rushadi (2012) entitled A translation Analysis of English Pun in the TV Serial “Ally Macbeal”.

NOTION OF PUN

KINDS OF PUN

TECHNIQUES IN TRANSLATING PUN TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Wordplay or pun is a figure of speech which consists of a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious.

• Delabastita (1996: 128) proposes there are four categories of pun: homonymy,homophony, homograph, and paronymy. • Yuan Chuandao (2005), he claims that the creation of pun is connected not only to the meaning and the homophony of a word, but also to the context, manner of speech and logic. Pun to Pun, Pun to Non Pun, Pun to Zero, Pun in ST = Pun in TT, Pun = Related Rhetorical Device (Punoid), Non Pun to Pun, Zero to Pun, and Editorial Techniques. Translation is considered to be good when it meets three criteria; those are accuracy, acceptability, and readability.

METHOD • A descriptive qualitative research. • The source of the data were novel of The Hobbit or There and Back Again by Tolkien, published by Houghton Mifflin Company-New York in 2001 consists of 330 pages and its Indonesian translation The Hobbit atau Pergi dan Kembali tranlated by A.Adiwiyoto,published by PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama-Jakarta in 2002. • The respondents are divided into two, they are expert raters (the lecturers) and target readers (the teenager). • Data collections: note taking, questionairs,in-depth interviews with the expert readers. • Data analysis: the data collected are analyzed by classifying kinds of pun as well as translation techniques applied in translating pun in J.R.R Tolkien‟sThe Hobbit, reducing the data which is not suitable. Interpreting the data is also a part of data analysis, drawing an inferences from the results of the analysis based on statement of the problems and provide the suggestion.

FINDING AND DATA ANALYSIS Kinds of Pun 1.Homonymy 11 data/4.5% 2.Homophony 1 data/0.4% 3.Paronymy 231 data/ 95.1% Total 243 data/100%

Translation Techniques 1.Pun to Pun 12/4.8% 2.Pun to Non Pun 116/46.2% 3.Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid) 113/45.0% 4.Pun to Zero 1/0.4% 5.Pun in ST = Pun in TT 1/0.4% 6.Non Pun to Pun 8/3.2% Total 251/100%

Scales Dealing with accuracy level, the writer uses this following scale: • 3 = Pun is transferred accurately into the target language and no distortion of meaning (Accurate). • 2 = Pun has been transferred accurately into target language, but there is a distortion of meaning or double meaning or eliminated meaning which disturb the wholeness of the message (Less Accurate). • 1 = Pun is inaccurately transferred into the target languageor omitted (Inaccurate).

In this study, the scores that represent the acceptability level are given by four raters. • 3 = Translation of pun is natural,it is commonly familiar to the readers and does not sound strange (Acceptable). • 2 = In general, translation of pun already feels natural, but it is not familiar to the reader and a bit strange (Less Acceptable). • 1 = Translation of pun is unnatural, it is not familiar to the reader and sounds very strange (Inacceptable).

cont. Translation Quality Accuracy Accurate 56/23% Less Accurate 187/77% Total 243/100% Acceptability Acceptable 116/47,7% Less Acceptable 127/52,3% Total 243 100%

Readability High Readability 133/54,7% Sufficient Readability 110/45,3% Total 243/100%

CONCLUSION •

•

•

They are Paronymy, Homonymy and Homophony. Paronymy dominates in 95.1% with 231 data,Homonymy 4.5% with 11 data is in the second rank followed by Homophony 0.4% with 1 datum. There are six techniques used namely Pun to Non Pun, Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid), Pun to Pun, Non Pun to Pun, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero. Pun to Non Pun technique dominates in 116 times of use (46.2%), Pun rendered as other rhetorical device (Punoid) is used 113 times (45.0%) is in the second rank followed by Pun to Pun in 12 times of use (4.8%), Non Pun to Pun is used 8 times (3.2%) is in the fourth rank, then Pun in ST is copied to Pun in TT and Pun to Zero each are used once (0.4%). The analysis on the translation quality shows that 56 translations (23%) are considered to be accurate, and 187 translations (77%) are considered as less accurate. In acceptability level, 116 translations are belong to acceptable (47,7%), and 127 translations are belong to less acceptable (52,3%). Readability level shows that 133 translations (54, 7%) are categorized as high readability, and 110 translations (45,3%) are categorized as sufficient readability.

SUGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT • It would be better if some samples are included in every kinds of pun found in the novel. • It would be better to include some theories before analyzing the data, for example in making the scale.