Presentation on theme: "ANDREAS HERI KURNIAWAN, 2201405016 GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN INDONESIAN - ENGLISH A DESCRIPTIVE TEXT TRANSLATION : (A CASE STUDY OF THE GRADE NINTH OF THE."— Presentation transcript:
ANDREAS HERI KURNIAWAN, 2201405016 GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN INDONESIAN - ENGLISH A DESCRIPTIVE TEXT TRANSLATION : (A CASE STUDY OF THE GRADE NINTH OF THE BILINGUAL STUDENTS OF SMP 18 SEMARANG IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2009 / 2010)
Identitas Mahasiswa - NAMA : ANDREAS HERI KURNIAWAN - NIM : 2201405016 - PRODI : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris - JURUSAN : BAHASA & SASTRA INGGRIS - FAKULTAS : Bahasa dan Seni - EMAIL : andrew_heliax pada domain yahoo.com - PEMBIMBING 1 : Drs. Jan Mujiyanto, M.Hum. - PEMBIMBING 2 : Dr. Dwi Anggani LB, M.Pd. - TGL UJIAN : 2009-08-29
Judul GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN INDONESIAN - ENGLISH A DESCRIPTIVE TEXT TRANSLATION : (A CASE STUDY OF THE GRADE NINTH OF THE BILINGUAL STUDENTS OF SMP 18 SEMARANG IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2009 / 2010)
Abstrak One goal of translation is to get the messages or main ideas conveyed in another language. The lack of knowledge and the wrong strategies of translation may result in errors. To avoid some errors that happen in translation I will discuss the kinds and the way of making errors in this final project. The objective of this research is to identify and describe the kinds of grammatical errors in Indonesia – English translation made by the bilingual students of SMP 18 Semarang. Before doing the analysis, I tried to describe the review of the related literature that discusses things concerning the topic. It contains the definition of translation itself, definition of errors, grammatical errors, types of translation, process of translation, equivalence at grammatical level, and criteria of good translation. In this research, I got the data from the result of the students’ work in doing translation in bilingual class. The total respondents were 24 students. I gave them such kinds of translation test, so they have to translate from Indonesia into English. Here, the students will produce their own translation. When the data had been collected, I then analyzed each sentences. To analysis the data made by students I use error analysis method. It consists of 5 steps. There were collection of a sample of learner language, identifications of error, description of errors, explanation of errors, and evaluating the error. I found many grammatical errors made by the students and classified those errors into seven categories. They are error in the agreement between subject and verb, the production of verb group, error in the use of preposition, article, pluralization, pronoun, and conjuction. The result showed that there were many grammatical errors made by the bilingual students of SMP 18 Semarang. The dominant error were in the producing of verb group (24.8 %) and in the use of article (24.3 %). This percentages indicate that many students did not pay attention in the producing of verb group and in the use of article. The errors are caused by the students’ weakness in mastering the pattern of English grammar and it also because they only transferred rules from their mother tongue, they did not really understand their target language. Many grammatical errors made by the students in translating because by the fact that it was the first time for the students doing the real translation test, because there was no specific subject about translation in their class. So, to minimize those errors, the students should be able to develop their ability in mastering aspect of English grammar and it is suggested that English teacher should give clear explanation of each of the rules used in English. They have to tell the students that the rules in English are different from the ones they have in their own language.
Referensi Alter, J et al (eds). 1970. The nature of translation. The Hague: Mouton. Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Baker, Mona.1992. In Other Words : A Coursebook on Translation. New York: Chapman and Hall. Bell, R. T. 1991. Translation and Translating, Theory and Practice. London: Longman. Best, W. John. 1981. Research in Education. New jersey. Prentice Hall Inc. Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Canbridge: Cambridge University Press. Catford, CL. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culler, L. 1976. Saussure. Glasgow: Fontana/ Collins. Finlay, Ian F. 1974. Translating. Edinburgh: T&A Constable Ltd. Frank, Marcella. 1972. Modern English. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gay, L.R. 1987. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. United States of America: Meril Publishing Company. Hornby, A.S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, International Students’ Edition New. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ivir, V. 1981. Formal Correspondence vs Translation Equivalence Revisitid: Poetics Today Larson, L. Mildred. 1984. Meaning Based Translation, A Guide to Cross- Language Equivalence. Lanham: University Press of America. Machali, Rochayah. 2000. Pedoman Bagi Penerjemah. Jakarta: PT. Grasindo. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1992. Qualitative Data Analyzes. New York: Sage Publication Inc. Moleong, L. Lexy. 1990. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Nida, EA. 1964. Towards A Science of Translating. Leiden: EJ. Brill. Nida, EA. 1969. Translation and Translating, Theory and Practice. Leiden: EJ. Brill. Norrish, John. 1983. Language Learners and Their Errors. London: Mac Millan Press. Simatupang, M. D. S. 1999. Pengantar Teory Terjemahan. Jakarta: Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Tinggi Depdiknas. Winter, W. 1961. Impossibilities of Translation, in W. Arrowsmith and R. Shattuck (eds.). New York: Amchor.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.