THE TRANSLATION OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN
INDONESIAN AND ENGLISH ABSTRACTS IN BIOLOGY
THESES
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program as the Final Requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
SONDANG DAMERIA Register Number: 809111043
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
THE TRANSLATION OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN
INDONESIAN AND ENGLISH ABSTRACTS IN BIOLOGY
THESES
A THESIS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program as the Final Requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
SONDANG DAMERIA Register Number: 809111043
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
ABSTRACT
Sondang Dameria. The Translation of Cohesive Devices in Indonesian and English Abstracs In Biology Theses. Thesis. Post Graduate Program, state university of medan, 2014.
This study aimed (1) to describe cohesive devices are used in Indonesian and English version of the Abstract in Biology Theses, (2) to explain the frequency of cohesive devices used in Indonesian and English version of the Abstract in Biology Theses, and (3) to explain the translatability of the cohesive devices in the process of translation of the abstract in Biology Theses. This study used descriptive research sample of 10 abstracts thesis of students of Biology Study program of State University of Medan (UNIMED). The data themselves were single sentences, clauses of the abstract thesis. The results showed that (1) It was found all cohesive devices occur in the whole abstracts analyzed. The most occurence of the cohesive devices in the whole abstracts belongs to Grammatical Cohesion namely; Reference (2) The researcher found that in writing the Indonesian version based on Grammatical Cohesion, the writer most use Substitutionfo llowed by Reference, Conjunction and Ellipsis. In English version, the writer most use Reference followed by Substitution, Conjunction and Ellipsis. Based on Lexical cohesion, the writer most use Repetition followed by meronymy, Synonym, hyponymy and Antonym Indonesian. In English version the writer most use Repetition followed by Meronymy Synonym, hyponymy, and Antonym. (3) There is no untraslatable words found in the abstracts analyzed, because in writing the scientific writing, it must use the general words and grammar, and the writer does not use cultural mindset in writing the scientific writing. So in translating the sentences, the writer does not get a difficulty.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I am indeed very grateful to the Almighty God, the
Creator of heaven and earth, the Alpha and the Omega – for giving me the
strength, the understanding and the life to complete this work.
I am indeed very grateful to my most affectionable and beloved
parents Mr. and Mrs. Nainggolan for their prayers, love, understanding,
moral and financial support. I owe you a lot because you have made me who
I am. May God Almighty continue to strengthen you more and more.
I wish to express my utmost appreciation to my honorable advisers,
Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed., TESP and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd, for
their encouragement, assistance and support despite their very tight
schedule. Thank you, I am indeed very grateful because without your
support, this work would not have been a success. May God continue to
bless you and your family. I am grateful also to all my lecturers in the
Department for their assistance and the knowledge they have given me,
especially to Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd (Head of English Applied
English Applied Linguistic Study Program). May God Almighty be with
you all.
I wish to appreciate also to my beloved brothers and sister –
Christina Nainggolan, Mateus Nainggolan,S.Pd and Markus Nainggolan.
You have all been supportive and understanding. May God be with you all.
Furthermore, I also wish to express my profound gratitude to my beloved
husband Hotman Zakaria Marpaung, S.Pd for his prayers and moral support
every day. May God bless you.
Finally, I thank all my friends and colleagues, especially for Grace
Sembiring, Friska Sinaga with all Sinaga Family of Tuasan, and “METIM”
members for all their concern, prayers and support. May God continue to
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.5 The Significance of the Study ... 8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Language ... 9
2.2 Text ... 9
2.23Translation ... 10
2.4 Translatability and Untranslatability ... 11
2.4.1 Translatability ... 11
2.4.2 Untranslatability ... 12
2.5 The Concept of Cohesion ... 13
2.6 Types of Cohesion ... 15
2.6.1 Grammatical Cohesion ... 15
2.6.1.1 Reference ... 15
2.6.1.3 Ellipsis ... 20
2.6.1.4 Conjunction ... 23
2.6.2 Lexical Cohesion ... 26
2.6.2.1 Reiteration ... 26
2.6.2.2 Collocation ... 28
2.7 Abstract ... 30
2.8 Previous Study ... 31
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 The Research Design ... 33
3.2 Data and Data Source ... 34
3.3 The Technique of Collecting the Data ... 35
3.4 The Technique of Data Analysis ... 35
CHAPTER IV DATA, DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS, AND DISSCUSSION 4.1 Data ... 36
4.2.5Lexical Cohesion ... 75
4.2.6The Frequency of The Occurrence ... 85
4.2.7The Translatability of Cohesive Devices ... 85
4.3Findings ... 85
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion ... 88
5.2 Suggestions ... 88
TABLES
Pages
Table 1 Table of Reference Abstract 1 ... 37
Table 2 Table of Reference Abstract 2 ... 38
Table 3 Table of Reference Abstract 3 ... 40
Table 4 Table of Reference Abstract 4 ... 41
Table 5 Table of Reference Abstract 5 ... 43
Table 6 Table of Substitution Abstract 1 ... 45
Table 7 Table of Substitution Abstract 2 ... 47
Table 8 Table of Substitution Abstract 3 ... 49
Table 9 Table of Substitution Abstract 4 ... 51
Table 10 Table of Substitution Abstract 5 ... 53
Table 11Table of Ellipsis Abstract 1 ... 55
Table 12Table of Ellipsis Abstract 2 ... 57
Table 13 Table of Ellipsis Abstract 3 ... 59
Table 14 Table of Ellipsis Abstract 4 ... 61
Table 15 Table of Ellipsis Abstract 5 ... 63
Table 16 Table of Conjunction Abstract 1 ... 65
Table 17 Table of Conjunction Abstract 2 ... 67
Table 18 Table of Conjunction Abstract 3 ... 69
Table 19 Table of Conjunction Abstract 4 ... 71
Table 20 Table of Conjunction Abstract 5 ... 73
Table 21 Table of Lexical Cohesion Abstract 1 ... 75
47
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the findings and discussion, it can be concluded that:
1. It was found all cohesive devices occur in the whole analyzed abstracts. The most
occurrence of the cohesive devices in the whole abstracts belongs to Grammatical
Cohesion
2. The researcher found that in writing the Indonesian version based on Grammatical
Cohesion, the writer most use Substitution followed by Reference, Conjunction and
Ellipsis. In English version, the writer more use Reference followed by Substitution,
Conjunction and Ellipsis. Based on Lexical cohesion, the writer more use Repetition
followed by meronymy, Synonym, hyponymy, and Antonym Indonesian. In English
version the writer more use Repetition followed by Meronymy, Synonym, hyponymy,
and Antonym.
3. There is no untranslatable word found in the abstracts analyzed, because in writing the
scientific writing, it must use the general words and grammar. So in translating the
sentences, the writer does not get a difficulty.
5.2 Suggestions
As what the research result shown that the analyzed abstracts categorized less of
cohesive in term of ellipsis. It occurs because, in writing abstract, or scientific writing, the
48
With reference to this one, the researcher suggests the following:
1. Other researchers can develop the research of analyzing the abstract, with other aspects
of language, not cohesive devices anymore since their result can help, so that the
writers of the abstracs can create good sentences in writing the abstract,. as a
summarize of their scientific writings.
2. The abstract writers should pay attention. It is very crucial to do in using words
selection, so the abstract readers can understand the meaning of the writing.
3. Other readers who want to learn how to write down English abstract to be careful
REFERENCES
Arnold, R.D.1988. Teaching Cohesive Ties to Children, the Reading Teacher, 42(2), 106-110.
Baker, M. (1995).in Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London:Routledge.
Bassnett, S.2002. Translation and Translating, New York: Longman.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education (2nd ed). Boston: Allan
and Bacon.
Brown, C, & Hactch, E. (1995). Vocabulary, semantic, and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Catford, J.C.1965. A Linguistic theory of Translation. Oxford Press: England
Chandler, W.2007. Sociolinguistic:A NewParadigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Beaugrande, R and W. Dressler. (1985) Introducton to Text Linguistics, London: Longman.
Enkvist, N.E.1987. Writing Across Languages. Analysis 12 texts in Ulla Connor,R.H. Kaplan, Sandra Savignon(Eds). Text Linguistic for the Applier: An Orientation (pp.23-43). Massachusetts:Addison- Wesly Publishing Company
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar: London.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Pearson Education
Hatim, B&Mason, I.1997. The translator as Communictor. London: Routledge.
Hatim, B.1984. A Text typological Approach to Syllabus Design in Translator Training. In the coorporated linguist, 146-149. England.
Irwin,J.W. Understanding and Teaching Cohesion Comprehension. A research review, (pp:31-43), Newmark DE;International Reading Association.
Lindsay,D.B.1985. Cohesion in the Compositios of ESL and English Students, M.A. Thesis; University of California.
Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miles, M.B and Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A source book of New Method. California; Sage Publication.
Newmark, Peter. (1988). A text book of translation. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Nida, Eugene A. & Charles Taber. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: The United Bible Societies.
Saragih, A 2006. Introduction To Systemic Functional Grammar. Unpublished, Medan: English Department of State University of Medan.
