TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES USED BY GOOGLE TRANSLATE AND MICROSOFT TRANSLATOR IN TRANSLATING ABSTRACT TEXT
Abstract
This study aims to find out the various translation techniques used by these two machine translators and knowing the accuracy of translation engines such as Google Translate and Microsoft Translator in translating abstract texts from the research journal “The Implication of Translation Accuracy for the Improvement of Visually-Impered Translation Students' Competence: A Pedagogical Implication” compiled by Raden Arief. Nugroho, Muljono, and Mangatur Rudolf Nababan. The theory used in this research is from Molina & Albir which revealed that translation techniques as procedures to analyse and classify how translation equivalence works (2002, p.509). The results of this study indicate that these two machine translators apply different translation techniques. The translations produced by Google Translation apply more established equivalent translation techniques, because Google Translate translates whole sentences without having to translate word by word because they think the results are less accurate. While the translation results from Microsoft Translator apply literal translation techniques. Microsoft Translator tends to translate word by word so that the impression obtained from the results of this translation is considered less accurate than the results of the Google Translate translation.References
Basari A. and Nugroho, R.A. 2017. The Use of Aegisub in Teaching Audiovisual Translation Classes: A Review on IT-Based Subtitling Course. In Proceedings Education and Language International Conference Vol.1 No.1.
Fitriani, N. (2018). Kesalahan Terjemahan Teks Cerita Fiksi Dari Bahasa Inggris Ke Bahasa Indonesia (Studi Kasus Terhadap Mahasiswa Sastra Inggris Universitas Darma Persada). 2-3.
Trisnawait, Ika Kana & Bahri, Syamsul (2017). Strategi Penerjemahan Teks Bahasa Inggris Ke Bahasa Indonesia Calon Mahasiswa Magister Dalam Ujian Masuk Program Pascasarjana Uin Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh, 84-86.
Farkhan, Muhammad (2014). Penyimpangan Sintaksis dalam Penerjemahan IndonesiaInggris: Studi Kasus di Prodi Sastra Inggris Uin Jakarta, 350-352.
Aflah, Laila Nur (2020). Komparasi Hasil Terjemahan Google Translate dan Bing Translator dalam Menerjemahkan Hedging Words, 68-69.
Ma’Mur, Ilzamudin (2004). Konsep Dasar Penerjemahan: Tinjauan Teoretis, 432-434
Molina, Lucia & Albir, Amparo Hurtado (2002). Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach, 508-509.
Nida, Eugene A. & Taber, Charles R. (1969). The Teory and Practice of Translation, The United Bibles Societies, 12.
Nugroho, R.A. 2016. The Use of Microstrategies in Students’ Translation: A Study of Classroom Translation Process and Product. In Prasasti: Journal of Linguistics Vol.2 No.1 Pp.1-21.
Nugroho, R.A. 2010. Rapport and Address Terms in Family Guy Cartoon: Can (Targeted) Audience Identify a Social Dimension of Relationship. In LITE: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Budaya Vol.6 No.2 Pp. 83-99.
Nugroho, R.A. et al. 2019. Translation as an Alternative to a Language-Based Vocational Course at the Undergraduate Level. In 1st Vocational Education Conference (VEIC 2019). Atlantis Press.
Suryaningtyas, V.W., Nugroho, R.A. Cahyono, S.P. 2019. Appraisal in Bilingual Tourism Information Media: Developing an SFL-Based Translation Model. In ASIAN TEFL Vol.4 No.1 Pp.1-12.
