SYNTACTICAL INTERFERENCE AND TRANSLATION QUALITY OF TRANSLATED TEXT PHYTOCHEMICAL METHODS: A GUIDE TO MODERN TECHNIQUES OF PLANT ANALYSIS

The objectives of this research are: (1) to describe the types of translation interference occurred as well as the types of translation procedures applied in the translated text, and (2) to explain the quality of the translated text of “Phytochemical Methods: a Guide to Modern Techniques of Plant Analysis”. This research uses qualitative research method especially the applied theory. The source of the data is a pharmacy text entitled “Phytochemical Methods: a Guide to Modern Techniques of Plant Analysis” as the ST and its translation version entitled “Metode Fitokimia: Penuntun Cara Modern Menganalisis Tumbuhan” as the TT. The data are analysed based on Bogdan and Biklens stages/steps; searching the data, arranging the data and interpreting. The validity of the data is taken by applying investigator triangulation i.e. by assessing the analysis to two key informants; a proffessional translator and a pharmacy expertise.Based on the analysis, it is found that there are: (1) 106 data are translated by applying single translation procedure, 32 data are translated by applying couplet translation procedure and 2 data are analysed by applying triplet translation procedure, most of the data are translated by applying modulation as the translation procedure, (2) from 18 translation procedures applied by the translator, only two of them are oriented to the source text, while the rest are oriented to the target text, (3) in the case of the translation quality, this translated textbook is considered has average quality and fairly good to be used as additional textbook but not as a guidance book since 46.9% data are accurate, 38.6% are less accurate, 14.5% are inaccurate based on its accuracy. Based on its acceptability, 20.3% data are acceptable, 64.1% are less acceptable and 7.6% are unacceptable. Based on readability, 29.7% data have high readability, 57.2% have middle readability and 13.1% have low readability.