CHAPTER II
THE LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Nias Maniamölö Culture
The cultural terms in this study are the Nias cultural terms found in the
chapter IV of Famatö Harimao into Bahasa Indonesia Ritus Patung Harimao in
terms of the definition of the five cultural categories proposed by Newmark
(1988: 95-103).
Famatö Harimao is the research report of Johannes M. Hämmerle in 1986
on Nias Maniamölö traditional culture. The research report depicts the down
history of Nias Maniamölö community and their oral traditions namely Famatö
Harimao and Huku Fondrakö. Maniamölö community is the group community of
Nias who occupy the southeast tip of the Nias Island and speak the south variaty
of Nias language (Hondrö, 1989; Zagötö, 2011). The community called
themselves Maniamölö in remembrance of their fore ancestor Mölö and their
down history from Gomo. The term Maniamölö is derived from two meaningful
words Mania (to love; to remember) and Mölö (the name of the community’s
ancestor). Based on the down history of the community which is orally passed
from generations to generations, the communty’s ancestor Mölö came from
Sifalagö Gomo, the hilly land in the east area of South Nias regency. The people
also believe that their ancestor came from a heavenly place namely Teteholi
Ana’a. This believe is usually expressed in the recitation of the heroic poems in
Famatö Harimao is the community’s ritual ceremony of fracturing the
tiger statue; the religious symbol of Maniamölö community. This ritual was held
since the time of their ancestor Jedaŵa. According to the local myth, once, when
Jedaŵa was resting under amanawadanö’s trunk, suddenly Lawalani appeared in
his sight. It was taboo to call him by name, so, Jedaŵa said “Sisagötö fa’ara me
ma tumbua; Si sagötö ölia me ma so ia” that means theeverlasting god who has
been living since the beginning of the world. The appeared god Lawalani gave his
six commandments to Jedawa and commended him to carve a tiger statue for
ritual symbol. Since then, ritualfamatö harimao was always conducted once in
seven years by the community; began with the renewal of huku fondrakö and the
procession of carrying the statue on shoulders, then thrown it into the pool of
sumali river near Onohondrö village. This ritual was aimed at asking for the
blessings upon the whole communty’s lives, and casting away any disaster and
bad fortune.
Huku Fondrakö is a set of regulations agreed upon by the leaders of the
five village Maniamölö communion at the giant convention in the core yard of
Hililowalani village. These regulations were then defined as the basic ordinance
that organizes, preserves, and protects the individual and social lives (human
body, property, threats, crime, disease, fire, loss, pig husbandry, marriage,
lawlessness, measurement, scales, justice and so forth). Both famatö harimao and
huku fondrakö are two reciprocal traditions of the community. Ritual values
(especially the six commendments of Lawalani) that are contained in famatö
fondrakö. While, the renewal of huku fondrakö was usually held once in seven
years as the prerequisite of the ritualfamatö harimao.
In the implementation of these two traditions, many other traditions
especially the paculiar dances, such as:the heroic dances (hoho, fatele and
faluaya), the agility dances (hombo batu and fabeta-betasa ba niha) and artistic
dances (fogaele, fanari moyo and fanari ganöwö) are held. In brief, hoho is the
peculiar recitation of the traditional poetry which is usually held by one or more
people in aesthetic ways (expressing various kind of philosophical meanings, such
as: beliefs, nobility, happiness, victory, grieves and others). Hoho is usually
recited in ritual and other ceremonial events (Hämmerle, 1986).
In 2010, the text book ‘famatö harimao’ was translated by Dal. Zendratö
into Bahasa Indonesia entitled Ritus Patung Harimao. Dal. Zendratö is a senior
pastor at BNKP. He is from the North Nias cultural background, and therefore,
does not has adequate knowledge on Maniamölö culture. But, because of his great
attention to Maniamölö culture, he has encouraged himself to translate the text
book Famatö Harimao into Bahasa Indonesia.
2.2 Concepts of Translation
Translation has been becoming a very important service in all aspects of
human life. Nowadays it plays a very important role in the development of human
civilization; such as in the aspect of science, technology, linguistics, medicines,
anthropology, cross cultural communication and any so fourth (Catford,
1998:vii-1). No development resulted in those fields without translation as a transmission
into another language culture in an intended way or ideology of the translator due
to many factors that influence him in the transferring process.
Many theories of translation were set forth in different approaches by the
linguists based on their different viewpoints concerning translation. These
different theories provide general guidelines for the translators and the translation
students in working with the translationprofessionally.According to Catford
(1998:20), translation is “the replacement of textual material in a source language
by the equivalent textual material in the receptor language”, it must therefore be
discerned from the linguistic perspective.
It is clear that Catford pays more attention on the linguistic focus of the
translation, and is reluctant to frankly acknowledge the cultural focus that bring
about the work of translation. It must be admitted that language is the human’s
communication devise in the social interaction. It is learned, and is patterned by
it’s prevail surrounding context, means that it is a cultural-bound. Thereof, in
translation, what is scrutinized is not simply the language aspect but mostly the
cultural aspect that lies behind, and is manifested in the language. Example, in the
translation of sebiji sesawi (Indonesian) into mae hunö lada (Nias), what is the
translator prudently endeavor in the case of untranslatability is not to force
providing semantic equivalent for the TT term in the TL; instead, he does
scrutinize the cultural equivalent prevail in the TL culture. Lada is kind of green
vegetable namely chili which yields a rather bigger seeds than sesawi does, while
sesawi is a kind of green vegetables which yields the smallest seeds. Semantically, sebiji sesawi and mae hunö lada are not equivalent because they refers to different
language societies in expressing smallest size, these two terms are best equivalent
because they are both utilized to refer to the smallest size. By this reason,
Catford’s concept is no longer satisfactory, and at times be embed in the concept
that translationis not only a linguistic bound but a cultural bound.
Bassnett’s concept (1980:6) that “translation is not just the transfer of texts
from one language into another, it is now rightly seen as a process of negotiation
between texts and between cultures, a process during which all kinds of
transactions take place mediated by the figure of the translator” seems to be
satisfactory definition for translation. Translation is a cultural transmission by
means of language symbols within various factors that intervene in the process
and result. It is a cultural transfer from one culture to another (Snell-Hornby,
1996:233). What is transferred is not the language elements or structure;
translation text is onlycoding device through which the cultural meaning or
message in the SL culture is revealed in the TL culture. During a translation
process, translator’s ideology plays the very important role in directing the
process and quality in terms of all the surrounding contexts that reside in.
Translator stand in between his preference toward the various contexts of the SL
(such as: the source writer’s intention, SL norms and mores, SL cultures, SL
setting and tradition) and the TL (such as: TL norms and mores, SL cultures, SL
setting and tradition), and the relationship found between SL and TL and the
purpose of his translation (Newmark, 1988:4). In this context, translator reconciles
all the discrepancies of the SL and TL by the help of his ideology which is
The gist of translation is equivalence. Despite of its large scope operations,
translation is aimed at producing in the TL a closest natural equivalent to the
message in the SL (Nida and Taber, 1969:12), an effort of communicating a
source culture (SC) in the TL culture. In this case, aspects of meaning and style
become the most priority targeted goal; hence, the translator’s neutral stand, and
his intention to provide original meaning intelligible to the target readers, is
shaken by the asymmetrical contexts of the SL culture and the TL culture. He
must to vote between a preference toward the SL context and a preference toward
the TL context, retaining the ST characteristics or providing the natural meaning
in the TL culture. In consequence, intensive negotiation and prudence is required,
otherwise, the targeted goal would not be achieved. Reduction and or exclusion
are needed in terms of unavoidable conditions, where the translation text must be
adhered to current usage and context to achieve viability in the TL culture
(Venuti, 1995:1).
Translation is intended for providing the target readers’ informative
necessity of the ST message, and therefore, source author’s intention becomes the
main attention of the translator; especially as the information embodied in the ST
text is the author’s intention. This fact is confirmed by translation theorists,
Newmark, for example, claims that “translation is a process of rendering the
meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the
text” (Newmark, 1988:5). Larson presents two types of translation ‘form-based
translation’ and ‘meaning-based translation’ (Larson, 1984:3-32). The first type is
a translation in which the translator attempts to replace the ST form with the
successful, instead, it fails because no language form are the same. The second
type is a translation in which the main focus of the translator is the aspect of
meaning, its originality and intelligibility, and the grammatical form is ignored.
As it has been presented above, in translation, a translator endeavors to
scrutinize the author’s idea embodied in the SL text, his main goal is to produce
the closest equivalent idea in the TL. Thereof, in the process, steps are taken.
First, performing analysis on the text lexicon and its stylistics, and on its
grammatical construction in terms of the context and setting of which it is
produced. After the analysis is complete, and the author’s idea is identified,
equivalent idea is then started to be rebuilt in the TL culture by means of the
lexicon and grammatical structure of the TL. Therefore, Larson’s elucidation of
the equivalence of translation on the meaning aspect is factually satisfactory.It is
confirmed by Sadtono’s concept of‘new-type translation’ (Sadtono, 1985:1-4).
Sadtono focuses attention on the effectiveness of the translation. He argues that
translation which preserves the ST forms such as rhythm, diction, figurative, and
grammatical structure is distortive. While, translation that focuses on the
originality and intelligibility of the equivalent message in the TL culture is the
satisfactory and is therefore regarded as new-type translation.
A good translation is an original-like translation for it is an endeavor for
presenting the source author’s intention in the TL culture by means of a natural
form of the TL. It is an endeavor of transferring the ST meaning in the new text
form in the TL; where the meaning intended is the source author’s intention
(Machali, 2009:26). Translation is a difficult work which would result an
the semantic and pragmatic aspects especially in applying the TL equivalent for
the replacement of the SL text. Therefore, stylistic is urgently required to be
brought into consideration because in hierarchy; different disciplines have their
own stylistics in expressing meaning (Nababan, 1999:20).
Different theorists use different terms to define the essence of translation.
Notwithstanding, they all go into the same point that translation is the process of
producing an equivalent text in the TL for the text in the SL, aimed at
communicating the source author’s intention (embodied in the ST) in the
appropriate stylistic text of the TL, where the intelligibility and originality of the
meaning become the translator’s focus of attention. Here, the translator’s ideology
plays very important role in deciding the equivalence, the main gist of his
translation. So, semantic and pragmatic aspects should be essentially considered.
For ensuring the target readers’ informative benefit; translation must be adhered to
the current context of the TL. The numerous conditions that intervene in must be
concealed, and for many reasons, translation is sometimes adapted to the SL
culture by accommodating the ST characteristics, but it is mostly adhered to TL
culture by replacing the ST elements with the TL natural elements for an attempt
to ensure the message readability and intelligibility to the target readers.
2.3 Text and Context in Translation
Translation is aimed at reproducing the closest meaning of the SL text by
means of a new text appropriate and acceptable in the TL cultural context. It
involves a specific relationship between the SL text and the TL text which is
reproduction of the ST; then equivalence denotes an identity of meaning and or
form, in the sense of equal value or correspondence between the SL item and its
equivalent in the TL (Schäffner, 1998:5). Text and context therefore denote two
core-object of analysis in translation, because a translation work is started from
the analysis of the SL text and context, and is ended with the reproducing of an
equivalent text in the TL context.
In every level of analysis in translation, text and context become reciprocal
to each other and inseparable; on the first part, text serves as an instrument in the
analysis of the context, and on the other part, context serves as an instrument in
the analysis of the text. It is impossible to conduct analysis on text as an
individual object unless it is related to the context, and likewise. Text is the
realization of the context while context is the implication of the text. This
reciprocal is depicted in House (2006). According to the author:
1“Text” is defined as the wording of something written or printed, the
actual words, phrases, and sentences as written (Julian, 2006:79).
2“Context” can be taken to mean something like “the circumstances
relevant to something under consideration” (Julian, 2006:79).
3Translation is an act of performance, of language use, and it may well
be conceptualized as a process of re-contextualization, because in translating, stretches of language are not only given a new shape in a new language, but are also taken out of their earlier, original context and placed in a new context, with different values assigned to communicative conventions, genres, readers’ expectation norms, etc (Julian, 2006:85).
The author’s idea gives emphasis that translation denotes a discourse
analysis, where the oral-discourse performance is represented with the transfer of
meaning of SL text into the SL culture. He uses the term re-contextualization to
refer to the transfer process from SL into TL. According him, text refers to the
and sentence that are printed. Context refers to those factors that take place in and
influence the act of the text analysis and its result.
Hence, in translation, text and context are interdependent because once a
translator analyzes the SL text; he will simultaneously analyze the context that
resides in. Text is the simple representation of the abstract context in the SL
culture, thereof, a translator must pay more concern on how is the nature and
structure of the abstract context, such as the SL cultural value, the way the
community act in discourse, and the different meanings produced by the different
settings that all lie beyond the printed word or text. Translation is a process of
re-contextualization, because it rebuilds in the TL context the meaning that has
existed in the SL context. In accordance, context is defined as the external factor
(such as the different system of SL and TL), and the internal factor (such as the
translator’s cognition and ideology) that interfere in the process of the translation.
2.4 Translation as an Analysis Task
Translation is dealing with the analysis of the SL and TL systems. The
analysis is started by studying the lexicon, grammatical structure, SL setting, and
structural context of the source language text for determining the text intention
and the way it is written. Text intention must be explored because it represents
the SL writer's attitude to the subject matter. In this case, to get the intensive
understanding of the SL text; general and close reading are required. General
reading is intended to get the gist; it might be important to read encyclopedias,
textbooks, or specialist papers to understand the subject and the concepts
words both out of and in context; in principle, it must be ensured that everything
makes good sense in its context (Newmark, 1988:11).
Having acquired the fully analytical understanding of the source language
elements, the translator starts to characterize the readership of the original, and
then of the translation by deciding the translation setting for the benefit of the
target readers. In this phase, level of education, the class, age and sex of the
readership are might be assessed for shaping the appropriate translation stylistic.
Cultural linguistic aspects of the SL text such as ‘neologisms, metaphors, cultural
words and institutional terms peculiar in the TL’ are also underlined in draft notes
before starting writing the translation (Newmark, 1988:13-17). Having
characterized the SL text and noted current problems of cultural linguistic
differences, the translator continues in designing the suitable translation method,
and then, starts to reconstruct the same meaning in the receptor language using the
appropriate cultural lexicon and grammatical structure of the receptor language
(Larson, 1984:3).
The above analysis framework is in line with what Schäffner (2003:84)
proposes that “language and culture are interdependent, and translation is
therefore transfer between cultures or a specific kind of culture-determined text
production”, that in consequence, a translator must pay more carefulness on
studying and comparing the kinship terminology of SL and TL, and considering
the non linguistic referent and the customary way of addressing in both languages
rather than just to translate words literally (Hatim and Munday, 2004:156).
Therefore, translation comprises of both 'linguistic analysis task' and 'cultural
2.4.1 Translation as an integral part of linguistic analysis task
According to Moentaha (2006:9) “terjemahan sebagai kegiatan manusia
di bidang bahasa (analisis) yang hasilnya merupakan teks terjemahan (sintesis)”.
Translation is a work of analyzing a language which results in a new text in
another language. Doing translation means dealing with the language analysis;
studying the meaning of a text to acquire the analytic understanding and then
re-expressing it in our own way, whether in the same language or in another
language. It is in line with Bassneet’s perception that translation has a central core
of linguistic activity (Bassneet, 1980:22).
The translation work consists of studying the SL text, analyzing it and then
rebuilding the same meaning by means of a new text in the receptor
language-cultural context (Newmark, 1988:5). The fact shows that translation is an analysis
operation performed on languages; ranging from the grammatical and lexical
forms, phonic and graphology substances (Catford, 1965:1-4). Consequently,
linguistic approach and linguistic model such are essentially applied in the
translation because they help provide an understanding why the text is or not
effective for its own purpose because they do not only provide explanations for
the translators in using certain operations but also systematic approaches to active
text planning and organization during the creative phase of translation (Munday,
2001:9).
Linguistic model of House (2001) focuses on register analysis of field,
tenor and mode. She goes against with the ideas that advocate the target-audience
oriented notion of translation appropriateness. Instead, she bases her model on
highlighting the nonequivalence. Thus, her model is recognized as a comparative
model; where the textual profile of the ST and TT are also systematically
compared.
Field refers to the subject matter and social action and overwhelms the
specificity of lexical items. Tenor includes the addresser’s temporal, geographical
and social background and also his intellectual, emotional, and affective stance
(his personal viewpoint). Social attitude refers to formal, consultative or informal
style. Mode refers to the channel (spoken or written) and the degree of
participation between addresser and addressee (monolog or dialog).
2.4.2 Translation as an integral part of culture analysis task
Translation, besides belongs to linguistic analysis task, it also belongs to
culture analysis task because it examines the characteristics of the different
cultures and once bridges the space between them. According to Venuti (1995:18)
translation is the replacement of both ‘the linguistic and cultural differences’ of
the foreign text with a text intelligible to the target language readers. She argues
that the translation would only reach its viability in relation with its cultural and
social condition under which it is produced and read. Consequently, in translation,
it is impossible to entirely remove the differences, but instead they are at least
reduced or excluded. Cultural elements of both SL and TL are analyzed
intensively in the process of translation in order to produce an appropriate
translation text in a target language.
Snell and Hornby discuss in a great detail how translation is not a mere
process of transcoding words from one language to another, but that it is a cultural
level by identifying the text in terms of culture and situation, to the micro level,
where the structure of the text are analyzed. The authors stress that translators
must be bilingual and bi-cultural (Snell and Hornby, 1996:233-234). It means in
translation, a translator must pay more attention to cultural background,
non-equivalence, extension and intention, and derivation.
Non-equivalence (because languages are different from each other; they
have different codes and different meanings), extension and intention (because in
different countries, languages are different in extension and intension in defining
the same object; terms that have more or less the same primary meaning, may
have secondary or additional meanings that differ considerably from each other,
and things or concepts that are represented by only one or two terms in one
language, maybe presented by many more terms in the other language), and
derivation because people of different cultural background have their different
models of perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting the object around them).
(Wu, 2008:124-125).
In broad sense, translation is seen as a negotiation process between texts
and between cultures, a process during which all kinds of transactions take place
mediated by the figure of the translator. It denotes a mirror which reflects all the
movements and cultures of peoples around the world. Consequently, a translator
is seen as a creative engineer who is also responsible to ensure the sustainable
writing across time and space, an intercultural mediator and interpreter, a figure
who are responsible of the cultural continuity and diffusion (Bassnett, 1980:4-6).
Hoed confirms that cultural factors basically cover all other factors in the
seven elements, namely: social organization, livelihood systems (developed into
the economy), knowledge systems (developed into a science), technology,
religion, art, and language. As human behavior’s product, this cultural behavior
also yields various kinds ofmaterial culture that becomes the core object of
analysis in a translation work (Hoed, 2006:79-80).
Nababan (1999:58-59) emphasizes that analysis phase in translation covers
analytical understanding of linguistics and socio-culture of both languages
because certainexpressions inthe SL are often used for expressing abstract
meanings that have different concepts in the TL culture. An adapted example is
the concept of ‘rich’ for American people and Nias people. For Nias people, a
person who has a motor cycle and a ceramic house included in the category ofthe
rich. On the other hand, Americans categorize such a person as an ordinary
people. Thus, the term ‘kayo’ (Nias language) does not match with the word 'rich'
in English because in certain conditions they are not at the same value.
Accordingly, unless by doing intensive analysis of these factors, translation work
would undergo the very complicated problem.
Hanafi (1986) confirms that language is apart of the culture and it exists
only in the culture. In consequence, language units such as: word, phrase or
sentence has their meaning only in the cultural context of the language use. The
author sets an example: the word kampung (Indonesian) and village (English) are
equivalent in some respects, but showed differences in feelings and associations
of meaning. The English phrase return to the village is not an appropriate
equivalent to the Indonesian phrase pulang kampong because although the words
difference of the feelings and associations of meanings either of the Indonesian
speakers or of the English speakers. The idea is supported by Mukhtar’s idea
which confirms that language is a culture element; that translation is therefore not
only the transfer of forms and meanings but also of culture (Mukhtar, 2011:5).
Examining the above concepts of language and culture in translation, the
researcher comes into his point of view that translation is the linguistic and
cultural analysis task of two different languages. The researcher agrees that
language and culture are two interrelated elements that can not be separated in the
process of translation. Once language is analyzed, culture is automatically being
analyzed because the functional system of the language such as: transitivity,
modality, theme-rhyme and cohesion are the manifestation of the speakers’
cultural behavior.
2.5 Translation Competence
Translation as an ideological work is not separable from translator’s role
as a language cultural architecture who strives for reproducing the cultural
meaning of a SL text into the TL culture. Thereof, a translator must not only be
bilingual competent but also bicultural competent.
In the previous discussion of this chapter, it has been clarified that
translation is an analysis task of bilingual or multilingual. It denotes a process
which is interfered by many constraints at different levels and various stages
(Darwis, 2008:114), accordingly, in dealing with it, a translator must be
adequately competent, he must play role as a language architecture who by any
the gap between the source language and target language. Adequate intelligence
of both languages is required because it help providing overview of the
characteristics of both languages and facilitates the identification of the
differences (Hoed, 2006:25). Finesse, speed logic and rhetoric skill are also very
much needed in analyzing the existing phenomenon, identifying problems and
finding possible solutions (Baker, 1992:119). Sense of purpose must also be
brought into consideration because translation is aimed at pursuing the equivalent
style in the different stylistic norms of the TL. For this reason, a translator is even
sometimes forced to engineer the language to obtain the appropriate and accurate
equivalent which is readable and intelligible to the TL readers.
Unless by firstly obtaining the language specific knowledge; it is
impossible for a translator to get true understanding of a text content, and the fact
shows that the diversity of meaning of the SL elements is related to the aspects of
the text material (Muchtar, 2011:14). Language competence on the specific text
material is therefore required. Language and material aspects denote basic foot
hold of analysis in a translation, but since they continuously provide diverse
choices for the translator, they sometimes become problems. So, what is needed at
the analysis phase is the knowledge of SL and TL that usually consists of two or
more sub-competencies, because once the translator is at fault in the analysis
phase, the result would be fatal to the translation product (Šeböková, 2010:7).
Nababan (1999:79-81) describes the multi-role of a translator. He claims
that translation is a simple and cheap work but donates a very big contribution in
building all aspects of human life because it functions as a dissemination device of
quality of the precious work, the translator must obtain full understanding of the
true intention of the original author, and be competent in assessing the extent of
accuracy and naturalness of the original message.
Neubert suggests the following hierarchical definition of translation
competence: first, language competence; second, textual competence; third,
subject comptence; fourth, cultural competence; and fifth, transfer competence
(Neubert in Šeböková 2010:11). Language competence refers to the knowledge of
grammatical systems, repertoires, terminologies, syntactic and morphological
conventions, textual competence refers to the ability to define textual features
such as technical, legal or literary fields (it emerges from and is intertwined with
the linguistic competence), subject competence refers to the encyclopaedic
knowledge and specialist knowledge, cultural competence refers to the
translator’s knowledge of the SL and TL cultures, and transfer competence refers
to the transient competence or ability of employing the translation strategy
efficiently in the transfering of the source text meaning into the translation text.
Translator competence is very complex but it determines the process of the
translation. Any strategy is applied on the translation based on the types and
dimensions of problems found in the analysis work that requires brilliant
competence of the translator. The competence is usually reflected by the
appropriate application of translation procedures, methods and ideology
orientation which characterizes the translation text. Thus, although different
theories used different terms to describe how the translator’s competence should
be, but they all provide the very decisive positive contribution to: (1) the
(2) the process and the result of the translation because the translator competence
crucially influence the quality of the process and the result of the translation.
2.6 Cultural Category in Translation
In spite of the formerly grounded advocations by the language theorists
that translation involved into the linguistic sub-discipline for it deals with two
different language systems, focuses on the analysis of ST and its equivalent
reconstruction in a TL (as explained in the previous sub chapter 2.1), recently,
there turns up an inevitable fact that some of theorists themselves spring up
admissions that translation pay more concern on human cultural aspect. They
claim that translation must be seen not only from linguistic perspective but also
from culture perspective. Basnnett (1980) for instance, confidently statesthat
translation is a negotiation process between texts and between cultures under the
translator’s control. Herclaim is reason-based and acceptable because language is
one of human behavior product, and what translation actually does is reflecting or
transmitting the human cultures across different languages, and it appears only
when there is cultural discrepancy between the source and target languages
(Newmark, 1995:94)
Culture has a vast scope; it covers all kind of human behavior’s product
that almost no expert could be able to draw boundary line to limit its extension, it
does not only consist of symbols or things but also of concept, values and other
intangible things that lie outside the concrete things. Fuchs conceptualizes
‘culture’ in a hardly understood and very philosophical way; he depicts that
culture is a recursive network that reflects its entity and distinguishes it from other
daily activities. Carl describes it as the framework built by and for human
societies that comprises of language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors that are
passed on from generations to generations of a society. He views it from the
aspect of its tangibility and intangibility, and divides it into two different
categories ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ (Carl, 2010:48-49). Material culture are
those created things that are visible, testable, touchable, and felt items, such as
jewelry, art, music, clothing, architecture, and craft, artifact that are found in the
social surroundings, e.g. Nias Maniamölö war dance which is particular to the
group society, sets the group society’s identity and make distinction with other
cultures of other group societies. Non-material culture is the nonphysical products
of society, such as: language, beliefs, symbols, values, rules, and sanctions, e.g.
the life view of Nias community that ‘the twittering of an owl bird near or on a
house roof signifies death in the family’. This life view was formerly inspired by
the fact that most often after an owl bird perched and twittered on a house roof,
death happened in the family (Hämmerle, 1999:42). In translation, it is seen as a
broader context of which a text is made (Katan, 2009:74).
Accordingly, based on the above theories of culture and their factual
explanations, cultural terms in translation are words and phrases that are peculiar
to a particular language, and are usually used by the language community in
expressing the cultural features. They are not peculiar in other languages, and
therefore, they often create translation problem (Newmark 1995:94), e.g. in
Maniamölö mother tongue, the term si’öfa handrauli refers to the divisions of the
square-composed stone seats on the core-yard of a village that presents the
translation tempat rapat yang bersegi empat presents the deviated meaning
becasue it refers to a functional building but not to the stone seats divisions as the
presentation of the social stratification.
Succinctly, culture has a very large coverage with an open-ended extent of
analysis that could not be limited unless by perspective concepts or theories
particularly assigned for its boundary line. Carl’s category (2010:48) and
Newmark’s category (1995:94-103) are the instances.
The concepts of these categories are of course developed based on the
authors’ different perspectives. Carl’s, for example, is built on the basis of his
perspective on the tangibility or intangibility of the culture. While, Newmark’s is
built on the basis of his perspective on the functional nature of the culture as
social instrument that controls the group society’s activities or behaviors and serve
their necessities.
To the extent of the researcher’s knowledge, category that best fits the
analysis of cultural terms in translation is the Newmark’s, because it specifies the
analysis of the cultural term to its social function in the society life, without
ignoring its visible or invisible characteristics. It also provides easiness in
analyzing the equivalence of translation, because by means of the five distinctive
categories, one could easily identify whether or not a cultural term undergoes
functional shifting by scrutinizing and comparing its newly-category with its
previous category; especially because translation is controlled by its surrounding
context, such as the different systems of the ST and the TT, the aim of the
translation, the translator’s competence, and his preference toward the two
safusi (Nias) and its Indonesian translation ayam putih are equivalent as both of
them refer to a white-colored cock. However, seen from the cultural aspect; they
are not equivalent because the SL term refers to a white-colored cock for a ritual
sacrifice, that means it belongs to a religious term, whilst its Indonesian
translation refers to a white-colored cock as an ecological animal, that means it
belongs to an ecological term (due to the unavailability of such a ritual in the
TLC). Therefore, in dealing with the analysis of the cultural terms in this research,
the researcher utilizes Newmark’s category of culture (1988:94-103) as his basis
or point of departure. The five categories are: ecology; material culture (artifact);
social culture; organizations, customs and ideas; gestures and habits.
2.6.1 Ecology
Ecology terms are those terms express the value-free geographical
features, such as: animals, plants, local winds, mountains, plains, ice, and the like.
These terms are usually peculiar to the one speech community, politically used,
and are normally distinguished from other language cultural terms, e.g.the terms
gowi niha; eho famöda danö; ndraso so’alo’oa; and namö wfame’ana in Nias
Maniamölö mother tongue.
2.6.2 Material culture (artifacts)
Material terms are those terms that express the concrete things left by the
past cultures edible or non-edible, such as the names of food, clothe, house,
transport, terms of communication, and artefact. These terms are usually peculiar
to the one speech community, and are normally not to be translated; instead they
environment, e.g. the food term gaolo in Nias or the clothes term batik in
Indonesian.
2.6.3 Social culture (work and leisure)
Social terms are divided into sub-categories: first, those terms associated
to work, those terms that are utilized to address the life earning activities ranging
from the high-class profession (such as: president, doctor, army, director, and the
like) to the low class job (such as: farmer, household chores, slave, laborer, and
the like). Second, those terms associated to leisure, terms that address the people’s
activity during spare time; either for enjoyment or for relaxation from a weary
work, such as: sport, picnics, journey and so forth.
2.6.4 Organizations, customs, ideas
Terms that express the social organization (the social class and kinship are
the instances), the social standards (norms or sanctions are the instances), the
social artistic value and activities, the life view (the community beliefs and
concept of semiotic signs are the instances). This category is divided into five
sub-categories, they are:
1. Political, terms that express the political and administrative organization of
certain language community. They are peculiar to that language community,
and are not peculiar to other language communities, e.g. the term orurusa
maniamölö is peculiar to Nias community and is not peculiar to other
language communities. It is political term that refers to the unitary villages
or clan in regards with the dawn-history of the ancestor. Normally, these
or without note, or described, but are not translated literally because it will
cause distortive meaning.
2. Social, terms that express: first, the social organization such as the social
class and kinship, e.g. the term si’ulu is peculiar to Southern Nias
community and is not peculiar to other language communities. It refers to
the noblemen and the descents of the noblemen who do not ratify their
aristocracy position in their group community. The term mbambatö is
peculiar to Nias Maniamölö community and is not peculiar to other language
communities. It refers to the kinship relation between the parents of the
married couple or the relatives of the same kinship relation. Second, the
community’s customary activitiesor ceremonial events, e.g. the term
fame’ana is peculiar to Nias Maniamölö community and is not peculiar to
other language communities. It refers to the food service held by a family to
thier relatives before holding the marital ceremony of their son or daughter.
It also refers to the customary food that was, at the former time, usually held
once in seven years by the Maniamömö leaders to their communities. This
food service was usually held fourteen days after the ritual famatö harimao
(Hämmerle, 1986:175). Third, the life view and philosophy of the particular
group community, especially the concept of the moral standards (good or
bad, right or wrong), and other social standards, includes the concept of
semiotic signs, e.g. the term furai is a peculiar term that expresses to the
Maniamölö life view. It means be vigilant or look out before it happens, be
impartial and not to be provoked, not to join in the immorality nor to go
At the former time, there were often happened civil war in Nias island, and
when Maniamölö people knew that war has happened on the their neighbour
villages, they said ‘furai!’. That means be vigilant, but not to be provoked!
3. Legal, terms that express the social standards (norms and sanctions), and the
standards-peculiar activities and instruments.e.g. nilömö ba nidanö is a legal
term peculiar to Nias community and is not peculiar to other language
communities. It is a kind of supreme penalty imposed to a criminal for his
intolerable crime, by which he is tied up with a big stone and then to be sank
into a deep river or the sea. Thus, due to the emptiness of such a punishment
in Indonesian criminal law, this term is hardly to be literally translated as
ditenggelamkan ke sungai, except with notes or description, for it might
result in distortive expectation to the target readers that the original term
refers to a criminal action undergone by an innocent person, but not a
penalty imposed by a criminal.
4. Religious, terms that express certain community’s beliefs and rituals,
includes the ritual instruments and offerings, e.g. in Nias Maniamölö mother
tongue, the term Lawalani is derived from the two basic words Laŵa that
means ‘above’ and lani that means ‘heaven’. So, it epistemologically means
the one who dwells above the heaven. According to the myth of Maniamölö:
once, when their forefather Duada Jedaŵa was resting under manawadanö’s
trunk, suddenly Laŵalani appeared in his sight. It was taboo to call him by
name, so, Duada Jedaŵa said “Sisagötö fa’ara me ma tumbua; Si sagötö
ölia me ma so ia” that means the everlasting god who has been living since
with the Indonesian term Allah, because seen from the lens of theology,
these two terms refer to the same individual who is believed dwelling in
heaven and has authority over the human’s life.
5. Artistic, terms that express artistic concepts (aesthetic and ethic), activities
and organization of a particular language community. Here, organization is
usually embedded in the activities, e.g. the term hoho (Nias) expresses
either the recitation of or the traditional poetry that is usually recited by one
or more people in aesthetic ways (expressing various kind of philosophical
meanings, such as: nobility, happiness, victory, grieves and others) in
ceremonial events. This term is best replaced with the Indonesian term puisi,
because both of them are recited in artistic ways, and they express aesthetic
values, sharpen awareness and evoke sensitivity.
2.6.5 Gestures and habits
Gesture and habits are two distinctive terminology categories (in
description and function) that occur in ambiguous cases, and they are usually
particular in some cultures but not in the others. Gesture refers to body
movements that illustrate or indicate ideas, concepts, feeling, contentment, etc,
e.g. fingerprinting can means either as agreement or disagreement; shaking head
might express either a person’s anger or admiration. Habits refer to settled
practices that can not be easily ignored or stopped, e.g. little smile can be
interpreted either as happiness or as grief; the lifting up of hands (in a church)
expresses the honor, praise, worship, and heart desire to God, whilst the lifting up
2.7 Translation Procedure
A translation goal is reproducing in the target language the closest natural
equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly
in terms of style (Nida and Taber, 1969:12). This goal is of course achieved
within a process that is colored by many barriers, especially the discrepancies
between the SL culture and TL culture. Thereof, a translator is crucially required
to be expert in utilizing the translation procedure to cope with these barriers
effectively and reaching for the translation goal.
Translation Procedure is the specific approach a translator applies in the
translation of the individual expressions, the smaller units of the ST, and therefore
it affects only the micro-units of the text.It is different from the translation
ideology which is the super-global approach applied on a text as a whole
(Newmark, 1988:81). It is usually applied as concrete device of executing the
global strategy in transferring the elements of meaning from the ST into the TT,
and therefore, the application must be based on: first the genre of the text; second
the type of translation; third the mode of translation; fourth the purpose of the
translation and the characteristics of the translation audience; and fifth the method
chosen (Molina and Albir, 2002).
Despite of its diverse types proposed by different experts, translation
procedure bears the role as concrete realization of the translation ideology. On the
basis, the analysis of ideology in translation is carried out by means of analysing
the applied translation procedures, especially because the tendency of translation
ideology is presented by the orientation of the translation procedure, which is
evident attempt of meriting the SL characteristics and values in the TL by
applying the elements of the ST in the TT, and therefore it presents the
foreignization ideology. While, a TL-oriented translation procedure shows evident
attempt of effacing the chracteristics of the SL in the translation by replacing all
the SL elements with the elements of the TL, and therefore it presents
domestication ideology.
According to Newmark, it is sometimes inevitable in translation that two
or more procedures are utilized, and some translations may be resulted from the
application of combinations of procedures that are difficult to discern (Newmark,
1988:91). Newmark proposes 17 different procedures that are going to be utilized
as the basis and point of departure in analyzing the translation procedures in this
research, they are:
2.7.1 Transference
It denotes the process of transferring a SL word to a TL text, which is
regarded as a translation procedure. It includes imprint, loan word, and
transcription. It is the same as Catford's transference, and includes transliteration,
which relates to the conversion of different alphabets (Newmark, 1988:81), e.g.
the Nias religious term lawalani which is purely employed into the Indonesian
translation text.
2.7.2 Naturalization
It adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal
morphology (word-forms) of the TL (Newmark, 1988:82), e.g. the Nias term tuha
2.7.3 Cultural equivalent
Cultural equivalent is a translation procedure by which a SL cultural word
is translated by a TL cultural word that usually less accurate, but can be used in
common texts, publicity and propaganda, as well as for brief explanation to
readers who are ignorant of the relevant SL culture. It usually results in
equivalents which have greater pragmatic impacts than culturally neutral terms.
These equivalents resulted often become purely functionally and hardly
descriptively equivalent (Newmark, 1988:83), e.g. the Nias cultural term wfolöföa
is replaced with the term rezeki in Indonesian.
2.7.4 Functional equivalent
Functional equivalentis a common procedure applied to cultural words, it
requires the use of a culture-free word, sometimes with a new specific term; it
therefore neutralizes or generalizes the SL word; and sometimes adds a
particularity (Newmark, 1988:83), e.g. the Nias cultural term bawi mbawaduo is
described as babi untuk pengesahan hukum in Indonesian.
2.7.5 Descriptive equivalent
Descriptive equivalent is a translation procedure by which the meaning of
a SL term is explained in several words. Sometimes description has to be
distinguished from function (Newmark, 1988:83), e.g. the Nias cultural term
2.7.6 Synonymy
Synonymy is a translation procedure which is applied where there is no
clear one-to-one equivalent, and the word is not important in the text, in particular
for adjectives or adverbs of quality (which in principle are outside the grammar
and less important than other components of a sentence). It is commonly named as
near TL equivalent. This procedure is only appropriate where literal translation is
not possible and because the word is not important enough for componential
analysis. Here economy ignores accuracy (Newmark, 1988:84), e.g. the
translation of the Indonesian adjective buta into silumana in Nias. The Indonesian
adjective buta means ‘blind’, whilst the Nias adjective silumana means ‘poor’. In
Nias culture; blindness is usually associated with poor people, and therefore the
term silumana (poor) is often utilized to refer to the blind.
2.7.7 Through-translation
Through-translation is the literal translation of common collocations,
names of organizations and components of compounds. It is sometimes called as
calque translation. Normally, through-translations should be used only when they
are already recognized terms (Newmark, 1988:84), e.g. the translation of the Nias
phrase fu mbanua into permulaan desa in Indonesian.
2.7.8 Shifts or transpositions
Shifts or Transpositions is a translation procedure which involves a change
in the grammar from SL to TL, for instance, (i) the change from singular to plural,
change of a SL verb to a TL noun, (iv) change of an SL noun group to a TL noun
phrase, and (v) change of an active SL form to a passive TL form, and so forth
(Newmark, 1988:85), e.g. the translation of the Nias phrase sogoji banua into
pembakaran desa in Indonesian.
2.7.9 Modulation
Modulation is a translation procedure by which the message of the original
text is produced in the TL text in conformity with the general concept of the TL
(includes a change of viewpoint, of perspective and very often of category of
thought), since the SL and the TL may appear dissimilar in terms of perspective
(Newmark, 1988:88), e.g. the translation of the Nias phrase sohalöwö khö nama
into budak bangsawan in Indonesian.
2.7.10 Recognized translation
Recognized translation is a translation procedure by which any
institutional term in the ST is translated into the official or the generally accepted
term in the TT (Newmark, 1988:89), e.g. the replacement the Nias food term
babae into kacang in Indonesian.
2.7.11 Translation label
Translation label is a translation procedure applied on the translation of
new institutional terms. In this procedure, a translator usually uses inverted
commas for the new term, which can later be discreetly withdrawn. It is
commonly known as provisional translation since it is sometimes covered by
2.7.12 Compensation
Compensation is a translation procedure by which the loss of meaning,
sound-effect, metaphor or pragmatic effect in one part of a sentence in the ST is
compensated in another part of a sentence (or in a contiguous sentence) in the TT
(Newmark, 1988:90).
2.7.13 Componential analysis
Componential analysis is a translation procedure by which SL word is
compared with a TL word which has a similar meaning but is not an obvious
one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating first their common and then their differing
sense components. Normally the SL word has a more specific meaning than the
TL word, therefore the translator has to add one or two TL sense components to
the corresponding TL word in order to produce a closer approximation of meaning
(Newmark, 1988:114).
2.7.14 Reduction and expansion
These procedures are considered as the inexplicit and rarely used
procedures for they are usually applied intuitively in translating poorly written
texts. Reduction is the translation procedure by which the longer construction of a
SL term undergoes reduction in the translation, it is usually done for avoiding
wordiness in the translation, e.g the Nias phrase uli vakhe is reduced into gabah in
Indonesian. Expansion is the translation procedure by which the single word or
short construction of a SL term undergoes expansion in the translation, it is
translation, e.g. the Nias single word sato is expanded into orang banyak in in
Indonesian.
2.7.15 Paraphrase
Paraphrase is a translator procedure by which the meaning of the
cultural-based segment of ST is explained. Here the explanation is much more detailed
than that of descriptive equivalent. It is usually applied on an anonymous text
when it is poorly written, or has important implications and omissions (Newmark,
1988:91).
2.7.16 Couplets
Couplets is a translation procedure by which two or more procedures are
combined respectively for dealing with a single problem. This procedure is
particularly common used for cultural words, if transference is combined with a
functional or a cultural equivalent (Newmark, 1988:91), e.g. Apart from applying
a more or less literal translation for Nias nominal Jinata mbawa, a translator
might either purely transfer it, or explains it using a noun clause the son of god
Laŵalani who is usually adored in a ritual worship.
2.7.17 Notes, additions, and glosses
Notes, additions, and glossesare translation procedure by which notes or
additional information are made in a translation, e.g. the rendering of the Nias
religious term Siharafia into Siharafia (nama malaikat) in Indonesian. Notes take
various forms in the translation; can be within the text, at bottom of page, at end
2.8 Concepts of Ideology
Before coming into the discussion of the translation ideology, it is essential
to firstly discuss the concept of the ideology, which has been a key term for
Critical Discourse Analysis and other theories.
In common sense, ideology is regarded as the person’s concept which
inspires his attitude or conduct toward the phenomenon around him. Van Dijk
(1995:248) says that it is the social cognition shared by the members of the social
group which is seen through the group’s respect toward certain socio-cultural
values; such as equality, justice, truth, efficiency or something like that. It
restrains the group’s habitual attitude, and organizes their social representations,
thus it indirectly monitors the group’s social practices; includes the discourse.
Hodge defines it as a coherent but false picture of reality, partial and distorted to
serve or reflect the interests and assumptions of a particular group (Hodge
2012:4-5). Hodge concerns on the functional aspect that presents ideology as the
reflection of human existence and nature (characteristics). The above concepts of
is concept of Hodge presents that as the reflective picture of human invisible
nature, ideology is often: (1) partial to because it usually puts priority to the
property of the dominant members and ignore the property of the subordinate
members, (2) distorted because it is often abused by the irresponsible member,
who accordingly make it losing its function as a reflection of the peculiar group as
a whole. The idea is confirmed by Woolard’s concept that ideology denotes the
most central notion of distortion, falsity, mystification, or rationalization which is
intimately related to social power and its legitimation (Woolard, 2010:238).
as the human mental activity and tendency utilized as most effective instrument of
recognizing the manipulation of the ideas toward the reality especially for its
nature that represents the organized reality. Its function gives clue that due to its
invisibility; ideology must be seen through its typical function related to any
aspect of human needs, e.g. by relating it to: the process of sustaining
asymmetrical relations of power; the maintaining of the domination; exploitation;
and others.
Those ideas above still present broad conception of ideology and pay more
concerns on the ideology as the human mental stimulus that organize the reality
(human personality and the world around them). They explore ideology in term of
its function as the organizer of the social behaviors, but not in relation its function
as the potential pattern of human mind that organizes their language concrete
behavior, so, they are therefore regarded as overviews.
In fact, ideology should be explored in relation to its function as human
instrument that links together their social attitude and concept of linguistic forms
into the more concrete language behavior. Accordingly, referring to: first,
Halliday’s stratification which presents that ecosocial environment or context of
the language plays the very important role in text construction within the
masterminding of the human brain (Halliday, 2004:25); second, Saragih’s
depiction of the Halliday’s stratification that ideology denotes the most abstract
context, merged and realized into situation, into semantic, into text construction
(lexicogrammar) either in the form of speech sound, written text, or language sign
(Saragih, 2012:35); third, Martin’s concept in Frances (2008:23), that “any text
these were a condition of the context of situation, and secondly, that the text was
in turn an instance of a particular genre, where the genre choice was a condition of
the context of culture, it is obvious that ideology has become a more central issue
in language analysis; particularly for a text presents the practice of or the nature of
certain ideology (Eriyanto, 2001:13). Text ideology lies behind and controls the
construction of text. It merges into and is realized in each level of the language
stratified realizations, and is expressed in the form of speech sound, written text,
or semiotic symbol. It refers to the writer’s invisible cognition, concept or attitude
toward the ecosocial environment around him that leads him manipulating the
production of and characterizing his text.
Sinar explains it in succinct detail and come into the point that ‘it is the
speaker’s or writer’s potential network of and which is influenced by the ecosocial
context in the reality, and is instantiated in an instant or evaluative text; while text
is only the speaker’s or writer’s device in achieving his very intangible intention
of investing ideology to his audiences or readers, or herding the audiences (or
readers) into his ideology. Notwithstanding, this investment is not always success
because critical audiences or readers with different stand points often discernibly
criticize or oppose it (Sinar, 2008).
It highlights the social situation or experientially-derived extent of
cognition of the speaker or writer through the realization of text (Wollard,
2010:236-237). It is the human subjectivity or tendency which is manifested by
means of language concrete device such as speech sounds, graphology, and
gesture, aimed at producing certain impact either for the speaker (or writer) or for
people from different backgrounds would live together in harmony and without conflict, is realized in the word ‘tolerable’. It covers and is reciprocal to the
external factors of a text production especially the community’s language
behavior in terms of the social strata, genre, age, norms, education, geographical
environment and so on. Thus, it gives clue that text can only be interpreted in
relation with the discursive context that characterizes the text genre, style and
social function (Fairclough in Wodak and Meyer, 2008:9).
2.8.1 Translation ideology
Different from text ideology which denotes writer’s invisible concept
toward the ecosocial contextof his ST language environment that leads him
manipulating the production of and characterizing his text, translation ideology is
defined as the translator’s particular attitude or approachapplied on his translation,
in relation to his role as a problem-solver and decision-maker, in deciding the
equivalence of a TT to the original text due to the context resides in the translation
especially the purpose of the translation, the different characteristics of the two
language cultures that contribute different types and degrees of the translation
problems encountered (Basssnnet, 1980:4-6). In some cases, it has similarities
with text ideology; particularly as both of them refer to the text composer’s inner
condition or preference toward the external context that resides in and determine
the production or reproduction of the text.
However referring to their functional characteristics, they are different in
some points. Text ideology refers to the ST author’s inner cognition or attitude
toward the reality that lies within the ST language cultural context, and appears
ideology refers to the translator’s invisible intention or preference toward the
different contextual SL culture and TL culture in relation to the prime goal of the
translation and his role as language architecture that restrains or characterizes the
reproduction of the equivalent text in the TL culture. It denotes basic orientation
chosen by the translator in doing his translation work in terms of the social and
cultural context of both SL and TL (Hatim andMunday, 2004:102-103).
Hoed (2006:83) theorizes that “ideologi dalam penerjemahan adalah
prinsip atau keyakinan tentang "betul-salah" atau "baik-buruk" dalam penerjemahan seperti apa yang terbaik bagi masyarakat pembaca BSa atau terjemahan seperti apa yang cocok dan disukai masyarakat”. Hoed considers the
translation ideology as a principle or belief polarized between "right or wrong" or
"good or bad" in translation as to what kind of translation is best appropriate to
and preferred by the text readers. There are two ideologies that led into two
opposite points: the first is the one that is oriented on the target language culture,
in which the translation should meet the interest and culture of the target readers,
the second is the one that is oriented on the source language culture, in which the
translation should retain the source text characteristics for the target readers’
informative benefit.
As the translator’s overall approach, translation ideology has invisible
nature that could not be discerned unless through the analysis of the more specific
approach (translation procedure) applied on the lexical and stylistic selection
decision by the translator. The decision is always ideological because the
individual lexical selection is influenced by the beliefs which are the basis of the
thorough analysis of source and target texts would both provide helpful insights
for the exploration of the underlying ideology that works in every stage of the
translation process (Sertkan, 2007:6), and present the intentional or unintentional
ideology chosen by translators in the manipulation process of the exact message
(Rashidi and Fam, 2011:112). Venuti (1995:20) pioneers two popular terms
‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ to refer to the opposite types of translation
ideology:
a domesticating method, an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home, and a foreignizing method, an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad (Venuti, 1995:20).
From the statement is seen that in domestication ideology the focus of
attention is the normality and relevancy in the TL system and culture, the
naturalness of the translation text and the interest of the target beneficieries,
without considering of the originality of the message. Any SL elements showing
etnodeviant difference in the TL are replaced with the elements of the TL, and
even sometimes reduced or ommitted when is required. On the first part, the SL
text undergoes intensive change (reduction or exclusion), and on the other part,
the the original intent of the source author’s in the ST is ignored and adapted to
the norms or values pre-exist in the TL, so that, when reading the translation text,
the target readers would feel that as they were not reading a translation text but a
natural text in their own language. In foreignization ideology, the focus of
attention is ensuring the original intention and the existence of the linguistic and
cultural particularity of the SL in the translation text. It reflects the translator’s
