Orientation: Domestication or Foreignization?

Cultural problem commonly arising in translation is related to the cultural differences between the two languages involved. The strategy used by a translator to face this cultural problem may be determined by his/her ideology. Newmark in Nugroho et al (2009: 8) states that the choice between communicative and semantic is partly determined by orientation towards the social or the individual, that is, towards mass readership or towards the individual voice of the next producer. The choice is implicitly presented as ideological.

A translator is facing two choices: whether he/she is oriented to the target readers, or keeping the text with all aspects inside it. There are two contradicting tendencies called domestication and foreignization.

a.         Domestication

Domestication is chosen due to a belief that the target text should be equal with the culture of the target readers (Hoed in Nugroho et al, 2009: 9). A translator tends to be oriented to the target text readers. Therefore, the methods used are communicative, idiomatic, free, or adapted translation.

Table 12: Advantages and Disadvantages of Domestication

Advantages	Disadvantages
The target text readers can easily understand the target text.	The aspects in the Source Language are often faded.
The target text sounds natural and communicative.	The target text readers cannot interpret the text because the interpretation has been done by the translator.
Cultural assimilation may happen.	The target text readers do not get knowledge of the source language.

 

b.         Foreignization

Foreignization in translation can be used to keep the culture of the source language by involving cultural aspects in the Source Language to the Target Language. It is hoped that intercultural learning can be done through the translation. Translators who use this ideology tend to be oriented to the Target Language. They will use word-for-word, literal, faithful, or semantic translation method.

Table 13: Advantages and Disadvantages of Foreignization

Advantages	Disadvantages
The target text readers can understand the culture of the Source Language.	The target text readers may feel unfamiliar with some terms of the Source Language.
The target text gives the taste of the Source Language culture to the target text readers.	The target text sometimes sounds complex and unnatural.
Intercultural learning may happen.	Some negative aspects in the Source Language may easily influence the target text readers.

Simplification in Translation

Many experts define translated texts into three kinds based on contrastive analysis between translations and its source language. One of them is simplification. According to Toury (1995: 181), simplification is tentatively defined as the tendency to simplify the language used in translation. The phenomena in simplification are shortened sentences, simpler structure, and less ambiguous expression. According to Simensen in Crossley et al (2007: 16), simplified texts are texts written (a) to illustrate a specific language feature, such as the use of modals or the third-person singular verb form; (b) to modify the amount of new lexical input introduced to learners; or (c) to control for propositional input, or a combination thereof. In addition, simplified texts are often seen as valuable aids to learning because they accurately reflect what the reader already knows about language and have the capacity to extend this knowledge (Davies and Widdowson in Crossley et al, 2007: 16). Simplified texts also contain increased redundancy and amplified explanation (Kuo in Crossley et al, 2007: 16). The validity of simplification was confirmed by comparison made between Source Text and Target Text.  Simplification brings many consequences. It can make the target reader understand the text more easily or it also can make the target reader dissatisfied.

Translation Reliability

For different people, translation can be a different thing. According to Robinson (2001: 07), there are eight kinds of translation reliability viewed from the reader's point of view.

1)      Literalism

In literalism, the translation follows the original word for word, as close to that ideal as possible. The syntactic structure of the source text is painfully evident in this kind of translation reliability.

2)      Foreignism

The translation can have a lot of similarity with the original one, but one who had read it fluently, can conclude that it is a translation, not an original work since he has a slightly alien feeling when reading it.

3)      Fluency

Fluency translation is so accessible and readable for the target language reader as to seem like an original in the target language. It never reflects that in fact, it is a translation.

4)      Summary

The translation covers the main points of the original.

5)      Commentary

The translation unfolds the hidden complexities of the original, exploring at length implication that remains unstated or half-stated in the original.

6)      Summary – Commentary

The translation summarizes some passage briefly while commenting closely on others. The passages in the original that mostly concern the user are unpacked; the less important passages are summarized.

7)      Adaptation

The translation recasts the original to have the desired impact on an audience that is substantially different from that of the original. According to Bastin (in Robinson, 2001) adaptation may be understood as a set of translative operations which result in a text that is not accepted as a translation but is nevertheless recognized as representing a source text of about the same length.

a.       Modes

Mode is the way in which adaptations are carried out on the work of the adapter. The procedures used by the adapter can be classified as follows:

·        Transcription of the original: it is word-for-word reproduction of part of the text in the original language

·        Omission:  the elimination or reduction of part of the text.

·        Expansion: explicitation of some information that is implicit in the original, either in the main body or footnotes or a glossary.

·        Exoticism: the substitution of stretches of slang, dialect, nonsense words, etc. in the original text by rough equivalents in the target language.

·        Updating: refer to replacement of outdated or obscure information by modern equivalents

·        Situational Equivalent: refers to the insertion of a more familiar context than the one used in the original

·        Creation: refers to a more global replacement of the original text with a text that preserves only the essential message/ideas/ functions of the original.

b.      Motivations

Motivations are the most common factors which cause translators to resort to adaptation. Some of the motivations are:

·        Cross-code breakdown: it occurs where there are simply no lexical equivalents in the target language

·        Situational inadequacy: it occurs where the context referred to in the original text does not exist in the target culture.

·        Genre switching: it refers to a change from one discourse type of another. For example is an adult text to children text. It is often entails a global re-creation of the original text.

·        Disruption of the communication process: it refers to the emergence of a new epoch or approach or the need to address a different type of readership often requires modifications in style, content or presentation.

c.       Restriction

As a case of translation, adaptation is carried out under certain restriction. The most obvious of restriction are:

·        The knowledge and expectation of the target reader: that is, the adapter has to evaluate the extent to which the content of the original text constitutes new or shared information for the potential audience.

·        The target language: the adapter must find an appropriate match in the target language for the discourse style of the original text and look for coherence of adapting modes.

·        The meaning and the purposes of the original and target text.

Adaptation may be applied to isolate parts of the text in order to deal with specific differences between the language or culture of the source text and that of the target text.

8)      Encryption

The translation recasts the original so as to hide its meaning or massages from the group while still making it accessible to another group.

Translation Process

Larson (1984: 4) states that translation can be seen as a process. The source language consists of cultural context and situational context. They can be divided into expressed text, lexicon, and grammar structure. These elements consist of meaning. In translation process, meaning is analyzed and discovered. After being discovered, the meaning is transferred into another language or the receptor language. Then, the meaning is re-expressed by the translator based on the receptor language. The source language is expressed in re-expressed text, lexicon, and grammar structure according to the receptor language. 

Translation Shifts

Shift represents some changes occurring in a translation process. Translation shifts occur both at the lower level of language, i.e. the lexicogrammar, and at the higher thematic level of text. Catford (1978: 73) states that by shift we mean the departure from formal correspondence in the process of going from the source language to the target language. Further, he states that basically, in shift of translation, or transposition he says, it is only the form that is changed. In addition, he urges the translation shift is done to get the natural equivalent of the source text message into the target text (1978: 76). Translation shifts also occur when there is no formal correspondence to the syntactic item to be translated (Machali, 1998: 3). According to Bell (1991: 33), to shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the forms.

Catford (1978) divides the shift in translation into two major types, level/rank shift and category shift. Level/rank shift refers to a source language item at one linguistic level that has a target language translation equivalent at a different level. In other words, it is simply a shift from grammar to lexis.

Category shift refers to departures from formal correspondence in translation. What is meant by formal correspondence is any grammatical category in the target language which can be said to occupy the same position in the system of the target language as the given source language category in the source language system (Machali, 1998: 13). The category shift is divided again into structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift, and intra-system shifts. Structure shift is the changing of words sequence in a sentence. Class shift occurs when the translation equivalent of a source language item is a member of a different class from the original item. Unit shift is the changes of rank; that is, departures from formal correspondence in which the translation equivalent of a unit at one rank in the source language is a unit at a different rank in the target language. Intra-system shift refers to the shifts that occurs internally, within the system; that is for those cases where the source and the target language possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the target language system.

Machali (1998: 152) also proposes the kinds of translation shift. She divides the shift in translation into two kinds: obligatory shift and optional shift. An obligatory shift refers to the kinds of shift that occurs when no formal correspondence occurs in the translation. It is the shift that its occurrence is dictated by the grammar. The other kind of shift is the optional shift. It refers to a case of shift that is caused by the translator's discretion It is called optional shift since the translator could have chosen the more equivalent clauses with the readers’ orientation in the target language text.

In addition, Machali (1998: 160) states that there are two basic sources of translation shifts: source language text-centered shift and target language text-centered shift. The source language text-centered shifts are of three kinds, namely, grammatical shift, which mainly concerns particle markedness, foregrounding, and tenses; shifts related to cohesion, which mainly concern ellipsis; and textual shifts, which mainly concern genetic ambivalence, and embodiment of interpersonal meaning. The target language text-centered shift causes the main problem concerned with achieving effectiveness, pragmatic appropriateness (including the cultural one), and information (referential) explicitness.

Nida and Taber (1969: 171) say that some of the most common shifts in meaning found in the transfer process are modifications which involve specific and generic meaning. Such shifts may go in either direction from generic to specific or specific to generic. A shift may result from a difference of the system in both languages. The difference can be in the form of vocabulary or structure, the shift caused by the vocabulary results in a shift in meaning. It can be concluded that there are two kinds of shifts in meaning. The first is the meaning shift from general to specific meaning. The second is the meaning shift from specific to general meaning. These kinds of shifts often cause incorrect translation. The shift of structure, however, usually does not change the meaning or the message of the original text.

Kinds of Translation

According to Larson (1984: 15) translation is classified into two main types, namely form-based translation and meaning-based translation. Forms-based translation attempts to follow the form of the source language (SL) and it is known as literal translation, while meaning-based translation makes every effort to communicate the meaning of the SL text in the natural forms of the receptor language. Such translation is called idiomatic translation. A literal translation sounds like nonsense and has little communication value (Larson, 1984: 15). The literal translation can be understood if the general grammatical form of the two languages is similar. Larson (1984: 16) says that idiomatic translations use the natural forms of the receptor language both in the grammatical constructions and in the choices of lexical items. A truly idiomatic translation does not sound like translation. It sounds like it was written originally in the receptor language. Therefore, a good translator will try to translate idiomatically. This is his/her goal.

Catford (1978: 21) divides the three aspects of translation differently, those are: extent, level, and ranks.

Based on the extent, the types of translation are:

1)      Full translation, it is a type of translation in which the entire SL text is reproduced by the TL text materials.

2)      Partial translation, there are only some parts of the SL text to be translated into the TL text.

In terms of level, the types of translation are:

1)      Total translation, the TL material replaces all levels of the SL text.

2)      Restricted translation, it is the replacement of SL textual material with equivalent TL material at only one level; whether at the phonological level, graphological level, or at the level of grammar and lexis.

In terms of rank, translation is divided into:

1)      Rank-bound translation, it means that the selection of TL text equivalent is limited at only one rank, such as word-for-word equivalence, morpheme-for-morpheme equivalence, etc.

2)      Unbounded translation, it can move freely up and down the rank-scale.

Based on the purposes of translation, Brislin in Choliludin (2007: 26-30) categorizes translation into four types, namely:

1)      Pragmatic translation: it refers to the translation of a message with an interest in accuracy of the information that was meant to be conveyed in the SL form and it is not conveyed with other aspects of the original language version. Example: the translation of the information about repairing a machine.

2)      Aesthetic-poetic translation: it refers to translation in which the translator takes into account the affect, emotion, and feeling of an original version, the aesthetic form used by the original author, as well as any information in the message. Example: the translation of sonnet, rhyme, heroic couplet, dramatic dialogue, and novel.

3)      Ethnographic translation: its purpose is to explicate the cultural context of the SL and TL versions. Translators have to be sensitive to the way words are used and must know how the word fits into cultures. Example: the use of the word ‘yes’ versus ‘yeah’ in America.

4)      Linguistic translation: is concerned with equivalent meanings of the constituent morphemes of the SL and grammatical form. Example: language in a computer program and translation machine.

In his famous essay, On Linguistic Aspect of Translation, Jacobson in Leonardi (2000) identifies three kinds of translation: intralingual translation (monolingual translation), interlingual translation (bilingual or multilingual translation), and intersemiotic translation (verbal sign into non-verbal sign). Intralingual translation refers to a translation in which verbal signs are interpreted by means of other signs of the same language. It happens within the same language (monolingual). Interlingual translation is the one which refers to different languages whether it is bilingual or multilingual. Intersemiotic translation refers to an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of non-verbal sign systems.

Notions of Translation

Catford in Choliludin (2007: 4) states that translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one language (Source Language) by equivalent textual material in another language (Target Language). Nida and Taber in Choliludin (2007: 3) say that translating consists of reproducing the closest natural equivalence of the source language message in the receptor language, firstly in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. 

Massoud in Abdellah (2002: 2) gives criteria for a good translation: 1) A good translation is easily understood. 2) A good translation is fluent and smooth. 3) A good translation is idiomatic. 4) A good translation conveys, to some extent, the literary subtleties of the original. 5) A good translation distinguishes between the metaphorical and the literal. 6) A good translation reconstructs the cultural or historical context of the original. 7) A good translation makes explicit what is implicit in abbreviations and in allusions to sayings, songs, and nursery rhymes. 8) A good translation will convey, as much as possible, the meaning of the original text.

El Shafey in Abdellah (2002: 2) proposes criteria for a good translation based on three main principles: 1) The knowledge of the grammar of the source language plus the knowledge of the vocabulary, as well as good understanding of the text to be translated. 2) The ability of the translator to reconstitute the given text (SL text) into the TL. 3) The translation should capture the style or atmosphere of the original text; it should have all the ease of an original composition.

Notions of Language

Some experts have tried to define what language is. According to Hornby (1995) language is the system of sounds and words used by humans to express their thoughts and feelings. It is also the words and phrases used by a particular group or profession. It means that a language is a kind of system possessed and used by some particular communities in order to communicate and share ideas to one another.

Hofmann (1993: 2-3) sees language as a tool for communicating. People use language to communicate apparently anything–locations, emotions, facts, procedures, possibilities, fantasies, lies, and many other things. Then it is a means of communication where messages are being exchanged by using the media of expression, graphologically and/or phonologically, or writing and sounding.

According to Gleason (1961: 12) language operates with two kinds of material. One of these is sound; the other is ideas, social situations, and meanings. Both materials are very important in having a communication between people. Then, language is a way of associating sounds or forms with contents, or ideas, or meanings. Hofmann (1993: 9) makes an analogy of language as a bridge connecting a realm of sounds and a realm of meanings or ideas.

Eggins (2004: 3) says that language is a semiotic system. Its function is to make meanings by involving sets of meaningful choices and oppositions. She also says that the process of using a language is called a semiotic process. Like other semiotic system, language involves two aspects: content (meaning) and representation (expression). As a semiotic system, language can be called a complex semiotic system since, unlike most simple semiotic systems which consist of two levels or strata; it needs three levels or strata to describe the language itself. First, meanings are realized through wordings. Then, wordings are realized again through phonology or graphology. Third, language has a special level, the so-called lexicogrammar that makes it possible to create potential unlimited numbers of expression (Eggins, 2004: 116). To create them, the lexicogrammar provides the means; they are words and structures, or the arrangements of these words.