Interface of Linguistics, Literature, and Culture in Translating Singapore and Sri Lanka Postcolonial Poetry

Novita Dewi

doi:10.21512/lc.v10i2.885

Authors

Novita Dewi Sanata Dharma University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i2.885

Keywords:

cultural turn, postcolonial theory, varieties of English

Abstract

The interface of linguistics, literature, and culture was clear in translation. English Studies in Indonesia had undergone revision by the inclusion of postcolonial literature in its curriculum. Literary works from Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Sri Lanka, India and other Asian countries were introduced and translated. Given that language game was central in postcolonial writing, equitable knowledge and grasps of linguistics, literature, and culture were significant in translation. Through the lens of re-placing language as textual strategies in post-colonial writing, this paper explored the application of this reading method and gave practical examples of translating English poems written in, respectively, Singapore and Sri Lankan postcolonial contexts into Indonesian. The discussion showed that in order to preserve the postcolonial strategies of writing back to the colonial ideology, the translation took into account the reconceptualization and reconstruction of people, language, and culture, instead of literal rendering from the source language to the target language. Adoption of postcolonial theory as the translating method shown in this study is important to add to the theory and practice of translation. This trajectory can be used to translate other literary works written in varieties of English into Indonesian, using as they do, different translation strategies to make the translation products accurate, appropriate, and acceptable.

Dimensions

Plum Analytics

Author Biography

Novita Dewi, Sanata Dharma University

Lecturer at the Magister Program of English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University

References

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1989). The Empire

Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-colonial Literatures. London: Routledge.

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1995). The Postcolonial

Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Brown, A. (2000). Singapore English in a Nutshell: An Alphabetical Description of Its Features. Singapore: Federal Publications.

Dangin, Sutanto, D. N., Sudarmo, L. T. N., Andalas, P. M.

(2016). A communicative-functional philosophy of translation. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies, 2(1), 1 – 9.

Einboden, J. (2009). Washington Irving in Muslim translation: Revising the American “Mahomet”. Translation and Literature, 18(1), 43-62. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40340117

Fabb, N. (2004). Language and Literary Structure: The Linguistic Analysis of Form in Verse and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goonetilleke, D. C. R. A. (2005). Sri Lankan English Literature and the Sri Lankan People 1917 – 2003. Colombo: Vijitha Yapa Publications.

Hannoum, A. (2003). Translation and the colonial imaginary:

Ibn Khaldûn. History and Theory, 42, 61-81. doi: 10.1111/1468-2303.00230

Harmelink, B. (2012). Lexical pragmatics and hermeneutical

issues in the translation of key terms. Journal of Translation, 8(1), 25 – 35. Retrieved March 21st, 2016 from http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/48938

Hatim, B. (2001). Teaching and Researching Translation.

London: Pearson Education Limited.

Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced

Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.

Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. Berkely: University

of California Press.

Patke, R. S. (2006). Postcolonial Poetry in English. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Phạm Quốc Lộc. (2011). Translation in Vietnam and Vietnam

in Translation: Language, Culture, and Identity. Ph D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved May 10th, 2012 from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations

Punchi, L. (2001). Resistance towards the Language of

Globalisation: The Case of Sri Lanka. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale De L’education, 47(3/4), 361–378. Retrieved May 11th, 2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3445350

Pope, R. (2002). The English Studies Book. London: Routledge.

Ricouer, P. (2004). On Translation. Tr. Brennan Eileen. London: Routledge.

Roozgar, M. B. (2008). Hybrid texts, sources and translation. Retrieved April 23rd, 2013 from http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1655.

php

Salvador, D. S. (2006). Documentation as ethics in postcolonial translation. Translation Journal, 10(1). Retrieved December 19th, 2015 from http://accurapid.com/journal/35documentation.htm.

Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (2001). The idea of the hybrid

text in translation: Contact as conflict. Current Issues in Language & Society, 6, 167-180. Retrieved February 19th, 2007 from www.akademiai.com/index/L76P15M718036368.pdf

Scott, C. (2011). The translation of reading: A phenomenological approach. Translation Studies, Special Issue: Poetry and Translation, 4(2), 213 – 229. doi:10.1080/14781700.2011.560020.

Shi, A. (2005). Translatability and poetic translation. Translatum Journal Issue, 5. Retrieved from http://

www.translatum.gr/journal/5/literary-translation.html.

Vijay, C., & Pandit, C. (2013). ‘Occi-oriental’ dilemma in Regi Siriwardena’s “Colonial Cameo”. Journal of Higher Education and Research Society, 1(1), 1 – 10. Retrieved June 11th, 2012 from https://www.google. co.id/?gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=xlHZVp_wFtCdugSo-KD

Aw#q=Reggie+Siriwardena+%22colonial+cam eo%22

Xie, S. (2014). Translation and the politics of the universal.

Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 1(1), 2 – 11. doi: 10.1080/23306343.2014.883806