Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol, p. 5 RLT : Bocah itu menjangkau ayahnya.
“Dad” Mereka bertatapan selama satu detik yang mengerikan.
Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol, translated by Ingrid Dwijani, p.26
From that example, the translator attempts to keep cultural atmosphere of source language that is American-English culture. The word “Dad” which is
borrowed makes the readers fell that the conversation is in USA. Such translator choice shows that heshe applies foreignizing strategy.
b. Domesticating
According to Venuti, domesticating is “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bring the author back home”.
83
Domesticating refers to the translation strategy in which a transparent and fluent style is adopted in order to minimize the strangeness of the foreign text for
receptor language readers.
84
This strategy that has the Indonesian cultural equivalent as lokalisasi means making the text recognizable and familiar and thus
bringing the foreign culture closer to that of the readers. It is concerned on acceptable result translation.
As the concept of transparency by Hoed, the translation must be seen original transparent, do not read like translation and become part of the text that
83
Lawrence Venuti 1995, loc.cit.
84
Wenfen Yang 2010, loc.cit.
are acceptable and in accordance with receptor language. Therefore, to produce a good translation, translators are required to create a translation that does not look
like a translation invisible, as if the translation is like the authors original essay. However, he also says that the accuracy of message in translation must be
preserved although the principle of transparency is employed.
85
Sumardiono states that there are some reasons that make a translator chooses domesticating strategy, they are:
86
1 The acceptability reason. It produces understandable translation for readers; 2 The politeness reason. To make euphemism translation of source language
word which is taboo, it is required domesticating; 3 The political reason. Ideology and political that a translator believes
influences the result of translation. The first and second reason are based on the purpose of translator, while, the last
is based on the translator’s attitude toward source and receptor culture. By using domesticating, a translator will choose the notion of Nida
“Dynamic Equivalence” that is based upon the principle of equivalent effect
87
which is equal to Larson’s Meaning-Based Translation which is concerned in conveying the sense, not form
88
that is same with Newmark’s Communicative Translation that is attempted to produce the easy understanding for the readers.
89
85
Benny Hoed, “Transparansi dalam Penerjemahan”, PELBBA 18 Pertemuan Linguistik Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya Atma Jaya Kedelapan Belas,
ed. Yasir Nasanius Jakarta: Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya UNIKA ATMA JAYA JAKARTA, 2007, pp. 25-36.
86
Sumardiono 2011, op.cit. p.15.
87
E.A. Nida 1964, op.cit. p.166.
88
Mildred L. Larson 1984, op.cit. p.11.
89
Peter Newmark 1988, op.cit. p. 47.
Here is the example of translator that employs domesticating: SLT
: kill two birds with one stone. RLT : Sambil menyelam minum air.
In that translation, a translator wanted to produce acceptable translation for readers. He translated the English “Metaphor” kill two birds with one stone by
changing the metaphor into Indonesian “Metaphor” Sambil menyelam minum air. So, it may be said that foreignizing and domesticating are a paradox
concept. The key words of foreignizing are “not transparent” and “visible”. The word “not transparent” means the translation doesn’t like original, but it seems a
translation. The word “visible” refers to the presence of translator that is visible by showing the foreign identity of source text up. Meanwhile, the key words of
domesticating are “transparent” and “invisible”. The “transparent” means the translation does not seem to be translated, it is like original, so the existence of
translator is “invisible”.
90
Foreignizing and domesticating are separated into two categories. The first one is the category which is focused on source language and preferred to the
accuracy of original message, while the second one is concerned on receptor language and tend to the acceptability and readability of the translation. In other
word, “Foreignizing vs. Domesticating” strategy by Venuti is equal to Nida’s “Formal Correspondence vs. Dynamic Equivalence” which refers to Larson’s
“Form-Based Translation vs. Meaning-Based Translation”, is also equal to
90
Jeremy Munday 2001, op.cit. pp. 146-147.
Newmark’s “Semantic Translation vs. Communicative Translation” notion. For clearer understanding, here is the illustration of their concept:
Venuti’s “Foreignizing vs. Domesticating” = Nida’s “Formal Correspondence vs. Dynamic Equivalence” =
Larson’s “Form-Based Translation vs. Meaning-Based Translation” = Newmark’s “Semantic Translation vs. Communicative Translation”.
Figure 7: The Equality in Conception of Translation Strategy
For example:
91
SLT : In our notion the object of a university education is to train intellectual men for the pursuits of an intellectual life.
RLT 1 : Menurut gagasan kita sasaran dari suatu pendidikan universitas adalah untuk melatih laki-laki intelektual untuk pengejaran suatu kehidupan
intelektual. RLT 2 : Dalam gagasan kita, tujuan pendidikan tinggi adalah untuk melatih
manusia intelektual demi mengejar kehidupan intelektual.
From the example above, RLT 1 Receptor Language Text 1 is oriented on source language, because the translation is faithful to source language by using
the style and word-order of source language. It indicates that RLT 1 is translated by using foreignizing strategy. The second translation, RLT 2, is oriented in
receptor language, because it is focused on acceptability by showing the natural
91
Rochayah Machali 2000, op.cit. p. 45.
translation for readers. Therefore, it can be said that it is translated by using domesticating strategy.
c. Neutralizing
