Translating Culture-Bound Terms in Wedding Speech Texts of Karonese Society into English Milisi Sembiring, Himpun Panggabean Abstract The article analyses culture-bound terms (CBTs) in wedding speech texts of Karonese society. The aims of this study are to explore the translation process when the CBTs are translated into English. The authors apply qualitative research, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, cultural analysis and Newmark’s translation methods and procedures to undertake them. The CBTs of wedding speech texts in Karonese are untranslatable. The authors use Newmark’s translation procedures of descriptive equivalent, cultural equivalent, transference, paraphrase, shifts and developed a new procedure, adding a familiar culture-bound term to overcome any issue of untranslatability. Keywords: culture-bound terms, Karonese society, translating, wedding speeches Introduction Sangkep nggeluh is literally translated into ‘relatives’ referring culturally to the three categories of relative which consist of kalimbubu, sembuyak and anakberu in Karonese society. Kalimbubu is a group of relative as wife givers by blood or marriage. Sembiring (2014: 10) explains that sembuyak are brothers and men who belong to the same clan or subclan. Sembuyak are people whose mothers, grandmothers or wives are sisters. Anakberu are wife takers by blood or marriage.Every Karonese must be either an anakberu, a kalimbubu or a sembuyak in certain families. Sangkep nggeluh is also known as rakut si telu, sangkep si telu or daliken si telu in Karonese society. Sembiring (2015: 131) explains that daliken si telu is a culture-bound term (CBT) as a standard of kinship and basis of communication among relatives of the Karonese society especially in cultural activities. Rakut si telu is a system of relationship which shows and preserves the honor of one group to another. According to Ginting, (2005: 9), Singarimbun, (1975: 97), and Tarigan (1988) sangkep nggeluh, daliken si telu or rakut si telu is a bounding system which interrelates one another. In addition, Tarigan (1988) mentions verbatim daliken si telu means a-three pillar of interrelatedness. Sembiring, (2014: 84) further indicates that the functions of daliken si telu which consists of sembuyak that function as rulers, anakberu as servers and kalimbubu as those who are served, is a culturally systemic bound that indicates a relative group of someone in the kinship. The three categories of relatives which consist of kalimbubu, sembuyak, and anakberu who usually present a Karonese cultural ceremony and they have philosophy. Sembiring, (2014) further asserts that Karonese society have philosophy of mehamat man kalimbubu ‘honor the wife givers’, metenget man senina, ‘respect the brothers and men who belong to the same clan or sub-clan’, and metami man anakberu ‘understand and encourage the wife takers’. 47 Kalimbubu (by blood or marriage) Sembuyak (by blood or marriage) Anakberu (by blood or marriage) Figure 1 The connection of kalimbubu, sembuyak (senina), and anakberu Figure 1 shows the categories of relative by blood and marriage. The point is that the three categories of relative are viewed as dependent groups of relative each of which has a turn to be another category of relatives.The categories of relative are culture-bound terms (CBTs).The authors analyze and translate CBTs in wedding speech texts of Karonese society into English. The CBTs conveyed in wedding speech where triangular relation between kalimbubu, sembuyak, and anakberu applies. Research article authors practice Karonese language and culture therefore, their work is relevant, significant and has a contribution to make an additional translation procedure to translate CBTs in an SL into a TL. Sembiring (2015: 133) maintains that translation is the process of transferring the message and written form of an SL text into an equivalent TL text. Without having a translation process, the messages of a language cannot be transferred into another language. However, there are some problems in the translation process, which are not only matters of language, but also of cultural issues. There are many CBTs in wedding ceremony texts of ethnic groups that are not present in other cultures. Proshina (2008: 118) indicates that culture-bound words are generally rendered in the borrowing language through transcription, transliteration and calque translation. As Kelly (1998: 60) explains a frequent translation solution when dealing with culture-bound institutional terms refers to Newmark (1988) that of the use of «couplets» or «triplets», consisting in the use of the source term, and/or its literal translation, and a cultural or functional equivalent, or explanation of the term. Newmark’s translation methods and procedures are currently the most popular methods for investigating CBTs. Therefore, the authors apply the methods and the procedures in translating CBTs in wedding speech of Karonese society into English.In the translation of the texts of Karonese wedding speeches into English, the CBTs cannot be translated. They need particular translation procedures to transfer the messages of the source text (ST), Karonese, into the target text (TT), English. According to Snell-Hornby, (1988: 69) as the point of departure, the translator’s text analysis should begin by identifying the text in terms of culture and condition. Translation is usually defined as the process of establishing of equivalences between the sourse language (SL) and the target language (TL) texts. But what are the components of such as an equivalence and when is it established ? Lotfipour-Saed, (1990:389). On the basis 48 of an equivalence and discourse analysis (DA), this article refers to context of situation and context of culture of CBTs in wedding speeches of Karonese society. Discourse analysis is the study of language-in-use Gee (2011: 8). Gee (2011:88) further asserts that a discourse analysis is based on the details of speech ( gaze,gesture and action) or writing that are arguably deemed relevant in the situation and that are relevant to the arguments the analyst is attempting to make.The authors apply DA in regard to language use in the context of situation in the wedding speeh text interaction among rakut si telu ‘the three bonds’ in Karonese society. The previous studies on CBTs of the wedding speech texts are not closely linked with this research meaning that this work is of great contribution to translation study. When Sembiring (2010) did research for translating rebu in Karo society into English: problems and procedures, the problems which arose were linguistic and cultural. They were solved by using particular procedures of translation. In Sembiring’s (2016: 1145) study on translating Karonese tutur si waloh texts into English, he insists that some kinship terms could be transferred in detail by applying paraphrase. The purpose of this article is to apply Newmark’s translation methods and translation procedures in the process of translating the CBTs in the wedding speech texts of Karonese society into English. The authors find and develop new solution to translate the untranslatable CBTs of the SL into the TL. Literature Review Nida and Taber (1982: 33) explain that the system of translation consists of three stages: (1) Analysis: the surface structure (i.e. the message, as given in the SL) is analyzed in terms of: (a) the grammatical relationships and (b) the meanings of the words and combinations of words. (2) Transfer: the analyzed material is transferred in the mind of the translator from the SL to the TL. (3) Restructure: the transferred material is restructured in order to make the final message fully acceptable in the TL. In the process of translation the context of the language in the ST must be understood to avoid misunderstanding the text before contextualizing it into the TT. Figure 2 below, showing the context is adapted from Halliday’s concept in Halliday and Hasan (1985: 44-47): context of culture context of situation language Figure 2 Halliday’s concept of social perspective in language 49 Figure 2 presents the notion of the context of situation, which together with the context of culture, is necessary for the understanding of a language. Context of situation consists of three aspects: field, tenor and mode, and is supported by the context of culture. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 33) further point out that field refers to what’s going on in the situation, tenor indicates who is taking part in the situation, and mode shows what role is being played by language and other semiotic systems in the situation. House (2001: 248) argues that the text must therefore refer to the particular situation enveloping it, and for this a way must be found for breaking down the broad notion of “context of situation” into manageable parts, i.e., particular features of the context of situation or “situational dimensions”: for instance “field,” “tenor ” and “mode.”. In analyzing the CBTs of the wedding speech texts, the authors begin with the context related to three contextual variables; field , tenor, and mode. These variables help to explain how rakut si telu ‘the three bonds’ use the language in the CBTs of the wedding speech texts. Discourse analysis in translation Discouse analysis is concerned with language use in a social context, particularly spoken text delivered to the adressee. Farahani (2013: 112) reveals that discourse analysis (DA) is a field of study which tries to investigate the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. For Farahani, DA is closely connected to the study of language,culture and society. According to Wu., (2010: 130) discourse analysis can be divided into five categories from the angle of method, namely, structural analysis, cognitive analysis, social cultural analysis, critical analysis, and synthetic analysis. Social cultural analysis regards discourse as interactional activities and emphasizes the social function of language. This method not only analyzes word and sentence expression form and meaning, but also analyzes all kinds of social cultural factors related to discourse. This method insists that the speaker as an individual and one entity of a society not only intends to transmit information or expresses thoughts, but also attempts to engage in certain social activities in different social situations and social institutions. Discourse analysis is used to understand and examine CBTs in wedding speech texts of Karonese society. Wu’s discourse analysis methods of social cultural and critical analysis are applied to analyze CBTs and translate them into English. 50 Chart 1. House’s (2001: 139) scheme for analyising and comparing original and translation texts INDIVIDUAL TEXTUAL FUNCTION REGISTER GENRE (Generic Purpose) FIELD TENOR MODE Subject matter and social action Participant relationship - Author’s Provenance and Stance - Social Rule Relationship - Social Attitude - Medium (simple/complex) - Participation (simple/complex) LANGUAGE / TEXT Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 34) additionally emphasize that the combinations of field, tenor and mode values determine different uses of language – the different meanings that are at risk in a given type of situation (see chart 1). There are systematic correspondences between the contextual values and the meanings that are at risk in the contexts defined by these values. Davaninezhad,( 2009) concludes that register analysis is a part of context in translation; it involves reader in reconstruction of context through an analysis of what has taken place (field), who has participated (tenor) and what medium has been selected for relaying the message (mode). Basically, a text is seen as being created within a particular context which can be described in terms of three parameters – “field”, “tenor” and “mode”. Field refers to the subject matter and the nature of activity, i.e. what is happening, to whom, when and where, what they know, why they are doing what they are doing and so on. “tenor’ refers to the social relationships existing between those involved in terms of power and status....”mode” concerns how the language being used, the organization of the text whether it is written or spoken. Taylor and Baldry, (2001: 278-279) The context of this study are the CBTs at the wedding speech texts of Karonese society. The participants of the wedding ceremony are kalimbubu, sembuyak, and anakberu by blood and marriage. Not all Karonese society understand the CBTs in wedding ceremony, they can not interpret cultural terms. Jeremy and Zhang, (2015: 327) present arguments to emphasize as a method of analysis, discourse analysis is holistic, dealing with entire constituents of an act 51 of communication. It is a method that studies a discourse in its context of culture and situation and its structure and individual constituents. It provides a model for uncovering patterns of choice and relating them to specific concerns and contexts in which the translator works. Mehdi., Rahbar and Hosseini-Maasoum, (2013: 35) indicate that various text types require different techniques and strategies for translation in order to be efficient in conveying the intended message of the source text into the target text. Another important matter is the inter relatedness of the texts and the social circumstance in which they are produced. Every text will be organized according to some concepts, beliefs and ideologies of a group, community, party or a nation. Lazaraton, (2009: 246) further explains the researchers use discourse analysis in applied linguistics because they do not have to rely on intuitions about language and communication and they have actual data to look at. The result of discourse analysis are also readily observable. A discourse analytic study is to generate a rich contestualized description of language use particular setting. Discourse analysis studies tend to focus on small number of speakers and/or texts in order to make it possible these rich descriptions. Critical discourse analysis in transtion According to Mahdiyan, Rahbar,and Hosseini-Maasoum, (2013: 38) critical discourse analysis (CDA) may become a useful means in the decision making of the translation strategy, the ST, and the TT context, cultural and social differences between source and target language communities.Mahdiyan, Rahbar, and Hosseini-Maasoum, (2013: 38) further explain that CDA is mainly used to analyze the text linguistic factors of one language and one culture. However, in translation studies this approach should be applied to both primary ST and secondary TT. CDA sees translation as a social, cultural, and political act and tries to combine these three factors to analyze both ST and TT. Sipra and Rashid,( 2013: 28) indicate that CDA analyses the use of the language in a real context and how language reveals their cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds. They are of the view that choice of lexical and syntactic features of a language represent the broad socio-cultural background of the speakers. Critical discourse analysis focuses on how their language reflects discursive practices in the binary relations. Translating the CBTs in Karonese wedding speeches texts is not only to restructure a text in the TL, but a translator must have the competence to move a message in the SL into a equivalent message in the TL. Nida, (1991: 115) describes in general it is the best to speak of “functional equivalence” in terms of a range of adequacy, since no translation is ever completely equivalent. A number of different translations can in fact varying degrees of equivalence. Manca (2012: 23) generalizes that context of culture, context of situation and co-text play a fundamental role in the process of translation. Some concepts may exist in one culture but not in another. 52 CBTs are untranslatable and a logical theory about untranslatability is needed. Ricoeur (2006: 30) reveals that untranslatability occurs because of diversity, and it affects all the operating levels of language: the phonetic and articulatory division at the root of phonetic systems; the lexical division that separates languages, not word for word, but from lexical system to lexical system; verbal meanings within a lexicon consisting of a network of differences and synonyms; and the syntactic division of linguistic untranslatability. It is not enough for the authors to recognize and understand the different language, its social and cultural source context, but they should also be able to reproduce the meaning in the TL. To overcome these situations they need to understand how the SL is translated into the TL. Therefore, the borrowing, identification, classification, description and the explanation for specific cultural and kinship terms are essential elements in translation. The translator needs a solution. As Elimam (2017: 59) points out, translation studies literature has always recognised the importance of taking target readers’ expectations into consideration for the success of a translation. For the translation to be well accepted by readers, the authors as translators applied Newmark’s translation methods and procedures in translating the SL. Most of the translation procedures are taken from Newmark’s model. Maasoum and Davtalab (2011: 1769) applied Newmark’s theory of translation to analyze the culture-specific items (CSIs) in the Persian translation of “The Dubliners”. They used the 14 translation procedures of Newmark in the process of translation. According to Maasoum and Davtalab, (2011: 1769) the translator sometimes cannot find a completely corresponding equivalent for CSIs in the TT. It is the same as, Catford (1965: 94) indicates that translation fails, or untranslatability occurs, when it is impossible to build functionally relevant features of the situation into the contextual meaning of the TL text. Ordudari, (2007) in Translation Journal Volume 11, No.3, applies Newmark’s translation procedures and it seems that the procedures of functional equivalent and notes would have a higher potential for conveying the concepts underlying the translating of culture-specific concepts embedded in a text. Newmark’s theory of translation was applied to transfer messages of the CBTs in Karonese language into English. Methods of Translation Newmark (1988: 45) divides the process of translating into eight methods, four of the methods oriented to the SL, and the other four oriented to the TL. They are put in the form of a flattened V diagram (Figure 3). SL emphasis TL emphasis Word-for-word translation Adaptation Literal translation Free translation Faithful translation Idiomatic translation Semantic translation Communicative translation Figure 3 Methods in the process of translating 53 Procedures of Translation Translation procedures focus on sentences and smaller units of language within the text. They have been applied by the authors in their efforts to formulate an equivalence for the purpose of transferring elements of meaning from the ST to the TT. Newmark’s (1988) translation procedures, such as transference, naturalization, cultural equivalent, functional equivalent, descriptive equivalent, componential analysis, synonymy, through-translation, shifts or transpositions, modulation, recognized translation, compensation, paraphrase, couplets, and notes were explored in the translation process of the SL into the TL. Harvey (2000: 2-6) acknowledges the techniques for translating CBTs. They are functional equivalence, formal equivalence or 'linguistic equivalence', transcription or 'borrowing' and descriptive or ‘self-explanatory’. They are similar to the concepts of Newmark’s translation procedures. According to Harvey (2000: 2-6) functional equivalence means using a referent in the TL culture whose function is similar to that of the SL referent. From the concepts of translation, Newmark’s translation procedures and the techniques of Harvey, as well as those of Vinay’s and Darbelnet’s, the authors as translators apply relevant translation procedures to trannsfer the SL into the TL. The authors combine the cultural approach with the linguistic approach in translating the CBTs. Methodology According to Creswell (2013:261) qualitative research begins with assumptions and the use of interpretive/theoretical frameworks that inform the study of research problems, addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. In qualitative research, the researchers as translators focus on the CBTs in wedding speech texts of Karonese society. In conducting qualitative research on translating cultural texts, understanding the SL and the TL is crucial,not only in the research process but also in the data and its interpretation. The authors apply the combination of two oriented researches, as Saldanha, Gabriela & O’Brein, Sharon,(2014: 49) indicate that the combination of process and product research will most likely lead to a greater understanding of the cognitive aspect of translation. Saldanha, Gabriela & O’Brein, Sharon,(2014: 23) additionally emphasize that a qualitative approach in translation research can include critical discourse analysis, interviews, focus group, questionnaires while quantitative approach might be associated with corpus analysis, eye taking, keystroke logging. Furthermore, Saldanha, Gabriela & O’Brein, Sharon,(2014: 80) explain that a key term in CDA is register, which refers to the set of choices and configurations that a speaker draws upon in certain conditions. The choices a speaker makes are influenced by the context of situation,which has three dimensions: field refers to the topic the activity, tenor concerns relations of familiarity, power, and solidarity among participants, and mode of communication concerns, among other things, whether texts are written or spoken, or whether language used for action or reflection. 54 Further, Saldanha, Gabriela & O’Brein, Sharon,(2014: 52) alternatively, taking the text as a point of departure, we can use DA or CDA to find out what the text tells us about the context. This study is in the area of translation studies discipline and the authors apply discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, cultural analysis and translation analysis in translating the source language (SL) into the target language (TL).Discourse analysis is a part of linguistic analysis applied and supported by cultural analysis and translation analysis, to identify and describe CBTs in the SL. Karonese language is the authors’ mother tongue. They understand the cultural issues of the SL and in a good position to conduct this cross-cultural translating research. By understanding the two languages the authors found it easy to understand the human behavior, social cultural processes and cultural meanings of both cultures and languages. In translating the CBTs from the SL into the TL, Newmark’s translation methods and translation procedures are applied, as they have clear connections with the researchers’ research questions. The research methods used are supported by interdisciplinary approaches to solve every research question rigorously and completely. The methods selected in the process of translation are emphasized in the ST and are all adapted from Newmark’s methods of translation. Newmark has eight methods of translation; four are oriented to the SL and the others are oriented to the TL. Five of Newmark’s procedures of translation are used in the process of translating the SL into the TL in this study. They are transference, descriptive equivalent, paraphrase, shifts, and cultural equivalent. The authors choose Newmark’s (1988) translation methods and procedures because his translation procedures mostly explore the cultural texts.Two of Newmark’s methods of translation were applied, being literal translation and semantic translation. Data and Data Sources The source of the data is a Karonese wedding speech. The authors attended a wedding ceremony to take video recordings of the wedding ceremony in Bintang Meriah Village, Kuta Buluh Sub-district, Karo Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia. It was held on May 6th, 2016. The participants of the wedding ceremony are daliken si telu composed of kalimbubu, senina, and anakberu. Kalimbubu is represented by Sinulingga clan, Senina known as sukut is represented by Perangin-angin clan, and anak beru is represented by Karo mergana clan. The record of speeches delievered by each the three sides contains CBTs will be treated as data. In the process of translation, there are sets of processes in transferring the ST into the TT, one of them is data analysis. In the process of data analysis, Miles and Huberman (1984: 21) maintain that the steps in qualitative analysis include: (1) data collection; (2) data reduction; (3) data display; (4) drawing and verifying conclusions. Data Analysis The authors analyze the wedding ceremony speech texts of the three categories of relative of Karonese society speeches. 55 systematically. First, they apply the discourse analysis on CBTs use in the context of situation. They analyze field, what the subject matter is, tenor, who talks what and to whom, and mode, how the text is addressed. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) combine field, tenor and mode values.Second, the authors apply Newmark’s translation procedure and method supported by discourse analysis,and cultural analysis. Third, exploring context of culture of the CBTs in the process of translating the SL into the TL by identifying the sub- group as a central core of translation activity belonging to CBTs meaning and functions. Translating the Context of Situation Field - A wedding cermony of Karonesee society is held in the bride’s village and it goes from morning till afternoon at jambur. Jambur literally means“hall” which has two sides, on the left side is the groom’s relative place and for the right side is the place for the bride’s relatives. At the center of the hall is wide space, it is used as the place of the bridegrooms to give speeches. On the left side is the groom’s relatives place. Kalimbubu is at the right side of senina which provided with new long white pandan mats. The center of hall is wide space as the place for bridegroom’s relatives when they give the speeches. Tenor - The speeches at a wedding cermony are started by the groom’s relatives and followed by the bride’s relatives. The cermony is managed by an anakberu singerana, which is literally translated with ‘spokenperson’. First, the sukut means “the host”, “the doer of wedding ceremony” address their speeches to their kalimbubu and followed by senina, kalimbu and anakberu. The sukut give the speech to welcome all their relatives.Both the groom and the bride have three categories of relative, they are kalimbubu, senina, and anakberu and each of them has sub- categories as stated earlier. The second turn is senina, which has the sub-category of senina siparibanen, sipemeren, and sepengalon. Each sub-category gives the speeches to bridegroom and the bridegroom’s relatives. The third turn is kalimbubu, they are sub-category of kalimbubu bena-bena, singalo ulu emas, siperdemui and puang kalimbubu. The last turn is anakberu, they are sub-category of anakberu siparibanen, sipemeren, and minteri. Mode - When a woman marries a man, she transfers from her clan to become a member of her husband’s clan. The relatives before her marriage are called kalimbubu or bride givers. After the marriage, the relatives of her new husband’s sisters and new father in law sisters become anakberu or bride receivers. All of the bride’s lineage are kalimbubu and groom’s lineage are anakberu.Anakberu are responsible to the organization of the wedding cermony and serve the three categories of relative. When anakberu give their speeches to the bridegroom and sukut, they apply the polite words. They use the words nina turangku, they use such expression because they are rebu. Rebu means social avoidance to talk directly, to look at face to face and to sit closely among mami and kela, bengkila and permen, mami and kela. The word nina is used as a mediation word to avoid to talk directly among permen, bengkila, kela, mami, and turangku. In delivering speech at the wedding cermony, anakberu use the words erkondangken kalimbubunta Sinulingga mergana means because they have the same kalimbubu which clan is Sinulingga, so they have a chance to give the speeches to the bridegroom and sukut. 56 Anakberu respect their kalimbubu as ‘visible gods’. By treating the kalimbubu in high regard, anakberu believe to have health and economic prosperity. The speeches of the sukut’host’ (1) SL : Man bandu kalimbubu kami sentabi kel kami adi lit akapndu kurang ibas kami ndudurken isapen bagepe ngaturken perkundulndu. TL: Dear our kalimbubu, we are very sorry if there is any inconvenience in the way we serve you ndudurken isapen and ngaturken perkundulndu at this wedding cermony. Ndudurken isapen literally means hand cigarettes, it is the way how sukut ‘the host’ serve the relatives politely in Karonese culture. First, sukut come closely to their kalimbubu and hand them the cigarettes when they are sitting. Kalimbubu consist of kalimbubu benabena, si ngalo bere-bere and simupus, and the clans of kalimbubu depend on the wife givers clans names of their grandfathers, fathers and their sons. Kalimbubu is literally translated with wive givers. The authors borrow the words ndudurken isapen, in which Newmark called this process with translation procedure of transference, it means the process of transferring an SL word to a TL text. The borrowed words are indentified, classified, described, and explained in the TL. Ndudurken isapen and ngaturken perkundulndu at the wedding ceremony are CBTs. Sukut and anakberu respect their kalimbubu not only at the wedding cermonies but also in the daily life. The presence of kalimbubu are really expected and the position of their seats is always on the right of the sukut at jambur ‘the hall of the wedding ceremony’. Ndudurken isapen is a cultural identity for a Karo married man to honor other men who are his sangkep nggeluh ‘relatives’. They are the category of relatives as kalimbubu, sukut/senina or anakberu. Ndudurken isapen is a culture-bound term (CBT) in the SL and it needs identification, classification, description, and explanation the CBTs to make it familiar in the TL. Offering cigarette (Ndudurken isapen) is perfomed by anakberu si ngerana functioning as spokeperson of the groom to bride’s spokeperson to start the dialogue at the wedding cermony.The sukut stand in the center of the jambur, ‘the wedding hall’, to welcome all the sembuyak/senina, kalimbubu singalo ulu emas and puang kalimbubu. The sukut welcome them because they have responded to the sukut’s invitation to come to the wedding ceremony. The speeches of the groom’s relatives. The content of a senina’s speech. The message of a senina’s speech is commonly addressed to the bridegroom and groom’s parents. The groom’s parents are appriciated that they are lucky to have such a wedding. The speakers add that not all people can enjoy such a situation.The parents of the groom are requested not to interfere or to monopolize their son’s family, except if they are in trouble.The bridegroom is told about the ways of life in Karonese society, and that they hope 57 the new couple want to learn Karonese culture. The most important thing is not to quarrel in their family. (2) SL: Bujur ningkami man bandu Sinulingga mergana ibas kam enggo nenahken kami, senina siparibanenndu erkondangken kalimbubunta Sebayang mergana. TL: We thank you Sinulingga mergana for inviting us, your senina siparibanenndu erkondangken kalimbubunta Sebayang mergana. Senina Siparibanen Senina Sipemeren Senina Senina Sendalanen Senina Sipengalon Senina Sembuyak Figure 4 The category of relative as senina Figure 4 reveals the category of senina in Karonese society. Senina siparibanen is not translated, it is a CBT. It occurs by marriage, the wife’s sisters’ husbands are called senina siparibanen. The clan name for senina siparibanen can be same or not, it depends on the husbands’ clans who marry the wife’s sisters. The content of an anakberu’s speech (3) SL: Kami anakberundu ngaku maka melala kekurangen kami ibas ngaturken dahin enda, emaka mindo kami ola lit tama-tama ukurndu, kam kalimbubu kami. TL: As your anakberu we realize that we caused a lot of inconvenience when serving the relatives at this party; therefore, we hope that you are not disappointed. For cultural reasons, anakberu do not want to mention the weakness of their kalimbubu; therefore they talk as if it was their weakness to run the wedding ceremony. The sukut problem at the wedding ceremony was overcome by anakberu. Anakberu is a CBT of the SL and the authors are familiar with this term; it can be transferred with ‘wife takers’, but there are classifications of anakberu. 58 Anakberu Tua Anakberu Cekoh Baka Anakberu Anakberu Sipemeren Anakberu Minteri Figure 5 The category of relative as anakberu The term anakberu is translated literally as ‘wife takers’ but it consists of anakberu tua, anakberu cekoh baka and anakberu minteri as well as shown in figure 5, and their functions are to serve their kalimbubu. Anakberu are usually the earliest to arrive and the last to leave the ceremonies. (4) SL: Kai pe cukup nge isikapken kalimbubu ban kurang beluhna nge kami anak beru ngaturkenca. TL: It is said that their kalimbubu have had enough of everything for the party but it is the fault of anakberu that a party is being held. The functions of the anakberu are to support their kalimbubu in serving the sangkep nggeluh ‘relatives’ at the wedding. They apologize for there being insufficient food to serve all the guests. They speak as if it is their fault instead of their kalimbubu’s inability. It seems to show the goodness of their kalimbubu.For the relatives it is said that everything has been enough prepared by the kalimbubu, but we were unable to arrange the party. Here anakberu show that they have responsibility to keep the honor of their kalimbubu among the relatives who are present the cermony. Kalimbubu is a culture bound-term (CBT) in the SL and the authors are familiar with this term. They can behave according to the SL cultural standards, but it can not be transferred easily to the TL. Identification, classification, description and explanation the CBT is needed to make it familiar in the TL. 59 Figure 6 The category of relative as kalimbubu Kalimbubu are classified as kalimbubu tua, kalimbubu bena-bena , kalimbubu simupus, kalimbubu ulu emas and puang kalimbubu as provided in figure 6. Each kalimbubu consists of a few different clans. The clans, as wife givers, have different clans and they are all kalimbubu for the great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, parents’ brothers’ wife givers and sons. So the translation of kalimbubu is not only ‘wife givers’. They should be honored culturally and have a good place at the ceremonies and in daily life. Their seats are usully placed on the right of the sukut. So the authors added familiar CBTs to develop Newmark’s translation procedure to translate the cultural meaning in the SL. (5) SL: Adi enggo erjabu meherga ibas jabu sabab (kam menda ingan sumpit kami ngadi ingan nuri-nuri). Bapandu enggo metua, kam sambar gancih bapandu jadi ingan kami nuri-nuri, kami enterem erbagena, emaka terbeluh kam. TL: If you had gotten married, you would be the person whom we requested (kam menda ingan sumpit kami, ngadi ingan nuri-nuri). Because your father is old, you will replace him as the addressee of our discussion. As you know so many of us are your anakberu; therefore, you should be clever. Having finished the groom’s relatives speeches, the bride’s relatives continued to give the speeches to the bride and her father’s senina. The structure of speakers are as follows: a. Sukut, sembuyak b. Senina, sipemeren, siparibanen, sipengalon c. Kalimbubu si telu sendalinen: singalo bere-bere, singalo perninin, ras perbibin. 60 The speeches of the sukut sinereh (6) SL: Gia permenndu, kempundu erjabu, enterem denga ka nge anak kami, emaka ula kari ibas kelawesen permenndu erjabu, maka urak ka kekelengendu. TL: Even though your permen or your granddaughter has gotten married, there are still some other daughters to be married. Therefore, do not love us less. (7) SL: Adi lit gia akapndu sikurang labo beberendu sipejabuken ngenca kekurangen tapi kami pe ikut nge simada. TL: If there is a lack of sukut service at this wedding cermony, it is not what our sukut intend but it is only what we are capable of doing. The speech is addressed to singalo bere-bere, perninin and perbibin. The content of the speech is to show their humility in serving kalimbubu at the wedding party. Ndu in akapndu is polite linguistic, ndu is as suffix and posessive in SL, it is translated literally ‘you think’in TL. The message is given to the bridegroom and his relatives. (8) SL: Arapen kami kalimbubundu maka kam bere-bere kami sinjabuken bana tutuslah ibas erjabu. TL: Our hope as your kalimbubu is our bere-bere who are celebrating this wedding cermony now, be serious in your marriage life. Another meaning for bere-bere is the kinship term for uncle’s sister’s children and there is no bere-bere in English. Kam is polite linguistic in SL and its equivalent ‘you’ in TL. The speech of the perbibin (9) SL: Man bandu anak kami ula kekelengendu terjeng bapa nandendu, tapi pe ku kami perbibin, gegehi encari ras erdahin gelah banci pepagi idah pengkelengindu. TL: We hope your love not only refers to your parents, but also to us as your perbibin. Therefore, work hard so that your love will be proven. Kalimbubu support the bridegroom to work hard to have income, so that if they are invited to visit their kalimbubu,they have enough money. Kalimbubu give the bridegroom a token of appreciation and say: (10) SL: Iendesken kami lampu man bandu maka terang ibas jabundu, ula lit erbuni- buni. TL: A lamp is given to the new couple to inform them that it is as a symbol of light and to be transparent in their married life. Lampu in SL has TL equivalent. It means lamp, but there is no symbolic function in TL. The new couple are also given kudin, cerek, amak and manok. 61 Kudin is a pot for cooking rice, as a symbol of when guests come, the rice should be ready for them. Cerek means a kettle and it is a place of drinking water. So that if they have guests the drink has been provided d in their house, and when guests come to the house to visit they can be served. Amak tayangen is a place for a couple to take a rest because they are tired from working. The cultural equivalent of amak tayangen is a sleeping mat, which can be a place for the new couple to think about what should be planned and done. Amak tayangen in SL is white pandan mat but a sleeping mat in TL is not made of pandan. Manok means ‘a hen’. It is also given to the bridegroom as a symbol for being a hard worker, who is aware, not discriminating, caring, loving, a survivor and a volunteer. The groom’s relatives are sukut, ngalo-ngalo biak senina, kalimbubu si telu sendalinen, singalo bere-bere, and singalo perninin ras singalo perbibin. According to Ginting (2014) the kalimbubu usually bring gifts for the bridegroom. The gifts are given after the kalimbubu have finished giving their speeches at the cermony. They are lampu, kudin pedakanen, belanga, pinggan perpangan (2), cerek, cangkir/gelar (2), mangkuk perburihen, beras meciho (2) tumba, amak tayangen (2), bantal and manuk asuhen (1). The gifts of the singalo perkempun are beras (1) tumba, mangkok mbentar isi beras and tinaruh (1), amak tayangen (1), bantal and manuk asuhen (1). The gifts which are provided by si ngalo perbibin are beras 1 tumba, mangkuk mbentar risi beras and amak cur la erbantal. Ginting (2014: 94) states that the speech is delivered to the bridegroom as follows: O anakku, teman nandena/turang mamina, iendesken kami menda amak dabuhen ibas pemenan jabundu. Sangap kam erjabu, kedabuhen tuah ras sangap kam ras impalndu e, ertima kita maka jumpa pagin matawari ras bulan dingen merih pagi manuk niasuhndu, mbuah page nisuanndu, mejuah-juah anakku. Dear the bridegroom, we provide you amak dabuhen for your new marriage. Have a good family, children and presprority of a harvest. The equivalent of amak dabuhen is screen. Amak dabuhen is a white pandan mat used for a screen. (11) SL: Kenca dung belas-belas ranan adat kalimbubu sitelu sendalanen, emaka luah enda iendesken kempak siempo, ialo-alo iendesken simulih sumpit, isi gula ras tualah, alu kata jumpa pagi sientebu ras melam ibas kegeluhen enda. TL: Having finished the speeches of the ranan adat kalimbubu sitelu and the telu sendalanen, the gifts are then handed to the groom. He is given simulih sumpit, which contains red sugar and old coconut, as the symbol of having a sweet and good future life. The simulih sumpit is still used in TL. The authors apply transference translation procedure. Kalimbubu have given their gifts to the bridegroom, the sukut give simulih sumpit. (12) SL: Man bandu permen kami ula baba kebiasaan si la mehuli ibas jabundu ku jabu bengkilandu, janah pelajari uga maka payo jabu sidahi kam. TL: Our dear permen, do not show your bad attitude in your parents’ daily life in your father-in-law’s daily life. In the data of number 18 the translation procedure of transference is applied. 62 (13) SL: Man bandu anak kami adi lit akapndu la payo impalndu ngata kam man kami, ula mintes ku mamandu. TL: Dear groom, if there is a problem with your wife, please let us know first, instead of your father-in-law. The literal translation of anak kami is ‘our son’, but anak kami is a cultural term. It is used to show the close relationship between the parents and their adopted son culturally. It cannot be translated into the words ‘our son’ or ‘cultural son’ for English. The groom is appoved culturally to be the son at the wedding cermony (14) SL: Anakberu mereken sekin man simbaru erjabu, janahna nina enda sekin gelah banci kam ndahi dahin kalimbubunta. TL: The anakberu gives a knife to the groom by saying, ‘here is a knife so that if our kalimbubu have a party you will use it to prepare the meals.’ Kalimbubu usually say that their anakberu is piso entelap kalimbubu, ‘our sharp knife’. Piso entelap is a symbol that anakberu will serve their kalimbubu well to prepare meals. Therefore, at the wedding cermony a knife is given by the anakberu to the groom so he can serve his kalimbubu. Piso entelap kalimbubu is translated by the descriptive equivalent in the TL and it is therefore explained. (15) SL: Kam ingan ngadi sumpit kami (penadingen sumpit kami). TL: You are like the entrance of our cultural activity. The literal translation of kam ingan sumpit kami ngadi is ‘you are the last standing of our sumpit’. The authors apply literal translation in the data no 15 but, it does not have sense in the TL. By honoring kalimbubu, anakberu believe that it is the symbol of god will provide anakberu’s prosperity. In this case, the message is addressed to kalimbubu ‘wife givers’ and they should be honored in Karonese society because anakberu believe that they are as visible gods. The paraphrase translation procedure should be used to get a close meaning in the TL, but there is no cultural equivalent in the TL. Kam as a pronoun in SL is a polite linguistic pronoun and it is absent in the TL. Ingan ngadi sumpit and kam are CBTs at the wedding cereomy speeches of Karonese society. It has a metaphorical meaning that the new couple are at the entrance of the anakberu to the kalimbubu sangkep nggeluh to his/her kalimbubu relatives. Penadingen sumpit kami is paraphrase in the TL. (16) SL: Man bandu kempu kami si njabuken bana selamat kam njabuken bana, sikeleng kelengen kam jumpa kam matawari ras bulan, bagepe man orangtuandu sehat sehat kam. TL: This message is addressed to the new couple by saying,’happy wedding, love each other, have a son and a daughter and may your parents be healthy.’ Jumpa kam matawari ras bulan also has metaphorical meaning but, the authors do not find it in the TL. To get the close meaning of jumpa kam matawari ras bulan the literal translation is not applied. Instead, a descriptive equivalent translation procedure in the TL is 63 required. Jumpa kam matawari ras bulan is translated with you will have a son and a daughter. There is a shift meaning in translating the SL into the TL. Translating Meaning(s) and the Context of Situation (17) SL: Merga bapa, jadi merga man anak si dilaki jadi beru man anak si diberu. TL: The father’s clan is to be the clan ‘merga’ for a son and ‘beru’ for a daughter. Merga is not translated, every son automatically receives his father’s merga (patrilineal) and every daughter gets beru from her father’s merga. The Karo are familiar with orat tutur merga silima literally means ‘kinship of the five clans’ in Karonese society. (18) SL: Beru nande, jadi bere-bere man anak si dilaki ras anak si diberu. TL: The mother’s clan is to be bere-bere for the son and the daughter. A Karonese knows his kinship from his merga. In introducing for a Karonese, he/she starts from his merga or her beru and folowed by their bere-bere. It is not enough for a man or a woman in Karonese society to introduce his name or her name only but he/she should mention his merga or her beru and their bere-bere. Bere-bere exists by the parent’s marriage. Children’s mother’s clan is their bere-bere. This cultural feature is absent in the TL, which makes it difficult to translate. Bere-bere is explained in the TL, the authors use descriptive equivalent but it is still not clear. The authors identify children’s mother’s clan name. The mother’s clan is Kaban. The children’s bere-bere is Kaban. It is the sub-clan of Karo-karo. (19) SL: Bere-bere bapa, jadi binuang man anak si dilaki ras anak si diberu. TL: A bere-bere is to be binuang for a son and daughter. A father and his brothers have the same bere-bere. A father’s bere-bere is his mother’s clan. Ego’s mother’s clan is Karo-karo Sinulingga. Karo--karo is a clan name and Sinulingga is a sub-clan. So his bere-bere is Sinulingga. A son, his father and his grandfather have the same clan but each of them has different binuang, because they have different monther’s clan or sub-clan. Ego’s father’s bere-bere is called binuang. Different family has different binuang and clan name. The authors should be familiar with the terms of bere-bere and binuang in translating them into TL. The authors identify a mother’s clan name, classify its sub-clan, describe a son father’s and his granfather’s binuang and describe father’s and grandfather’s clan names and explain them in TL and they call this procedure familiar CBT. The term bere-bere have no equivalent in the TL which makes it difficult to translate. (20) SL: Bere-bere nande, jadi perkempun man anak sidilaki ras anak sidiberu. TL: A mother’s bere-bere is to be perkempun for a son and a daughter. (21) SL: Bere-bere nini bulang arah bapa, jadi kampah man anak si dilaki ras anak si diberu. TL: Bere-bere nini bulang arah bapa is to be kampah for a son and a daughter. 64 (22) SL: Bere-bere nini bulang arah nande, jadi soler man anak sidilaki as anak sidiberu. TL: Bere-bere nini bulang arah nande is to be soler for a son and a daughter. Perkempun, kampah and soler in SL are CBTs and they have no equivalent in TL. Perkempun is literally translated with mother’s bere-bere or mother’s mother’s clan. Granfather’s bere-bere is called kampah. Mother’s father’s bere-bere is called soler. Perkempun,kampah and soler have different roles and clans in Karonese society. Many of the terms for relatives in the SL have no equivalent terms in the TL, but for certain relatives there is a different cultural concept. Therefore, the authors apply Newmark’s translation methods of semantic translation in this study. Of all Newmark’s translation procedures (1988: 81-91), in translating the ST into the TT the authors applied five of them. They are descriptive equivalent, transference, shifts, paraphrase, and cultural equivalent. Additionally, the authors apply two of Newmark’s translation methods, they are literal and semantic translation. The reason for choosing these procedures was because there are many specific CBTs found in Karonese wedding speech texts and it is difficult to translate them into English. CBTs convey meaning and refer to each sub-culture term in Karonese society. Conclusions The conclusions of the study are as follows: The article analyses the CBTs in the wedding speech texts of Karonese society. Since discourse analysis belong to the CBTs, the authors’ focuses were the application of field, tenor (participants) and mode in translating CBTs in the wedding speech ceremony into English. The target was to find solution, to translate untranslatable CBTs in the SL into the TL, as well as to search alternative solutions in the translation process. The authors attempt to figure out whether Newmark’s translation method and procedure can answer the question. Based on the analysis, the authors could not translate the CBTs acurately into English. CBTs in the SL have no equivalent and sense in the TL. On the whole, the transference is a solution to solve untranslatable in the SL, but the TL readers still have problems to understand the CBTs completely. In the case of categories of relatives, they do not have any equivalences in the TL because such categories are culture-bound terms and they need the identification, classification and explaination in the TL. Therefore, an additional translation procedure is needed, which help to translate the Sl into the TL. Moreover, this similiar CBTs procedure could be applied in more CBTs in other languages, such as at the wedding cermonies, in order to use this procedure to translate source culture into other cultures. Some CBTs in Karonese wedding speeches are difficult to translate because they have no equivalent in English. To solve this problem, the authors firstly applied Newmark’s translation procedures of descriptive equivalent, cultural equivalent, paraphrase, transference, and shifts, but some CBTs proved to be untranslatable. Then they also applied Newmark’s literal and semantic translation method, but this was not the complete solution. 65 So, the authors decided to try a translation procedure that involved adding a familiar CBT from the SL and this was succesful. This new procedure can now be used to further develop Newmark’s translation procedures. It provides an additional tool for translators to use in the future, when working to translate CBTs from an SL to a TL. Acknowledgements The research gets funds from the fundamental research grant, based on research contract no. 266/N/LP3M-UMI/2016 of the Directorate General of Research and Development for the years 2016. This paper was financially supported by the Directorate General of Research and Development based on no. 1940/E5.3/PB/2017 in the Program of Bantuan Seminar Luar Negeri Tahun 2017 to present their paper at the 16th International Conference on Translation, 8th – 10th August 2017 Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. References CATFORD, J.C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. CRESWELL, John W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design. London: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2013. DAVANINEZHAD, Forogh K. 2009. Translation from Hallidayan Perspective. [cit. 2017-06-13]. Available at : <http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article2028.php> ELIMAM, Ahmed Saleh. 2017. Translating the Qur’an into English : Target Readers’ Expectations. In The Skase Journal of Translation and Interpretation [online]. 2017, vol. 10, no. 1[cit. 2018-04-27], pp. 58-76. Available at : <http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI12/index.html> FARAHANI, M.V. 2013. The Role of Discourse Analysis in Translation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature.In Australian International Academic Centre, January 2013, vol. 2, no. 1[cit. 2018-03-26]. GEE, J.P. 2010. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and method. Third Edition, United Kingdom : Routledge, 2010. GINTING, M.U. 2005. Adat Karo Sirulo. Tuntunan Praktis Adat Istiadat Karo. Jilid I, Medan. 2005. HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 2004. HALLIDAY, M.A.K., MATTHIESSEN, M.I.M.C. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth Edition. USA: Routledge, 2014. HALLIDAY,M.A.K and Hasan R., 1985. Language, Context and Text: Social Semiotic Perspective. Deakin University Press. HARVEY, M. 2000. A Beginner's Course in Legal Translation: the Case of CultureBound Terms.Available at :<http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf> acceessed 24 December 2017. 66 HOUSE, J. 2001. Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta, 46(2) [cit. 2018-04-3], 243–257. Retrived from Meta 2 avr. 2018, 22:36 cited 3/4/2018 HOUSE, J. 2001. How do we when know a translation is good? In exploring translation and multilingual text production: beyond content. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. KELLY, Dorothy. 1998. Ideological implications of translation decisions : positive self-and negative other presentation Quaderns. In Revista de traducció 1. 1998, [cit. 2018-04-11], pp. 57-63. LARSON, Mildred L. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross Language Equivalence. London : University Press of America, 1984. LAZARATON, A. 2009. Discourse Analysis in Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics : A Practical Introduction. Great Britain: Palgrave MacMillan. LOTFIPOUR, SAED K. Discourse Analysis and the Problem of Translation Equivalence. (1990 :389) Meta XXXV, 2 [cit. 2018-04-9], 1990. MANCA, Elena. 2012. Context and Language. Università del Salento – Coordinamento SIBA, 2012. Available at : <http://siba-ese.unisalento.it> MAASOUM, Seyed Mohammad Hosseini and Davtalab, Hoda: 2011. An Analysis of Culture-specific Items in the Persian Translation of ‘Dubliners’ Based on Newmark’s Model. Vol. 1, No. 20 [cit. 2018-03-26], pp. 1767-1779, December 2011 © ACADEMY PUBLISHER. MAHDIYAN, M., Rahbar,M., and Hosseini-Maasoum,M. (2013): Applying Critical Discourse Analysis in Translation of Political Speeches and Interviews. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. March 2013, vol 2, no 1[cit. 2018-03-26]. MCSERCEMAS-Sapienza University of Rome. MILALA, Terang Malem. 2007. Indahnya Perkawinan Adat Karo. Medan: Maranata, 2007. MILES, Matthew B., HUBERMAN, A Micheal. 1984. Qualitative data Analysis. London: SAGA Publications. MUNDAY, J and Zhang.,M.2015. Introduction to Discourse Analysis inTranslation Studies Target 27:3. John Benjamins Publishing Company. NEWMARK P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice-Hall. NIDA, E.A. and CHARLES, Taber.1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1982. ORDUDARI, Mahmoud. 2007. Translation procedures, strategies and methods. Translation Journal. July 2007, vol 11, no 3[cit. 2017-08-10]. Available at <http://translationjournal.net/journal/41culture.htm 67 PROSHINA, ZOYA. 2008. Theory of Translation (English and Russian).Third Edition. Vladivostok, Far Eastern University Press, 2008. RICOEUR, Paul. 2006. On Translation. London: Routledge, 2006. SALDANHA, Gabriela & O’Brien. (2014). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. New York: Routledge. 2014. SEMBIRING, Milisi. 2010. Translating Rebu in Karo Society into English: Procedures and Problems. Paper presented at the International Conference on Translation and Multicultularism ”Found in Translation”. At the University of Malay, 23-25 July 2010, [cit. 2018-07-26]. Available at : < http://english.um.edu.my/anuvaada/papers/sembiring.pdf > SEMBIRING, Milisi. 2014. Dissertation: Translating Themes of Rebu Texts in Karonese Society into English. Medan: University of Sumatera Utara, 2014. SEMBIRING, Milisi. 2015. Translating Daliken si Telu Texts in Karonese Society into English.In International Journal of Language Studies, vol. 9, no 3. USA: Lulu Press, Inc., 2015. SEMBIRING, Milisi. 2016. Translating Tutur si Waloh in Karonese Society into English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1142-1148, June 2016. Finland: Academy Publication, 2016. SEMBIRING, Milisi. 2017. Translating Karonise Culture into English Medan: USU Press. SINGARIMBUN.,1975. Kindship, Descent and Alliance University of California Press. among Karo Batak. Berkeley: SIPRA, Muhammad Aslam & RASHID, Athar (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis of Martin Luther King’s Speech in Socio-Political Perspective. In Advances in Language and Literary Studies. Vol. 4 No. 1; January 2013. Australia:Australian International Academic Centre. SNELL-HORNBY, M. 1988. Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins , 1988. TARIGAN, Henry, Guntur. 1988. Percikan Budaya Karo. Bandung : Yayasan Merga Silima. TAYLOR, Chris and BALDRY, Anthony. 2001. Computer assisted text analysis in translation: a functional approach in the analysis and translation of advertising texts. In Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. 2001. WU,H. 2010. A Social Cultural Approach to Discourse Analysis.In Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 1, no. 2[cit. 2018-04-15], pp. 130-132, March 2010 © 2010 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland. 68 Dr.Milisi Sembiring Department of English Language and Literature Fakultas Sastra Universitas Methodist Indonesia milisi_sembiring@yahoo.com Jl. Hang Tuah No. 8 Medan, SUMUT, Indonesia Prof. Dr. Himpun Panggabean Department of English Language and Literature Fakultas Sastra Universitas Methodist Indonesia himpang_25@yahoo.com Jl. Hang Tuah No. 8 Medan, SUMUT, Indonesia In SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation [online]. 2018, vol. 11, no. 1 [cit. 201821-07]. Available online <http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI14/pdf_doc/04.pdf>. ISSN 13367811 69