Ideological Refraction in Translation: Textual Construction of Kartini in English and Malay
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v11i2.2383Keywords:
Kartini, Canonization, Appraisal Theory, Colonial and Nationalist Translation, discourse ideological refraction.Abstract
Background:This study investigates the ideological refraction of Kartini’s epistolary identity across two seminal translations: Symmers’ English Letters of a Javanese Princess and Balai Pustaka’s Malay Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang.
Methodology: Employing Martin and White’s Appraisal Framework, comparative analysis of textual divergences across three narrative phases between the two translations reveals contrasting characterological constructions. The Dutch source is acknowledged as context but not used as a fidelity benchmark, making this a comparison of target-text constructions rather than a source-target shift analysis. Findings:Symmers’ translation textually constructs a figure legible as a tragic victim to be pitied, privileging Appreciation over Affect and encoding Kartini as patient. Balai Pustaka’s translation textually constructs a legible figure as a foundational martyr to be emulated, migrating from Appreciation to Affect and reconfiguring suffering as active labor. These constructions invite divergent readings that align with colonial and nationalist interpretive traditions respectively, though Balai Pustaka’s status as a colonial-government publishing institution complicates any simple attribution of nationalist intention to the translators themselves.
Conclusion:Translation thus constitutes not secondary representation but a site of discursive production: the English and Malay translations offer divergent textual resources for remembering Kartini, shaping how she is positioned within competing cultural imaginaries.
Originality:By deliberately bracketing the question of fidelity to the Dutch original, this research pivots towards refraction as its governing optic thus advancing the claim that translation is the primary mechanism through which Kartini’s historical identity has been fissured and canonized into two discrete figures conscripted to serve opposing cultural and political imaginaries.
References
Abendanon, J. H. (Ed.). (1911). Door duisternis tot licht. Luctor et Emergo.
Ahlstrand, J., & Maniam, V. (2025). Kartini, online media, and the politics of the Jokowi era: A critical discourse analysis. Asian Studies Review, 49(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2024.2347859
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Bandia, P. F. (2008). Translation as reparation: Writing and translation in postcolonial Africa. St. Jerome.
Bao, P. (2025). Negotiating cultural hegemony: Power dynamics in the postcolonial translation of African literature into English. Translation Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2025.2559797
Barakat, T., & Tyulenev, S. (2024). Translation and memory. In S. Tyulenev & W. Luo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and sociology (pp. 460–474). Routledge.
Bassnett, S., & Trivedi, H. (Eds.). (1999). Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Bijl, P., & Chin, G. V. S. (Eds.). (2020). Appropriating Kartini. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814843928
Brodzki, B. (2007). Can these bones live? Translation, survival, and cultural memory. Stanford University Press.
Carbonell i Cortés, O., & Monzó-Nebot, E. (Eds.). (2024). Translating asymmetry, rewriting power. John Benjamins.
Coté, J. (Ed. & Trans.). (2005). On feminism and nationalism: Kartini’s letters to Stella Zeehandelaar 1899–1903. Monash Asia Institute.
Even-Zohar, I. (1990). Polysystem theory. Poetics Today, 11(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772666
Garg, A. (2025). Untranslatable worlds: Translation, betrayal, and meaning in Adichie and Naipaul. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5241892
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
Heilbron, J., & Sapiro, G. (2007). Outline for a sociology of translation: Current issues and future prospects. In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 93–108). John Benjamins.
Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target, 8(1), 23–48.
Holmes, J. S. (1988). The name and nature of translation studies. In Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies (pp. 67–80). Rodopi.
Inghilleri, M. (2005). The sociology of Bourdieu and the construction of the ’object’ in translation and interpreting studies. The Translator, 11(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799195
Kartini, R. A. (1920). Letters of a Javanese princess (A. L. Symmers, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf.
Kartini, R. A. (1922). Habis gelap terbitlah terang: Boeah pikiran Radén Adjeng Kartini (Balai Pustaka, Trans.). Balai Pustaka.
Kuzderová, H., & Bednárova-Gibová, K. (2021). The impact of ideologies on the translator’s work: A conceptual reflection and application. Hermēneus, 23, 31–67. https://doi.org/10.24197/her.23.2021.31-67
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. Routledge.
Li, X., Meng, Y., & Jing, Y. (2025). An Appraisal-based study on divergence of evaluative meanings in student translations. WORD, 71(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2025.2499341
Liu, Q. Y., Ang, L. H., Waheed, M., & Mohd Kasim, Z. (2022). Appraisal theory in translation studies. A systematic literature review. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 30(4), 1589–1605. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.07
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mukherjee, A. (2013). What is a classic? Postcolonial rewriting and invention of the canon. Stanford University Press.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. Routledge.
Niranjana, T. (1992). Siting translation: History, post-structuralism, and the colonial context. University of California Press.
Niranjana, T. (2002). Translation as disruption. In R. Bhaya Nair (Ed.), Translation, text and theory. The paradigm of India, New Delhi (pp. 55-76). Sage Publications.
Odrekhivska, I. (2024). Decolonial analytics in translation history: Ukrainian literature in the contested space of English translation. World Literature Studies, 16(3), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.31577/wls.2024.16.3.1
Pardoe, L., & Arps, A. (2023). Translation, memory, and ongoing coloniality: Reading Gentayangan for a more worldly Dutch Studies. Dutch Crossing, 47(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03096564.2022.2144598
Phan, L. T. (2025). Tracing the development of research on appraisal theory within systemic functional linguistics (2003-2025): A bibliometric analysis. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 52, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltq.2025.52.05
Pijnappel, J. (1875). Maleisch-Nederduitsch woordenboek. C. A. Spin & Zoon.
Pym, A. (2006). On the social and the cultural in translation studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger, & Z. Jettmarová (Eds.), Sociocultural aspects of translating and interpreting (pp. 1–9). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.67.02pym
Qi, Y. L., Lay, H. A., Waheed, M., & Mohd Kasim, Z. (2022). Appraisal theory in translation studies—A systematic literature review. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 30(4), 1589–1605. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.07
Robinson, D. (1997). Translation and empire: Postcolonial theories explained. St. Jerome.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Sapiro, G. (2016). The metamorphosis of modes of consecration in the literary field: Academies, literary prizes, festivals. Poetics, 59, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.01.003
Simeoni, D. (1998). The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus. Target, 10(1), 1–39.
Spivak, G. C. (1993). The politics of translation. In Outside in the teaching machine (pp. 179–200). Routledge.
Tiwon, S. (1996). Models and manacles: Imagining the ’Kartini’ image. In L. J. Sears (Ed.), Fantasizing the feminine in Indonesia (pp. 73–94). Duke University Press.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4
Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
Wilkinson, R. J. (1932). A Malay-English dictionary. Kelly & Walsh.
Wolf, M. (2007). Introduction: The emergence of a sociology of translation. In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 1–36). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.74.01wol
Xu, J., & Liang, Y. (2023). Negotiating intersubjectivity by interpersonal and appraisal shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1106174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1106174
Yayuk, R., Jahdiah, J., Riana, D. R., Suryatin, E., & Kurnianto, E. A. (2024). Evaluative acts in the language of Kartini’s letter as a representation of ideological conflict. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3148, p. 030004). AIP Publishing. The 2nd International Conference of Mathematics Education, Learning, and Application. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0241752
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nunun Tri Widarwati, Betty Gama
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
