Cultural Representation, Identity, and Meaning Shifts in Multilingual Poetry Translation: A Comparative Study of Indonesian, English, and Hubula: Penelitian

Friska Simatupang; Dwi Puspitosari

doi:10.31004/jerkin.v5i1.7819

Authors

Friska Simatupang STKIP Abdi Wacana Wamena
Dwi Puspitosari STKIP Abdi Wacana Wamena

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31004/jerkin.v5i1.7819

Keywords:

Cultural Representation, Cultural Identity, Literary Translation, Multilingual Poetry, Meaning Shifts, Hubula Language

Abstract

This study investigates the representation of culture and identity in multilingual poetry through a comparative analysis of Indonesian poems and their English and Huwula translations. The study aims to describe the forms of cultural and identity representation, analyze how these elements are translated into English and Hubula, identify the shifts or changes in meaning that occur during the translation process, and examine the similarities and differences among the three language versions. This study employed a qualitative approach using a descriptive-comparative method. The data consisted of poems presented in Indonesian, English, and Huwula versions. The units of analysis included words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and stanzas containing cultural elements, identity, symbols, metaphors, values, and meaning shifts.The findings show that the poems represent various cultural elements, including spiritual values, education, social relationships, cooperation, hard work, perseverance, hope, gratitude, respect, and human aspirations for the future. Identity is represented through individual and collective expressions, social roles such as teachers and students, and particularly through local linguistic identity in the Hubula version. Symbols and metaphors, such as roads, crossroads, light, pens, and journeys, play an important role in constructing cultural and identity meanings. The analysis also reveals several translation shifts, including meaning preservation, addition, semantic expansion, semantic modification, omission, and changes in metaphorical imagery. Although the central meanings and major cultural values are generally preserved across the three language versions, differences occur because of translation choices and linguistic structures. The Hubula version provides the strongest representation of local identity through its distinctive vocabulary and linguistic forms, whereas the Indonesian and English versions provide broader accessibility. Overall, the study demonstrates that literary translation functions not only as a process of transferring language but also as a process of preserving, transforming, and reinterpreting cultural meanings and identities.

References

Cahn, S. M., & Markie, P. (2021). Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., et al. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.

Grossman, L. (1977). Man-environment relationships in anthropology and geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67(1), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1977.tb01124.x

Goldstein, E. B. (2021). Sensation and Perception (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Harvard Business Review. (2024). Generative AI: The Insights You Need from Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review Press.

Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.

Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2023). Psychology (14th ed.). Worth Publishers.

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2022). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2023). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Morrison, K. D., et al. (2013). Introduction to human-environment interactions research. In Human-Environment Interactions: Current and Future Directions.

Ng, A. (2024). Generative AI for Everyone. DeepLearning.AI.

Saleem, R. M. A. (2019). Religious values and worldviews. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1158

Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2023). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.

UNESCO. (n.d.). Human-environment interaction. UNESCO.