F. de Saussure in Indonesia: Translation and reception

: Starting from De Mauro’s edition of Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale ( CLG ), this article will focus on its Indonesian translation by Rahayu Hidayat, Pengantar Linguistik Umum ( PLU ) (1988). First, we will analyse the translation strategy of PLU , in particular its Indonesianisation of Saussurean dichotomies and terminology, and how it addresses the gap between the French original and the Indonesian reader. Then, secondly, we will take a closer look at the introduction in Indonesia – in three steps well before 1988 – of Saussure’s ideas and synchronic structural linguistics: in the 1940s, through the Dutch Javanist Uhlenbeck; post- independence, by the Indonesian linguist Wojowasito in 1961; then in the 1970s and 1980s, as part of the ongoing modernisation of Indonesian linguistics. Post- 1988, finally, we will consider the impact PLU has had, in linguistics as well as in socio-cultural semiotics. In this process of intellectual transfer, reception and re- newal, PLU occupies a pivotal position, presenting Saussure as founder of structural linguistics, between the other contributions he made, respectively as critic of historical linguistics and as seminal semiotic thinker.


INTRODUCTION
Taking my lead from the pioneering work by Tullio De Mauro (1932-2017, the research which I will be presenting in this article concerns the Indonesian translation, Pengantar Linguistik Umum 1 (PLU hereafter), of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale (CLG hereafter) 2 .
My aim here is, first, to discuss this Indonesian translation from an international comparative perspective, and secondly, to explore the reception in 20th-century Indonesian linguistics of Saussure and his work. Our starting point will be De Mauro's discussion of CLG translations in his critical edition of the CLG 3 . In recent years De Mauro's approach has been taken further by C. Sanders 4 in her analysis of the different strategies adopted in the English translations of CLG by W. Baskin and R. Harris; by J. Joseph 5 in his critical discussion of the different English translations produced by Harris in 1983 and1993; and by C. Forel 6 , who focuses on the translation into English of Saussurean terminology and his dichotomies of signifiant/signifié, langue/parole, etc.
As for the structure of this contribution, our first focus will be on the qualities of PLU, in particular its translation strategy, its Indonesianisation of Saussurean terminology, and its handling of the gap between the French original and the Indonesian reader. Then, secondly, we will take a closer look at the arrival in Indonesia, well before 1988, of Saussure's CLG and modern synchronic structural linguistics. This will take us into questions such as: Who was/were the first to introduce Saussure's work in Indonesia? When and in what context? What reception did it get? How did it fit into the modernisation of Indonesian linguistics in the late 20th century? And what impact did Saussure's ideas have post-1988? In this context we will consider the role of the Dutch and Indonesian linguists -Eugenius Marius Uhlenbeck (1913-2003), Soewojo Wojowasito (1919-1983, Rahayu S. Hidayat, Harimurti Kridalaksana andBenny Hoedoro Hoed (1936-2015) -who at various stages have been involved in the Indonesianisation of Saussure's CLG. Relevant too is the modern history of Indonesia, until 1945 a major Dutch colony, and today the fourth largest state in the world -a 13,000 island archipelago, where over 400 different languages are spoken alongside the national language, Bahasa Indonesia 7 , and where matters of language policy are of vital socio-cultural and national-political importance 8 .
The concluding remarks in section 4 will bring together our findings on the questions formulated above.

PLU AND DE MAURO'S SOURCE TEXT
The Pengantar Linguistik Umum offers a complete Indonesian translation of the 1972 French edition of CLG including annotations and appendices by De Mauro 9 . It was made by Rahayu S. Hidayat, an experienced translator of French literary and linguistic works, including books by André Martinet, Michel Foucault, Annie Leclerc and Luce Irigaray. Since 2006, she has been professor of French and psycholinguistics at the Universitas Indonesia in Jakarta-Depok. PLU was published in Yogyakarta with the prestigious Gadjah Mada University Press, in the monograph series of ILDEP, the Indonesian Linguistics Development Program, an Indonesian-Dutch cooperation project which from the 1970s until the early 1990s worked to develop a professional infrastructure for modern Indonesian linguistics 10 .
A topos in many of these Prefaces is the presentation of Saussure as the beginning of modern scientific linguistics. In the CLG, we witness the breakthrough of the modern as he conceived it -involving the recognition of the autonomy of language, together with a new focus of analysis on the principles governing the crucial properties of language -which are: first, 7 Sugono et al. (eds.) 2008, p. 15;Cribb 2000, pp. 31-37. 8 Alisjahbana 1976Fishman 1978;Groeneboer 1998;Sneddon 2003. 9 Saussure 1972. 10 See Vos 2001, pp. 109-115. the sound shape of language, and secondly, its meaning -the two always inseparably, though arbitrarily, tied to each other and held together by their mutual relations, in complex cohesion within the system of language. This system, by its arbitrariness as well as the infinity of its associations and combinations, is not logical in character -yet has an internal order entirely of its own -which we as linguists have to analyse and elucidate.

MODERN LINGUISTICS
Like De Mauro's source text, its Indonesian translation comes with a Preface by a respected linguist, Harimurti Kridalaksana, professor of linguistics at the Universitas Indonesia, and a stipendiary of the German Goethe Institute and Humboldt Foundation. In it, he presents Saussure as the father of modern linguistics and pioneer of structuralism, and gives a solid overview of the basic concepts developed in CLG (langue, parole and langage; synchronie and diachronie; signe, signifiant and signifié; relations associatives and syntagmatiques; valeur, contenu and concept); plus a discussion of the influence which Saussure has had on the subsequent development of linguistics, anthropology, the humanities and semiotics 11 .
We should read this Preface in conjunction with the earlier and broader survey of 20th-century linguistics by Kridalaksana 12 . Here, linking up with the existing historiography by D. Hymes, E.F.K. Koerner, H. Parret and K. Versteegh, Kridalaksana outlines the great diversity of scholarly traditions in linguistics -Babylonian, Chinese, Indian, Greek/Roman, Arabic and finally the modern European (especially English and Dutch) -all of which, at one time or another, have made their way to Indonesia. Against this international background he then presents the historical development of Malay language studies by an international array of Indonesian, Western and Arabic linguists. His closing point is the renewal of Indonesian linguistics in the early 1960s by Anton M. Moeliono, who in 1966 rejected the traditional school grammar paradigm for studying Indonesian language structure, opting instead for the distributional techniques of American structuralism 13 .

THE INDONESIANISASI OF SAUSSUREAN TERMINOLOGY
Considering the title of PLU, we note that Pengantar 'introduction' and Umum 'general' are common Indonesian words, while Linguistik is a modern, international, academic loanword. This is easy and straightforward. The same cannot be said of CLG's closing sentence, which has been translated rather badly, saying in effect that the unique and true object of linguistics is "langue and for langue itself" 14 . A much better translation of that same sentence is given in note 305, where the object of linguistics is characterised correctly as "the langue in and for itself" 15 . At issue here is the difficulty of finding proper equivalents in a different language -a question raised by Saussure himself when he noted that while langue, parole and langage are all clear in French, they are not exactly coterminous with German Sprache und Rede 16 . Given this difficulty, one might wonder whether translating Saussurean ideas and terminology is actually possible. Assuming that it is, we shall focus here on the practicalities of resolving this difficulty. Specifically: How have Saussurean terms in fact been translated into Indonesian?
A closer look at PLU reveals three different ways of rendering Saussurean terms into Indonesian. The first is to retain the notions of langue, parole and langage untranslated in French in the Indonesian text. This is what De Mauro did in his Italian edition: since parole > parola creates ambiguity, he decided to retain Saussure's own French terms, langage and parole, with their definitions, as technical terms 17 . In her PLU, Hidayat, following De Mauro's strategy, also retains langue and parole as technical terms in French. In this respect, both take a different tack from the German, Czech and Russian translations, which all vernacularise langue and parole, as does Harris 18 in English 19 .
The second strategy in PLU is where Saussurean terms have been translated into good Indonesian. This is actually applied in the large majority of cases. The term arbitraire is translated as kesemenaan. Similarly, signe is vernacularised as tanda; signifiant as penanda; signifié as petanda. So too are accent (tekanan), différence (perbedaan), symbole (lambang) and sonore (bersuara). In the case of signe, signifiant and signifié, the vernacularisation in PLU is the opposite of Harris's decision to retain in his English translation the French terms for these precisely defined Saussurean concepts 20 .
As an outcome of employing these three different strategies, we find unclarity in some cases. Valeur, for example, has been rendered unsystematically both by valensi and nilai, whereas valeur is really not valensi. Similarly, faculté de langage has been translated both by keadaan (which it is not) and kemampuan (which it is). In other cases we find, used alongside each other, official linguistic terms as well as those in common everyday use -in the case of arbitraire not only semena but also arbitrer; and for accent alongside tekanan also aksen 23 .
In practice, therefore, one is often faced with options and choices. In the case of the opposing strategies employed, respectively, in De Mauro's Italian CLG and in the English rendition by Harris, we are confronted with a strategic choice: either to retain langue and parole as precisely defined technical linguistic terms, or to vernacularise. In PLU, moreover, we face the added complication of Indonesian language planning, where standardisation is an obvious and ongoing concern, and where the choice may appear to be between the Scylla of using a multilingual, very mixed and variable collection of native and foreign, technical and everyday terms and concepts, and the Charybdis of a systematic and well-defined standard terminology in Bahasa Indonesia.
But PLU also points the way toward resolving this dilemma, through the translation practice of Hidayat, and her flexible use of the three different translation strategies mentioned above, always in search of the best fit. Add to this the invaluable dictionary of Indonesian linguistic terminology 24 , in which the multilingual riches of existing terminology shine through in its entries, which indicate their language of origin as well as their equivalent in English; and also in its fifty-page English index, which links up international linguistic terminology with the corresponding Indonesian terms, definitions and paradigms. The judicious use of these resources has enabled Hidayat to incorporate shifts and changes in the terms she uses in her translation of CLG. In this way, PLU has made a significant contribution to the ongoing Indonesianisasi and standardisation of Saussurean terminology: French accent is now no longer rendered as borrowed 21  aksen, but by Indonesian tekanan; for French arbitraire we no longer use the loanword kearbitreran, but rather Indonesian kesemenaan; and the use of tanda, penanda and petanda instead of signe, signifiant and signifié has actually become the new common standard after PLU.

HOW TO INDONESIANISE THE COURS?
PLU thus stays close to the authoritative text of CLG in De Mauro's edition, not just in terminology (as we saw in the case of langue, parole and langage), but throughout.
But when we compare PLU with the Brazilian/Portuguese translation by Salum et al. (1970), our finding is that Salum engages his Brazilian readers by adding and discussing extra examples alongside those given by Saussure, such as ensiñamiento (alongside enseignement), plus extra explanatory notes and critical comments. In this respect, his Portuguese translation operates like the one in Afrikaans of 1966, and the Czech one of 1989 (which added notes to those by De Mauro), in that they reach out to engage their readers through those extra examples, explanatory notes and comments.
In PLU, in contrast, there is no such Indonesian adaptation to bridge the gap between the French original and the Indonesian reader. PLU does not give extra Indonesian examples, notes or explanations to clarify points made by Saussure, nor does it refer to relevant publications, insights and findings of Indonesianists which might help its readers to overcome obstacles of culture, text, discipline, intellectual tradition and scholarship on their way to a better understanding of Saussure's ideas.
All in all, then, what PLU offers is a complete, careful, straightforward and reliable rendering in Indonesian which provides access to De Mauro's standard edition of CLG. Its handling of Saussurean terms and concepts is clear and consistent, and also flexible enough to contribute to the ongoing standardisation of Indonesian linguistic terminology. PLU's translation is faithful and authoritative -and, like De Mauro's CLG, it keeps to Saussurean orthodoxy as reconstructed by R. Godel and R. Engler. The text as a whole stays very close to the French original and enables the reader to access Saussure's work and engage directly with his ideas and his thinking in Indonesian. This is a very considerable achievement with this very difficult text.
But the absence of further adaptation to its Indonesian readers does tend to leave Saussure's text as a European work in Indonesian garb. This, to my mind, ignores what had been achieved in Indonesian linguistics before 1988. We will come back to this point in section 3, where we will pursue how the Saussurean theme was introduced, relayed and developed in Indonesian linguistics before 1988. In that context we will come across a quite different way of handling the issue of Indonesianisasi.

QUESTIONS OF RECEPTION, IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE
PLU was not the first to introduce Saussure's work and ideas in Indonesia. Questions of interest which need answers in this respect are: How and when did Saussurean ideas come to Indonesia? Who introduced his work there? What knowledge did they have of Saussure's ideas and conceptions? And how were Saussure's modern views relayed and received?
Below, we will consider this Saussurean theme and its development in Indonesian linguistics during the half century before 1988. It is a complex story, covering both Dutch colonial times and post-independence Indonesia, as well as the key figures who introduced Saussure's work and ideas there. Overall, our aim is to reconstruct the arrival, reception and impact of Saussurean linguistics in Indonesia, and to clarify the place and significance of PLU in the historical development of modern Indonesian linguistics.

DUTCH COLONIAL TIMES: SAUSSUREAN PRINCIPLES IN UHLENBECK 1941 AND 1949
The Indonesian archipelago has always had a distinctly international character. As D. Lombard 25 put it, it was the Carrefour javanais -the Javanese crossroads, where all empires and civilisations have come in search of spices, leaving behind traces of their cultures, power, technology and religions. This holds too in the domain of languages, as we can see in the wide-ranging sources of the lexicon of the national language, Bahasa Indonesia 26 . The languages of Indonesia are numerous and diverse; and its linguistics too has had an extremely international history 27 .
In the early part of the 20th century, in the Netherlands East Indies (as they were then), the colonial government's Kantoor voor de Volkslectuur (Office for Popular Reading, or Balai Poestaka in Indonesian) was involved in regulating and standardising the Malay language, its spelling (in Roman alphabet), dictionaries and grammar, and developing an infrastructure in support of education, book production, libraries and publishing 28 . As against this, on the part of the colonised Indonesians the year 1928 brought the rallying cry of the Sumpah Pemuda, or Youth Pledge -"One language, One people, One country, Indonesia!" -calling on the native population to unite behind Malay as their national language.
At the time of Indonesian independence in 1945-1949 this dream was realised, the Dutch language abolished, and Malay, as Bahasa Indone- 25  sia, instituted as the official language of the Republic. The new national language policy for Malay, a dominant concern and a vital social necessity, was successfully implemented through alphabetisation and education, and with the support of the National Language Centre. To this day, the Indonesian language is a crucial national project of the Republic.
In the thirties, amongst the Dutch linguists working in Volkslectuur we find E.M. Uhlenbeck, very well-informed about the latest developments in linguistics through his uncle, C.C. Uhlenbeck (1866Uhlenbeck ( -1951, who in 1928 had been chairman of the First International Congress of Linguists in The Hague. The younger Uhlenbeck was the first linguist in Indonesia to refer to Saussure, and in his Concise Javanese Grammar of 1941 he broke away decisively from the Latin/Greek-based concepts of traditional Western grammar, identifying intonation as the basic principle of sentence formation and structuration in Javanese 29 . He went on to become a pioneer of synchronic structural linguistics, and in his Leiden PhD thesis on the morphological structure of Javanese, which was published in Indonesia in 1949, his opening sentence emphatically subscribes to Saussure's central tenet that "[l]anguage is a system of signs" 30 .
Volkslectuur at the time was a conduit for the latest news and information on modern linguistics, such as the broad sociocultural perspective on linguistics proclaimed in the Prague School Theses of 1929 31 . It is in this light that after Indonesian independence Uhlenbeck and others, such as A. Teeuw 32 , saw their postcolonial scholarly duty towards the study of Indonesian languages and cultures, which for many decades they continued to pursue from Leiden University, in monographs, articles, research reports and bibliographic surveys on Indonesian languages; through academic contacts and cooperation with Indonesian colleagues; and with their contributions to the ILDEP-programme in the 1970s and 1980s.

POST-INDEPENDENCE: THE INDONESIANISATION OF SAUSSURE IN WOJOWASITO 1961
In 1961, the linguist and lexicographer Raden Soewojo Wojowasito  became the first Indonesian to introduce the work of Saussure in Indonesian linguistics, in his Linguistics. A History of (Comparative) Language Study [Linguistik. Sedjarah Ilmu (Perbandingan) Bahasa] -a very good book 33 , but not well-known generally.
As his source text Wojowasito used a little booklet on the history of linguistics by the Dutch specialist in Celtic languages, A.G. van Hamel 29 Uhlenbeck 1996, pp. 37-38. 30 See Uhlenbeck 1950. 31 "Les Thèses" 1929. 32 See Teeuw 1994. 33 Mentioned in Koerner 1978Samsuri 1985Samsuri , p. 83. (1886Samsuri -1945 34 , a cousin of the A.G. van Hamel mentioned in Joseph's biography of Saussure, who attended Saussure's classes in Paris in the 1880s and went on to become the founder of French Studies in the Netherlands 35 . Saussurean ideas are at the centre both of his book and of Wojowasito's adaptation, which offers chapters on the CLG, its key concepts, and its successful development in the phonology of Troubetzkoy and Martinet; on the influence of Whitney on Saussure; on Saussure as author of the Mémoire (1878)  Wojowasito's History of Linguistics of 1961 36 is a new book, greatly expanded and adapted specially for its Indonesian readers. When we compare it to Van Hamel's original (and its Indonesian translation by Koen in 1972), Wojowasito's book presents us with a clear case, not of imitatio, of copying and plagiarism, but of creative rivalry and competition resulting in aemulatio, with the outcome an impressively enriched Indonesian improvement over the Dutch original.
Wojowasito's other book -his survey of 20th-century linguistics as a basis for teaching living languages 37 -shares the same characteristic features. In both books he offers very well informed, up to date insights on modern linguistics, its international development and evolving practice, supported with a solid bibliography of new and useful publications. Together, his two books mark the changing of the guards -a clear coming of 34 Hamel 1945. 35 Joseph 2012, pp. 294, 296. 36 Wojowasito 1961. 37 Wojowasito 1972 age for Indonesian linguistics, and its transition from the established tradition of Dutch linguistic scholarship to modern American structuralism, and what this could offer in elicitation techniques and data gathering, and in methods of linguistic analysis and description.

THE MODERNISATION OF INDONESIAN LINGUISTICS: FROM THE 1970S TO THE EARLY 1990S
In 1961, Wojowasito's book was not the only one that marked a clear turning point. Alongside it, several other things were beginning to move as well. Internationally, there was the second wave of Saussure translations, into English in 1959, Polish in 1961, Afrikaans in 1966, Italian and Hungarian both in 1967 In Indonesia, there was the breakthrough of modern, synchronic, structural linguistics, led by a number of younger Indonesian linguists trained in the USA, who brought to Indonesian language studies a new focus on the phoneme, the morpheme, and other core notions of modern structural linguistics.
In 1961 The linguists mentioned above, well before 1988, all knew their Saussure and could trace their intellectual genealogy back to him. All were indebted to Saussure's ideas on the modern, synchronic structural investi- 38 Kamil, Moeliono 1961. 39 Samsuri 1985, p. 76. 40 Sudaryanto 1983. 41 See Verhaar 19821996, pp. xxix, 1. 42 Sterner, Suharno, Pike 1976 gation of language, while at the same time each one of them was at home in a different school or trend within structural linguistics -whether it was Prague School functional structuralism in the case of Uhlenbeck, Stokhof and Steinhauer; American distributionalism for Moeliono and Kamil; tagmemics with Pike and SIL; Greenberg's structural-functional typology for Verhaar; or universalist transformational generative grammar, in the case of Samsuri. Looking back, it was within this broad church of modern linguistics that the Indonesian translation of CLG would have to find its place in 1988 when it was published as part of the Indonesian Linguistics Development Program, ILDEP, led by Anton Moeliono and his Leyden counterparts, the Austronesianists Wim Stokhof and Hein Steinhauer.
Within the ILDEP translation series, PLU appeared alongside a number of other handbooks and introductions to linguistics of a structural, functional, general and descriptive character, by leading international linguists such as Martinet, Uhlenbeck, Robins, Samarin and Dik and Kooij. With these translations, as with its other activities -its masters and PhD programs, its seminars and library support, and its publication of scholarly monographs by young Indonesian linguists -ILDEP was developing the disciplinary base of a modern, professional infrastructure for linguistics in Indonesia.
In this context, the contribution made by the Indonesian translation of CLG was to provide direct access to the standard edition of Saussure's CLG and De Mauro's critical notes and elucidations, as a modern intellectual frame of reference for doing linguistics. With the Saussurean orthodoxy it conveyed, PLU's publication in 1988 reflected and confirmed its status as a classic text in linguistics, more than the innovative impact of the original CLG in 1916, or the breakthrough of the new in Wojowasito's History of 1961. That is, the publication of PLU in 1988 marked the completion and consolidation of the modernisation and professionalisation of Indonesian linguistics which had begun in the 1960s.

PLU AFTER 1988: IMPACT AND NEW PERSPECTIVES
After 1988, the critical reception of PLU gave a new impulse, as it stimulated a renewed interest in historiographic investigation of 20th-century Indonesian linguistics before 1988, as well as its continuation (or leap) into post-structuralism within Indonesian linguistics today 43 . It also generated a new sociocultural semiotics, oriented towards Parisian postmodernism, and developed by Hoed 44 .
We are looking here at perspectives that run wider than just linguistics. Such is the force and the continuing relevance of Saussure's thinking that PLU has provided a stimulus for ideas about language, culture, identity, semiotics, and a broadening out to disciplines such as cultural anthro-pology 45 , to the postmodern philosophy of Verhaar, and to discussions on culture and societal dynamics in Indonesia.

CLOSING REMARKS
As we see, the Saussurean theme has had a pervasive presence in Indonesia throughout the 20th century. Three key figures have, at different moments, brought Saussure's CLG to Indonesia and fostered the modernisation of Indonesian linguistics: Uhlenbeck, Wojowasito and Hidayat. First, in the 1930s and 1940s, it was E.M. Uhlenbeck who from his position at Volkslectuur, and with a direct link to the first International Congress of Linguists in The Hague in 1928, began transferring and applying Saussurean ideas to Indonesian language studies, starting from the basic tenet that language is a structured, synchronic system of signs. The Saussure we encounter here is without question the founder of modern linguistics. Then secondly, in 1961 it was Wojowasito who, with his Indonesianisasi of Van Hamel's history, provided a post-Independence turning point towards the renewal of Indonesian linguistics -a program taken forward and implemented in the following decades by the leading Indonesian linguists Moeliono, Kamil, Samsuri and Sudaryanto, in close exchange and cooperation with Pike and SIL, Verhaar, Stokhof and Steinhauer. The Saussure we encounter in Wojowasito's History is not just the founder of modern linguistics, but also the historical linguist, the author of the Mémoire, and the proponent of sociological linguistics -who are both often forgotten today. Thirdly, in 1988, ILDEP published Hidayat's Indonesian translation, PLU, which offers the Gold Standard: an authoritative translation of CLG together with De Mauro's critical comments and annotations, and with Kridalaksana's presentation of the structuralist semiologist Saussure who, with his CLG, modernised the discipline and gave it a solid new scientific and intellectual foundation. Unlike Wojowasito's emulating Indonesianisasi of Van Hamel's booklet, PLU comes with no extra's, no Indonesian examples, no insights from Indonesian linguistics, and no explanatory notes for Indonesian readers. It gives straight and precise access to the text of CLG as it stands, enabling Indonesian readers to engage directly, in their own language, with the ideas which Saussure developed in his Cours.
Between those various Saussures, PLU occupies a fruitful pivotal position -building on the 20th-century Indonesian linguistics that went before (and consolidating its achievements), while also enabling the new perspectives on linguistic investigation that came up after 1988, when its reception gave rise to a clearly post-structuralist, sociocultural semiotic perspective on Saussure 46 . © Reinier Salverda 45 Salahuddin 2010. 46 Hoed 2011.