the english translation of food menu in three …repository.usd.ac.id/37608/2/164214120_full.pdf ·...

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF FOOD MENU IN THREE

RESTAURANTS IN YOGYAKARTA:

THE ACCEPTABILITY AND THE STRATEGIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

KENIA RIDANI TANUDIRJO

Student Number: 164214120

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

YOGYAKARTA

2020

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ii

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF FOOD MENU IN THREE

RESTAURANTS IN YOGYAKARTA:

THE ACCEPTABILITY AND THE STRATEGIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

KENIA RIDANI TANUDIRJO

Student Number: 164214120

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

UNIVERSITAS SANATA DHARMA

YOGYAKARTA

2020


vii

‘Where we must go…

we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?’

–The First History Man (Mad Max: Fury Road)


viii

For all things that are, have been, and will be good in the world.


ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the people who have

helped my study and thesis completion. To my father, Daud Aris Tanudirjo, my

mother, Jeanny Dhewayani, and my brother, Rakryan Mandani Tanudirjo, thank

you for supporting me in all kinds of ways, furthermore through sharing all your

brilliant minds to help me reach this point.

I give my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Harris Hermansyah

Setiajid, for patiently guiding and accompanying me throughout the making of

this thesis. I would also like to thank my academic advisors, Simon Arsa

Manggala and Theresia Enny Anggraini, and all lecturers and staff of English

Letters of Universitas Sanata Dharma whom I have come across.

I would also like to thank my friends, whom I cannot mention one-by-one.

You all have been very supportive and have helped me throughout my journey of

studying in English Letters of Sanata Dharma.

Finally, I would like to thank all the individuals and/or parties who has

given significant assistance in the completion of this undergraduate thesis.

Kenia Ridani Tanudirjo


x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ..................................................................................................... ii

APPROVAL PAGE .......................................................................................... iii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ..................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY .................................................................. v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ILMIAH ................ vi

MOTTO PAGE ................................................................................................ vii

DEDICATION PAGE ..................................................................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... x

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ............................................................................ xii

LIST OF CHARTS ......................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... xiv

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... xv

ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................ xvi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Study ............................................................................ 1

B. Problem Formulation .................................................................................. 4

C. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................... 4

D. Definition of Terms .................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................... 6

A. Review of Related Studies .......................................................................... 6

B. Review of Related Theories ........................................................................ 9

1. Theory of Translation Quality Assessment and Acceptability

by Juliane House .................................................................................... 9

2. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence .......................................... 9

3. Translation Strategies by Suryawinata and Hariyanto ............................ 11

C. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 18

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 20

A. Areas of Research ..................................................................................... 20

B. Object of the Study ................................................................................... 20

C. Method of the Study ................................................................................. 21

D. Research Procedure .................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................... 28

A. English Translation Acceptability of Food Menu from

Three Restaurants in Yogyakarta .............................................................. 28

B. Translation Strategies applied in the English translation

of the food menu from Three Restaurants in Yogyakarta ........................... 34

1. Structural Strategies .............................................................................. 35

2. Semantic Strategies ............................................................................... 38


xi

3. Correlation of Translation Strategy and Acceptability Score

of the Translated Food Menu .................................................................... 50

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 53

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 55

APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 56

Appendix 1: Analyzed Food Menu Transcription Used in Assessment .......... 56

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Food Menu Acceptability Survey .................. 62

Appendix 3: Response Summary to Questionnaire for Food Menu

Acceptability Survey ................................................................. 65


xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BRK : Bale Raos Keraton

RJ : Resto Jejamuran

SL : Source Language

ST : Source Text

TL : Target Language

TQA : Translation Quality Assessment

TT : Target Text

WBA : Warung Bu Ageng


xiii

LIST OF CHARTS

No. Chart Page

1. Chart 1. Summary of Acceptability Assessment 29

2. Chart 2. Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized per

Restaurant

30

3. Chart 3. Adequately Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized

per Restaurant

31

4. Chart 4. Translation Strategies Applied in the Assessed English

Menu Translation

34

5. Chart 5. Percentage of Translation Strategy Application per

Acceptability Category

51


xiv

LIST OF TABLES

No. Table Page

1. Table 1. Claudia V. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence 10

2. Table 2. Modified version of Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic

Competence

11

3. Table 3. Example of Transliteration and Naturalization by

Suryawinata & Hariyanto

13

4. Table 4. Example of Recognized Translations from Pedoman

Pengindonesiaan Nama dan Kata Asing

16

5. Table 5. Example of Acceptability Assessment Analysis 26

6. Table 6. Example of Translation Strategy Analysis 27

7. Table 7. Acceptability scoring based on the modified version of

Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence

28

8. Table 8. Example of Acceptable Translated Food Menu 31

9. Table 9. Example of Adequately Acceptable Translated Food

Menu

32

10. Table 10. Unacceptable Translated Food Menu 33

11. Table 11. Application of Structural Addition in the Food Menu

Translations

35

12. Table 12. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying

Transposition

36

13. Table 13. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Lacking

Transposition

37


Borrowing

39


Cultural Equivalent

41


Descriptive Equivalent

43


Synonym

44


Semantic Addition

46


Omission

49


xv

ABSTRACT

TANUDIRJO, KENIA (2020). The English Translation of Food Menu in

Three Restaurants in Yogyakarta: The Acceptability and The Strategies. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Sanata

Dharma.

In this more globalized world, translation is becoming a part of everyday

lives. Many food-related texts such as cookery books and food menu also undergo

translation process. Food menu served in restaurants is also an object that is

commonly translated—and mistranslated. In Yogyakarta, which is a well known

destination for domestic and international tourists, several restaurants offer menu

which are translated from Indonesian to English. However, the acceptability of

these translated menu is questionable, since no professional translators are

involved in the process and there are many culture and culinary-related terms

which are not easy to translate.

This study tries to take a look at the acceptability of the target text of the

translated menu from restaurants in Yogyakarta. Furthermore, the translation

strategies applied in translating the text will also be analyzed. This will provide

more information on how the texts are translated and how the application of the

strategies may affect its acceptability level.

The research is done by first gathering data of translated food menu from

the three restaurants in Yogyakarta, namely: Bale Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran,

and Warung Bu Ageng. Forty-two target text from the data was randomly selected

and presented to target readers, which assess the acceptability of the translated

food menu on the basis of Claudia V. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic

Competence. On the other hand, the analysis on the application of translation

strategies will be based on compilation of translation strategies by Suryawinata &

Hariyanto.

The assessment result shows that about 59.5% of the translated menu are

perceived to be acceptable, 38.1% to be adequately acceptable, and 2.4% to be

unacceptable. Further analysis on applied the translation strategies found that a

majority of the translated food menu entries apply semantic addition, which was

used 22.6% of the time. Additionally, although semantic addition was proved to

be dominant and quite effective in making the translation more acceptable,

analysis on the data shows that applying more of cultural equivalent, descriptive

equivalent and transposition may result in better acceptability.

Keywords: culinary-related translation, acceptability, translation strategies.


xvi

ABSTRAK

TANUDIRJO, KENIA (2020). The English Translation of Food Menu in

Three Restaurants in Yogyakarta: The Acceptability and The Strategies.

Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata

Dharma.

Dalam dunia masa kini yang sangat dipengaruhi globalisasi, penerjemahan

menjadi bagian penting dalam keseharian manusia. Teks-teks seputar kuliner juga

tidak luput dari proses penerjemahan. Menu makanan di restoran adalah salah satu

objek yang sering diterjemahkan; terkadang dengan hasil yang kurang baik.

Yogyakarta merupakan daerah tujuan wisata bagi warga domestik maupun

internasional, dan beberapa rumah makan menawarkan menu yang telah

diterjemahkan dari bahasa Indonesia ke bahasa Inggris. Namun demikian,

keberterimaan terjemahan menu makanan tersebut dapat dipertanyakan. Ini

disebabkan tidak adanya keterlibatan penerjemah profesional, dan banyaknya

istilah terkait budaya dan kuliner yang tidak mudah untuk diterjemahkan.

Penelitian ini bertujuan mengamati keberterimaan teks bahasa sasaran

yang merupakan terjemahan dari menu makanan di Yogyakarta. Strategi

penerjemahan yang diterapkan dalam proses penerjemahan teks juga diteliti,

sehingga akan didapatkan lebih banyak pengetahuan tentang cara teks tersebut

diterjemahkan dan bagaimana pengaruh penerapan strategi penerjemahan terhadap

tingkat keberterimaan teks tersebut.

Langkah pertama dalam penelitian berikut adalah mengumpulkan data

terjemahan menu makan dari tiga rumah makan di Yogyakarta: Bale Raos

Keraton, Resto Jejamuran, dan Warung Bu Ageng. Terdapat empat-puluh dua teks

bahasa sasaran dari data dipilih secara acak dan diberikan kepada pembaca bahasa

sasaran untuk dinilai keberterimaannya. Penilaian keberterimaan didasarkan pada

rubrik Claudia V. Angelelli mengenai Kecakapan Pragmatik. Sedangkan analisis

mengenai penerapan strategi penerjemahan didasarkan pada kompilasi strategi

penerjemahan oleh Suryawinata & Hariyanto.

Hasil penilaian mengungkap bahwa 59.5% dari menu terjemahan dapat

diterima oleh pembaca. Kemudian 38.1% cukup dapat diterima, dan 2.4% tidak

dapat diterima oleh pembaca. Analisis mengenai penerapan strategi penerjemahan

menunjukkan bahwa mayoritas teks menggunakan strategi penambahan semantis,

yang dipakai sebanyak 22.6% dari seluruh pemakaian strategi penerjemahan.

Namun biarpun penambahan semantis terbukti dominan dan cukup efektif dalam

menyusun terjemahan yang dapat diterima, ditemukan bahwa lebih banyak

menerapkan padanan budaya, padanan deskriptif, dan transposisi dapat lebih lagi

meningkatkan keberterimaan teks.

Kata kunci: culinary-related translation, acceptability, translation strategies.


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

In this more globalized world, translation is becoming a part of everyday

lives. It can be found in mundane objects ranging from road-signs to more

complex literary works such as novels. Among these objects, many food-related

texts also undergo translation process; food labels, cookery book and TV

programs, food recipes, etc. Food menu served in restaurants is also an object that

is commonly translated, mostly to make the company/restaurant able to serve

visitors of a wider spectrum. Yet according to Chiaro and Rossato “despite a

rapidly expanding market for translation of food-related texts, the relationship

between food, culture and translation remains under-researched” (2015, p. 237).

Yogyakarta is a famous destination for many domestic and international

tourists. To make the most of this situation, many restaurants offer descriptive

bilingual menu translated from Indonesian to English. food menu. However, there

are numerous terms in the text representing the local culinary and culture, and not

all of these texts are professionally translated. This is a concerning phenomenon

since, fundamentally, as Al-Rushaidi and Ali state that “since a restaurant menu

plays a major role in aiding customers to understand what is being offered, an

accurate and effective translation is of paramount importance.” (2017, p. 203).

Food is a part of culture which may be the most accessible to people worldwide. It

is representative of one’s culture. Thus, any misinformation caused by problems


2

in the translation process of this topic may also lead to misconception of one’s

culture. Despite that, many restaurants opt not to use professional means of

translating their menu so that they can reduce expenses.

In addition, it is not easy to produce a good menu translation. The

complexity of translating cultural and culinary related terms can be demonstrated

as follows: In the Indonesian version of wikipedia.org, the description of the

Indonesian food ketupat reads “hidangan khas Asia Tenggara maritim berbahan

dasar beras yang dibungkus dengan pembungkus terbuat dari anyaman daun

kelapa muda (janur)..” (Halaman: Ketupat, 2019), while in the English version it

reads “a type of dumpling made from rice packed inside diamond-shaped

container of woven palm leaf pouch, originating in Maritime Southeast Asia…”

(Article: Ketupat, 2019).

From these two descriptions we can see several differences. First, is its

difference in structure which is caused by the language grammar dissimilarity. If

translated word-by-word without paying attention, it will become grammatically

incorrect and be unreadable in the target language. Then there is also the addition

of phrases “type of dumpling” and “diamond-shaped”, which is not in the

Indonesian version of the text. This addition helps reader of different background

culture understand more clearly what the object being described is like. One word

with equivalence problem in this particular translation is beras. The Indonesian

word beras refers to a specific stage of rice which is uncooked but already

separated from its shell. In English language there is no specific term equivalent

to it, and using “uncooked rice” as a translation may sound awkward. Thus, the


3

lack of equivalence may cause misunderstanding about the food being described.

This example shows that there are several dilemmas and problems in creating a

good food menu translation.

In this study, the researcher focuses on several restaurants in Yogyakarta

which offer bilingual food menu translated from Indonesian to English. The

choice of source and target language is due to the availability and credibility of

the data source in the aforementioned region and the researcher’s concern as

native speaker of the source language. The translation data itself collected from

Bale Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran, and Warung Bu Ageng will become the

representation of data throughout Yogyakarta. By conducting data collection,

spreading questionnaires, and conducting further analysis, this research aims to

find out whether the translation of the menu in Yogyakarta acceptable or not.

The measurement of acceptability as parameter of whether a translation is

good or not, is chosen due to its relevance to the function of the translation for the

target readers. In addition, the acceptability or unacceptability achieved by the

translation will be further analyzed in coherence with what and how translation

strategies are applied towards it.

For academic purposes, this research is expected to enrich translation

research repertoire and serve as reference in further researches. While in practical

terms, this research is hoped to be a reference in producing more acceptable menu

translations in the future and to further emphasize the importance of culinary-

related translation.


4

B. Problem Formulation

The research questions can be formulated as follows:

1. How acceptable is the translated food menu in Yogyakarta from Bale Raos

Keraton, Resto Jejamuran, and Warung Bu Ageng?

2. What translation strategies are applied in the English translation of the food

menu from Bale Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran, and Warung Bu Ageng?

C. Objectives of the Study

The research intends to find out the level of acceptability of the translated

menu present in Yogyakarta, specifically taken from the three restaurants: Bale

Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran, and Warung Bu Ageng. This research also

includes analysis on what traits result in the acceptability or unacceptability of a

food menu translation as observed from the perspective of the application of

translation strategies.

D. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding, a number of specific terms which appear and

is constantly used throughout this study are explained in this part, as below:

The main subject of the research is food menu, which is explained as a list

representing the consumables being served in a restaurant. The main part of a food

menu are phrases or sentences which are commonly the title of a certain dish or

beverage. Several food menu have additional descriptions regarding taste,

appearance, ingredient, or origin of the consumable.


5

The term acceptability in the translation field is concerned with the

quality of a translation in consistency to the target reader. “Acceptability refers to

the nature of the text that makes the text acceptable to addressees and their socio-

cultural background because the text predisposes addressees to ‘accept’ it as

coherent and cohesive.” (House, 2018, p. 176).

Translation strategies is a prominent part in this research. The term

applied in this research is based on Suryawinata & Hariyanto (2003). In their

explanation, translation strategies is explained as follows:

“…what is meant as translation strategies here is the translator’s tactics to

translate words or phrases, or perhaps whole sentences … . In literatures on

translation, translation strategy is dubbed translation procedures. The word

procedure means a formal sequence. Therefore, the word ‘strategy’ is

chosen to be used here.” (p. 67)

In other words, compared to principals of translation or translation

methods, it is a more specific technique of translation applied on a phrasal and/or

sentence level. More on the theory and concept of translation strategies will be

explained in the forthcoming sections.


6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This part of the undergraduate thesis contains three parts. First is the

review of related studies previously done by other researchers, which serve as

reference and comparison for this study. The second is a review of theories which

are related to the topic and shall be applied in this research in order to understand

better and answer the research questions presented in this study. The third part

contains the theoretical framework which underlines the analysis done in this

research.

A. Review of Related Studies

1. Translating Food Menus from English into Arabic: Linguistic and

Cultural Dilemmas by Sultan Mohammed Saaiyed Al-Rushaidi and Holi

Ibrahim Holi Ali

Translating Food Menus from English into Arabic: Linguistic and

Cultural Dilemmas by Sultan Mohammed Saaiyed Al-Rushaidi and Holi Ibrahim

Holi Ali (2017) is a research which is included in the Arab World English Journal

for Translation and Literary Studies. In their study, Al-Rushaidi and Ali

investigated food menus in 10 restaurants and coffee shops in Muscat, Oman, to

find out the translation strategies used in it, and what linguistic and cultural

problems occur due to the usage of inappropriate strategies.


7

Explained in the findings, Al-Rushaidi and Ali found that “The most

prevalent strategies are: borrowing, literal translation, using a superordinate word,

amplification, reduction and using a load word plus an explanation respectively.”

(2017, p. 207). These strategies, however, pose their own problems. The

borrowing strategy leads to unnecessary borrowing of vocabularies; using

superordinate words causes inadequate explanation; amplification causes over-

translation, as it adds elements that are unnecessary to the translation; finally the

use of loan words requires an addition of a brief explanation. In accordance to the

importance of the target culture, Al-Rushaidi and Ali suggest possible use of

cultural substitution as a more effective solution, though it has not been used in

the translations of menu.

Translating Food Menus from English into Arabic: Linguistic and

Cultural Dilemmas and this research, both focus on the genre of food menu.

However, as Al-Rushaidi and Ali’s research emphasizes the use of translation

strategies, this research focuses on both the level of acceptability through the

perspective of the readers and how uses of translation strategies connect with

acceptability.

2. “A Study of Translation Equivalence and Acceptability on the Subtitle of

Intel Advertisements”, an undergraduate thesis by M. Angga Kurnia

Herlambang

Another related study on Translation Quality Assessment is an

undergraduate thesis by Herlambang (2017)as entitled above. In his study,

Herlambang applies Mangatur Nababan’s translation quality assessment


8

instruments to score the equivalence and acceptability of translated subtitles from

Intel advertisements broadcasted on the internet in September 2015 and

September 2016. In his study it is found that most translated subtitles are

equivalent and acceptable.

Similar to this study, Herlambang wishes to concretely measure

acceptability of a certain text. However, as he chose to apply Nababan’s

translation quality assessment instruments. Meanwhile, as the basis of scoring

system for acceptability, this study utilizes Rubric of Translation Competence by

Claudia V. Angelelli, specifically on the sub-component of pragmatic aspect.

3. “A Chinese Bite of Translation: A Translational Approach to Chineseness

and Culinary Identity”, a thesis by Jingnan Xue.

In their research thesis, Xue (2015) analyzes Chineseness through culinary

identity from a translation studies perspective applies three interrelated

disciplines: sociology, food studies and translation studies. It focuses on one

example of a phenomenon, which is “the ‘translation’ of Chinese culinary culture

in Canadian food discourse” (p. vi). Xue analyze what is dubbed “Chineseness”,

as represented by culinary identity in the Canadian context.

The research is done by observing a cookbook entitled HeartSmart

Chinese Cooking, which is written by a Chinese-Canadian chef in English

language for Canadian readers.

Though the object of study for both research are of different form, Xue’s

research and the current research share the topic of culinary and translation topics.

However, while Xue’s research concerns more of the sociological and cultural


9

effect of the object of study in the target reader’s culture, the current research is

more concerned with linguistic aspects of the translation and on how the

translation affects the understanding of the target reader.

B. Review of Related Theories

1. Theory of Translation Quality Assessment and Acceptability by Juliane

House

Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) is one of the key issues in

translation studies. It is an invaluable asset for both learners and professionals in

study and inter-cultural communication. The process is explained by Juliane

House in the preface of Translation Quality Assessment:

Test cases also show that there are two steps in translation evaluation: firstly,

analysis, description and explanation; secondly, judgements of value, socio-

cultural relevance and appropriateness. The second is futile without the first:

to judge is easy, to understand less so (p. 2).

It can be inferred that judging the quality of a translation as a product of

translation process by itself is no enough. It needs also to be put into context with

the audience and their cultural backgrounds. Acceptability is concerned with the

second part of this process. As it has been aforementioned, acceptability in

translation refers to how the TT is suitable and understandable in by the target

reader both generally and in social and cultural terms. It focuses on the assessment

related to the issue of “the relationship between (features) of original and

translated text(s) and how they are perceived by the human beings involved…”

(House, Translation: The Basics, 2018).


10

2. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence

Acceptability is also of pragmatic matter as it is contextual to who reads

the text. Therefore, the researcher utilizes Claudia V. Angelelli’s rubric which

reflects competence of a translation’s pragmatic aspect. The rubric itself is

displayed in levels. It is to become a basis to measuring acceptability of the TT

which will be explained further in the next section. In this illustration, the higher

score means better competence of the translation’s pragmatic aspect.

Score Statement (T = translation; TL = target language)

5

T shows a masterful ability to address the intended TL audience and achieve the

translations intended purpose in the TL. Word choice is skillful and apt. Cultural

references, discourse, and register are completely appropriate for the TL domain,

text-type, and readership.

4

T shows a proficient ability in addressing the intended TL audience and

achieving the translations intended purpose in the TL. Word choice is

consistently good. Cultural references, discourse, and register are consistently

appropriate for the TL domain, text type, and readership.

3

T shows a good ability to address the intended TL audience and achieve the

translations intended purpose in the TL. Cultural references, discourse, and

register are mostly appropriate for the TL domain but some phrasing or word

choices are either too formal or too colloquial for the TL domain, text-type, and

readership.

2

T shows a weak ability to address the intended TL audience and/or achieve the

translations intended purpose in the TL. Cultural references, discourse, and

register are at times inappropriate for the TL domain. Numerous phrasing and/or

word choices are either too formal or too colloquial for the TL domain, text-type,

and readership.

1

T shows an inability to appropriately address the intended TL audience and/or

achieve the translations intended purpose in the TL. Cultural references,

discourse, and register are consistently inappropriate for the TL domain. Most

phrasing and/or word choices are either too formal or too colloquial for the TL

domain, text-type, and readership.

Table 1: Claudia V. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence

Since Angelelli’s Rubric will be presented to respondents to be a basis of

measuring the acceptability of the translated menu, a modified version of it is

created. It is so that while retaining the purpose and meaning of the original rubric,

it could be better understood by a broader range of respondents who are likely not


11

exposed to topics in the translation field. The modified version of the Rubric is

illustrated as follows:

Score Illustration of Acceptability

5 All phrases and words are natural and informative, the cultural references and

style is completely appropriate to the text type.

4 All phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural references

and style is consistently appropriate to the text type.

3

Most phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural

references and style is mostly appropriate to the text type but sometimes the

phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial.

2

Many phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and style

is sometimes inappropriate to the text type, numerous the phrases and word

choices are either too formal or colloquial.

1

Most or all phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and

style is often inappropriate to the text type, most of the phrases and word choices

are either too formal or colloquial.

Table 2: Modified version of Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence

3. Translation Strategies as compiled by Suryawinata and Hariyanto

An addition of theory on translation strategies is also utilized. The theory

is taken from Translation: Bahasan Teori dan Penuntun Praktis Menerjemahkan

by Suryawinata and Hariyanto (2003). The translation strategies are divided into

two types: structural strategy and semantic strategy.

Though this research focuses on semantic properties of the ST and TT, the

researcher will analyze both theory on structural and semantic strategy which

appear in the menu entries. Specifically the content words appearing in the text

being analyzed.

The structural strategy includes addition, subtraction, and transposition.

Meanwhile, the semantic strategy includes borrowing, cultural equivalent,

descriptive equivalent, componential analysis, synonym, recognized translation,


12

reduction and expansion, addition, omission, and modulation. Each of the

strategies will be briefly explained as follows:

1. Structural Strategies

a. Addition

In this context, the strategy refers to addition of words in the TT due to the

nature of the TL. It is not optional but instead a compulsory procedure to make the

TT understandable. For example:

ST: Aku tidak punya pakaian.

TT: I do not have clothes.

In the example, the word “do” has to be added for the translation to be

structurally acceptable in the TL.

b. Subtraction

Similar to addition, this strategy is compulsory due to the nature of the TL.

However, it involves deletion of certain elements from the ST instead of addition.

ST: Their child is ill.

TT: Anak mereka sakit.

In the example the word “is” in the SL, which is a structural element, is

deleted in the TL. It is done because the TL does not require the element, and the

addition of it may instead make the translation unnatural.

c. Transposition

This strategy is applied in translating clauses or sentences. It can be either

compulsory or optional. It is compulsory in the case in which without it, the TT

will become incomprehensible. However, it may be optional when the translator


13

intends to maintain the style of the ST. On a phrasal level, the example of

transposition can be seen in as follows:

ST: pena biru

TT: blue ballpoint

In the case that the language structure in SL does not exist in the TL,

transposition is done on a sentence level. The example can bee seen below:

ST: It is a great mistake to keep silent about the matter (Suryawinata &

Hariyanto, 2003, p. 69).

TT: Berdiam diri tentang masalah itu merupakan kesalahan besar (p. 69).

If the translator did not use transposition, the translation of the SL may

sound unnatural for the target readers.

2. Semantic Strategies

a. Borrowing

Borrowing means taking a word in the ST into the TT. The strategy is

often applied whenever an equivalent is not yet found in the TL. Borrowing

covers transliteration and naturalization. In transliteration, the translator

maintains the word in whole—in both spelling and sound. Naturalization is the

continuation of transliteration, where the spelling and/or sound is adapted to the

rules of the TL. Below are examples of transliteration and naturalization from

English into Indonesian by Suryawinata & Hariyanto (2003, p. 71):

Word in SL Transliteration Naturalization

mall mall mal (sound and spelling)

sandal sandal sandal (sound)

orangutan orangutan orangutan (sound)

Table 3: Example of Transliteration and Naturalization by Suryawinata & Hariyanto


14

b. Cultural Equivalent

In this strategy, the translator uses a specific—and rather colloquial—word

from the TL to replace an also specific word in the ST. Since there is almost

certainly a difference in the SL and TL, the strategy likely does not maintain

accuracy. “Their translation uses are limited, since they are not accurate, but they

can be used in general texts, publicity and propaganda, as well as for brief

explanation to readers who are ignorant of the relevant SL culture.” (Newmark,

1988, p. 83). However, applying this strategy will result in a more natural and

readable TT. An example of applying this strategy as follows:

ST: It’s raining cats and dogs out there.

TT: Hujan bagai dicurahkan dari langit di luar sana.

As seen in the example, the translation is entirely different; it is not literal

nor similar in sense of meaning. However, by using terms more familiar to the

target readers, the translation becomes more natural and readable.

c. Descriptive Equivalent

As the name suggests, this strategy explains the meaning or function of a

word from SL. This strategy is mostly used when the word from the SL is very

specific and related to the culture of the SL. Descriptive equivalent is often made

into a list of words or glossary.

As an example the term sekaten from Javanese language cannot only be

translated as an “festival”, especially in the context of Javanese culture-related

text. Therefore, a better translation would be a description: “a week-long Javanese

festival commemorating the birthday of prophet Muhammad”.


15

d. Componential Analysis

Similar to descriptive equivalent, this strategy explains the components of

meaning of a word from SL. However, while descriptive equivalent is applied in

translating specific terms related to culture, componential analysis is applied when

translating more common words. The following is an example of componential

analysis in translating from Indonesian to English:

ST: Gadis itu menari dengan luwesnya. (Suryawinata & Hariyanto, 2003,

p. 73)

TT: The girl is dancing with great fluidity and grace. (p. 73)

According to Suryawinata & Hariyanto, luwes is defined as “bergerak

dengan halus atau anggun” or “move with great fluidity and grace” when

translated into English.

e. Synonym

Suryawinata and Hariyanto suggest that when translators are reluctant to

apply componential analysis, they may use general words which in the TL are

more or less similar to the one in SL (2003, p. 73). Newmark noted that “This

procedure is used for a SL word where there is no clear one-to-one equivalent, and

the word is not important in the text, in particular for adjectives or adverbs of

quality” (1988, p. 84).

ST: That statue looks grotesque.

TT: Patung itu terlihat buruk rupa.

The term “grotesque” indicates a deformed, strange and very ugly looking

object. The translation buruk rupa is only a synonym because while it already

conveys the “ugliness” and “deformed” part of the meaning, it does not convey

the “strangeness".


16

f. Recognized Translation

Several words or terms have their own “official” translation provided by

the government. These translations are also often updated along with the

development of the SL. For example, in Indonesia the Ministry of Education and

Culture provides a guideline entitled “Pedoman Pengindonesiaan Nama dan Kata

Asing”.

There are two benefits of applying this strategy of using recognized

translation. First, translators can shorten time needed to translate, and second, they

can contribute in guiding the correct use of their developing language

(Suryawinata & Hariyanto, 2003, p. 74). The following is an example of several

words with its recognized translation:

English Indonesian

online daring (dalam jaringan)

contact person narahubung

wildlife reserve suaka margasatwa

Table 4: Example of Recognized Translations

from Pedoman Pengindonesiaan Nama dan Kata Asing

g. Reduction/Expansion

This strategy refers to the removal (reduction) or addition (expansion) of

components of a word or phrase to make a TT more understandable and less

ambiguous.

As an example, Suryawinata & Hariyanto (2003, p. 74) uses the example

of “automobile” being translated into mobil for reduction. For the expansion the

example is “whale” being translated as ikan paus which has the addition of ikan to

distinguish it from Paus which is the translation of “the Pope” in English.


17

h. Addition

This strategy is not to be confused with the structural strategy of addition

since the current one is under the consideration of the clarity of meaning. The

additional information can be presented within the text, under the page as a

footnote, or at the end of the text (Newmark as cited in Suryawinata & Hariyanto,

2003, p.74). An example of addition within a text is as follows:

ST: The shrimp is a type of crustacean which can live in both saltwater and

freshwater.

TT: Udang adalah sejenis krustasea, hewan dengan cangkang luar keras,

yang dapat hidup di air asin maupun air tawar.

Besides the consideration of the clarity of meaning, in-text addition can

also be done when considering the fluidity and naturalness of a text. To maintain

fluidity and naturalness, connecting phrases or sentences is added, as can be seen

in the following example:

ST: “Pengecut! Jangan coba kabur kau!”

TT: “Coward!” he yelled. “Don’t you dare run away!”

i. Omission

Omission or deletion refers to the removal of part of text in ST when

translation it into TT. In other words, a word or part of the ST is left untranslated.

The underlying concern of applying this strategy, is that translating the part of ST

in question may result in a more confusing or unnatural TT; meanwhile leaving it

untranslated instead does not sacrifice any detail or information of importance.

ST: “This is easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy” he said.

TT: “Ini sangatlah mudah” katanya.


18

j. Modulation

When using modulation, the translator translates the ST into TT from a

different perspective while maintaining the meaning of the ST. The strategy is

used when mere literal translation of the words produce awkward or unnatural

translations.

ST: I broke my wrist.

TT: Pergelangan kakiku patah.

As can be seen in the TL, the translator shifts the main object to the “wrist”

and not “I”. This is due to the high possibility that it would be unnatural and

ambiguous to translate it in the same perspective, e.g: “Aku mematahkan

pergelangan kakiku” which may indicate intentional action in the sentence which

is normally unlikely.

C. Theoretical Framework

In this study, the theories reviewed in the previous section is applied to

better understand and answer the research questions given. House’s given

definition and theory of translation quality assessment and acceptability serves as

basic understanding to the approach to be taken in measuring acceptability in

accordance to the first research question.

Angelleli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence is also applied in correlation

with respondents to answer the second question as it contains illustrations of traits

in which an acceptable translated TT has.

Further analysis regarding the application of translation strategies to the

content words of the menu entries will refer to the compilation of theory of


19

translation strategies by Suryawinata and Hariyanto. It is also further applied to

suggest more suitable application of the translation strategies with the purpose of

make a more acceptable translation.


20

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Areas of Research

Analyzing the nature and purpose of the research, this study is categorized

into the study of Translation Quality Assessment. The determination of the

research area for this study is based on Areas of Translation Research included in

The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies by

Williams and Chesterman (2002).

The approach taken in this study is target-language oriented. “Here, the

relation at stake is not with the source text but with the target language.

Equivalence is not a central concept” (Williams & Chesterman, 2002, p. 8) As so

it is, this study focuses on the acceptability and naturalness of the TT in relation

with the target reader, rather than the equivalence of the text.

B. Object of the Study

The object of this study is menu entries of food and beverages from three

different restaurants in Yogyakarta, namely Bale Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran,

and Warung Bu Ageng. The form of the objects are mainly phrases and sentences,

which are translated entries from Indonesian to English. Details on the nature of

the data and the data collection process will be explained further in the subsequent

sections.


21

C. Method of the Study

This research is a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative study.

It can be seen from the standard of measurement applied in determining

translation acceptability: Claudia V. Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence.

The scoring system in the Rubric is based on qualitative description/explanation

but also represented by numerical scale which thus can be measured quantitatively.

Qualitative analysis and description is also applied in determining translation

strategies which was used and can be used as solution for translation problems

found within the object of the study.

In its process, this study applies both field research and library research.

The researcher is involved in collecting original data as well as searching and

applying already existing information and theories in order to analyze the

collected data.

The data collected for analysis in this study is primary data. It is collected

by the researcher themselves in order to answer the research questions. The details

of the data will be further explained in the following section.

D. Research Procedure

1. Types of Data

In this study, there are two types of data: objective and affective. The

objective data are documentation of the ST and TT being analyzed which are food

menu entries. Meanwhile the affective data are taken from a questionnaire


22

designed and generated by the researcher for respondents for further analyzing the

aspect of TQA, specifically on acceptability.

a. Objective Data

As the object of the study is entries of translated food menu, the data for

ST and TT is taken from food menu displaying Indonesian entries followed by its

English translation. The data are taken from three different restaurants in Special

Region of Yogyakarta.

First is Bale Raos Keraton (here forth, BRK) which is located in

Panembahan, Kecamatan Kraton, Kota Yogyakarta. The restaurant specializes in

serving dishes which are favorited by the royal family of Kraton Yogyakarta from

Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VIII until the current Sri Sultan Hamengku

Buwono X. From the three restaurants providing data for this research, the menu

in BRK are of largest quantity and have the longest, most descriptive entries on

average. The length of a single menu entry may be up to two sentences and

contain more than 15 words.

The second source is Resto Jejamuran (here forth, RJ), located in

Pandowoharjo, Sleman. The menu in RJ offers mostly mushroom-based dishes.

The entries in the menu are the shortest among the three restaurants, mostly

phrases of two to three words. It is due to the fact that, unlike the menu in BRK,

the menu from RJ initially do not have a description in SL. Instead, several of the

ST which is the title of the dish is directly translated into a description in the TL.

The third source is Warung Bu Ageng (here forth, WBA). The restaurant

is located in Mantrijeron, Kota Yogyakarta. According to the description in their


23

menu book cover, WBA serves Indonesian home cooking, especially from Java

and Borneo. Generally, the entries of the food menu of WBA are generally short,

similar to that of RJ. However, there are several entries which are more

descriptive and is up to two sentences long.

b. Affective Data

Another type of data gathered for this research is affective data derived

from the objective data of food menu explained previously. The chosen menu

entries are presented to be assessed by a third party of respondents by applying the

modified version of Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence (see Table 2) as

parameter of acceptability. The average score of the menu entry will be the

affective data which conveys the acceptability of the TT.

The respondents for this data collection are foreigners and non-expatriates

of Indonesia who have good English proficiency. There are 11 respondents to the

questionnaire. As an addition, various backgrounds such as age, sex, and

occupation were taken into consideration for the analysis and further research on

how the traits may affect the acceptability score. However, the recapitulation of

the data showed that despite existence of several common traits from the

respondents, the acceptability scoring remained widely varying. The lack of a

more extensive data has led the researcher to discontinue research on this topic in

this research.

2. Data Collection

Collection of the objective data was designed to be done by documenting

the physical menu book of each restaurant in the form of digital photograph taken


24

with the researcher’s mobile phone. It was later transcribed for further use and

analysis. For each approach to the restaurant, the researcher has asked for—and

gained—the permission conduct the documentation.

The data was first collected from BRK on August 22nd, 2019 in the form

of digital photograph. Similarly, next the researcher documented the menu book

from RJ on October 30th, 2019 in the form of digital photograph. The last batch

of data was taken from the menu book of WBA on November 23rd, 2019.

However, the data from WBA was not taken in the form of digital photograph.

During the approach to WBA, the employee offered a digital PDF file of the menu

to be shared with the researcher. Deeming this form of data to be more practical

and convenient, the PDF file was thus accepted by the researcher.

Once the objective data was collected, it was then sampled and presented

in a questionnaire as text which is assessed by respondents. In the questionnaire

only the TT is presented. They were given the modified version of Angelelli’s

Rubric of Pragmatic Competence as a basis of assessing the translation presented

to them, and proceeded to give score to all TT entries. The score of the assessment

is what becomes the affective data in this research.

3. Population and Sample

Data sampling is done for the objective data, in which there are a total of

196 observable data from three restaurant which serves as the population source.

In detail, there are 77 data from Bale Raos Keraton, 58 data from Resto Jejamuran,

and 61 data from Warung Bu Ageng.


25

In determining the sample, the Krecji-Morgan Method (1970) is to be

applied with the addition of a condition: the TT of the menu entry must contain

between two or thirty words per menu entry. The researcher considered to add this

condition to avoid the respondents having to assess entries with less information

and/or context. The application of the Krecji-Morgan Method results in the

selection of 128 data from the three sources.

However, this quantity of data is still to large to be presented and assessed

by respondents in order to collect the affective data. Thus, the researcher decided

to further reduce the amount of data to be analyzed, into one-third or 33% of the

sample, which is 42.2 data. Since there are three sources for the data, the selection

is rounded into 14 data per source, which totals into 42 data. This number of data

is hoped to be comfortable to read by the respondents while still providing

sufficient information for the purpose of the research. In addition, the condition in

which the menu entry being selected must contain between two or thirty words

per menu entry still applies. The choice of menu entries which are to be assessed

by respondents is done by random selection.

4. Data Analysis

To start with, the researcher has devised a particular numbering system to

be applied towards the data of translated food menu to make researching and

referencing the data more convenient. The numbering begins with the datum

number of the translation followed by source restaurant initial, page number of

menu book, and order of entry; in which each subject is divided by a slash [/] in

between. For example a datum with the numbering of “11/BRK/8/6” could be


26

understood as “datum number 11/ from Bale Raos Keraton/ taken from page 8 of

the menu book/ 6th menu entry”.

As for the matter of data analysis, there are two steps of it in this study.

The first step is to determine the acceptability of the data. The acceptability

analysis is done by calculating the average score of each individual data, and also

the score from the entirety of the data being analyzed. The scoring system is based

on the modified version of Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence, as has

been explained in the preceding sections. The example of acceptability analysis is

as follows:

No. Target Text Avg.

Score

8/BRK/6/1/TT

Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Served with turmeric gravy in

light spicy taste. One of favorite menu Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII

2.8

28/RJ/7/13/TT Jejamuran spesial beverage made from Ganoderma

mushroom. 3.7

40/WBA/4/TT

Traditional tea in a pot: A special blend of various

Javanese teas, served in a clay teapot and poured over rock

sugar. Hot, sweet and strong

4.2

Average Score 3.5

Table 5: Example of Acceptability Assessment Analysis

From the example, it could be concluded that according to foreign readers,

datum no. 8/BRK/6/1/TT is considered unacceptable. Meanwhile, datum

28/RJ/7/13/TT is adequately acceptable and 40/WBA/4/TT is acceptable. The

final average score is presented to give indication on the translation acceptability

of translated food menu in Yogyakarta in general.

The second step is the continuation of the first, in which the translation

strategy of each entry is analyzed. The method of analysis for this part begins with

the grouping of the data per score attained in the acceptability assessment.


27

Subsequently, applying the categorization of translation strategies by Suryawinata

and Hariyanto, (2003) the researcher will determine which strategies are used in

each translation and which translation strategy appears the most for each group.

Score

Group No. ST TT

Translation

Strategy

3 – 3.9

9/

BRK/

7/1

Urap aneka sayuran

khas Jawa dengan

parutan kelapa yang

telah dikukus,

(Authentic traditional

salad consist of mixed

fresh vegetables :

Cabbage, Cucumber,

Legume, Basil leave

showered with steam

grated coconut)

Componential

Analysis,

Descriptive

Equivalent

10/

BRK/

7/5

Buncis dan irisan

jamur kuping dimasak

tumis pedas bumbu

kecap

Stir fry Mung Beans

combine with black

fungus

Cultural Equivalent,

Omission, Synonym

28/

RJ/

7/13

Wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran spesial

beverage made from

Ganoderma

mushroom.

Descriptive Equivalent,

Addition

Table 6: Example of Translation Strategy Analysis

As seen from the data, the entries acquiring the score ranging from 2 to 2.9

(which is categorized as adequately acceptable) mostly applies descriptive

equivalent strategy. Aside from structural problems, it can be inferred that

descriptive strategy provides more information and produces a more acceptable

translation. However, the application of this strategy may pose problem if the

description is being conveyed in too formal or too colloquial terms.

In the end, the researcher counts the mode of the acceptability score and

determines the overall acceptability of translated menu in Yogyakarta.

Furthermore, as has been demonstrated, the translation strategies of each entry

will be analyzed to determine aspects that make them acceptable or not acceptable.


28

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the answer to research questions in Chapter I, which

focuses on the analysis of translation acceptability of translated food menu in

Yogyakarta. In this study, 42 data of translated menu entries have been assessed

by respondents utilizing adaptation of Angelelli’s rubric: Rubric of Pragmatic

Competence. The result generates affective data which is grouped by its score

level. Afterwards, the dominant translation strategies applied to each menu entry

and the problems arising form the appliance is analyzed. The translation strategy

is based on the categorization by Suryawinata & Hariyanto (2003).

The end result of this research is assessment of each group and conclusion

of the acceptability level of translated menu in Yogyakarta in general. In addition,

the researcher suggests solution(s) towards the existing translation problems.

A. English Translation Acceptability of Food Menu from Three Restaurants

in Yogyakarta

In this study, the researcher has divided the analysis into groups based on

the score results on the acceptability level of the TT. The grouping is as follows:

Score Acceptability Level

5 Completely Acceptable Translation

4 - 4.9 Acceptable Translation

3 - 3.9 Adequately Acceptable Translation

2 - 2.9 Unacceptable Translation

1 - 1.9 Completely Unacceptable Translation

Table 7: Acceptability scoring based on the modified version of

Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence


29

Based on the score results, only three category of the groups surface:

acceptable translation, adequately acceptable translation, and unacceptable

translation. Summary of the acceptability assessment throughout all menu being

assessed by respondents can be seen in the chart below:

Chart 1: Summary of Acceptability Assessment

As the chart shows, that more than half of the menu entries are considered

acceptable by the respondents. That is, 25 out of 42 data (59.5%). Meanwhile, 16

translations (38.1%) are deemed adequately acceptable and 1 data (2.4%) is

unacceptable. Each category of acceptability is explained further in the following

sections.

In detail, most of the acceptable translations are evenly spread in menu

entries belonging to RJ and WBA. More than 75% of the menu entries from RJ

and WBA are acceptable. Meanwhile, the unacceptable translation and most of the

adequately acceptable translations came from BRK. As much as 11 out of 14

menu entries from BRK being assessed are adequately acceptable, and one data is

assessed as unacceptable. It is observable that there is a distinct level of average


30

acceptability between BRK and the other two restaurants. It is so far, only

explainable by the fact that the translations from BRK are generally more lengthy

and contains more typos and grammatical mistakes.

1. Acceptable Food Menu Translations

As aforementioned, that 25 of 42 data, or 59.5% of the translations are

deemed acceptable by respondents. In other words, translations receiving the

score 4 to 4.9. The chart below indicates the grouping of each acceptable menu

entries based on the three different restaurants the menu was taken from:

Chart 2: Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized per Restaurant

The chart shows that BRK has significantly less number of acceptable

menu translations. In fact, only 2 out of the 14 data are assessed as acceptable.

There are several reasons for this. One of it may be due to longer ST and TT,

which leads to higher probability of the occurrence problems and mistranslations.

Translations or TT of the menu entry from RJ and WBA have average

number of words per text of 8.4 and 12.3 respectively. Compared to that, BRK has

an average of 14.7 words per text. Expectedly, the two acceptable menu


31

translations from BRK only had 7 and 9 words. The following are several

examples taken from the assessed translations, along with the average received:

Datum No. Target Text Avg.

Score

12/BRK/10/5/TT Fried Rice in Omelet Egg, served with Chicken Satay 4.0

17/RJ/2/9/TT Authentic Indonesian salad with peanut sauce and

mushrooms 4.5

41/WBA/5/11/TT Iced green cincau: Ice, grass jelly agar-agar, coconut

milk and palm sugar 4.4

Table 8: Example of Acceptable Translated Food Menu

The highest acceptability average score from the data is 4.5. Most which

achieve such score have short texts and almost no additional information, yet

attains clarity and the essence of the dish being described. This matter concerns

the consideration of applying strategies such as addition and/or omission. Further

explanation will be present in the next sub-chapter.

2. Adequately Acceptable Food Menu Translations

Besides the remaining menu translations from RJ and WBA which are not

considered acceptable, most of the adequately acceptable translations originates

from BRK. The following is a chart representing the calculations:

Chart 3: Adequately Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized per Restaurant


32

In total, there are 16 adequately acceptable translations. Although most of

it comes from BRK, 4 translations come from RJ and WBA. The majority of the

translations share several traits which is suspected to contribute into giving a score

of “only” 3 to 3.9. The following table contains examples of adequately

acceptable translations:


Score

1/BRK/1/5/TT

Variation of traditional salad Consist of many kinds of

fruit such a Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Slite Tomato,

served with traditional spicy peanut sauce and Mlinjo

Cracker

3.1

28/RJ/7/13/TT Jejamuran special beverage made from Ganoderma

mushroom 3.7

42/WBA/5/15/ST Iced Happy Soda 3.6

Table 9: Example of Adequately Acceptable Translated Food Menu

Example such as 1/BRK/1/5/TT exceed the overall average word per text.

This also happened to a number translations with adequately acceptable score. On

the other hand, several translations also lack clear description: some are translated

word-by-word in a literal way, some TT borrow a number cultural-specific terms

and technical from the ST, and several text lack sufficient explanation.

For an example of literal translation with no further explanation, one easily

recognizable is datum 42/WBA/5/15/ST, which was translated from Es Soda

Gembira. In the text, nothing else follows and thus may give nothing for the

readers to perceive the actual dish/beverage. A respondent also specifically

mentioned this, as they commented “Examples like Iced Happy Soda use the

correct English, but the drink doesn't exist outside Indonesia so needs more

explanation”.


33

Furthermore, numerous borrowed terms appeared in adequately acceptable

translations. They include: melinjo, secang, kraton, and rujak. These terms also

lack further explanation while it is likely not familiar in the TL culture. Therefore,

target readers unfamiliar with the terms may find the text confusing and unclear.

Coupled with several grammatical mistakes, there is a possibility that the target

reader will also ignore the terms completely and not grasp whether the term is of

importance in describing the menu, or merely additional information.

3. Unacceptable Food Menu Translations

Referring to the assessment result, only one from the 42 translations is

considered unacceptable. It is datum 8/BRK/6/1/TT. The following is its ST and

TT put side by side:


Score

8/BRK/1/1/TT Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Served with turmeric gravy in light spicy taste. One of favorite menu Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII

2.8

Table 10: Unacceptable Translated Food Menu

As can be seen, the text contains not only several typos but also incorrect

grammar and awkward phrases which contributes to the text’s unacceptability.

One respondent gave remark to the translations, saying “A lot of the time the

menu is *nearly* correct, but misses out 'with' or gets the sentence structure

wrong (adverbs)”. This is one proof that another important aspect which influence

a translation’s acceptability is its readability.

However, that may not be the only cause. Another aspect is the addition of

information which prominence is questionable to the target reader. Such as shown

in the example, several menu from BRK give information regarding which


34

member of the royal family favorited the menu being described. Since the

restaurant is owned by a member of the royal family of Kraton Yogyakarta, and

the restaurant partly aims to promote the heritage of Kraton Yogyakarta, it is

natural to include such information. However, this sort of information is not an

essential part in describing a menu in general. Especially, considering the target

readers likely lack information on the SL culture. Moreover, it appears repetitive

and lengthy when encountering very similar sentences while reading the menu as

whole.

B. Translation Strategies applied in the English translation of the food menu

from Three Restaurants in Yogyakarta

According to Suryawinata and Hariyanto (2003), there are three structural

strategies and ten semantic strategies in translation. From all 13 strategies, not all

are being applied in the object of the study. The following chart shows the applied

strategies with its percentage of use in the overall food menu being assessed:

Chart 4: Translation Strategies Applied in the Assessed English Menu Translation


35

In the overall text being assessed, 84 strategies were applied in translating

the food menu. The most dominant strategy is semantic addition. Meanwhile, 5

strategies: subtraction, componential analysis, recognized translation, reduction

and expansion, and modulation; are not applied in any translated menu entries.

The application of each strategy will be explained in the following sections; it

starts with structural strategy and is followed by semantic strategy. The

explanation will cover how the translation strategy is applied along with

presentation of several examples and how its application influence the

acceptability score attained through assessment.

1. Structural Strategies

a. Structural Addition

Structural addition appears three times among the 85 strategies. It was

included in one text assessed to being adequately acceptable, and two texts which

are acceptable. The following table shows the application of the strategies in the

three texts:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Application of

Structural Addition

4 – 4.9

29/

WBA/

1/4

Pisang Panggang Kayu

Manis Grilled Bananas with Cinnamon

“with” added.

33/

WBA/

2/3

Nasi Campur Paru

Ketumbar

Rice with beef lung in

spicy coriander “with” added.

3 – 3.9

3/

BRK/

2/7

Soup kental dimasak

dari bahan mushroom

Soup with a thick sauce

made from mushrooms

tasty flavor Cream.

"with a” added.

Table 11: Application of Structural Addition in the Food Menu Translations

Considering the grammatical difference of the SL and TL, this strategy

should be of more a concern. As mentioned by Suryawinata and Hariyanto, “This


36

type of addition is not a matter of choice but is a necessity.” (2003, pp. 67-68).

However, analysis shows that structural addition was not frequently applied to the

food menu text. As mentioned before, a respondent specifically commented that a

lot of the sentences miss the addition of “with”. Without the specified word, the

translation sounds awkward and it causes several texts to not receive higher scores.

b. Transposition

This structural strategy is more often applied than structural addition. It

appeared 7 times in total. Specifically, it appears mostly in adequately acceptable

translations. The following are examples of translations applying transposition:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Application of

Transposition

4 – 4.9

30/ WBA/ 1/5

Bubur Duren Mlekoh:

Bubur dari roti tawar

dicampur daging buah

durian yang diolah

dengan santan kelapa

dan gula Jawa. Gurih

dan manis.

Durian Bread Pudding:

Bread pudding with

durian cooked with

coconut cream and palm

sugar. Sweet and

absolutely delicious.


Bread pudding

41/ WBA/ 5/11

Es Cincau Hijau

Iced green cincau: Ice,

grass jelly agar-agar,

coconut milk and palm

sugar

Cincau Hijau

green cincau

3 – 3.9

5/ BRK/ 3/5

Menu Khas Burung

Dara Muda dalam kuah

kental kecap, salah satu

hidangan favorit Sri

Sultan Hamengku

buwono VII.

Braised young pigeon in

Soya sauce ketchup

taste, Served with sliced

tomato (Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII

favorite’s dishes).

salah satu hidangan favorit Sri Sultan Hamengku buwono

VII (Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono

VII favorite’s dishes)

28/ RJ/ 7/13

Wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran special

beverage made from

Ganoderma mushroom

Wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran special

beverage

2 – 2.9

8/ BRK/ 6/1

Ikan Lele fillet yang

digulung kemudian

dipanggang, disajikan

dengan saus mangut.

Salah satu menu yang

disenangi Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII

Fry and Gril Cafish roll,

Served with turmeric

gravy in light spicy

taste. One of favorite

menu Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII


digulung kemudian dipanggang Fry

and Gril Cafish roll

Table 12: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Transposition


37

Based on statistics, translations which lack of transposition where needed,

result in a lower average score than those with correct application of the strategy.

The menu entries which lack transposition received an average score of 3.4, while

those with correct transposition application has an average score of 3.8. Examples

of menu translations recognized to have this problem are datum 4/BRK/3/4 and

7/BRK/5/4, which can be seen in Table 13.

Score

Group No. ST TT

3 – 3.9

4/

BRK/

3/4

Daging Kambing pilihan

dipanggang dengan olesan

mustard dan Minyak Zaitun,

disajikan dengan rangkaian

Kari Sayuran dan Kentang

Sauted

Specific Lamb Grill in Olive

Oil, serve with sauted sliced

Potato and Curry vegetables

7/

BRK/

5/4

Variasi lauk kegemaran Sri

Sultan Hamengku Buwono

IX

Variation dish of Sri Sultan

HB IX. Partly steamed and

fried beef lung with sower

fried grated coconut

Table 13: Examples of the Food Menu Translations lacking Transposition

In the first one, the phrase kari sayuran was translated into “curry

vegetables”. In the SL, the head of the phrase is kari. Therefore, the translator

should also put “curry” as the head of the phrase. And so, since in the TL has the

grammatical structure where the modified follow the modifier, the translation

should apply transposition to produce the correct phrase: “vegetables curry”.

The second example from datum 7/BRK/5/4 is more problematic. It is to

be noted that the researcher has to assume a certain aspect, since confirmation

with the translator themselves is not possible. The major strategy applied in

translating the ST is semantic addition. The translator added an additional

sentence which explains the dish’ contents. This added sentence is where the

translator fails to apply transposition.


38

The added sentence contains the phrase “…fried beef lung with sower

fried grated coconut…”. The term “sower” in English is defined as “a person who

plants seeds to grow.” If the definition is taken as it is and applied in the text, it

would not match the context. Here, the researcher assumes “sower” as a typo of

the word “shower”. Taking this into account, the word “with” and “shower”

should switch places and re-adjusted into passive form “showered” to make a

coherent sentence. The result would then be “Partly steamed and fried beef lung

showered with fried grated coconut”.

Another case shows that there are menu which apply transposition, but in

an incorrect way, as shown by datum 39/WBA/3/12. In the ST it is written: “Ayam

Bumbu Rujak”, which is translated into “Chicken Rujak Spicy”. Here, the

addition of “spicy” should be positioned at the beginning of the phrase, as the

grammatical structure the TL requires adjectival modifiers to be positioned as so.

On further note, the menu entry has an acceptability score of 3.5, also lower than

menu entries with correct transposition application.

2. Semantic Strategies

a. Borrowing

The application of borrowing in the analyzed food menu entries is almost

evenly distributed. It is applied 6 times in the adequately acceptable translations,

and 5 times in the acceptable translations. One out of the eleven is naturalized

borrowing, while the rest are transliteration.

A particular borrowed term, melinjo appears throughout three different

texts from two different restaurants, namely BRK and WBA. This case suggests


39

that the term indeed has no equivalent term which is acceptable to be used in the

context of food menu. Therefore, the translators decided to keep the term from the

ST in the TT.

For further detail of the application of borrowing in the assessed food

menu, the following table shows example of menu entries which apply borrowing,

as well as the borrowed terms:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Borrowed

Terms

4 – 4.9

12/

BRK/

10/5

Nasi Goreng ala Bale

Raos yang disajikan dalam

balutan omelet telor dadar

dengan tambahan sate

ayam bumbu kecap

Fried Rice in Omelet Egg,

served with Chicken Satay -satay

18/

RJ/

3/1

Rendang Jamur Slow cooked mushrooms

in Rendang Sauce -rendang

41/

WBA/

5/11

Es Cincau Hijau

Iced green cincau: Ice,

grass jelly agar-agar,


sugar

-cincau

-agar-agar

3 – 3.9

2/

BRK/

2/5

Clear soup fillet ikan

Gurameh/Kakap dengan

aroma segar kemangi

Clear soup fillet Gurameh/

Kakap fish with fresh basil

scent -gurameh/kakap

6/

BRK/

4/4

Hidangan terbuat dari

daging sapi dan “Kulit

Mlinjo” dalam santan

kelapa cair dengan

potongan tomat hijau.

Hidangan khusus yang

diciptakan oleh Sultan

Hamengku Buwono IX

(1940-1988), biasa

disantap dengan nasi

putih/merah sebagai

“Jangan” (Lauk berkuah).

Authentic dish made from

Beef an& “Mlinjo Skin”

with coconut spicy.

Special dish created by

Sultan HB IX.

-mlinjo

13/

BRK/

14/2

Variasi pudding yang

dibuat dari bahan kayu

secang khas Kraton,

disajikan dengan fla

beraroma jahe segar

A variety of puddings

made from typical secang

wood in kraton, served

with ginger fla

-secang

-kraton

-fla

Table 14: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Borrowing


40

Analyzing the table, several points regarding the acceptability score in

relation with the application of borrowing strategy can be inferred. As mentioned

before, the distribution of borrowing is generally similar in both acceptable and

adequately acceptable translations. However, the difference on which kind of

terms are borrowed, and how the strategy is applied can be seen.

Observing the examples, acceptable translations borrow terms which are

more renown, such as rendang and satay which are already more recognizable in

culinary context. This is an acceptable application of borrowing, as explained by

Al-Rushaidi & Ali:

Such words like cappuccino can be recognized by many people around the

world and might become universally known in the recent future as a result

of globalization. Trying to learn such well-known food terms might be a

worthwhile endeavor,…Therefore, the translator might be excused for

borrowing such terms based on the assumption that these words can be

recognized internationally. (2017, pp. 207-208)

Meanwhile, when a less commonly known term is used, a short

explanation is added to clarify what the word meant. In the case of the word

cincau in datum 41/WBA/5/11, the translator added the more popular term “grass

jelly” for an explanation. By doing so, the target reader can understand the text,

and in addition they gain knowledge of how the local people might call the

dish/ingredient.

This can be contrasted with adequately acceptable translations which often

borrow terms with no equivalent in the TL without adding explanation; kraton and

mlinjo are the examples for this. In another case, terms such as secang, gurameh,

and kakap actually do have translations in the TL, which are “sappanwood”,


41

“gourami”, and “sea bass” respectively. The existence of these translations means

that the borrowing strategy applied is unnecessary. These two ways of applying

the borrowing strategy results in confusion instead of giving clarity, and thus is a

factor in the translations being less acceptable.

b. Cultural Equivalent

Unlike borrowing, which is present evenly in adequately acceptable and

acceptable translations, cultural equivalent is much more dominant in the

acceptable translations. The data shows that 9 out of 10 uses of cultural

equivalent appeared in the acceptable translation. The following are several

examples of the application of cultural equivalent in the assessed food menu:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Application of

Cultural

Equivalent

4 – 4.9

22/

RJ/

4/1

Goreng Tepung Tiram Deep fried Oyster

mushrooms goreng tepung

deep fried

29/

WBA/

1/4

Pisang Panggang Kayu

Manis

Grilled Bananas with

Cinnamon kayu manis

cinnamon

36/

WBA/

3/5

Sambal Kutai: Sambal

bercampur terong kacang

panjang, petai, tempe dan

udang diolah dengan

aneka bumbu khas

Kalimantan.

Kutai-style chilli sauce:

Chilli sauce mixed with

eggplant, long beans,

stink beans, soybean

cake, and shrimp mixed

with special Kutai spices.

Sambal chilli

sauce

3 – 3.9

10/

BRK/

7/5

Buncis dan irisan jamur

kuping dimasak tumis

pedas bumbu kecap

Stir fry Mung Beans

combine with black

fungus tumis stir fry

Table 15: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Cultural Equivalent

As can be inferred from the example, the strategy is mostly applied

towards words in the SL which have a specific equivalent term in the TL. For


42

example, goreng tepung is translated into “deep fried” instead of “fried with flour”

and kayu manis is translated into “cinnamon” instead of “sweet wood”.

The application of this strategy gives the target readers a more instantly

understandable text, though it may sacrifice accuracy of a translation. As an

example, the term sambal in datum 36/WBA/3/5 is translated into “chilli sauce”.

Putting aside the typo in the translation, the term sambal has a distinct difference

with chili sauce in general understanding. Both words represent a type of

condiment made from the main ingredient of chili pepper. However, chili sauce is

perceived to be more thick liquid-like substance and smooth in texture, whilst

sambal is often blocky and coarse as it is made by crushing the ingredients rather

than blending it.

Nevertheless, in the context of food menu, this difference in meaning is

most likely not worth explaining in a long descriptive sentence. Moreover, the

assessment from respondents show that it is considered an acceptable translation.

Thus, the strategy can be considered as a good alternative in translating certain

parts of food menu for a more immediate understanding of the target reader.

c. Descriptive Equivalent

Descriptive equivalent accounts for 14.2% of all strategies applied. It is

present in all appearing acceptability levels, but is majorly found to be applied in

the acceptable translations.

It is also found that there are different ways under certain circumstances in

which the translator uses descriptive equivalent. Shorter ST which contains a

specific name of a dish is wholly translated into a descriptive form, while longer


43

ST merely have a part of it (a certain word or phrase) translated into a description.

The following is a table containing examples of the food menu translations which

apply descriptive equivalent:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Application of

Descriptive Equivalent

4 – 4.9

16/ RJ/ 2/1

Tongseng Jamur Traditional javanesse curry with mushrooms

tongseng traditional javanesse curry

34/ WBA/ 2/7

Sayur Lodeh

A mixture of eggplant, long beans, melinjo leaves, squash and stink beans, in a light coconut-milk broth, with chilli

(whole text)

3 – 3.9

19/

RJ/

3/3

Jamur Goreng Penyet

Deep fried mushrooms

mix with spicy sauce

in rustic ways

penyet mix with

spicy sauce in rustic

ways

28/

RJ/

7/13

Wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran special

beverage made from

Ganoderma mushroom

wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran special

beverage

2 – 2.9

8/

BRK/

6/1


digulung kemudian

dipanggang, disajikan

dengan saus mangut.

Salah satu menu yang

disenangi Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono

VII

Fry and Gril Cafish

roll, Served with

turmeric gravy in light

spicy taste. One of

favorite menu Sri

Sultan Hamengku

Buwono VII

saus mangut

turmeric gravy in light

spicy taste

Table 16: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Descriptive Equivalent

Datum 34/WBA/2/7 in Table 16 is an example of the application of

“name-to-description” strategy. Of all 12 texts applying this strategy, 3 apply this

strategy, while the rest apply partial description of the text. According to the data,

all texts which apply name-to-description is assessed as acceptable. The ones that

do not, are spread between the three appearing category of acceptability.

It can be concluded that if a shorter texts containing a dish name does not

have an equivalent and plausible term in the TL, descriptive equivalent is of the


44

better choice in attaining acceptability. However, this remark requires further

research with an more extensive number of additional data.

e. Synonym

This translation strategy appears evenly in the adequately acceptable and

acceptable translations. It is applied within word and phrase level, mostly on

nouns and adjectives. The following table displays the application of synonym

throughout the assessed food menu:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Application of

Synonym

4 – 4.9

35/

WBA/

2/10

Eyem Penggeng Dada Broiled chicken breast Penggeng

Broiled

36/

WBA/

3/5

Sambal Kutai: Sambal

bercampur terong kacang


udang diolah dengan

aneka bumbu khas

Kalimantan.

Kutai-style chilli sauce:

Chilli sauce mixed with

eggplant, long beans,

stink beans, soybean

cake, and shrimp mixed

with special Kutai spices.

Kalimantan

Kutai

3 – 3.9

4/

BRK/

3/4


dipanggang dengan

olesan mustard dan

Minyak Zaitun, disajikan

dengan rangkaian Kari

Sayuran dan Kentang

Sauted.

Specific Lamb Grill in

Olive Oil, serve with

sauted sliced Potato and

Curry vegetables.

pilihan specific

11/

BRK/

8/6

Campuran wortel, buncis,

kembang kol yang

dimasak dengan kocokan

telur

A mixture of carrots,

beans, cauli flower

cooked with egg whisk

kocokan telur

egg whisk

Table 17: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Synonym

From the presented data, it can be inferred that the use of an equivalent

synonym does not necessarily produce an acceptable translation. Datum

4/BRK/3/4 and 11/BRK/8/6 are good examples of this case. The terms pilihan and

kocokan telur is translated with a generally equivalent term in the TL. However,

those translation are not in context with text itself. Although the translation is


45

correct by itself, it betrays the intended meaning when placed into the context of

the ST. Therefore, an equivalent synonym serves its purpose when it is also

applied in the right context, such as in datum 35/WBA/2/10 which has “penggeng”

(a derivation of “panggang”) translated into “broiled”.

On the other hand, datum 36/WBA/3/5 shows an application of a

superordinate synonym within a translation. Kalimantan is more commonly

known as Borneo in English. Instead, the translator decided to use “Kutai”, which

is in fact a more specific region in Borneo. This translation may be deemed

acceptable since it is part of the dish’s name mentioned in the beginning of the

text: “Kutai-style chilli sauce”. Therefore the target readers understand, that the

term refers to a specific name. However, this type of application should be

reconsidered. Since, although the translation is generally understandable, there

may be a loss of information from the ST.

f. Semantic Addition

Semantic addition is the most prevalent strategy applied within the

assessed food menu. Of the total of 84 strategies applied, it appeared 19 times

(22.6%). The strategy is applied within the adequately acceptable and acceptable

translations, but mostly appears in the acceptable translations.

Two ways in which semantic addition is applied towards in translating the

food menu is to specify the ingredients of the dish and to describe certain

properties of the dish such as taste or texture. However, each type of application

does not necessarily point toward a certain acceptability score since certain details

in the application affect the effectiveness of the strategy’s use, as is to be


46

explained further on. The following table displays examples of food menu

translations which apply semantic addition with the added words/phrases:

Score

Group No. ST TT

Semantic

Addition

4 – 4.9

25/

RJ/

5/3

Martabak (3/Porsi)

Fried folded pancake

with mushroom curry

filling

-with mushroom

curry filling

33/

WBA/

2/3

Nasi Campur Paru

Ketumbar

Rice with beef lung in

spicy coriander -beef

-spicy

40/

WBA/

4/3

Teh Teko: Teh tubruk

berisi ramuan beberapa

jenis teh Jawa, disajikan

dalam teko dengan air

mendidih , dengan gula

batu. Nasgithel—panas,

legi dan kenthel

Traditional tea in a pot: A

special blend of various

Javanese teas, served in a

clay teapot and poured

over rock sugar. Hot,

sweet, and strong.

-traditional

-clay

3 – 3.9

3/

BRK/

2/7

Soup kental dimasak dari

bahan mushroom

Soup with a thick sauce

made from mushrooms

tasty flavor Cream.

-tasty flavor cream

5/

BRK/

3/5

Menu Khas Burung Dara

Muda dalam kuah kental

kecap, salah satu

hidangan favorit Sri

Sultan Hamengku

buwono VII.


Soya sauce ketchup taste,

Served with sliced tomato

(Sri Sultan Hamengku

Buwono VII favorite’s

dishes).

-ketchup taste

-served with sliced

tomato

28/

RJ/

7/13

Wedang Jejamuran

Jejamuran special

beverage made from

Ganoderma mushroom

- made from

Ganoderma

mushroom

Table 18: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Semantic Addition

It can be seen from the table that datum 25/RJ/5/3 and 28/RJ/7/13 both

apply the first type of semantic addition which explains the ingredients of the

dishes. However, the two attain different acceptability score. If contrasted, the

addition from the first example uses general words and adds clarity to the TT,

while the latter example uses an uncommon and specific term “Ganoderma”

which is actually a scientific name. Most likely the text becomes less

understandable as the term does not give clarity, but instead adds another


47

unexplained term to the text. While it is true that there is no specific term for

“Ganoderma” in the SL, “shelf mushroom” or “bracket mushroom” which is more

common in the TL may be of substitute.

The second type of semantic addition which involves adding explanation

of the property of the dish is applied in datum 33/WBA/2/3 and 40/WBA/4/3

which is acceptable, and datum 3/BRK/2/7 and 5/BRK/3/5 which is adequately

acceptable. Incidentally, the acceptable translations come from the same

restaurant, as so is the adequately acceptable translations.

The added words/phrases in the menu entries from WBA are generally

short and informative. The word “spicy” in datum 33/WBA/2/3 is one example.

The addition of this term clarifies that the dish is spicy. This addition could be

considered compulsory since not all target readers know the property of the dish

and are not always fond of such flavor, thus should be informed of this trait

beforehand. Additionally, datum 40/WBA/4/3 the addition of “traditional” and

“clay” gives information of what makes the beverage different or special than

common tea. Mentioning those traits may as well be a form of implicit

persuasiveness which is able to catch the attention of the target reader while not

making it awkward.

Compared to additions in menu entries from WBA, the additions in the

menu entries of BRK can be labeled as distracting. It can be seen from the table,

the phrase “tasty flavor cream” in datum 5/BRK/3/5 and “ketchup taste” in datum

28/RJ/7/13 does not cohere well with the text as whole. One reason is the lack of

conjunction, which makes the purpose of the aforementioned phrases unclear.


48

This can also be considered an over-translation, since it gives more unnecessary

detail than the ST, and therefore is better omitted. In the case that these additional

phrases needs to be kept in the TT, it is suggested to apply structural strategies

such as transposition and structural addition to complement the semantic addition.

g. Omission

The application of this semantic strategy in the assessed food menu is

almost evenly distributed between two categories: It appeared 5 times in the

adequately acceptable translations, and 7 times in the acceptable translations.

It is to be noted that in the current research, there is difficulty in

determining exactly how omission affects the acceptability score of the assessed

menu, since during the data collection the ST was not to be shown to the

respondents to avoid bias. Therefore, it is difficult to make comparison of how

many loss of information may affect the acceptability of the translation.

However, the researcher attempts to deduct this by, firstly, returning to the

definition and purpose of omission: the exclusion of certain parts of the ST, which

if included into the TT, may cause confusion and awkwardness. In other words,

not translating a part of the ST into the TT. Reflecting on this definition, the

researcher can presume whether the omission was done on the correct parts of the

ST—e.g.: on untranslatable or unnecessary phrases—and relate it with the

acceptability score received by the translated food menu.

The table in the following page contains examples of the translated food

menu which apply the omission strategy, followed by its omitted components:


49

Score

Group No. ST TT

Omitted

Components

4 – 4.9

12/

BRK/

10/5

Nasi Goreng ala Bale

Raos yang disajikan

dalam balutan omelet

telor dadar dengan

tambahan sate ayam

bumbu kecap

Fried Rice in Omelet

Egg, served with Chicken

Satay

-ala Bale Raos

-bumbu kecap

37/

WBA/

3/6

Lele Njingkrung: Lele

diasap dan digoreng

dalam posisi meringkuk.

Gurih dan cryspi

Smoked catfish: Fried

smoked freshwater

catfish. Tasty and crispy

-Njingkrung

-dalam posisi

meringkuk

3 – 3.9

6/

BRK/

4/4




kelapa cair dengan




Hamengku Buwono IX

(1940-1988), biasa

disantap dengan nasi

putih/merah sebagai

“Jangan” (Lauk berkuah).

Authentic dish made

from Beef an& “Mlinjo

Skin” with coconut spicy.

Special dish created by

Sultan HB IX.

-dengan potongan

tomat hijau.

-biasa disantap

dengan nasi

putih/merah

sebagai “Jangan”

(Lauk berkuah)

10/

BRK/

7/5



pedas bumbu kecap

Stir fry Mung Beans

combine with black

fungus

-pedas bumbu

kecap

Table 19: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Omission

According to the data, in the TT of datum 12/BRK/10/5 the phrases “ala

Bale Raos” and bumbu kecap is omitted. In the TT of datum 37/WBA/3/6 the

phrases njingkrung and “dalam posisi meringkuk” is also omitted. These parts of

the text are minor details conveying variation of the dish instead of its main

property. The phrases reduce clarity if kept in the TT and is therefore better of

omitted.

On the other hand, datum 10/BRK/7/5 omitted “pedas bumbu kecap” from

its translation. This phrase shows conveys the basic property of the dish and

whether it is spicy or not, which is important for the target readers. Nevertheless,

this information is omitted instead. The target readers more likely will not realize


50

the deletion of this information from the ST. However, the lack of information—

thus lack of clarity—from the TT combined with its structural mistakes, causes

the translation to be less acceptable.

The last example is a form of under-translation, which although is a

common occurrence, cannot always be justified. As mentioned by Newmark,

“Under-translation is justified if an informative text is deficient in clarity. It is not

justified if it is unnecessary and is a mere retreat from a literal translation- You

must not write down to your reader.” (1988, p. 80).

An interesting case in datum 6/BRK/4/4 also shows how the application of

omission, though applied correctly, does not lead to a definitely acceptable

translation. The data shows that two phrases were omitted, as can be seen in Table

19. The researcher considers this a correct application of omission because the

phrase does not complement the main information of the text and will cause the

TT to be too long. However, the translation contains borrowing of an unexplained

colloquial term, lack of transposition, and incorrect translation. The number of

mistakes overwhelm the single properly applied strategy.

Conclusively, correctly applying only one strategy does not suffice to

make a translation acceptable. This also applies to many of the analyzed

translations applying other strategies.

3. Correlation of Translation Strategy and Acceptability Score of the

Translated Food Menu

While the use of each translation strategy and its effect on acceptability

score of the assessed food menu has been explained in the previous sections, there


51

are several findings in general terms which is further explained in this section. For

the purpose of further analysis, the translated food menu is first grouped based on

the acceptability level achieved. Then the application of each strategy as it appears

in each level of acceptability is calculated and noted in percentage. The result is a

chart, as presented below, which show what type of translation strategy is often

applied in each acceptability category.

Chart 5: Percentage of Translation Strategy Application per Acceptability Category

Since there is only one unacceptable translation and it applies only two

strategies, not much can be concluded from its case. However, the adequately

acceptable and acceptable translations show apparent differences which leads to

certain arguments.

As observed from the chart, that in terms of structural strategy, a more

acceptable translation applies structural addition more often, which is a plausible

account. However, it is questionable that using less of transposition leads to a

more acceptable translation. The numbers occur as such since the data shows that


52

higher acceptability levels are achieved by menu entry of shorter phrases, which

evidently often does not require transposition.

In semantic terms, the most prevalent differences are the usage percentage

of borrowing and cultural equivalence. Likewise, these differences are connected.

As a translation borrows less terms from the SL, a substitute term is needed. The

translator may choose between applying synonym, cultural equivalent or

descriptive equivalent following the borrowed term. In this case, it is shown that

the choice of cultural equivalent leads to a more acceptable translation. This is

because, compared to a borrowed term, a term in the TL is supposedly more

familiar and more immediately understandable by the target readers. And though

some may question the equivalence in using cultural equivalent, it will be more

immediately acceptable.

According to the chart, other strategy applications that may be taken into

account in making a more acceptable translation is slightly decreasing the use of

synonym and omission, and slightly increasing the use of descriptive equivalent.

Although, as explained in the previous sections, the manner of applying the

strategy in terms of diction together with grammatical correctness also affect the

effectiveness of these strategies in achieving acceptability.


53

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis conducted in Chapter IV, it can be concluded that

the translated food menu in Yogyakarta from Bale Raos Keraton, Resto Jejamuran,

and Warung Bu Ageng are majorly acceptable. Food menu data of 42 translations

were assessed by 12 target readers whilst applying adaptation from Angelelli’s

Rubric of Pragmatic Competence. The assessment result shows 25 translations

(59.5%) are judged to be acceptable. Meanwhile, 16 translations (38.1%) are

deemed adequately acceptable, and 1 translation (2.4%) is deemed unacceptable.

This study also found that a majority of the translated food menu entries

apply translation strategies of semantic addition, as the strategy was used 22.6%

of the time. Additionally, though semantic addition was proved to be quite

effective in making the translation more acceptable, it is suggested that translators

of food menu more often apply transposition, cultural equivalent, and descriptive

equivalent strategies and reduce the application of synonym and borrowing.

Findings on the acceptability score conclude that Bale Raos Keraton,

Resto Jejamuran, and Warung Bu Ageng have presented fairly acceptable

translations of food menu for the target readers. However, analyzing the use of

strategy shows that these results could be improved by re-evaluating the

translations and apply more relevant and varying strategies as mentioned above.

For further researches and studies, the researcher suggests to conduct

survey with higher number of respondents in order to acquire more accurate data


54

on the acceptability score. It is also suggested that, on future studies, other

aspects regarding the respondents such as their age, familiarity with the TL

country, and TL language proficiency be taken into consideration for a more

extensive research regarding its impact towards the acceptability assessment.


55

REFERENCES

Angelelli, C. V. (2009). Using a rubric to assess the translation ability: Defining

the Construct. In Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting

Studies (pp. 13-48). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Article: Ketupat. (2019, August 8). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketupat (on September 2019)

Delia Chiaro, L. R. (2015). Food and translation, translation and food. The

Translator, 237-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2015.1110934

Halaman: Ketupat. (2019, July). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://id.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketupat (on 25 September 2019)

Herlambang, M. A. (2017). A Study of Translation Equivalence and Acceptability

of the Subtitle of Intel Advertisements. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma

University. Retreived from http://repository.usd.ac.id/id/eprint/10994

House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. New York:

Routledge.

House, J. (2018). Translation: The Basics. New York: Routledge.

Krecjie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research

Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 607-610. Retrieved

from https://home.kku.ac.th/sompong/guest_speaker/KrejcieandMorgan_

article.pdf

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Retreived from http://ilts.ir/Content/ilts.ir/Page/142/ContentImage/A%20

Textbook%20of%20Translation%20by%20Peter%20Newmark%20(1).pdf

Sultan Mohammed Saaiyed Al-Rushaidi, H. I. (2017). Translating Food Menus

from English into Arabic: Linguistic and Cultural Dilemmas. Arab World

English Journal for Translation and Literary Studies, 201-212. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol1no1.14

Suryawinata, Z., & Hariyanto, S. (2003). Translation: Bahasan Teori dan

Penuntun Praktis Menerjemahkan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Williams, J., & Chesterman, A. (2002). The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing

Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St.Jerome Publishing.

Xue, J. (2015). A Chinese Bite of Translation: A Translational Approach to

Chineseness and Culinary Identity. Ottawa: University of Ottawa. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-4378


56

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Analyzed Food Menu Transcription Used in Assessment

Datum

No. Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied

1/

BRK/

1/5

Salah satu variasi dari

tradisional salad, terdiri

dari aneka macam buah

disajikan dengan guyuran

bumbu kacang ( bumbu

pecel ) dan Emping Mlinjo

Variation of traditional

salad Consist of many

kinds of fruit such a

Pineapple, Cucumber,

Apple, Slite Tomato, served

with traditional spicy

peanut sauce and Mlinjo Cracker

Borrowing:

-Mlinjo

Semantic Addition:

-Aneka macam buah

“many kinds of fruit such a

Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Slite Tomato”

2/

BRK/

2/5

Clear soup fillet ikan

Gurameh/Kakap dengan

aroma segar kemangi

Clear soup fillet Gurameh/

Kakap fish with fresh basil

scent

Borrowing:

-Gurameh/Kakap

Lack of Structural Addition:

-“Clear soup fillet Gurameh

/Kakap”

3/ BRK/

2/7

Soup kental dimasak dari bahan mushroom

Soup with a thick sauce made from mushrooms

tasty flavor Cream.

Semantic Addition: -“tasty flavor Cream” added.

Structural Addition:

-Soup kental “Soup with a

thick sauce”

4/

BRK/

3/4


dipanggang dengan olesan

mustard dan Minyak

Zaitun, disajikan dengan

rangkaian Kari Sayuran dan Kentang Sauted.

Specific Lamb Grill in

Olive Oil, serve with sauted

sliced Potato and Curry

vegetables.

Synonym (incorrect):

-pilihan “specific”

Omission:

-olesan mustard -rangkaian

Lack of Transposition:

-kari sayuran “curry

vegetables”

5/

BRK/

3/5

Menu Khas Burung Dara

Muda dalam kuah kental

kecap, salah satu hidangan favorit Sri Sultan

Hamengku buwono VII.


Soya sauce ketchup taste,

Served with sliced tomato (Sri Sultan Hamengku

Buwono VII favorite’s

dishes).

Omission:

-Menu khas

Semantic Addition:

-“ketchup taste”

-“served with sliced tomato”

Transposition:

-salah satu hidangan favorit

Sri Sultan Hamengku buwono

VII “(Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII

favorite’s dishes)”


57

Datum


6/

BRK/

4/4




kelapa cair dengan




Hamengku Buwono IX (1940-1988), biasa disantap

dengan nasi putih/merah

sebagai “Jangan” (Lauk

berkuah).

Authentic dish made from

Beef an& “Mlinjo Skin”

with coconut spicy. Special

dish created by Sultan HB

IX.

Borrowing:

-mlinjo

Omission:

-dengan potongan tomat

hijau.

-biasa disantap dengan nasi

putih/merah sebagai “Jangan” (Lauk berkuah)


-santan kelapa cair

“coconut spicy”


-“coconut spicy”

7/

BRK/

5/4

Variasi lauk kegemaran Sri

Sultan Hamengku Buwono

IX

Variation dish of Sri Sultan

HB IX. Partly steamed and

fried beef lung with sower

fried grated coconut

Semantic Addition:

-“Partly steamed and fried

beef lung with sower fried

grated coconut”.


“with sower”

8/

BRK/ 6/1


digulung kemudian dipanggang, disajikan

dengan saus mangut. Salah

satu menu yang disenangi

Sri Sultan Hamengku

Buwono VII

Fry and Gril Cafish roll,

Served with turmeric gravy in light spicy taste. One of

favorite menu Sri Sultan

Hamengku Buwono VII

Descriptive Equivalent:

-saus mangut “turmeric gravy in light spicy taste”

Transposition:

-Ikan Lele fillet yang

digulung kemudian

dipanggang “Fry and Gril

Cafish roll”

Lack of Structural Addition:

-“the”

-“of”

9/

BRK/

7/2

Urap aneka sayuran khas

Jawa dengan parutan kelapa

yang telah dikukus,

(Authentic traditional salad

consist of mixed fresh

vegetables : Cabbage,

Cucumber, Legume, Basil

leave showered with steam

grated coconut)

Semantic Addition:

- aneka sayuran “mixed

fresh vegetables : Cabbage,

Cucumber, Legume, Basil

leave”


-Urap aneka sayuran khas

Jawa “authentic traditional salad”


58

Datum


10/

BRK/

7/5



pedas bumbu kecap

Stir fry Mung Beans

combine with black fungus

Cultural equivalent:

-tumis “stir fry”

Omission:

-“pedas bumbu kecap”

Synonym:

-jamur kuping “black fungus”


-buncis “mung beans”

should be “green beans”

11/

BRK/

8/6

Campuran wortel, buncis,

kembang kol yang dimasak

dengan kocokan telur

A mixture of carrots, beans,

cauli flower cooked with

egg whisk

Synonym:

-kocokan telur “egg

whisk”

12/

BRK/

10/5

Nasi Goreng ala Bale Raos

yang disajikan dalam

balutan omelet telor dadar

dengan tambahan sate ayam

bumbu kecap

Fried Rice in Omelet Egg,

served with Chicken Satay

Omission:

-ala Bale Raos

-bumbu kecap

Naturalised Borrowing:

-sate “Satay”

13/

BRK/

14/2

Variasi pudding yang

dibuat dari bahan kayu

secang khas Kraton, disajikan dengan fla

beraroma jahe segar

A variety of puddings made

from typical secang wood

in kraton, served with ginger fla

Borrowing:

-secang

-Kraton -fla


-khas “typical”

Omission:

-beraroma

14/

BRK/ 17/4

Minuman yang dibuat dari

ramuan Jahe dan Jeruk Nipis.

Classical drink made of

ginger and Lemon.

Semantic Addition:

-“Classical”


-Jeruk Nipis “Lemon”

15/

RJ/

1/4

Nasi Pecel Rice with traditional

Javanesse salad, consisting

of mixed vegetables in

peanut sauce dressing

served with fried tempeh

and bean curd.

Descriptive equivalent:

-Pecel “traditional

Javanesse salad, consisting of

mixed vegetables in peanut

sauce dressing served with

fried tempeh and bean curd.”

16/

RJ/

2/1

Tongseng Jamur Traditional javanesse curry

with mushrooms


-tongseng “traditional

javanesse curry”

17/

RJ/

2/9

Karedok Authentic Indonesian salad

with peanut sauce and

mushrooms


-(whole text)


59

Datum


18/

RJ/

3/1

Rendang Jamur Slow cooked mushrooms in

Rendang Sauce

Borrowing:

-Rendang

Semantic Addition:

-“Slow cooked”

19/ RJ/

3/3

Jamur Goreng Penyet Deep fried mushrooms mix with spicy sauce in rustic

ways

Descriptive equivalent: -penyet “mix with spicy

sauce in rustic ways”

20/

RJ/

3/5

Asam Manis Jamur Merang Deep fried straw

mushrooms served with

sweet and sour sauce

Semantic Addition:

-“deep fried”


-Jamur Merang “Straw

mushroom”

-asam manis “sweet and sour sauce”

21/

RJ/

3/6

King Oyster Lada Hitam Deep fried King Oyster

mushrooms served with

oriental blackpepper sauce

Semantic Addition:

-“deep fried”

-“mushrooms”

-“oriental”

22/

RJ/

4/1

Goreng Tepung Tiram Deep fried Oyster

mushrooms

Cultural Equivalent:

-goreng tepung “deep

fried”

Semantic Addition:

-“mushroom”

23/

RJ/

4/5

Goreng Tepung Portabella Deep fried Portabella

mushrooms


-goreng tepung “deep

fried”

Borrowing:

-Portabella

24/

RJ/

5/1

Lumpia (3/Porsi) Mushrooms spring roll Cultural Equivalent:

Lumpia “Spring roll”

Addition:

-“mushrooms”

Omission:

-(3/porsi)

25/

RJ/

5/3

Martabak (3/Porsi) Fried folded pancake with

mushroom curry filling


-Martabak “Fried folded

pancake”

Semantic Addition:

-with mushroom curry filling

Omission:

-(3/porsi)


60

Datum


26/

RJ/

6/2

Kunyit Asam A traditional beverage

made from extract of

curcuma and tamarin


-kunyit “curcuma”

Semantic Addition:

-“A traditional beverage

made from extract of…”

added.

27/

RJ/

6/10

Es Dawet Jejamuran A traditional javanesse

beverage made from


sugar syrup with jelly made

from rice starch and

mushroom


-(whole text)

28/

RJ/ 7/13

Wedang Jejamuran Jejamuran special beverage

made from Ganoderma mushroom


-Wedang Jejamuran “Jejamuran special beverage”

Transposition:

-Wedang Jejamuran

“Jejamuran special beverage”

Semantic Addition:

-“made from Ganoderma

mushroom”

29/ WBA/

1/4

Pisang Panggang Kayu Manis

Grilled Bananas with Cinnamon

Cultural equivalent: -kayu manis “cinnamon”

Structural Addition:

-“with”

30/

WBA/

1/5

Bubur Duren Mlekoh:


dicampur daging buah

durian yang diolah dengan

santan kelapa dan gula Jawa. Gurih dan manis.

Durian Bread Pudding:

Bread pudding with durian

cooked with coconut cream

and palm sugar. Sweet and

absolutely delicious.


-gula jawa “palm sugar”

-Bubur Duren Mlekoh

“Durian Bread Pudding”

Transposition:

-Bubur dari roti tawar

“Bread pudding”

31/

WBA/

1/7

Pecel: bayam, kacang

panjang, lamtoro, kenikir,

kecambah dan disiram saus

kacang tanah berbumbu +

kerupuk

Steamed vegetables with

peanut sauce: Steamed

vegetables—spinach, long

beans, lamtoro, Javanese

parsley, beans sprouts, and

torch ginger flowers—

topped with a spicy peanut sauce and “legendar”

crackers


-Pecel Steamed vegetables

with peanut sauce

-Kenikir Javanese parsley

Borrowing:

-“lamtoro”

Semantic Addition:

- Torch ginger flower

-legendar (supposedly:

legendary”)


61

Datum


32/

WBA/

2/1

Nasi Campur Ayam Bakar

Suwiran

Rice with shredded chicken Omission:

-campur

-bakar

33/

WBA/ 2/3

Nasi Campur Paru

Ketumbar

Rice with beef lung in spicy

coriander

Omission:

-campur

Semantic Addition:

-“beef”

-“spicy”

Addition:

-“with”

34/

WBA/ 2/7

Sayur Lodeh A mixture of eggplant, long

beans, melinjo leaves, squash and stink beans, in a

light coconut-milk broth,

with chilli

Borrowing:

-melinjo


(whole text)

35/

WBA/

2/10

Eyem Penggeng Dada Broiled chicken breast Synonym:

-Penggeng “Broiled”

36/ WBA/

3/5

Sambal Kutai: Sambal bercampur terong kacang


udang diolah dengan aneka

bumbu khas Kalimantan.

Kutai-style chilli sauce: Chilli sauce mixed with

eggplant, long beans, stink

beans, soybean cake, and

shrimp mixed with special

Kutai spices.

Cultural equivalent: -Sambal “chilli sauce”

Superordinate Synonym:

-Kalimantan “Kutai”

37/

WBA/

3/6

Lele Njingkrung: Lele

diasap dan digoreng dalam

posisi meringkuk. Gurih

dan cryspi

Smoked catfish: Fried

smoked freshwater catfish.

Tasty and crispy

Omission:

-Njingkrung

-dalam posisi meringkuk

Addition:

-“freshwater”

Synonym:

-“Gurih” “Tasty”

38/

WBA/

3/10

Bacem Kambing: Baceman

daging kambing, lalu

digoreng. Gurih dan manis

Marinated Lamb: Lamb

marinated with spices,

coconut milk, and palm

sugar, then fried. Very tasty


-“aceman “marinated”

Synonym: -Gurih dan manis “Very

Tasty”

Semantic Addition:

-“…with spices, coconut

milk, and palm sugar”


62

Datum


39/

WBA/

3/12

Ayam Bumbu Rujak Chicken Rujak spicy Borrowing:

-Rujak

Transposition (Incorrect):

-Ayam Bumbu Rujak

“Chicken Rujak Spicy”

40/

WBA/

4/3

Teh Teko: Teh tubruk

berisi ramuan beberapa

jenis teh Jawa, disajikan

dalam teko dengan air

mendidih , dengan gula

batu. Nasgithel—panas,

legi dan kenthel

Traditional tea in a pot: A

special blend of various

Javanese teas, served in a

clay teapot and poured over

rock sugar. Hot, sweet, and

strong.

Semantic Addition:

-“traditional”

-“clay”

Omission:

-dengan air mendidih

-Nasgithel

41/

WBA/ 5/11

Es Cincau Hijau Iced green cincau: Ice,

grass jelly agar-agar, coconut milk and palm

sugar

Borrowing:

-Cincau -agar-agar


-“Ice, grass jelly agar-agar,


sugar”

Transposition:

-Cincau Hijau “green

cincau”

42/

WBA/

5/15

Es Soda Gembira Iced Happy Soda Transposition:

-Soda Gembira “Happy

Soda”

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Food Menu Acceptability Survey

The following questionnaire model was released online under the url:

http://tiny.cc/menu_survey and was made available until from January until

February 2020. It is divided into three main parts, not including the greetings and

submission part as per released via the aforementioned website.

Part 1: Questions Regarding Respondent Personal Information

No. Question Answer Type / Answer Options

1 Name (optional) [short answer]

2 Nationality [short answer]

3 Age [short answer, number]


63


4 Sex Male

Female

Prefer Not to Say

5 Occupation [short answer]

6 Are you a native speaker of English? Yes

No

7.1 Have you ever been to Indonesia? Yes

No

7.2 If you have, for how long did you stay? [short answer]

8. How well do you understand Indonesian? Completely do not know Indonesian

(n/a)

Know and understand a few words (minimal)

Can understand simple sentences and

utterances (adequate)

Understands longer sentences,

utterances, and paragraphs (good)

Proficient in Indonesian (very good)

Part 2: Acceptability Assessment of Translated Food Menu

The following table is based on Claudia V. Angelelli’s Rubric of

Pragmatic Competence is simplified for respondents and is presented as reference

in giving acceptability assessment:

Score Illustration of Acceptability

5 All phrases and words are natural and informative, the cultural references

and style is completely appropriate to the text type.

4 All phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural

references and style is consistently appropriate to the text type.

3

Most phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural

references and style is mostly appropriate to the text type but sometimes

the phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial.

2

Many phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and

style is sometimes inappropriate to the text type, numerous the phrases and

word choices are either too formal or colloquial.

1

Most or all phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural

references and style is often inappropriate to the text type, most of the

phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial.

Example of the scoring system via google-forms is presented as follows

and is applied on every menu entry of the following number:


64

Variation of traditional salad Consist of many kinds of fruit such a

Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Slite Tomato, served with traditional spicy

peanut sauce and Mlinjo Cracker

1 2 3 4 5

*select an answer

The following is the list of menu entries presented for assessment:

1. Variation of traditional salad Consist of many kinds of fruit such a Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Slite Tomato, served with traditional spicy peanut sauce

and Mlinjo Cracker

2. Clear soup fillet Gurameh/ Kakap fish with fresh basil scent 3. Soup with a thick sauce made from mushrooms tasty flavor Cream.

4. Specific Lamb Grill in Olive Oil, serve with sauted sliced Potato and Curry

vegetables.

5. Braised young pigeon in Soya sauce ketchup taste, Served with sliced tomato (Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII favorite’s dishes).

6. Authentic dish made from Beef an& “Mlinjo Skin” with coconut spicy.

Special dish created by Sultan HB IX. 7. Variation dish of Sri Sultan HB IX. Partly steamed and fried beef lung with

sower fried grated coconut

8. Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Served with turmeric gravy in light spicy taste. One of favorite menu Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII

9. (Authentic traditional salad consist of mixed fresh vegetables : Cabbage,

Cucumber, Legume, Basil leave showered with steam grated coconut)

10. Stir fry Mung Beans combine with black fungus 11. A mixture of carrots, beans, cauli flower cooked with egg whisk

12. Fried Rice in Omelet Egg, served with Chicken Satay

13. A variety of puddings made from typical secang wood in kraton, served with ginger fla

14. Classical drink made of ginger and Lemon.

15. Rice with traditional Javanesse salad, consisting of mixed vegetables in peanut sauce dressing served with fried tempeh and bean curd.

16. Traditional javanesse curry with mushrooms

17. Authentic Indonesian salad with peanut sauce and mushrooms

18. Slow cooked mushrooms in Rendang Sauce 19. Deep fried mushrooms mix with spicy sauce in rustic ways

20. Deep fried straw mushrooms served with sweet and sour sauce

21. Deep fried King Oyster mushrooms served with oriental blackpepper sauce 22. Deep fried Oyster mushrooms

23. Deep fried Portabella mushrooms

24. Mushrooms spring roll

25. Fried folded pancake with mushroom curry filling 26. A traditional beverage made from extract of curcuma and tamarin

27. A traditional javanesse beverage made from coconut milk and palm sugar

syrup with jelly made from rice starch and mushroom 28. Jejamuran special beverage made from Ganoderma mushroom

29. Grilled Bananas with Cinnamon


65

30. Durian Bread Pudding: Bread pudding with durian cooked with coconut

cream and palm sugar. Sweet and absolutely delicious.

31. Steamed vegetables with peanut sauce: Steamed vegetables—spinach, long

beans, lamtoro, Javanese parsley, beans sprouts, and torch ginger flowers—topped with a spicy peanut sauce and “legendar” crackers

32. Rice with shredded chicken

33. Rice with beef lung in spicy coriander 34. A mixture of eggplant, long beans, melinjo leaves, squash and stink beans, in

a light coconut-milk broth, with chilli

35. Broiled chicken breast

36. Kutai-style chilli sauce: Chilli sauce mixed with eggplant, long beans, stink beans, soybean cake, and shrimp mixed with special Kutai spices.

37. Smoked catfish: Fried smoked freshwater catfish. Tasty and crispy

38. Marinated Lamb: Lamb marinated with spices, coconut milk, and palm sugar, then fried. Very tasty

39. Chicken Rujak spicy

40. Traditional tea in a pot: A special blend of various Javanese teas, served in a clay teapot and poured over rock sugar. Hot, sweet, and strong.

41. Iced green cincau: Ice, grass jelly agar-agar, coconut milk and palm sugar

42. Iced Happy Soda

Part 3: Additional Notes from Respondent


1 Is there anything you would like to say or

give note to? (optional) [short answer]

Appendix 3: Response Summary to Questionnaire for Food Menu

Acceptability Survey

The following is a summarized version of the response from all valid

respondents (11 respondents) towards the questionnaire presented in Appendix 2.

The summary is divided into three parts.

Part 1: Personal information relevant to the topic of current research and possible

further research:

No. Nationality Occupation Native

Speaker

Have visited

Indonesia

Duration

of Stay

Indonesian

Proficiency

1 US Student Yes Yes 2 months adequate

2 Netherlands Business inform-

ation systems No Yes 1 month n/a

3 Belgian Student No Yes 1 month minimal

4 Australian Artist Yes Yes 6 weeks minimal

5 British Student Yes Yes 2.5 years good


66

No. Nationality Occupation Native

Speaker

Have visited

Indonesia

Duration

of Stay

Indonesian

Proficiency

6 British Student Yes Yes 6 weeks minimal

7 Korean Teacher No No - n/a

8 Australian Teacher Yes No - minimal

9 Australian Lawyer Yes No - minimal

10 Korean Teacher No No - n/a

11 Australian Teacher No No - n/a

Part 2: Summarizes the overall acceptability assessment on the translated food

menu entries:

Datum

No.

Respondent No.

Avg.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Score Given (1 - 5)

1/

BRK/

1/5 4 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3.1

2/

BRK/

2/5 3 4 2 3 2 5 5 3 2 5 3 3.4

3/

BRK/

2/7 4 3 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 5 5 3.2

4/

BRK/

3/4 5 4 2 2 3 2 5 3 3 5 5 3.5

5/ BRK/

3/5 5 4 2 2 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 3.4

6/

BRK/

4/4 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 3.4

7/

BRK/

5/4

3 4 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3.2

8/

BRK/

6/1 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 3 2.8

9/

BRK/

7/2

4 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 3.5


67

Datum

No.

Respondent No.

Avg.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Score Given (1 - 5)

10/

BRK/

7/5 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 3.6

11/

BRK/

8/6 5 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 3.9

12/

BRK/

10/5 5 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 4.0

13/

BRK/ 14/2

3 5 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3.5

14/

BRK/

17/4 5 5 2 2 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.1

15/

RJ/

1/4

5 5 4 2 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.4

16/

RJ/

2/1 5 5 4 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4.4

17/

RJ/

2/9 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5

18/

RJ/

3/1 5 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.5

19/

RJ/

3/3 5 4 2 2 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 3.8

20/

RJ/ 3/5

5 5 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.4

21/

RJ/

3/6 5 5 3 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4.4

22/

RJ/

4/1

5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5

23/

RJ/

4/5

5 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4.4


68

Datum

No.

Respondent No.

Avg.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Score Given (1 - 5)

24/

RJ/

5/1 5 5 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.1

25/

RJ/

5/3 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 4.3

26/

RJ/

6/2 4 5 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.3

27/

RJ/ 6/10

5 5 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.2

28/

RJ/

7/13 4 5 1 3 3 5 5 2 4 5 4 3.7

29/

WBA/

1/4

5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.5

30/

WBA/

1/5 5 5 3 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.4

31/

WBA/

1/7 4 5 2 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3.8

32/

WBA/

2/1 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5

33/

WBA/

2/3 5 5 4 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4.2

34/

WBA/ 2/7

4

5

3

1

5

4

5

5

4

5

5

4.2

35/

WBA/

2/10 5 4 4 1 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 4.0

36/

WBA/

3/5

5 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4.3

37/

WBA/

3/6

5 5 4 1 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 4.2


69

Datum

No.

Respondent No.

Avg.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Score Given (1 - 5)

38/

WBA/

3/10 5 5 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.3

39/

WBA/

3/12 4 5 2 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 4 3.5

40/

WBA/

4/3 4 5 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.2

41/

WBA/ 5/11

4 5 3 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.4

42/

WBA/

5/15 4 4 3 2 2 5 5 3 4 3 5 3.6

Part 3: Notes/comments given by respondents which are deemed relevant to the

topic of research: 1. Examples like Iced Happy Soda use the correct english, but the drink doesn't exist

outside Indonesia so needs more explanation. A lot of the time the menu is *nearly* correct, but misses out 'with' or gets the sentence structure wrong (adverbs).

2. Was unsure if some foreign terms were supposed to be that way or not.

3. Double check spelling and use of capital letters. 4. Most of the words are understandable if the readers have some knowledge of English

to a certain extent.


the english translation of food menu in three …repository.usd.ac.id/37608/2/164214120_full.pdf ·...

Documents