PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
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
ii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
‘Where we must go… we who wander this Wasteland in search of our better selves?’ –The First History Man (Mad Max: Fury Road)
vii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
For all things that are, have been, and will be good in the world.
viii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
ix
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
x
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
xi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
xii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LIST OF CHARTS
No. Chart Page
1. Chart 1. Summary of Acceptability Assessment 29 2. Chart 2. Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized per 30 Restaurant 3. Chart 3. Adequately Acceptable Menu Translations Categorized 31 per Restaurant 4. Chart 4. Translation Strategies Applied in the Assessed English 34 Menu Translation 5. Chart 5. Percentage of Translation Strategy Application per 51 Acceptability Category
xiii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 11 Competence 3. Table 3. Example of Transliteration and Naturalization by 13 Suryawinata & Hariyanto 4. Table 4. Example of Recognized Translations from Pedoman 16 Pengindonesiaan Nama dan Kata Asing 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 28 Angelelli’s Rubric of Pragmatic Competence 8. Table 8. Example of Acceptable Translated Food Menu 31 9. Table 9. Example of Adequately Acceptable Translated Food 32 Menu 10. Table 10. Unacceptable Translated Food Menu 33 11. Table 11. Application of Structural Addition in the Food Menu 35 Translations 12. Table 12. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 36 Transposition 13. Table 13. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Lacking 37 Transposition 14. Table 14. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 39 Borrowing 15. Table 15. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 41 Cultural Equivalent 16. Table 16. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 43 Descriptive Equivalent 17. Table 17. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 44 Synonym 18. Table 18. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 46 Semantic Addition 19. Table 19. Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying 49 Omission
xiv
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
xv
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
xvi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
1
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
6
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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) 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 5 references, discourse, and register are completely appropriate for the TL domain, text-type, and readership. T shows a proficient ability in addressing the intended TL audience and achieving the translations intended purpose in the TL. Word choice is 4 consistently good. Cultural references, discourse, and register are consistently appropriate for the TL domain, text type, and readership. T shows a good ability to address the intended TL audience and achieve the translations intended purpose in the TL. Cultural references, discourse, and 3 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. 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 2 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. T shows an inability to appropriately address the intended TL audience and/or achieve the translations intended purpose in the TL. Cultural references, 1 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
exposed to topics in the translation field. The modified version of the Rubric is illustrated as follows:
Score Illustration of Acceptability All phrases and words are natural and informative, the cultural references and 5 style is completely appropriate to the text type. All phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural references 4 and style is consistently appropriate to the text type. Most phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural 3 references and style is mostly appropriate to the text type but sometimes the phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial. Many phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and style 2 is sometimes inappropriate to the text type, numerous the phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial. Most or all phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and 1 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,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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".
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
20
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
Avg. No. Target Text Score Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Served with turmeric gravy in 8/BRK/6/1/TT light spicy taste. One of favorite menu Sri Sultan 2.8 Hamengku Buwono VII Jejamuran spesial beverage made from Ganoderma 28/RJ/7/13/TT 3.7 mushroom. Traditional tea in a pot: A special blend of various 40/WBA/4/TT Javanese teas, served in a clay teapot and poured over rock 4.2 sugar. Hot, sweet and strong 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Translation No. ST TT Group Strategy (Authentic traditional salad consist of mixed Urap aneka sayuran Componential 9/ fresh vegetables : khas Jawa dengan Analysis, BRK/ Cabbage, Cucumber, parutan kelapa yang Descriptive 7/1 Legume, Basil leave telah dikukus, Equivalent showered with steam grated coconut) 3 – 3.9 Buncis dan irisan 10/ Stir fry Mung Beans jamur kuping dimasak Cultural Equivalent, BRK/ combine with black tumis pedas bumbu Omission, Synonym 7/5 fungus kecap Jejamuran spesial 28/ Descriptive beverage made from RJ/ Wedang Jejamuran Equivalent, Ganoderma 7/13 Addition mushroom. 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
28
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
Avg. Datum No. Target Text Score 12/BRK/10/5/TT Fried Rice in Omelet Egg, served with Chicken Satay 4.0 Authentic Indonesian salad with peanut sauce and 17/RJ/2/9/TT 4.5 mushrooms Iced green cincau: Ice, grass jelly agar-agar, coconut 41/WBA/5/11/TT 4.4 milk and palm sugar 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
Avg. Datum No. Target Text Score Variation of traditional salad Consist of many kinds of fruit such a Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Slite Tomato, 1/BRK/1/5/TT 3.1 served with traditional spicy peanut sauce and Mlinjo Cracker Jejamuran special beverage made from Ganoderma 28/RJ/7/13/TT 3.7 mushroom 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”.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
Avg. Datum No. Target Text Score Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Served with turmeric gravy in 8/BRK/1/1/TT light spicy taste. One of favorite menu Sri Sultan 2.8 Hamengku Buwono VII 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Application of No. ST TT Group Structural Addition 29/ Pisang Panggang Kayu Grilled Bananas with WBA/ “with” added. Manis Cinnamon 1/4 4 – 4.9 33/ Nasi Campur Paru Rice with beef lung in WBA/ “with” added. Ketumbar spicy coriander 2/3 3/ Soup with a thick sauce Soup kental dimasak 3 – 3.9 BRK/ made from mushrooms "with a” added. dari bahan mushroom 2/7 tasty flavor Cream. 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Application of No. ST TT Group Transposition Bubur Duren Mlekoh: Durian Bread Pudding: Bubur dari roti tawar Bread pudding with 30/ dicampur daging buah durian cooked with Bubur dari roti tawar WBA/ durian yang diolah coconut cream and palm Bread pudding 1/5 dengan santan kelapa sugar. Sweet and dan gula Jawa. Gurih 4 – 4.9 absolutely delicious. dan manis. Iced green cincau: Ice, 41/ grass jelly agar-agar, Cincau Hijau WBA/ Es Cincau Hijau coconut milk and palm green cincau 5/11 sugar Menu Khas Burung Braised young pigeon in salah satu hidangan Dara Muda dalam kuah Soya sauce ketchup favorit Sri Sultan 5/ kental kecap, salah satu taste, Served with sliced Hamengku buwono BRK/ hidangan favorit Sri tomato (Sri Sultan VII (Sri Sultan 3/5 3 – 3.9 Sultan Hamengku Hamengku Buwono VII Hamengku Buwono buwono VII. favorite’s dishes). VII favorite’s dishes) 28/ Jejamuran special Wedang Jejamuran RJ/ Wedang Jejamuran beverage made from Jejamuran special 7/13 Ganoderma mushroom beverage Ikan Lele fillet yang Fry and Gril Cafish roll, digulung kemudian Served with turmeric Ikan Lele fillet yang 8/ dipanggang, disajikan gravy in light spicy digulung kemudian 2 – 2.9 BRK/ dengan saus mangut. taste. One of favorite dipanggang Fry Salah satu menu yang 6/1 menu Sri Sultan and Gril Cafish roll disenangi Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII Hamengku Buwono VII Table 12: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Transposition
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 No. ST TT Group Daging Kambing pilihan dipanggang dengan olesan 4/ Specific Lamb Grill in Olive mustard dan Minyak Zaitun, BRK/ Oil, serve with sauted sliced disajikan dengan rangkaian 3/4 Potato and Curry vegetables Kari Sayuran dan Kentang 3 – 3.9 Sauted Variation dish of Sri Sultan 7/ Variasi lauk kegemaran Sri HB IX. Partly steamed and BRK/ Sultan Hamengku Buwono fried beef lung with sower 5/4 IX 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Borrowed No. ST TT Group Terms Nasi Goreng ala Bale 12/ Raos yang disajikan dalam Fried Rice in Omelet Egg, BRK/ balutan omelet telor dadar -satay served with Chicken Satay 10/5 dengan tambahan sate ayam bumbu kecap 18/ 4 – 4.9 Slow cooked mushrooms RJ/ Rendang Jamur -rendang in Rendang Sauce 3/1 Iced green cincau: Ice, 41/ grass jelly agar-agar, -cincau WBA/ Es Cincau Hijau coconut milk and palm -agar-agar 5/11 sugar 2/ Clear soup fillet ikan Clear soup fillet Gurameh/ BRK/ Gurameh/Kakap dengan Kakap fish with fresh basil -gurameh/kakap 2/5 aroma segar kemangi scent Hidangan terbuat dari daging sapi dan “Kulit Mlinjo” dalam santan kelapa cair dengan Authentic dish made from potongan tomat hijau. 6/ Beef an& “Mlinjo Skin” Hidangan khusus yang -mlinjo BRK/ with coconut spicy. diciptakan oleh Sultan 3 – 3.9 4/4 Special dish created by Hamengku Buwono IX Sultan HB IX. (1940-1988), biasa disantap dengan nasi putih/merah sebagai “Jangan” (Lauk berkuah). Variasi pudding yang A variety of puddings 13/ dibuat dari bahan kayu -secang made from typical secang BRK/ secang khas Kraton, -kraton wood in kraton, served 14/2 disajikan dengan fla -fla with ginger fla beraroma jahe segar Table 14: Examples of the Food Menu Translations Applying Borrowing
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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”,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
Application of Score No. ST TT Cultural Group Equivalent 22/ Deep fried Oyster goreng tepung RJ/ Goreng Tepung Tiram mushrooms deep fried 4/1 29/ Pisang Panggang Kayu Grilled Bananas with kayu manis WBA/ Manis Cinnamon cinnamon 1/4 4 – 4.9 Sambal Kutai: Sambal Kutai-style chilli sauce: bercampur terong kacang Chilli sauce mixed with 36/ panjang, petai, tempe dan eggplant, long beans, Sambal chilli WBA/ udang diolah dengan stink beans, soybean sauce 3/5 aneka bumbu khas cake, and shrimp mixed Kalimantan. with special Kutai spices. 10/ Buncis dan irisan jamur Stir fry Mung Beans 3 – 3.9 BRK/ kuping dimasak tumis combine with black tumis stir fry 7/5 pedas bumbu kecap fungus 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Application of No. ST TT Group Descriptive Equivalent 16/ Traditional javanesse tongseng traditional RJ/ Tongseng Jamur curry with javanesse curry 2/1 mushrooms A mixture of eggplant, 4 – 4.9 long beans, melinjo 34/ leaves, squash and WBA/ Sayur Lodeh (whole text) stink beans, in a light 2/7 coconut-milk broth, with chilli 19/ Deep fried mushrooms penyet mix with RJ/ Jamur Goreng Penyet mix with spicy sauce spicy sauce in rustic 3/3 in rustic ways ways 3 – 3.9 28/ Jejamuran special wedang Jejamuran RJ/ Wedang Jejamuran beverage made from Jejamuran special 7/13 Ganoderma mushroom beverage Ikan Lele fillet yang Fry and Gril Cafish digulung kemudian roll, Served with dipanggang, disajikan 8/ turmeric gravy in light saus mangut dengan saus mangut. 2 – 2.9 BRK/ spicy taste. One of turmeric gravy in light Salah satu menu yang 6/1 favorite menu Sri spicy taste disenangi Sri Sultan Sultan Hamengku Hamengku Buwono Buwono VII VII 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 Application of No. ST TT Group Synonym 35/ Penggeng WBA/ Eyem Penggeng Dada Broiled chicken breast Broiled 2/10 Sambal Kutai: Sambal Kutai-style chilli sauce: 4 – 4.9 bercampur terong kacang Chilli sauce mixed with 36/ panjang, petai, tempe dan eggplant, long beans, Kalimantan WBA/ udang diolah dengan stink beans, soybean Kutai 3/5 aneka bumbu khas cake, and shrimp mixed Kalimantan. with special Kutai spices. Daging Kambing pilihan dipanggang dengan Specific Lamb Grill in 4/ olesan mustard dan Olive Oil, serve with BRK/ Minyak Zaitun, disajikan pilihan specific sauted sliced Potato and 3/4 dengan rangkaian Kari Curry vegetables. 3 – 3.9 Sayuran dan Kentang Sauted. Campuran wortel, buncis, 11/ A mixture of carrots, kembang kol yang kocokan telur BRK/ beans, cauli flower dimasak dengan kocokan egg whisk 8/6 cooked with egg whisk telur 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46
explained further on. The following table displays examples of food menu translations which apply semantic addition with the added words/phrases:
Score Semantic No. ST TT Group Addition 25/ Fried folded pancake -with mushroom RJ/ Martabak (3/Porsi) with mushroom curry curry filling 5/3 filling 33/ Nasi Campur Paru Rice with beef lung in -beef WBA/ Ketumbar spicy coriander -spicy 2/3 4 – 4.9 Teh Teko: Teh tubruk Traditional tea in a pot: A berisi ramuan beberapa special blend of various 40/ jenis teh Jawa, disajikan Javanese teas, served in a -traditional WBA/ dalam teko dengan air clay teapot and poured -clay 4/3 mendidih , dengan gula over rock sugar. Hot, batu. Nasgithel—panas, sweet, and strong. legi dan kenthel 3/ Soup with a thick sauce Soup kental dimasak dari BRK/ made from mushrooms -tasty flavor cream bahan mushroom 2/7 tasty flavor Cream. Menu Khas Burung Dara Braised young pigeon in Muda dalam kuah kental Soya sauce ketchup taste, 5/ -ketchup taste kecap, salah satu Served with sliced tomato 3 – 3.9 BRK/ -served with sliced hidangan favorit Sri (Sri Sultan Hamengku 3/5 tomato Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII favorite’s buwono VII. dishes). 28/ Jejamuran special - made from RJ/ Wedang Jejamuran beverage made from Ganoderma 7/13 Ganoderma mushroom 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
Score Omitted No. ST TT Group Components Nasi Goreng ala Bale Raos yang disajikan 12/ Fried Rice in Omelet -ala Bale Raos dalam balutan omelet BRK/ Egg, served with Chicken -bumbu kecap telor dadar dengan 10/5 Satay tambahan sate ayam 4 – 4.9 bumbu kecap Lele Njingkrung: Lele 37/ Smoked catfish: Fried -Njingkrung diasap dan digoreng WBA/ smoked freshwater -dalam posisi dalam posisi meringkuk. 3/6 catfish. Tasty and crispy meringkuk Gurih dan cryspi Hidangan terbuat dari daging sapi dan “Kulit Mlinjo” dalam santan -dengan potongan kelapa cair dengan tomat hijau. Authentic dish made potongan tomat hijau. 6/ from Beef an& “Mlinjo Hidangan khusus yang -biasa disantap BRK/ Skin” with coconut spicy. diciptakan oleh Sultan dengan nasi 4/4 Special dish created by Hamengku Buwono IX putih/merah 3 – 3.9 Sultan HB IX. (1940-1988), biasa sebagai “Jangan” disantap dengan nasi (Lauk berkuah) putih/merah sebagai “Jangan” (Lauk berkuah). 10/ Buncis dan irisan jamur Stir fry Mung Beans -pedas bumbu BRK/ kuping dimasak tumis combine with black kecap 7/5 pedas bumbu kecap fungus 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
53
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
55
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Analyzed Food Menu Transcription Used in Assessment
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 1/ Salah satu variasi dari Variation of traditional Borrowing: BRK/ tradisional salad, terdiri salad Consist of many -Mlinjo 1/5 dari aneka macam buah kinds of fruit such a disajikan dengan guyuran Pineapple, Cucumber, Semantic Addition: bumbu kacang ( bumbu Apple, Slite Tomato, served -Aneka macam buah pecel ) dan Emping Mlinjo with traditional spicy “many kinds of fruit such a peanut sauce and Mlinjo Pineapple, Cucumber, Apple, Cracker Slite Tomato” 2/ Clear soup fillet ikan Clear soup fillet Gurameh/ Borrowing: BRK/ Gurameh/Kakap dengan Kakap fish with fresh basil -Gurameh/Kakap 2/5 aroma segar kemangi scent Lack of Structural Addition: -“Clear soup fillet Gurameh /Kakap” 3/ Soup kental dimasak dari Soup with a thick sauce Semantic Addition: BRK/ bahan mushroom made from mushrooms -“tasty flavor Cream” added. 2/7 tasty flavor Cream. Structural Addition: -Soup kental “Soup with a thick sauce” 4/ Daging Kambing pilihan Specific Lamb Grill in Synonym (incorrect): BRK/ dipanggang dengan olesan Olive Oil, serve with sauted -pilihan “specific” 3/4 mustard dan Minyak sliced Potato and Curry Zaitun, disajikan dengan vegetables. Omission: rangkaian Kari Sayuran dan -olesan mustard Kentang Sauted. -rangkaian
Lack of Transposition: -kari sayuran “curry vegetables”
5/ Menu Khas Burung Dara Braised young pigeon in Omission: BRK/ Muda dalam kuah kental Soya sauce ketchup taste, -Menu khas 3/5 kecap, salah satu hidangan Served with sliced tomato favorit Sri Sultan (Sri Sultan Hamengku Semantic Addition: Hamengku buwono VII. Buwono VII favorite’s -“ketchup taste” dishes). -“served with sliced tomato”
Transposition: -salah satu hidangan favorit Sri Sultan Hamengku buwono VII “(Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII favorite’s dishes)”
56
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 6/ Hidangan terbuat dari Authentic dish made from Borrowing: BRK/ daging sapi dan “Kulit Beef an& “Mlinjo Skin” -mlinjo 4/4 Mlinjo” dalam santan with coconut spicy. Special kelapa cair dengan dish created by Sultan HB Omission: potongan tomat hijau. IX. -dengan potongan tomat Hidangan khusus yang hijau. diciptakan oleh Sultan -biasa disantap dengan nasi Hamengku Buwono IX putih/merah sebagai (1940-1988), biasa disantap “Jangan” (Lauk berkuah) dengan nasi putih/merah sebagai “Jangan” (Lauk Synonym (incorrect): berkuah). -santan kelapa cair “coconut spicy”
Lack of Transposition: -“coconut spicy”
7/ Variasi lauk kegemaran Sri Variation dish of Sri Sultan Semantic Addition: BRK/ Sultan Hamengku Buwono HB IX. Partly steamed and -“Partly steamed and fried 5/4 IX fried beef lung with sower beef lung with sower fried fried grated coconut grated coconut”.
Lack of Transposition: “with sower”
8/ Ikan Lele fillet yang Fry and Gril Cafish roll, Descriptive Equivalent: BRK/ digulung kemudian Served with turmeric gravy -saus mangut “turmeric 6/1 dipanggang, disajikan in light spicy taste. One of gravy in light spicy taste” dengan saus mangut. Salah favorite menu Sri Sultan satu menu yang disenangi Hamengku Buwono VII Transposition: Sri Sultan Hamengku -Ikan Lele fillet yang Buwono VII digulung kemudian dipanggang “Fry and Gril Cafish roll”
Lack of Structural Addition: -“the” -“of”
9/ Urap aneka sayuran khas (Authentic traditional salad Semantic Addition: BRK/ Jawa dengan parutan kelapa consist of mixed fresh - aneka sayuran “mixed 7/2 yang telah dikukus, vegetables : Cabbage, fresh vegetables : Cabbage, Cucumber, Legume, Basil Cucumber, Legume, Basil leave showered with steam leave” grated coconut) Descriptive Equivalent: -Urap aneka sayuran khas Jawa “authentic traditional salad”
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 10/ Buncis dan irisan jamur Stir fry Mung Beans Cultural equivalent: BRK/ kuping dimasak tumis combine with black fungus -tumis “stir fry” 7/5 pedas bumbu kecap Omission: -“pedas bumbu kecap”
Synonym: -jamur kuping “black fungus”
Synonym (incorrect): -buncis “mung beans” should be “green beans” 11/ Campuran wortel, buncis, A mixture of carrots, beans, Synonym: BRK/ kembang kol yang dimasak cauli flower cooked with -kocokan telur “egg 8/6 dengan kocokan telur egg whisk whisk” 12/ Nasi Goreng ala Bale Raos Fried Rice in Omelet Egg, Omission: BRK/ yang disajikan dalam served with Chicken Satay -ala Bale Raos 10/5 balutan omelet telor dadar -bumbu kecap dengan tambahan sate ayam bumbu kecap Naturalised Borrowing: -sate “Satay” 13/ Variasi pudding yang A variety of puddings made Borrowing: BRK/ dibuat dari bahan kayu from typical secang wood -secang 14/2 secang khas Kraton, in kraton, served with -Kraton disajikan dengan fla ginger fla -fla beraroma jahe segar Synonym (incorrect): -khas “typical”
Omission: -beraroma 14/ Minuman yang dibuat dari Classical drink made of Semantic Addition: BRK/ ramuan Jahe dan Jeruk ginger and Lemon. -“Classical” 17/4 Nipis. Synonym (incorrect): -Jeruk Nipis “Lemon” 15/ Nasi Pecel Rice with traditional Descriptive equivalent: RJ/ Javanesse salad, consisting -Pecel “traditional 1/4 of mixed vegetables in Javanesse salad, consisting of peanut sauce dressing mixed vegetables in peanut served with fried tempeh sauce dressing served with and bean curd. fried tempeh and bean curd.” 16/ Tongseng Jamur Traditional javanesse curry Descriptive Equivalent: RJ/ with mushrooms -tongseng “traditional 2/1 javanesse curry” 17/ Karedok Authentic Indonesian salad Descriptive Equivalent: RJ/ with peanut sauce and -(whole text) 2/9 mushrooms
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 18/ Rendang Jamur Slow cooked mushrooms in Borrowing: RJ/ Rendang Sauce -Rendang 3/1 Semantic Addition: -“Slow cooked” 19/ Jamur Goreng Penyet Deep fried mushrooms mix Descriptive equivalent: RJ/ with spicy sauce in rustic -penyet “mix with spicy 3/3 ways sauce in rustic ways” 20/ Asam Manis Jamur Merang Deep fried straw Semantic Addition: RJ/ mushrooms served with -“deep fried” 3/5 sweet and sour sauce Cultural equivalent: -Jamur Merang “Straw mushroom” -asam manis “sweet and sour sauce” 21/ King Oyster Lada Hitam Deep fried King Oyster Semantic Addition: RJ/ mushrooms served with -“deep fried” 3/6 oriental blackpepper sauce -“mushrooms” -“oriental” 22/ Goreng Tepung Tiram Deep fried Oyster Cultural Equivalent: RJ/ mushrooms -goreng tepung “deep 4/1 fried”
Semantic Addition: -“mushroom” 23/ Goreng Tepung Portabella Deep fried Portabella Cultural Equivalent: RJ/ mushrooms -goreng tepung “deep 4/5 fried”
Borrowing: -Portabella 24/ Lumpia (3/Porsi) Mushrooms spring roll Cultural Equivalent: RJ/ Lumpia “Spring roll” 5/1 Addition: -“mushrooms”
Omission: -(3/porsi) 25/ Martabak (3/Porsi) Fried folded pancake with Descriptive Equivalent: RJ/ mushroom curry filling -Martabak “Fried folded 5/3 pancake”
Semantic Addition: -with mushroom curry filling
Omission: -(3/porsi)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 26/ Kunyit Asam A traditional beverage Cultural Equivalent: RJ/ made from extract of -kunyit “curcuma” 6/2 curcuma and tamarin Semantic Addition: -“A traditional beverage made from extract of…” added. 27/ Es Dawet Jejamuran A traditional javanesse Descriptive Equivalent: RJ/ beverage made from -(whole text) 6/10 coconut milk and palm sugar syrup with jelly made from rice starch and mushroom 28/ Wedang Jejamuran Jejamuran special beverage Descriptive Equivalent: RJ/ made from Ganoderma -Wedang Jejamuran 7/13 mushroom “Jejamuran special beverage”
Transposition: -Wedang Jejamuran “Jejamuran special beverage”
Semantic Addition: -“made from Ganoderma mushroom” 29/ Pisang Panggang Kayu Grilled Bananas with Cultural equivalent: WBA/ Manis Cinnamon -kayu manis “cinnamon” 1/4 Structural Addition: -“with” 30/ Bubur Duren Mlekoh: Durian Bread Pudding: Cultural Equivalent: WBA/ Bubur dari roti tawar Bread pudding with durian -gula jawa “palm sugar” 1/5 dicampur daging buah cooked with coconut cream -Bubur Duren Mlekoh durian yang diolah dengan and palm sugar. Sweet and “Durian Bread Pudding” santan kelapa dan gula absolutely delicious. Jawa. Gurih dan manis. Transposition: -Bubur dari roti tawar “Bread pudding” 31/ Pecel: bayam, kacang Steamed vegetables with Descriptive equivalent: WBA/ panjang, lamtoro, kenikir, peanut sauce: Steamed -Pecel Steamed vegetables 1/7 kecambah dan disiram saus vegetables—spinach, long with peanut sauce kacang tanah berbumbu + beans, lamtoro, Javanese -Kenikir Javanese parsley kerupuk parsley, beans sprouts, and torch ginger flowers— Borrowing: topped with a spicy peanut -“lamtoro” sauce and “legendar” crackers Semantic Addition: - Torch ginger flower -legendar (supposedly: legendary”)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 32/ Nasi Campur Ayam Bakar Rice with shredded chicken Omission: WBA/ Suwiran -campur 2/1 -bakar
33/ Nasi Campur Paru Rice with beef lung in spicy Omission: WBA/ Ketumbar coriander -campur 2/3 Semantic Addition: -“beef” -“spicy”
Addition: -“with” 34/ Sayur Lodeh A mixture of eggplant, long Borrowing: WBA/ beans, melinjo leaves, -melinjo 2/7 squash and stink beans, in a light coconut-milk broth, Descriptive equivalent: with chilli (whole text)
35/ Eyem Penggeng Dada Broiled chicken breast Synonym: WBA/ -Penggeng “Broiled” 2/10 36/ Sambal Kutai: Sambal Kutai-style chilli sauce: Cultural equivalent: WBA/ bercampur terong kacang Chilli sauce mixed with -Sambal “chilli sauce” 3/5 panjang, petai, tempe dan eggplant, long beans, stink udang diolah dengan aneka beans, soybean cake, and Superordinate Synonym: bumbu khas Kalimantan. shrimp mixed with special -Kalimantan “Kutai” Kutai spices. 37/ Lele Njingkrung: Lele Smoked catfish: Fried Omission: WBA/ diasap dan digoreng dalam smoked freshwater catfish. -Njingkrung 3/6 posisi meringkuk. Gurih Tasty and crispy -dalam posisi meringkuk dan cryspi Addition: -“freshwater”
Synonym: -“Gurih” “Tasty”
38/ Bacem Kambing: Baceman Marinated Lamb: Lamb Cultural equivalent: WBA/ daging kambing, lalu marinated with spices, -“aceman “marinated” 3/10 digoreng. Gurih dan manis coconut milk, and palm sugar, then fried. Very tasty Synonym: -Gurih dan manis “Very Tasty”
Semantic Addition: -“…with spices, coconut milk, and palm sugar”
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
Datum Source Text Target Text Strategies Applied No. 39/ Ayam Bumbu Rujak Chicken Rujak spicy Borrowing: WBA/ -Rujak 3/12 Transposition (Incorrect): -Ayam Bumbu Rujak “Chicken Rujak Spicy” 40/ Teh Teko: Teh tubruk Traditional tea in a pot: A Semantic Addition: WBA/ berisi ramuan beberapa special blend of various -“traditional” 4/3 jenis teh Jawa, disajikan Javanese teas, served in a -“clay” dalam teko dengan air clay teapot and poured over mendidih , dengan gula rock sugar. Hot, sweet, and Omission: batu. Nasgithel—panas, strong. -dengan air mendidih legi dan kenthel -Nasgithel 41/ Es Cincau Hijau Iced green cincau: Ice, Borrowing: WBA/ grass jelly agar-agar, -Cincau 5/11 coconut milk and palm -agar-agar sugar Descriptive Equivalent: -“Ice, grass jelly agar-agar, coconut milk and palm sugar”
Transposition: -Cincau Hijau “green cincau” 42/ Es Soda Gembira Iced Happy Soda Transposition: WBA/ -Soda Gembira “Happy 5/15 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]
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
No. Question Answer Type / Answer Options 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 All phrases and words are natural and informative, the cultural references 5 and style is completely appropriate to the text type. All phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural 4 references and style is consistently appropriate to the text type. Most phrases and words are understandable and informative, the cultural 3 references and style is mostly appropriate to the text type but sometimes the phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial. Many phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural references and 2 style is sometimes inappropriate to the text type, numerous the phrases and word choices are either too formal or colloquial. Most or all phrases and words are not understandable, the cultural 1 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:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
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 No. Question Answer Type / Answer Options 1 Is there anything you would like to say or [short answer] give note to? (optional)
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: Native Have visited Duration Indonesian No. Nationality Occupation Speaker Indonesia of Stay Proficiency 1 US Student Yes Yes 2 months adequate Business inform- 2 Netherlands No Yes 1 month n/a ation systems 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
Native Have visited Duration Indonesian No. Nationality Occupation Speaker Indonesia of Stay 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: Respondent No. Datum Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No. Score Score Given (1 - 5) 1/ BRK/ 4 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3.1 1/5 2/ BRK/ 3 4 2 3 2 5 5 3 2 5 3 3.4 2/5 3/ BRK/ 4 3 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 5 5 3.2 2/7 4/ BRK/ 5 4 2 2 3 2 5 3 3 5 5 3.5 3/4 5/ BRK/ 5 4 2 2 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 3.4 3/5 6/ BRK/ 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 3.4 4/4 7/ BRK/ 3 4 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3.2 5/4 8/ BRK/ 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 3 2.8 6/1 9/ BRK/ 4 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 3.5 7/2
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
Respondent No. Datum Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No. Score Score Given (1 - 5) 10/ BRK/ 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 3.6 7/5 11/ BRK/ 5 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 3.9 8/6 12/ BRK/ 5 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 4.0 10/5 13/ BRK/ 3 5 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3.5 14/2 14/ BRK/ 5 5 2 2 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.1 17/4 15/ RJ/ 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.4 1/4 16/ RJ/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4.4 2/1 17/ RJ/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5 2/9 18/ RJ/ 5 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.5 3/1 19/ RJ/ 5 4 2 2 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 3.8 3/3 20/ RJ/ 5 5 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.4 3/5 21/ RJ/ 5 5 3 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4.4 3/6 22/ RJ/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5 4/1 23/ RJ/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4.4 4/5
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
Respondent No. Datum Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No. Score Score Given (1 - 5) 24/ RJ/ 5 5 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.1 5/1 25/ RJ/ 5 5 4 1 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 4.3 5/3 26/ RJ/ 4 5 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.3 6/2 27/ RJ/ 5 5 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.2 6/10 28/ RJ/ 4 5 1 3 3 5 5 2 4 5 4 3.7 7/13 29/ WBA/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.5 1/4 30/ WBA/ 5 5 3 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.4 1/5 31/ WBA/ 4 5 2 1 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3.8 1/7 32/ WBA/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5 2/1 33/ WBA/ 5 5 4 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4.2 2/3 34/ 4 5 3 1 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.2 WBA/
2/7 35/ WBA/ 5 4 4 1 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 4.0 2/10 36/ WBA/ 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4.3 3/5 37/ WBA/ 5 5 4 1 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 4.2 3/6
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69
Respondent No. Datum Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No. Score Score Given (1 - 5) 38/ WBA/ 5 5 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.3 3/10 39/ WBA/ 4 5 2 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 4 3.5 3/12 40/ WBA/ 4 5 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.2 4/3 41/ WBA/ 4 5 3 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.4 5/11 42/ WBA/ 4 4 3 2 2 5 5 3 4 3 5 3.6 5/15
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.