Translation Quality Assessment Dia membuang manisannya ke gurun pasir. In the dialogue above, B said

According to Larsen 2001: 40, accuracy, clarity, and naturalness are well-known criteria for an objective evaluation of a translation, while the acceptability is different because it concerns with how intended receptor audiences evaluate the text, even, without necessarily having been trained in translation principle. It means that, it is important to identify how acceptable the translated verbal humor expression in the target language culture in order to whether the translation is acceptable or unacceptable both in meaning and style. In addition, according to Beaugrande 1978 in Hatim and Munday 2004: 67, since translation theories informed by textual pragmatics or equivalence in relative and hierarchical terms, a translation specifically view as a valid representative of source text ST communicative acts. Further, they state that concepts such as ‘valid representative’ or ‘communicative act’, however, are problematical in that they can cover quite a range of translation phenomena, from producing a literal replica to a free paraphrase of sentences or entire text. Moreover, Beaugrande 1980 in Hatim and Munday 2004: 68 also state that this notion of context as purpose and function is underpinned by several standards of textuality which all well-formed text or their translation have to meet. Those standards of textuality are; 1 cohesion which subsumes the diverse relations which transparently hold among the words, phrases and sentences of a text, 2 coherence which taps a variety of conceptual resources, ensuring that meanings are related discernibly, 3 situationality which is a cover term for the way utterences relate to situations, 4 informativity which is the extent to which a text or parts of a text may be expected or unexpected, 5 intentionality which is driven the entire communicative transaction of a text producer, 6 acceptability which is matched the part between the text producer and the text receiver — together ensures that the text is purposeful and that it functions in a particular way to serve the purposes for which it is intended, and finally 7 intertextuality which ensures that texts or parts of texts link up in meaningful ways with other texts. Another expert of translation, Gideon Toury 1995: 53-69 distinguishes between three kinds of translation norms, in which indicating different stages of translation process, namely the preliminary norms, operational norms, and initial norms. Preliminary norms are concerned with such things as the choice of text to translate, i.e. the translation policy of a given culture. They also relate to the directness of translation. Operational norms guide the decision-making during the actual process of translating. They are either matricial or textual. Matricial norms are related to the completeness of the target text TT. In other words, they determine the macro-structure of the text and thus govern features such as ommisions, additions and the text segmentation. Textual norms affect the text’s micro-level and are generally linguistic, stylitic or specifically literary. Initial norms control translator’s choices and Toury distinguishes between two polar alternatives. Translators can subject themselves to the source text and rely on what he calls ‘adequacy’ or they can subject themselves to usage in the target culture and rely on ‘acceptability’. At this point, it seems reasonable to take the acceptability from Toury’s view since this reseach is connected to a subjective sight of the audiences to evaluate the acceptability of the verbal humor in the target culture and norm.