In addition, the evaluation of translations should start with the establishing of what kind of text type the source text belong to. It means that, different text
types have different functions and therefore need to be treated differently. Furthermore, Stejskal 2007: 2 distincts three areas of Translation Quality
Assessment ; provider, process and product. The provider is a physical or legal person, that is, a translator or a translation company. The process is a sequence of
steps used to produce a target text the translation that corresponds to the source text the original document. The provider follows the process to create the
product –the translation itself. When determining the quality of a translation, all
these three areas must be considered.
6. Acceptability in Verbal Humor Translation
Acceptability refers to how acceptable is the target expression for the target audiences. It deals with the natural feeling of the source expression seen as
an original in the target expression. Afterwards, the researcher attempts to find out more about the theory of acceptability to measure the quality of translated verbal
humor expressions. However, acceptability refers to the subjective views of the receptor audience. It means that it is difficult to measure acceptability in precise
and objective terms. Afterwards, there are some experts who have proposed theories about acceptability of the translated text or expression in the target
language.
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
