¹ Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia
² Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
³ Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Lenggahing Asri Dwi Eko Saputri
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Qurrota A’yunin
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Rizky Nugraha
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Adrian Adrian
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization

Ismi Windarti
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Software

Hira Maryana
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology

Vanial Aulia Kurniawan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology

Krisna Hendro Setiono
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration

Nasrah Nasrah
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision

RQ1: What translation strategies are employed in translating Museum Sonobudoyo’s archaeological heritage texts into English?

RQ2: How are archaeological and historical meanings represented in the English translations?

RQ3: How can the translated texts be utilized as authentic materials for English language education?

Translation is widely understood as a form of intercultural communication that mediates meanings between different languages and cultures rather than merely transferring linguistic forms (House, 2015; Katan & Taibi, 2021). In this process, translators act as cultural mediators who communicate culturally embedded concepts to target readers (Bedeker & Feinauer, 2006). To achieve this goal, they employ translation strategies, defined as conscious procedures or decisions used to solve linguistic, cultural, and communicative problems encountered during translation (Bardaji, 2009). These strategies enable translators to balance accuracy, readability, and cultural representation according to the translation context. The present study interprets translation strategies through two broad tendencies. Resistance, proposed by Venuti (1995), emphasizes preserving the linguistic and cultural distinctiveness of the source text to maintain its authenticity. In contrast, Negotiation, introduced by Eco (2013), views translation as a process of negotiating meaning between the source text, translator, and target readers, allowing cultural adaptation to enhance comprehension while maintaining essential meanings. Therefore, translation involves strategic decisions that reflect either a tendency to preserve the cultural identity of the source text or to negotiate meaning for the target audience.

Hall (1997) theory of representation views representation as the process of producing and communicating meaning through language, signs, and cultural practices rather than simply reflecting reality. From a constructionist perspective, meanings are socially constructed and shaped by the linguistic and cultural choices used to represent people, objects, and events. In translation, these choices influence how archaeological and historical meanings are conveyed to target readers. Drawing on Stuart Hall’s constructionist perspective, this study operationalizes representation into three analytical levels: (1) strong representation, where archaeological and historical meanings are largely preserved; (2) partial representation, where essential meanings are retained but certain cultural or historical elements are reduced or simplified; and (3) weak representation, where meanings become generalized or substantially altered, resulting in a loss of heritage significance. This analytical framework provides a systematic basis for evaluating the extent to which translation strategies preserve or reshape the representation of Javanese archaeological heritage in English.

English language education increasingly emphasizes the use of authentic materials to bridge classroom learning and real-world communication. According to Gilmore (2007), authentic materials are texts created for genuine communicative purposes rather than for language teaching. Such materials expose learners to natural language, authentic discourse, and meaningful cultural contexts, enabling them to develop communicative competence alongside linguistic accuracy. They also encourage learners to interpret language in context, understand culture-specific meanings, and engage in critical thinking through real-world communication. In heritage education, bilingual museum texts represent authentic materials because they provide naturally occurring English while conveying archaeological, historical, and cultural knowledge. Their use enables learners to experience how English functions beyond the classroom and promotes cultural learning through meaningful interaction with authentic heritage content. Consequently, integrating museum bilingual texts into English language education enhances language proficiency, intercultural awareness, and learners’ understanding of Javanese archaeological heritage through authentic communicative experiences.

English language education also benefits from the principles of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), which emphasize teaching language according to learners’ academic or professional needs. According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), ESP integrates language learning with discipline-specific content, allowing learners to acquire communicative competence within meaningful contexts. This principle aligns closely with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), in which language is learned through subject matter rather than in isolation (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2014). Museum bilingual texts therefore provide valuable resources for integrating English with archaeology, history, and cultural heritage, enabling learners to develop both language proficiency and disciplinary knowledge simultaneously. Through authentic museum texts, learners encounter specialized vocabulary, interpret historical and archaeological information, and strengthen intercultural communication skills. The combination of ESP and CLIL thus provides a pedagogical foundation for utilizing Museum Sonobudoyo’s bilingual texts as authentic instructional materials that connect English language learning with Javanese archaeological heritage and real-world heritage communication.

The analysis identified two broad translation tendencies employed in translating Javanese archaeological heritage texts into English, namely resistance and negotiation. These tendencies reflect the translators’ strategic decisions in balancing the preservation of source-culture identity with the communicative needs of target readers. By maintaining original lexical and cultural forms, this tendency seeks to retain the authenticity and distinctive identity of Javanese heritage while minimizing the loss of cultural meaning. The following section presents the findings related to the resistance tendency and explains how it is realized in the bilingual texts of Museum Sonobudoyo.

The data (1), (2), and (3) demonstrate the application of the resistance tendency through the preservation of culture-specific lexical items in the target text. Instead of replacing Javanese cultural terms with English equivalents, the translator retains the original forms, such as dakon, kuwuk, and lumbung gedhe. This strategy reflects an intention to preserve the linguistic and cultural identity of the source text by exposing target readers to authentic Javanese terminology. In the first example, the term dakon is maintained rather than being translated as mancala or traditional board game. Likewise, kuwuk is retained, although a brief explanation—seeds or shells—is added in parentheses to facilitate comprehension. Similarly, lumbung gedhe remains untranslated, allowing the original cultural concept to be retained despite the absence of a direct English equivalent.

In addition to traditional games, the resistance tendency is also evident in the translation of archaeological objects associated with the everyday life of Javanese society. These culture-specific terms are preserved in their original forms rather than replaced with English equivalents. The following examples illustrate how this tendency is realized in the bilingual texts of Museum Sonobudoyo.

In data (4), the term kendi is retained and followed by a descriptive explanation, a type of pottery made of clay through the firing process. Instead of translating it as water jug or pitcher, the translator preserves the indigenous name while explaining its material. Similarly, data (5) retains Lampu Robyong and provides a functional description of its role as a lighting device associated with knowledge. In data (6), bokor is maintained in the target text, while its ceremonial function is explained without replacing the term with a generic equivalent such as bowl or tray. Likewise, data (7) preserves kentongan and adds the descriptive equivalent slit drum, enabling readers to understand its form while maintaining its original cultural identity.

The resistance tendency further extends to the translation of the components of Javanese gamelan instruments. As these terms represent culture-specific musical heritage with no direct English equivalents, they are retained in the target text to preserve their authenticity. The following examples demonstrate this translation strategy.

In data (8), bonang is retained and explained as one of the gamelan instruments with a shape similar to a gong. Likewise, data (9) preserves the term kempyang, while providing a descriptive explanation that it is a kind of cymbal resembling an inverted bowl. In data (10), kemanak remains untranslated and is accompanied by a description of its distinctive banana-like shape. Similarly, data (11) retains wilahan while adding the alternative term slab to describe its physical form as rectangular metal bars used in the gamelan.

Besides adopting the resistance tendency, the translator also applies negotiation in translating Javanese archaeological heritage texts. Through this tendency, culture-specific concepts are adapted or explained to enhance accessibility for international readers without completely abandoning their cultural significance. The following data demonstrate this translation tendency.

In Data (12), ani-ani is translated as paddy harvesting cutter, emphasizing its agricultural function rather than retaining its indigenous name. Likewise, kalamudeng in Data (13) becomes numerology calendar, highlighting its cultural purpose in determining auspicious dates. In Data (14), canthik is rendered as boat figurehead, describing the carved ornament based on its location and function. Similarly, pakinangan in Data (15) is translated as betel nut container, making its practical use immediately understandable. In Data (16), wayang is translated as puppet, a familiar English term that facilitates comprehension for readers who may be unfamiliar with Javanese performing arts.

Beyond the resistance and negotiation tendencies, the analysis also identified cases in which both tendencies were employed simultaneously within the same translation unit. In these cases, the translator retains the original Javanese expressions to preserve their cultural identity while simultaneously rendering that align with the linguistic and communicative conventions of the target text. The following examples illustrate this integrated translation strategy.

As shown in data (17)–(27), the lexical items Brangtamangu, Peksi Kurung, Putri Piningit, Semen Sida Asih, Semen Rama, Sida Mukti, Lasem, Semen Cuwiri, Gringsing Buron Toya, Satriya Manah, and Grompol are all preserved in their original forms. These motif names carry distinctive historical and cultural meanings and therefore remain untranslated to retain their authenticity. At the same time, the generic noun kain batik is reorganized into Batik, while kain lurik becomes Lurik, following English noun phrase conventions by placing the specific modifier before the generic noun (e.g., Kain Batik Brangtamangu → Brangtamangu Batik; Kain Lurik Lasem → Lasem Lurik).

The combined tendency is not limited to the translation of batik textiles but also appears in the translation of Javanese keris. The following data illustrate this combined translation tendency.

As shown in Data (28)–(30), the culture-specific names Kalawijan, Pamengkang Jagad, and Bethok are retained in their original forms, reflecting the resistance tendency. These names identify particular types of keris and embody historical and cultural values associated with Javanese weaponry. At the same time, the generic term keris is rendered as ‘kris’, representing the conventional English spelling that is more familiar to international readers. Rather than fully translating the artefacts into a generic expression such as dagger, the translator adopts the recognized English form while preserving the indigenous identity of each keris.

The findings indicate that the representation of archaeological and historical meanings in the English translations can be classified into three levels: strong, partial, and weak representation. These levels reflect the extent to which the translations preserve the identity, cultural values, historical context, and heritage significance of Javanese archaeological objects. The level of representation is closely associated with the translation tendencies identified in the previous section. Resistance generally produces strong representation by preserving culture-specific terminology, negotiation tends to result in weak representation through descriptive adaptation, whereas the combination of both tendencies commonly generates partial representation by balancing cultural preservation with linguistic adaptation.

Strong representation is achieved when the translations preserve the original names of archaeological objects together with their cultural identity, historical significance, and functional characteristics. As illustrated in data (1)–(11), culture-specific terms such as dakon, kuwuk, lumbung gedhe, kendi, Lampu Robyong, bokor, kentongan, bonang, kempyang, kemanak, and wilahan are retained in the target text. Most of these terms are accompanied by descriptive explanations that clarify their functions, materials, or physical characteristics without replacing the original terminology. Consequently, target readers are introduced to authentic Javanese concepts while receiving sufficient contextual information to understand their archaeological and historical significance. This preservation of indigenous terminology enables the translations to maintain both the identity of the artefacts and their connection to Javanese cultural heritage.

Partial representation occurs when the translations preserve the core cultural identity of the artefacts but adapt certain linguistic elements to conform to English conventions. This pattern is evident in Data (17)–(30), where the names of batik motifs (Brangtamangu, Peksi Kurung, Semen Rama, Grompol ) and keris (Kalawijan, Pamengkang Jagad, Bethok) remain unchanged, while the generic nouns are adjusted to English forms, such as Batik, Lurik, and Kris. Although these translations successfully retain the unique identity of the artefacts, they provide limited information regarding their symbolic meanings, historical background, or cultural functions. As a result, readers can recognize the artefacts as elements of Javanese heritage but may not fully understand the cultural narratives associated with them. The translations therefore preserve heritage identity while only partially representing their broader archaeological and historical meanings.

Weak representation is found when culture-specific terminology is replaced by descriptive or functional English equivalents, resulting in the loss of indigenous identity. As shown in Data (12)–(16), ani-ani , kalamudeng, canthik, pakinangan, and wayang are translated as paddy harvesting cutter, numerology calendar, boat figurehead, betel nut container, and puppet. These translations effectively communicate the general functions of the artefacts, making them readily understandable for international readers. However, they largely omit the original Javanese terminology and the cultural, historical, and symbolic meanings embedded within these artefacts. Consequently, the translations reduce the uniqueness of Javanese heritage by presenting the objects as generic categories rather than culturally specific artefacts. This level of representation prioritizes communicative accessibility but substantially weakens the archaeological and historical identity conveyed in the source text.

The findings indicate that the bilingual texts of Museum Sonobudoyo possess considerable potential as authentic materials for English language education. As naturally occurring texts produced for museum visitors rather than instructional purposes, they provide learners with exposure to real-world English used to communicate archaeological, historical, and cultural knowledge. This authenticity enables learners to engage with language in meaningful contexts while simultaneously developing an understanding of Javanese cultural heritage.

The analysis further shows that the bilingual texts present a wide range of authentic linguistic features, including culture-specific terminology, descriptive texts, explanatory discourse, and specialized vocabulary related to archaeology, history, and material culture. Examples such as dakon, kendi, bonang, kentongan, and wayang expose learners to lexical items that rarely appear in conventional English textbooks. At the same time, the accompanying English translations demonstrate how culturally embedded concepts can be communicated across languages using different translation strategies. Consequently, learners are introduced not only to new vocabulary but also to cross-cultural communication and intercultural meaning negotiation.

The findings also suggest that the three levels of representation identified in this study provide valuable pedagogical resources. Strong representation enables learners to recognize authentic Javanese terminology together with its archaeological and historical significance. Partial representation encourages learners to compare preserved cultural terms with adapted English expressions, promoting critical discussion of translation choices. Weak representation offers opportunities to evaluate the strengths and limitations of descriptive translations and to explore how cultural meanings may be reduced through adaptation. These variations can support translation analysis, vocabulary development, intercultural communication, and critical reading activities in English classrooms.

Furthermore, the bilingual texts are particularly relevant to English for Specific Purposes (ESP) because they introduce learners to English used in museum communication, heritage interpretation, tourism, and cultural promotion. Rather than learning isolated vocabulary or grammar, students encounter authentic discourse related to archaeology, history, and cultural heritage. Such materials can therefore support learners preparing for careers in museums, tourism, translation, archaeology, history, and other heritage-related professions where English is required for international communication.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that Museum Sonobudoyo’s bilingual texts extend beyond their communicative function as museum labels. They represent valuable authentic learning resources that integrate language learning with archaeological and historical knowledge while fostering intercultural awareness. Their pedagogical value is closely linked to the quality of translation, as translation strategies determine how accurately archaeological and historical meanings are represented and, consequently, how effectively these texts can be utilized in English language education.

All data underlying the findings of this study are openly available in the Zenodo repository. The complete dataset analyzed during this study, including supporting research materials, is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21771362 (Saputri et al., 2026). There are no restrictions on access to these data.

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, for providing financial support for facilitating the completion and publication of this article.

•  Afifah YM, Putera LJ, Wardana LA: Comparative study on ChatGPT vs Google Translate in Indonesian-English of Bilingual Description of Historical Heritage at Museum Negeri Nusa Tenggara Barat. Didaktik: Jurnal Ilmiah PGSD STKIP Subang. 2024; 10(1): 69–80. Publisher Full Text
•  Anderson J, Lotman M-K: Intrasemiotic translation in the emulations of ancient art: On the example of the collections of the University of Tartu Art Museum. Semiotica. 2018; 2018(222): 1–24. Publisher Full Text
•  Arllati M: Cultural aspects of language heritage use and preservation: The impact of bilingualism on identity and social integration. International Journal of Philology. 2025; 2(16): 28–44. Publisher Full Text
•  Bardaji AG: Procedures, techniques, strategies: Translation process operators. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 2009; 17(3): 161–173. Publisher Full Text
•  Bedeker L, Feinauer I: The translator as cultural mediator. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 2006; 24(2): 133–141. Publisher Full Text
•  Dadizadeh NA, Doğan E: Community engagement and sustainable heritage tourism: Mediating role of archaeological heritage interpretation. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites. 2024; 26(2–3): 175–206. Publisher Full Text
•  Dalton-Puffer C, Nikula T: Content and language integrated learning. Lang. Learn. J. 2014; 42(2): 117–122. Publisher Full Text
•  Eco U: Mouse or rat?: Translation as negotiation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson; 2013.
•  Fazzi F: Museums as Third Spaces for Learning, Including Language. Museums as Sites of Transformative Foreign Language Learning Beyond the Classroom. Springer; 2025; pp. 65–118. Publisher Full Text
•  Ghazi R: Translation practices in museums: What the research says. J. Mus. Educ. 2022; 47(4): 501–509. Publisher Full Text
•  Gilmore A: Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Lang. Teach. 2007; 40(2): 97–118. Publisher Full Text
•  Hall S: Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Sage; 1997; vol. 2. .
•  House J: Translation as communication across languages and cultures. Routledge; 2015. Publisher Full Text
•  Hutchinson T, Waters A: English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University Press; 1987. Publisher Full Text
•  I’tishomah BE, Suyono A, Suharto RP: Designing a Bilingual Promotional Website for Sumenep Palace Museum as Linked to Social Media. International Journal of Social Science and Community Service. 2025; 3(2): 119–129. Publisher Full Text
•  Jiang C: Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts: Application of a systemic functional model. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 2010; 18(2): 109–126. Publisher Full Text
•  Jiang C: Visual pragmatic effects of distance representation in bilingual museum catalogue entries of Chinese landscape paintings. J. Pragmat. 2012; 44(12): 1639–1660. Publisher Full Text
•  Katan D, Taibi M: Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Routledge; 2021. Publisher Full Text
•  Khater M, Faik M: Unearthing identity: The role of archaeology in shaping English national identity and heritage interpretation. J. Field Archaeol. 2025; 50(3): 215–225. Publisher Full Text
•  Lamptey PSNO: Museums and Skeletons: Prospects and challenges of cataloguing, storing and preserving human remains in the Museum of Archaeology, Ghana. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2022; 21: 100753. Publisher Full Text
•  Lazzeretti C, Gatti MC: English in museum communication: the case of multilingual South Tyrol. ESP Across Cultures. 2022; 19: 1–20. Publisher Full Text
•  Lehman M, Phillips S, Saenz Williams A: Empowering identity through art: Bilingual co-teaching at the Blanton museum of art. J. Mus. Educ. 2018; 43(4): 375–384. Publisher Full Text
•  Liao M-H: Museums and the creative industries: The contribution of Translation Studies. The Journal of Specialised Translation. 2018a; 29: 45–62. Publisher Full Text
•  Liao M-H: Translating multimodal texts in space: A case study of St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies. 2018b; 17: 84–98. Publisher Full Text
•  Liao M-H: Translation as a practice of resemiotization: A case study of the Opium War Museum. Transl. Stud. 2023; 16(1): 48–63. Publisher Full Text
•  Liao M-H, Bartie P: Translating heritage: a study of visitors’ experiences mediated through multilingual audio guides in Edinburgh Castle. J. Herit. Tour. 2022; 17(3): 283–295. Publisher Full Text
•  Liddicoat AJ: Intercultural mediation, intercultural communication and translation. Perspectives. 2016; 24(3): 354–364. Publisher Full Text
•  Manfredi M: Professional museum translators for promoting multilingualism and accessible texts: Translation practices in some Italian museums and a proposal. Journal of Translation Studies. 2021; 1(1): 59–86. Publisher Full Text
•  Mukminin MS, Putra LD, Ahmed A: Translation strategy of Indonesian-English address terms in Perempuan Tanah Jahanam subtitles. Linguistics Initiative. 2025; 5(1): 62–74. Publisher Full Text
•  Mukminin MS, Sajarwa NFN: Translation Strategies of Javanese Addresses Terms into Arabic in Gadis Kretek Novel. SUAR BETANG. 2025; 20(1): 85–96. Publisher Full Text
•  Nurpermadi ED, Hartono R, Sutopo D: Translation techniques and quality of Indonesian-English translation of captions in Pekalongan Batik Museum. English Education Journal. 2020; 10(4): 426–435. Publisher Full Text
•  Octina RL, Baroroh S, Saptaji MF: Preservation Strategies for Photographic Collections in Tropical Climates: Evaluating practices at Sonobudoyo Museum. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 2025; 10(SI39): 197–203. Publisher Full Text
•  Rojo JL: Phraseology as indicator for translation quality assessment of museum texts: A corpus-based analysis. Cogent Arts & Humanities. 2018; 5(1): 1442116. Publisher Full Text
•  Saputri DE, Asri L, A'yunin Q, et al.: From museum translation to authentic materials for English language education: Translating Javanese archaeological heritage into English through Museum Sonobudoyo's bilingual texts. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text
•  Song G: Cross-cultural exchange of heritage in museums: A study of dunhuang art in the hong kong heritage museum from the perspective of cultural translation. Critical Arts. 2023; 37(2): 85–99. Publisher Full Text
•  Suvrathan U: Introduction to temple landscapes. The Routledge Handbook of Hindu Temples. India: Routledge; 2022; pp. 241–252. Publisher Full Text
•  Telaumbanua ARM, Fitriyanto DA: Analysis of contextual architectural design on the façade of Sonobudoyo Museum, Yogyakarta. Jurnal Arsitektur Zonasi. 2025; 8(3): 567–582. Publisher Full Text
•  Venuti L: The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. New York: Routledge; 1995.
•  Xia Y, Yao J, Sun Y, et al.: Bilingual Guided Tour and Research of Zhou-Deng Memorial Hall. Journal of Education, Humanities, and Social Research. 2025; 2(3): 68–73. Publisher Full Text
•  Yalowitz SS, Garibay C, Renner N, et al.: Bilingual Spanish-English Intergenerational Groups’ Experiences in Bilingual Exhibitions. Museums & Social Issues. 2015; 10(1): 35–51. Publisher Full Text
•  Yang C, Mustafa SE: The Reception Studies of Multimodality in the Translation and Communication of Chinese Museum Culture in the Era of Intelligent Media. Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology. 2025; 22(4): 532–553. Publisher Full Text
•  Yin RK: Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. The Guilford Press; 2016.
•  Yu Z, Hirzel T: Museum text translation in the Chinese context: the museum role and text production. Museum Management and Curatorship. 2024; 39(2): 188–202. Publisher Full Text

Current Reviewer Status:

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

?