Translation of Puns

5.4 Translation of Puns

As mentioned in Chapter 3 (cf. Section 3.6 above), scholars in TS have discussed the specific characteristics of punning and recognised it as a source of translation problems. The discussion above further confirms the difficulties that arise in translating such a complex linguistic and cognitive phenomenon. At tardo’s (2002a: 183) theory of humour translation, mentioned in Chapter 3, postulates the preservation of Knowledge Resources from language (LA) to script opposition (SO), which is in principle applicable to wordplay in general. However, Attardo does not give any suggestion about the tools or strategies a translator should use to achieve this.

Hence, I refer to Delabastita’s (1996: 134) typology of eight translation strategies that are at the translators’ disposal to help them deal with puns. As Delabastita reminds us, two or more strategies may be used in combination. For example, a pun can be omitted and a footnote is added to explain the omission (ibid.). I have summarised them in Table 5.2 below. The lefthand column contains the names of the strategies while the righthand column gives a brief explanation of each of them:

Strategy Explanation

1. PUN→PUN The pun is translated into the target language with mirror adjustments in terms of formal or semantic structure, or textual function.

2. PUN→NON-PUN The pun is translated as a non-punning phrase that aims to retain one or both original senses.

3. PUN→RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE The pun is substituted by a related rhetorical device (allusion, parody, rhyme, paradox, etc.) in order to retain part of the original effect.

4. PUN→ZERO PUN The pun is omitted altogether. 5. PUN ST=PUN TT

The original pun is reproduced in the TT in the source language.

6. NON- PUN→PUN A completely new pun is added in the TT where there is none, in order to compensate for the previous loss of an original pun or for other reasons.

7. ZERO→PUN Completely new textual material is added to the TT and it contains punning. This is a compensatory device which however does not

seem to have apparent precedent or

justification in the ST.

8. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE Editorial devices (e.g. footnotes, endnotes) are added to the TT in order to explain the original pun.

Table 5.2: Summary of Delabastita’s (1996: 134) suggested translation strategies

It is worth noting that some of Delabastita’s translation strategies can be generally seen as instances of Venuti’s (1992, 1995, 1998) foreignisation and domestication approaches (cf. Section 1.2 above for a definition) . I will draw from Venuti’s distinction in more detail in the last section of this chapter (cf. Section 5.11 below)

because it will help me devise a unified framework for the AVT of wordplay. For the time being it also seems important to mention that Delabastita’s translation strategies do not seem to differ greatly from the general translation strategies discussed in relation to other types of phenomena. Baker (1992: 26-42, 71-78, 228-243) discusses most of the same translation devices in literary and non-literary texts, especially

techniques (1), (2), (4), (6), (7) and (8) above. Similarly, Hervey and Higgins (1992: 35-40) tackle several translation problems and methods and focus on the compensatory technique described in points (6) and (7). These two strategies do not seem to differ greatly from one another. In both cases,

Delabastita suggests the addition of punning text where there is none in the ST for compensatory purposes. Hence, I propose clustering them into one single strategy named ‘COMPENSATION’. This term is generally used in TS to describe the insertion of extra material in the TT where there is none in the ST. Harvey (1995: 82-

84) distinguishes four types of compensation: parallel (in the same place), contiguous (placed within a short distance), displaced (at long distance) or generalised (addition of extra sty listic features anywhere in the text). Harvey’s framework will be applied to the analysis below as well. Finally, it should also be noticed that Delabastita’s EDITORIAL TECHINIQUE cannot be applied to audiovisual text since endnotes or footnotes cannot be used in spoken texts. Hence, I will not take it into account during my data analysis.

As can be seen, Delabastita’s taxonomy is only partly applicable to the analysis of audiovisual texts. It should be borne in mind that Delabastita (1997: 10) himself

acknowledges that the type of text under investigation and the translation mode applied are part of that “semiotic set-up”, which plays a major role in the translator’s approach to puns and wordplays (cf. ibid. for a full list of other types of semiotic set- ups). Therefore, in analysing the AVT of puns and wordplays, one has also to take