On the (Im)Possibility of Translating Humour
3.6 On the (Im)Possibility of Translating Humour
As mentioned in the previous chapters, humour presents several problems of definition. Not surprisingly, its translation is equally problematic. Scholars in various fields have debated the issues related to the translation of humour, often holding diverging or even opposing views. What follows is a discussion of some scholars’ hypotheses and orientations on this matter.
Lendvai (1996: 89-98) presents a detailed analysis of 207 English jokes and categorises them into various types (using antonymy, homonymy, polysemy and so on) to demonstrate that they are untranslatable because of their cultural and linguistic specificity.
Similarly, in her book-length study on humour, Chiaro (1992: 77-99) casts doubts on the possibility of translating humour and wordplay in particular. After examining Similarly, in her book-length study on humour, Chiaro (1992: 77-99) casts doubts on the possibility of translating humour and wordplay in particular. After examining
The intertwining of formal linguistic features and socio-cultural elements contained in a joke is often so specific to a single language community that, beyond its frontiers, the joke is unlikely to succeed (ibid.78).
She adds that another possible explanation for the unsuccessful translation of jokes is that translators may sometimes be afraid of manipulating the ST and thus resort to literal translations, rather than the ‘dynamic’ translation suggested by Nida (1964, quoted in Chiaro ibid.85; cf also Ch.1, Section 1.2 in this thesis). Hence, Chiaro negatively describes translation as a ‘necessary evil’ in that it is never correct but is nonetheless indispensable (ibid.92). Her negative view on the possibility of translating humorous texts has been extended to her subsequent discussion on dubbing humour (cf. Chiaro 2000). However, more recently Chiaro (2005) seems to contradict herself when she explains that, even when purely linguistic equivalence is not achievable, translators can still count on their ability to transfer the ST’s humorous function (to trigger laughter, smiling and exhilaration). In accordance with this, she concludes that: “humorous texts are indeed translated no matter what” (ibid.136; emphasis in original).
Hickey (1999) tries to demonstrate that theoretically speaking, humorous texts cannot be translated because of their language- and culture-specificity. He considers culture-specific allusions particularly difficult because they rely on cultural and social peculiarities of the source culture that the target culture cannot be expected to know (ibid.4-5 1 ; cf. also Leppihalme 1996, 1997 and Antonopoulou 2004 for similar considerations and Ch.6 in this thesis for a discussion). Like Chiaro (1992), Hickey
1 Hickey’s study is available online. Therefore, the page numbers are arbitrarily given according to how it is printed.
maintains that wordplays based on linguistic ambiguities (puns, puns based on idioms) are so deeply rooted in the SL that their transfer is impossible (ibid.5). As a consequence of this, he suggests a ‘pragmalinguistic’ approach to overcome such problems . In Hickey’s view, this is a functional and pragmatic approach that allows the translator to identify what type of linguistic feature is used in order to create the humorous incongruity of the text (e.g. wordplay, joke based on a culture-specific allusion). Once the type of device used has been detected, the translator should generate her/his TT while retaining the original formula and, if necessary, overlooking the semantic elements composing the ST (ibid.12). In doing so, the TT can attempt to produce an analogous effect on its receivers (i.e. amusing them, making them laugh, etc.).
Hickey’s (1998) discussion of perlocutionary equivalence has already supported such pragmatic orientation in translation. In his view, translators have to take into
consideration the whole range of possible reactions in the target culture, and translate accordingly. He states that:
[J]ust as the ST is capable of producing or likely to produce or stimulate one or more analogically related perlocutionary effects on its original readers, so also any TT must, in turn, be capable of producing ‘analogous’ perlocutionary effects on its readers (ibid.219).
As can be seen, wordplay and culture-specific attention have stimulated interesting research in TS, as well as HS. It seems therefore worth analysing both phenomena in detail. I will devote Chapters 5 and 6 respectively in this thesis to this end. Unlike wordplay and culture-specific allusions, metaphor has received relatively little attention in HS, even though it is regarded as a device for humour production in some influential studies (e.g.: Mio and Graesser 1991, Tsur 1992, Oring 2003). As a result As can be seen, wordplay and culture-specific attention have stimulated interesting research in TS, as well as HS. It seems therefore worth analysing both phenomena in detail. I will devote Chapters 5 and 6 respectively in this thesis to this end. Unlike wordplay and culture-specific allusions, metaphor has received relatively little attention in HS, even though it is regarded as a device for humour production in some influential studies (e.g.: Mio and Graesser 1991, Tsur 1992, Oring 2003). As a result
Some general considerations about the translation of humour in general terms are also worth discussing here. Delabastita dismisses the theoretical debate regarding the (un)translatability of humour by virtue of the mere existence of translation and its pragmatic functionality (1994: 223-243). In other words, potentially humorous texts are translated everyday and are successful in their translated version. Hence, this can suffice to prove the feasibility of humour translation. Some scholars not only consider the translation of humour to be possible and successful, but also claim that some translations may be even better than the originals, in that they make for a potentially more humorous effect than the original (e.g. Knight 1989: 105-108). Leibold (1989) endorses this orientation while investigating the humour present in a longer, non-joke humorous text. Not unreasonably, she states that the translation of humour:
“requires the accurate decoding of a humorous speech in its original context, the transfer of that speech in a different and often disparate linguistic and cultural environment, and its reformulation in a new utterance which successfully recaptures the intention of the original humorous message and evokes in the target audience an equivalent plausible and playful response” (ibid.109; emphasis in original).
Hatim and Mason (1997) summarise the viewpoints described above when they point out that “the intended meaning materialises only when pragmatic considerations Hatim and Mason (1997) summarise the viewpoints described above when they point out that “the intended meaning materialises only when pragmatic considerations
In a similar vein, Popa (2005: 50) adopts a pragmatic approach to the translation of jokes. In her view, there are two factors that translators have to take into account when dealing with such texts: the pragmatic function of humour (to amuse and/or cause laughter) and its various interpersonal functions (e.g. build consensus, repair, criticise, etc.). She concludes that since these two factors usually co-exist in a joke, translators must strive to convey both (ibid.56).
To sum up, translating humour can be achieved because it is normally possible to convey at least part of the intended meaning(s) and the effect(s) of the source text across language and culture. However, this process has to take into account the target- culture expectancies for a given type of text. Rather than striving to preserve the original linguistic devices or seman tic equivalence, translators may opt for a ‘free’ translation, which, however, retains the original textual function.
However, translation strategies that make use of a pragmatic approach striving to achieve a perlocutionary effect are not in themselves unproblematic. For instance, Leppihalme (1996: 214) notices that some of these strategies involve the insertion of target-culture references into the TT. This may lead its receivers to doubt that they were present in the original text. Moreover, Leuven-Zwart (1990: 84-85) points out
that translators tend to provide extra information while aiming to convey the original intended effect. In her view, such a strategy can create stylistic shifts between ST and TT and, consequently, have relevant effects on the re ceiver’s reaction. However, Fawcett (1997: 129-130) highlights the fact that stylistic changes in the TT can also be caused by a translator’s tendency to satisfy the expectations of a target language or culture.
Interestingly, Attardo’s (2002a: 174) position on this matter seems to represent a balance between the aforementioned views. He explains that the absolute (perfect) translation does not exist, either within the same language (in terms of paraphrases) or
across languages. In line with this, the process of translation is, by nature, approximate. He therefore proposes his own approach to the translation of humour, which I briefly discuss in the next subsection.
3.6.1 Attardo’s Theory of Humour Translation Attardo’s (2002a) approach to the translation is based on his General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH, cf. Ch.2 in this thesis). He explains that, since puns and jokes in general can be analysed according to the six knowledge resources postulated by the GTVH model, they can also be translated accordingly. This process ideally suggests preserving all six knowledge resources. However, Attardo acknowledges that the full practical actuation of his approach is hardly ever likely to happen. For this reason, he crucially points out: “if necessary, let your translation differ at the lowest level necessary for your pragmatic purposes ” (ibid.183; emphasis in original). His advice to translators is to approach their translations according to the hierarchical organisation of the knowledge resources. He writes: “[the translator] will attempt to preserve all similarity between the texts, starting at Language and if that should be impossible, will at least attempt to preserve the Script Opposition of the orig inal” (ibid. 190). By doing this, the TT is likely to have “faithfulness and the aesthetic effects that were originally prese nt in the source text” (ibi.184; emphasis in original).
As I said in the previous chapter, scholars in TS have applied the GTVH model to their research and commented upon it. For example, Zabalbeascoa (2005) finds that Attardo’s theory aims to preserve sameness rather than funniness. He claims that As I said in the previous chapter, scholars in TS have applied the GTVH model to their research and commented upon it. For example, Zabalbeascoa (2005) finds that Attardo’s theory aims to preserve sameness rather than funniness. He claims that
Antonopoulou (2002: 198) instead remarks that the LA KR cannot be considered as
a parameter for joke similarity during the contrastive analysis of STs and TTs. However, since LA is at the bottom of the KRs hierarchy, it does not impair the effective application of Attardo’s approach. More importantly, Antonopoulou’s (2002, 2004) application of the GTVH metric to the investigation of jab lines in original and translated humorous narratives shows that this approach can shed some light on the strategies used in humour translation. More specifically, it proves to be useful for the understanding of the creation and appreciation of humour in the source and target cultures. In a similar ve in, I believe that Attardo’s approach can fruitfully be applied to the comparative analysis of ST and TT involving humour (cf. also Dore 2002). Hence I will apply it to my data analysis.
To conclude, it may be clear at this stage that I believe humour translation to be possible. In particular, I favour the pragmatic and functional approach, as suggested in Hickey (1999, cf. section above). According to this, translators dealing with humorous texts should be ready, if necessary, to sacrifice semantic equivalence in favour of retaining the humorous effect. This may also help in preserving the entertaining function of the text as a whole (cf. also Subsection 3.6.1 below).
I will now consider the specific problems posed by humour translation in the audiovisual setting.