Main Findings

8.2 Main Findings

In the following subsections I summarise and comment upon the findings of my research. Firstly, I discuss the way in which wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor are used to convey humour in Friends. In order to do this I review some of the points that recur in each chapter of data analysis. In particular, I discuss the findings that the application of the (SSTH and) GTVH metric to my data has revealed. Moreover, I reflect on the strategies the Italian translators adopted in order to overcome the problems that the AVT of humour poses. Finally, I will consider the differences that I have detected between the two datasets in terms of humour potential.

8.2.1 Research Question 1 With my RQ 1 I intended to investigate how wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor are used for humorous purposes in the first series of Friends. In order to do this,

I have combined various theories from different research fields. This has confirmed the advantages that an eclectic approach to the study of humour can offer. For example, potentially humorous wordplay has been examined according to its linguistic structures (Delabastita 1996) and the contextual elements it exploits (Veisbergs 1997). Similarly, culture-specific allusions that carry potential humour have been categorised according to type (Leppihalme 1997) and source (Davie Gonzáles and Scott-Tennet 2005). The application of CMT (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) and BT (Fauconnier and Turner 2002) to the study of potentially humorous metaphor has permitted a better understanding of the creation process involved.

In addition to this, I have analysed each instance of humour by means of Raskin ’s (1985) SSHT and in particular Attardo’s (1994, 2001) GTVH. They have helped me to categorise the script oppositions (SOs) at three different levels, i.e. contextual, concrete and abstract. The GTVH metric has allowed me to establish who and/or what are the

targets (TAs) in each instance of humour. As I have explained earlier, I have used the contextual level of SO to show the specific semantic and conceptual clash (or incongruity) in each example. My revision of Raskin’s (1985) set of concrete script oppositions has helped me detect five main concrete SOs in the ST. Furthermore, I have applied Raskin’s three types of abstract oppositions to my data so as to understand the process of humour creation in Friends in more general terms (cf. Subsection 4.4.3 above for a detailed explanation).

According to this procedure, I can now propose a broad analysis of the concrete and abstract SOs in Friends and reflect on it. Both Table 8.1 and 8.2 contain a quantitative summary of the five types of concrete oppositions in both the ST and TT. They also include a category named ‘Other’ under which I have subsumed all the other concrete SOs I detected in my data (e.g. food/no-food). In Table 8.1 I have given a detailed account of the concrete SOs for each mechanism under investigation, i.e. wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor. In Table 8.2 I have reproduced the total figures so as to offer a broader view of the patterns I have identified. For the sake of completeness, I have included the percentage values in brackets and smaller font next to each figure. The number of instances for the TT does not include the omitted items and the two examples of compensation discussed above (one for wordplay and one for culture-specific allusions). They will be considered in the next subsection where I discuss the translation strategies used in my data. Hence, the tables below refer to 29 instances of

Metaphor Oppositions (SO)

Concrete Script

ST (%) TT (%) ST (%) TT (%) ST (%) TT (%) Sex/no-sex

12 (41.5) 11 (45.9) 16 (24.3) 13 (24.1) 10 (58.9) 9 (56.3) Human/non-human

4 (13.8) 0 8 (12.1) 7 (11.5) 2 (11.8) 3 (18.7) Child/adult behaviour

2 (6.8) 2 (8.3) 13 (19.9) 7 (11.5) 0 0 Life/death

2 (6.8) 2 (8.3) 7 (10.6) 8 (13.6) 3 (17.7) 4 (25) Money/no-money

Table 8.1: Concrete SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (detailed)

Concrete Script Opposition (SO)

ST (%) TT (%) Sex/no-sex

38 (33.9) 33 (33.8) Human/non-human

14 (12.5) 10 (10.2) Child/adult behaviour

15 (13.4) 9 (9.2) Life/death

14 (14.2) Money/no-money

Table 8.2: Concrete SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (general)

I have chosen not to use Raskin’s obscene/non-obscene dichotomy because it includes SOs that can be based on various taboo topics (e.g.

As I have explained earlier,

excrement/non-excrement, as suggested in Attardo 1994 and 2001, or taboo body parts, as shown in some examples above). In contrast, the sex/no-sex SO is more appropriate for the investigation of humour in my data. As can be seen from both tables, many instances of potential humour in my data evoke this SO. Interestingly, Table 8.1 shows that wordplay and metaphor activate the sex/no-sex SO more frequently than culture-specific allusions. As suggested earlier, this may be due to the fact that wordplay and metaphor

The human/non-human SO was identified fairly often in the data. According to the percentages reported in Table 8.1, this SO appears with similar frequency across the three phenomena. However, it is worth remarking on the fact that the six main characters often talk about (and disparage) themselves and others in terms of non-human items. Such items usually derive from North-American material or popular culture within which the TV programme is set. For instance, Rachel talks about Barry referring to Mr Potato Head in example (6.1). Chandler and Joey compare themselves to Mr Peanut and Mr Salty respectively in example (5.5), etc. In addition, sometimes the characters utter wordplay and culture-specific allusions that evoke a child/adult behaviour SO (cf. Table 8.1 above). As I argued in Chapter 4, the human/non-human and the child/adult behaviour SOs are not represented in the literature so far. However, I have chosen them because of their relevance to my data, and they seem to be interesting sources of humour. In my opinion, the findings above can confirm the link between humour and characterisation. The fact that the characters frequently talk about sex, make fun of themselves and others by mean

related to her use of nursery rhymes in example (6.12) or Chandler and Joey’ childish discussion about Mr Salty and Mrs Peanuts in example (6.2)).

Finally, the life/death SO often appears in relation to general and more specific discussions about life (e.g. in Episode 8 Monica and Ross’s grandmother dies). Interestingly, the life/death SO appears more frequently in metaphor than in wordplay and culture-specific allusions (cf. Table 8.1). This may be due to the fact that death is a sensitive topic in many cultures and metaphoric expressions may be preferred to refer to it in an indirect way. The money/no-money SO appears with similar frequency across the three phenomena and it is central to themes such as job hunting and working in general. As with sex, all these themes are treated in a light-hearted manner, aiming to entertain the audience rather than debating existential issues. All in all, it is possible to affirm that these five types of SO may be the main humorous strands (i.e. thematically or formally connected jab or punch lines; cf. Subsection 2.4.2 above) in Friends.

Tables 8.3 and 8.4 below offer a summary of the abstract SOs in the two datasets according to Raskin’s three categories. As with the concrete SOs, I have included a detailed and a general overview for these SOs (percentages are provided in brackets):

Abstract Script Oppositions

Metaphor (SO)

ST (%) TT (%) ST (%) TT (%) ST (%) TT (%) Actual/Non-actual

5 (17.2) 5 (20.8) 14 (21.2) 11 (19) 5 (29.4) 4 (25) Normal/Abnormal

17 (58.6) 15 (62.5) 41 (62.2) 38 (65.5) 5 (29.4) 7 (43.7) Possible/Impossible

Table 8.3: Abstract SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (detailed)

Abstract Script Oppositions (SO)

ST (%) TT (%) Actual/Non-actual

24 (21.4) 20 (20.4) Normal/Abnormal

63 (56.3) 60 (61.2) Possible/Impossible

Table 8.4: Abstract SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (general)

As can be seen in Table 8.3, wordplay and culture-specific allusions activate the normal/abnormal SO with similar frequency. In contrast, metaphor seems to evoke the possible/impossible SO more often. The actual/non-actual SO appears with similar frequency in all three mechanisms. In general, most instances of potential humour belong to the normal/abnormal SO (cf. Table 8.4). As reported in Chapter 2, Raskin (ibid.111) claims that this SO opposes an expected state of affair to an unexpected one. Walte (2007: 108) points out that Friends is: “a sitcom which depends on funny situations which transform normality into abnormality”. My findings seem to be consistent with both scholars’ claims. As I hope has become evident during the analysis, the six main characters’ conversations often tend to become grotesque and nonsensical. In addition, these conversations sometimes suggest impossible scenarios, especially when the characters compare themselves or others to inanimate items. For example, Joey describes women in terms of ice-cream flavours in example (7.2). Furthermore, some examples also put forward an opposition between an actual and a non-actual situation (e.g. Ross wants Rachel and Paolo to break up in (5.14)), which also helps to contribute to the generally playful mood of the series and its entertaining function.

Generally speaking, the distribution of concrete and abstract SOs in the TT and ST is similar. The lower number of SOs in the TT is obviously due to the fact that some instances of wordplay, allusion or metaphor were omitted. However, it is worth noting that translation techniques such as neutralisation can still retain part of the humour in the

Finally, I have detected and categorised the TAs in both the ST and TT according to the GTVH metric. I have summarised my quantitative analysis in Tables 8.5 and 8.6 below. Since the six main characters are the usual TAs of the humour in the series, I have considered them as the main categories for my analysis. The category named ‘Other’ includes all the other targets in my data:

Targets (TA)

Chandler 5 2 11 10 3 3 Joey

Table 8.5: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (detailed)

Targets (TA)

Chandler 19 15 Joey

Table 8.6: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (general)

As can be seen, the total number of TAs exceeds the total number of instances of humour. This is due to the fact that in some cases I have detected more than one TA per example. In general, Joey scores higher than anybody else as a target of humour. He is followed by Rachel, Chandler and Ross who score (almost) equally. Interestingly, Monica and Phoebe are targeted comparatively less than the other characters. All in all, the men are more targeted than the women, with Rachel as an exception. During my data analysis

I have also demonstrated that Joey and Phoebe are often the targets of their own unintended humour, which is however intended at the author-audience level. In addition, they are also the target of intended humour on their friends’ part (at the character- character level). This may be due to the fact that they are mostly described and perceived as simple-minded and naïve but also as peculiar personalities within the fictional world and by the audience (cf. Walte 2007, Ross 1998). Chandler, and to some extent Ross and Rachel, tend to consciously target their friends and themselves by means of wordplay and culture-specific allusions. Hence, they are generally perceived as witty, quick-minded and also self-ironic. Monica is also the target of some of her friends’ jokes, especially because of her competitive attitude to life and work (cf. Walte 2007: 80, 113-114 for similar considerations).

In the TT, the targets obviously decrease because of the omission of some instances of humour. However, as with SOs, this seems also due to the deployment of strategies such as substitution or neutralisation (cf. examples (6.8) and (7.4) above). More importantly, sometimes the translation process causes changes in the TA of the potential humour, as it does with SOs. For instance, substitution in example (5.14 ) shifts the target from Rachel’s boyfriend Paolo to Ross, which explains why Ross scores higher in the TT. Similarly, Monica becomes the target of more humour in the TT while the ‘other’ category

8.2.2 Research Question 2 As argued above, wordplay, culture-specific allusion and metaphor in Friends are used to create a variety of effects (humour, characterisation, enhancement of the themes of the series). Transferring them (successfully) into another culture may therefore appear daunting. The task is further complicated by other practical issues. As I have shown, there are language- and culture-specific problems to be taken into account when dealing with these phenomena. For example, wordplay causes problems in term of linguistic equivalence, since its realisation is directly linked to the linguistic ambiguities in the source language. Finally, metaphor involves both linguistic and cultural issues (cf. Joey’s metaphor about the prostitute in example (7.4) above). To add to this, dubbing involves a wide range of specific constraints (e.g. lip synch, visual text). However, it also offers important advantages (e.g. complete deletion of original soundtrack).

With my RQ2 in mind, I have investigated what strategies were adopted during the AVT of these three mechanisms into Italian. In order to do this, I have considered some scholarly research on the translation of wordplay (e.g. Delabastita 1996, Veisbergs 1997), culture-specific allusions (e.g. Leppihalme 1997, Antonopoulou 2004, Ramière 2006, etc.) and metaphor (Newmark 1995, Schäffner 2004). However, I have found that, when dealing with these devices, scholars in TS propose a vast array of possible translation solutions and label them differently. This is likely to depend on the type of text they examine (e.g. written material) or the specific task at hand (e.g. investigating the

Consequently, I have attempted to revise and adapt these schol ars’ taxonomies so as to make them more applicable to my data. The findings at the end of each chapter of data analysis (Ch. 5, 6 and 7) are merged in Table 8.7 below. I hope the analysis below can give a more unified picture of the translation strategies applied to all three phenomena investigated in this thesis. In the table, the total number of instances is 114, comprising the two instances of compensation I found in the TT. In discussing the translation of wordplay and metaphor I have often used the term substitution. However, it seems that substitution can be used to refer to the replacement of the SL item with a TL one. Here I have preferred to keep these two techniques separate since they represent distant (and almost opposing) approaches in the foreignisation/domestication continuum (cf. Subsection 6.5.3 above):

Translation Strategy

Total Number of Instances (%)

Transference 36 (31.6) Explanation

2 (1.7) Replacement by other SL item

14 (12.4) Replacement by different TL item

Table 8.7: General strategies for Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusion and Metaphor

As can be seen, the Italian translators attempted to retain the original device in Italian ( ‘transference’) but also resorted to neutralisation in an equal number of cases.

Interestingly, replacing the original device with another that derives from the source or target culture are strategies used with almost similar frequency. The total omission of the humour trigger is also similarly frequent. Comparatively speaking, the use of explanation, compensation and re-creation (i.e. combination of use of two strategies) is infrequent.

In general, it can be said that the Italian translators attempted to adopt various solutions. The substitution of the original items which are not familiar to the Italian audience with others that are can be seen as an example of creativity on the translators ’ part. In addition, this technique seems to be a successful alternative to omission or neutralisation since it is more likely to retain the potential humour of the text. Similarly, compensation and re-creation are interesting ways to overcome the problems wordplay, culture-specific allusion and metaphor pose. This is clearly possible because of the medium used. The detractors of dubbing may argue that these strategies involve a high level of manipulation, which reduces the faithfulness of the TT to the ST. Although I am aware of this, I still believe that dubbing can help to preserve a greater amount of humour that could be lost in subtitling. Moreover, dubbing partially allows translators to free themselves from many constraints that AVT poses.

8.2.3 Research Question 3 With my RQ3 I have sought to investigate any differences between the ST and TT, with specific reference to their humorous potential. I have already provided some comments in the subsections above and at this stage it may be clear that the translation strategies used did have an effect on the TT. In particular, the deployment of strategies such as

The GTVH has helped me highlight some of these differences in detail. For instance, it can be used to show how the contextual SOs differ in between the two datasets. In addition, it aptly demonstrates that part of the original humour can be retained because the concrete and abstract SOs are preserved. This happens even though the original wordplay or culture-specific allusion is neutralised or omitted, or when some elements of the original metaphor are substituted (e.g. examples (5.1), (5.9), (7.4) etc.). The contrastive comparison of in the ST and TT also reveals differences in terms of TA due to translation. As I have demonstrated above, Ross and Monica are targeted more often in the TT than in the ST.

It could be argued that these shifts are not extremely marked and the overall characterisation patterns remain. However, in my opinion they seem slightly less consistent in the TT. For example, the TT’s audience may perceive Joey as more simple- minded than he appears to be in the ST (cf. examples (5.3) (5.13) above) and his obsession with sex may be less marked in the TT than in the ST (cf. example (7.4)). Chandler might not be perceived to be quite as quick-minded and creative as he seems to

be in the ST (cf. examples (5.6.), (5.12) and (6.9) above). Similarly, Rachel’s obsession with shopping and the opposition between her previous wealthy life style and her new life might not be as evident as in the ST. However, is should be acknowledged that these differences are not big enough to suggest generalisations about the effect that these changes may have on the reception of the translated humour in Friends. Further research in this area may help to unveil possible correlations between the two phenomena.

The application of the GTVH metric has also demonstrated that it does not always seem to capture the loss the translation process produces. For example, the neutralisation strategy may preserve some of the strategies and the humour of the passage but not the elegance of the wordplay in the original. All in all, it seems that the GTVH needs to be supported by a fine-grained textual analysis, which can highlight the specific differences that the translation process involves.

To conclude, I would like to suggest the following. Since both humour and characterisation seem to be relevant to the success of the series, AVT certainly have to take special care of those linguistic items that convey them. In other words, in my opinion these two factors should be regarded as a high priority in TV comedy and should therefore be retained in translation, as long as they do not impair the understanding of the text itself. I will now move to consider the possible contribution of this thesis to HS and TS.