Humorous Metaphors
Chapter 7. Humorous Metaphors
As an abstract concept, metaphor might be universal (…); in its concrete realization however, being closely linked with sensuous perception and culture-bound value judgements, it is undoubtedly complicated by language-specific idiosyncrasies. And therein lies its fascination for the translator. (Snell-Hornby 1988: 62-63)
7.1 Introduction
During the data analysis in Chapters 5 and 6 I have often commented on the use of metaphor for humorous purposes in conjunction to both wordplay (cf. in particular FEI- based puns in Sections 5.7 and 5.8) and culture-specific allusions (cf. examples of comparative constructions in Section 6.4). However, a separate discussion is needed to do justice to the humorous exploitations of metaphor in my data.
Metaphor has been tackled from a cross-cultural perspective (cf. for example Kövecses 2000; 2002 and Deignan 2003) and the problems related to its translation have also been considered in TS (Newmark 1995: 104). Snell- Hornby’s quotation above adequately summarises the fascinating but also challenging task faced by translators in transferring metaphors across languages and cultures. However, scholars in TS seem to concentrate mainly on the translation of metaphor in literary texts and poetry (Boase-Beier 2006: 95). In contrast, very little has been written about the translation of potentially humorous metaphors in other genres, let alone their translation in the audiovisual setting.
With these premises in mind, in this last chapter of data analysis I will investigate metaphors that carry potential humour in Friends and their AVT into Italian. As in the previous chapters of data analysis, I concentrate specifically on instances of metaphor that
For obvious reasons, I cannot attempt even a brief overview of the vast amount of literature on metaphor, which would also fall beyond the scope of this study. I will limit my discussion to the study of potentially humorous metaphors according to two influential approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (henceforth CMT) and Blending Theory (henceforth BT). More specifically, in Section 7.2 I will provide a brief overview of CMT and its use in the investigation of the variation of conceptual metaphors in different cultures. In Section 7.3 I will summarise BT and its main theoretical points whereas in Section 7.4 I will consider the possibility of combining CMT and BT in analysing metaphors. In Section 7.5 I will consider the relationship between humour and metaphor and some theoretical issues involved. Subsequently, in Section 7.6 I will discuss the translation of (potentially humorous) metaphor and the strategies put forward by scholars in TS in order to overcome the problems this phenomenon may cause.
I will then move to my data analysis in Section 7.7. The examination of some examples in the ST will provide an insight into the scriptwriters’ exploitation of creative metaphorical expressions for humorous purposes. As in Chapters 5 and 6, the textual analysis will be also supported by the GTVH approach. Like wordplay and culture- specific allusions, metaphor proves to be an interesting mechanism for humour production. Moreover, at the author-audience level metaphor seems to function as a conveyor of characterisation and thematic cues.
The contrastive analysis of ST and TT suggests that the Italian translators paid a great deal of attention to the translation of potentially humorous metaphors. In particular, it confirms that dubbing allows translators to manipulate the text in a creative way so as to ensure that the TT produces a similarly entertaining effect by means of metaphor. However, the manipulation of text seems to cause some differences in terms of humour (and characterisation) effect between the two datasets. Section 7.8 concludes this chapter and contains quantitative analysis of the translation strategies applied to the TT and some observations on it.
7.2 Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Metaphors have been traditionally defined as a linguistic tool used mainly for artistic or rhetorical purposes (e.g. poetry, oratory). Therefore, the approach to the study of this phenomenon has usually been language-oriented. However, theorists in the field of Cognitive Linguistics have proposed a new way to explain metaphor. In their view, metaphor is primarily a conceptual phenomenon, which can be realised by means of linguistic expressions.
Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) Metaphors We Live By is probably one of the most influential books ever written on metaphor. From the very beginning of this book, the authors clearly state their attempt to demonstrate the pervasive nature of metaphor in
everyday human life, including language, thought and action (ibid.3). Lakoff and Johnson’s stance is that among the various ways of understanding and talking about the reality that surrounds them, human beings tend to use metaphors more often than they think, and mostly unconsciously. For example, a concept such as ‘argument’ in English is
248
often expressed in terms of ‘war’ with conventional (or entrenched) lexical expressions such as “I defended my views” or “he shot down all of my arguments”. For these scholars in Cognitive Linguistics, the examples above are linguistic realisations of the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR . Metaphorical expressions are therefore the linguistic manifestation of a conceptual process in our mind that involves the projection of some structure from a domain (source) to another (target) (ibid.4-5). Hence, a metaphorical expression can be explained in terms of a conceptual cross-domain mapping. It is also important to point out here that in the Lakoff and Johnson’s tradition similes are also considered as linguistic realisations of conceptual metaphors (cf. also Semino 2008: 16- 17). As demonstrated by the example above, from the systematic analysis of linguistic expressions (be they metaphors or similes) Cognitive Metaphor theorists trace back the conceptual metaphor that lies under them.
Lakoff and Johnson distinguish between conventional metaphorical expressions (cf. “I defended my views” and “he shot down all of my arguments” above) and novel ones. They point out that that novel (or creative) metaphorical expressions, however, normally
exploit conventional conceptual metaphors. They can be easily understood because of their conventional basis but they can also provide a new insight into a past or present experience or concept (ibid.139). Evidence of creative exploitations of underlying conceptual metaphors will be given during my data analysis in Section 7.7.
Lakoff and Johnson are also interested in the cultural dimension of metaphor use. They highlight the fact that conceptual metaphors are based on our physical, cultural and social experience. Therefore, some conceptual metaphors and their linguistic realisations may be conventional in many cultures while others may be peculiar to a given one (1980: 23-24).
249
Since its appearance CMT has been applied to investigate metaphor from a cross- cultural perspective (cf. for example Deignan 2003). Drawing from Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) work, Kövecses’s (2000, 2002, 2005) book-length studies in particular investigate similarities and differences in conventional patterns of metaphorical expressions in different cultures and languages. For instance, Kövecses (2000) considers the English conceptual metaphor ANGER IS A FLUID IN A PRESSURISED CONTAINER and explores the possibility of encountering the same type of conceptual metaphor in languages such as Hungarian, Zulu, Tahitian etc. His investigation highlights the relevance of human physical perception in the construction of metaphoric expressions. Since bodily experience can be said to be shared by every human being, Kövecses concludes that some conceptual metaphors based on physical perception can be defined as potentially ‘universal’ (ibid.170-176). However, Kövecses (2005) also argues that, besides universality, it is possible to identify variation in relation to metaphor. As he explains, variation can take place at different levels and as a result of different causes. He identifies several dimensions of variation in metaphor. Two of them are particularly relevant for this thesis and are summarised in the next subsection.
7.2.1 Metaphor and Variation As explained above, Kövecses (2005) points out that some conceptual metaphors can be considered as potentially universal because they are based on embodied human experience. However, Kövecses argues for a combination of both universality and variation. In his view, ‘universal’ conceptual metaphors may display idiosyncratic features in different languages and cultures. For example, Kövecses explains that there
Beside cross-cultural variation, Kövecses (2005: 106-111) investigates variation at the level of the individual within the same culture. He finds that human beings may use metaphors in distinctive ways, which are likely to depend on how they perceive the external world, their personal experiences in life and upbringing (‘personal history’, ibid.242-243; cf. also Kövecses 2002: 194). Similarly, individuals may create metaphors whose source domains are based on ‘personal concerns and interests’ (‘human concern’). To make this point clear, Kövecses gives the example of a Hungarian electrical engineer who expresses his views on European political issues (target domain) in terms of electric circuitry (source domain) (ibid.244-246).
In fictional texts, repeated idiosyncratic metaphors may be used in order to project the peculiarities of a character, i.e. their personal concerns and cognitive habits, which have been captured by the notion of ‘mind style’ (Semino 2002, Semino and Swindlehurst 1996). All these points become extremely important for the understanding of the way creative metaphors are constructed and exploited for humour and characterisation purposes in my data. Hence, I will take this into consideration throughout my data analysis in Section 7.7.
In conclusion, it is clear that CMT has provided a real breakthrough in the field of metaphor research, opening new avenues for the analysis and understanding of this phenomenon. However, this interesting approach presents some difficulties, which
251
scholars in Linguistics and Psychology have already pointed out. I cannot review the large amount of criticism on CMT in the space available here but I would like to highlight three main concerns regarding it. Firstly, CMT theorists seem to claim that analysing linguistic patterns can ultimately lead to conclusions on the cognitive structures that lie behind them. Murphy (1996) highlights some of the problems with this approach and advocates a more precise model and further analyses that should be based on data other than linguistic patterns. Secondly, it seems that there is a lack of suitable methodology for extrapolating conceptual metaphors from linguistic evidence. This leads to difficulties in categorisation. In other words, it is often difficult to group linguistic expressions under one or the other conceptual metaphor. Finally, CMT assumes unidirectional mapping, i.e. the projection of structures from the source into the target domain. It cannot therefore account for all the processes involved in creating and understanding metaphors, especially the online production and reception of creative ones. In contrast, Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) Blending Theory can explain particular interpretations of particular metaphorical expressions (Kövecses 2005: 267-282). Hence, in the next section I will briefly review the BT model and its application to online metaphor processing.
7.3 Blending Theory (BT)
Fauconnier and Turner’s (2002) The Way We Think is a comprehensive exposition of BT, which was developed in their previous work (e.g. Fauconnier and Turner 1996, 1998). Fauconnier and Turner claim that many cognitive operations, including metaphors,
involve the integration of different mental spaces into a single representation. They call this process ‘blending’ and the product of conceptual integration a ‘blend’. According to
Fauconnier and Turner, the human mind organises new information in mental spaces, which are:
[S]mall conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for the purpose of local understanding an action. They are very partial assemblies containing elements, structu red by frames and cognitive models (…). Mental spaces are interconnected in working memory, can be modified dynamically as thought and discourse unfold, and can be used generally to model dynamic mappings in thought and language (2002: 102).
Each space contains some elements taken from frames, or schemata, which are stored in our long-term memory. Mental spaces are constructed for specific purposes of understanding and are modified as comprehension proceeds. As mentioned in the quotation above, spaces are dynamic and can establish connections with other spaces, thus creating networks. If exposed to new external stimuli, initially our mind will activate default mental spaces based on entrenched associations. However, it will also be ready to integrate these default spaces dynamically with the elements from other spaces as new information is acquired (ibid.102-103).
This procedure can be fruitfully used to explain the inferences we draw in processing metaphorical expressions, especially when they are novel and creative. For instance, if we consider the following metaphor ‘This surgeon is a butcher’ discussed by Grady et al. (1999: 103-105), we soon realise that it cannot be explained by approaches that treat metaphors as a uni-directional process, i.e. as a mapping from the source onto the target domain (as in the CMT model). The problem here lies in the fact that neither the source domain ( BUTCHERY ) nor the target one ( SURGERY ) of this metaphor contains the feature of ‘incompetence’ within their organising frame. Nonetheless, from this metaphor we draw the inference that the surgeon is incompetent. This central inference about the
Figure 7.1: Grady et al.’s (1999: 105) conceptual integration network: surgeon as butcher
Fauconnier and Turner’s basic model of blending, or ‘integration network’, consists of four main spaces that are hierarchically connected (cf. Figure 7.1 above). There are two
In addition, t here is a ‘generic’ space that contains abstractions of the elements that the two input spaces share. In the specific example of the metaphor above, Grady et al. list elements such as ‘agent’, ‘undergoer’, ‘sharp instrument’ and so on. Some scholars tend not to reproduce this space because its constituent elements are already present in concretised form in the input spaces (i.e. Kövecses 2005: 269). I will do the same during my data analysis.
The fourth space is called ‘the blended space’, or ‘the blend’ and it is where some elements from each input are projected (i.e. ‘scalpel’, ‘healing’, ‘cleaver’ ‘butchery’, etc.). Projection is selective, which means that not all the elements in the inputs reach the blend.
Only relevant or central elements for understanding are projected. These elements then integrate and form a new ‘emergent structure’, which results in the incompetence of the surgeon in the example above. This process is based on composition (new connections are
created between the elements of the inputs once projected in the blend), completion (addition of structures not present in the inputs but deriving directly from our knowledge of the elements that shape them) and elaboration (addition of extra structures that might logically fit in the scenario presented in the blend; t his process is called ‘running the blend’). Fauconnier and Turner stress that the blend never detaches itself from the other
Throughout their work, Fauconnier and Turner offer some compelling evidence of the validity of BT. They show how it can be used to explain many different types of cognitive activities. However, the high flexibility of this model may cast some doubts on its validity. Gibbs (2000), for example, warns researchers in Psychology and Psycholinguistics against adopting BT as an analytical framework. In particular, he proposes to test the scientific validity of BT in terms of falsifiability. If this model cannot be falsified against empirical data, it may be considered too vague and not able to provide adequate scientific results.
In spite of the methodological issues I have pointed out above, both CMT and BT seem to offer suitable approaches to the study of metaphors. More specifically, each of them focuses on a different aspect of the same phenomenon (entrenched metaphors for the former and novel metaphors for the latter). In the next subsection I review Grady et al.’s (1999) suggestion in favour of a combined use of CMT and BT. In addition to this, I will discuss Semino’s (2002) use of CMT and BT in the analysis of fictional characters.
7.4 Complementary use of CMT and BT
I have already discussed Grady et al.’s (1999) example ‘This surgeon is a butcher’ above in order to demonstrate the way the BT model can be applied to metaphors whose central
inference cannot be captured only by means of CMT. In this section, however, I would 256 inference cannot be captured only by means of CMT. In this section, however, I would 256
fixed, conventional metaphors in a language are composed and how their two domains are cognitively connected. The latter instead deals with the online processing of mostly novel metaphors and with the inferences stemming from them (ibid.101). Nevertheless, the two theories, rather than being considered mutually exclusive, can be seen as complementary. More specifically, Grady et al. demonstrate how CMT accounts for the way receivers easily understand apparently novel metaphors when they are based on entrenched relations between two domains in a given language and culture. For example, a sentence like “you’d need an electron microscope to find the point of this article” can be understood in terms of the established correlation between the domain of visual perception and the one of intellectual activity (ibid.102). Entrenched metaphors can be retrieved from long-term memory to make sense of new cognitive associations. However, when the central inference of the metaphor cannot be explained simply in terms of a mapping between the source and target domain, BT comes into play. More specifically, it allows for the merging of material from both input spaces, and for the creation of new meaning via the notion of emergent structure (ibid.103). In this way BT fills the gap left by CMT, as we have seen in the example referring to the surgeon’s incompetence.
The examples given by Grady et al. are mainly taken from everyday language. Semino (2002) on the contrary focuses on the exploitation of metaphors in fictional texts to convey a character’s ‘mind style’ and ‘ideological point of view’. Semino applies CMT in order to explain how particular metaphorical mappings may be seen as characteristic of the conceptual structure of fictional individuals. However, in addition, she also shows
Similarly, in the course of my data analysis I will demonstrate how metaphoric conceptualisations can be exploited in order to convey the characters’ mind styles for humorous purposes. However, before doing so, I will discuss the issues related to the relationship between humour and metaphor and the problems they raise in translation.
7.5 Metaphor and Humour
The relationship between humour and metaphor has been the subject of a number of studies. For instance, Müller (2007: 47) considers what ground both phenomena share. He suggests that both metaphor and several types of humour playfully combine thoughts or conceptual knowledge. Oring (2003) sees both phenomena as involving a clash between conceptu al categories, which he calls ‘appropriate incongruity’. However, in his view, appropriate incongruity in metaphor is ‘genuine’ because it is ultimately perceived as legitimate. In contrast, in jokes (or humorous texts) the appropriateness is ‘spurious’ or illegitimate because: “it violates logic, the sense of what we know to be true, or the sense of what traditional behaviors or expressions are supposed to do and mean” (ibid.5-6). However, neither of these authors addresses the important issue regarding the reason for the potential funniness of some metaphorical expressions.
For his part, Tsur (1992) suggests that witty, ironic, paradoxical, and in some cases, emotionally disorientating metaphors are interpreted as such because they have ‘split- focus’. In his view, a metaphor with a split-focus foregrounds the incongruous and
discordant elements of sou rce and target concepts. Hence, Tsur’s work reconnects the 258 discordant elements of sou rce and target concepts. Hence, Tsur’s work reconnects the 258
Some scholars have attempted to tackle this issue according to ‘distance theory’, which postulates that humorous metaphors are perceived as such because they link very distant elements in the source and target domain (Mio and Graesser 1991; Kyratzis 2003). However, as Attardo (forthcoming: 1) 1 points out, the main problem with ‘distance theory’
lies in the fact that the distance between domains cannot be quantified and cannot be accepted as a discriminating parameter for the funniness of a metaphor.
The recent surge of interest among scholars in Cognitive Linguistics in the application of theories developed in this field to humour research has also produced some interesting studies (Giora 1991, 2003; Coulson 2001, 2003; Brône & Feyaerts 2004; Kyratzis 2003 to name just a few). In particular, the special issue of Humor published in 2006 witnessed a lively debate between some of these scholars, who advocate a broader application of Cognitive Linguistics theories to the study of humour on the one hand, and Salvatore Attardo on the other.
Brône and Feyaerts (2004) and Veale et al. (2006) cast doubts on the possibility of applying the GTVH to the study of humorous texts that are based on the non-prototypical use of common organizational principles like (creative) metaphor or metonymy. In particular, they claim that such texts may not have a logical mechanism (LM), which drives the resolution of the incongruity in the Incongruity-Resolution model. In addition, Brône et al. (2006: 217) suggest that cognitive linguistic theories can offer a better explanation of the inferential process involved in humour creation and interpretation as
1 I am grateful to Salvatore Attardo for providing this paper. The page numbers are arbitrarily given according to my own printing.
he remarks that some logical mechanisms correspond to cross-domain mappings, which are also the basis of cognitive phenomena such as conceptual metaphor and blending (cf. also Attardo et al. 2002).
Attardo (forthcoming) acknowledges that it may be impossible to provide a unified theory that explains why some metaphors are humorous and others are not. However, he ventures the following suggestion. Drawing on Oring’s (2003) idea of ‘appropriate incongruity’ and the Incongruity-Resolution model, he proposes that some metaphors are perceived as humorous because they are:
[M]etaphors in which the incongruity of the mapping of different domains is not fully resolved by the interpretation (finding appropriateness/resolution) of the metaphor (Oring 2003). This explanation combines semantic and pragmatic factors: the incongruity of the mapping is a semantic fact, the research for appropriateness a pragmatic one. It is obvious that it can be recast in blending terms without any loss of analytical power (ibid.3).
Like jokes, humorous metaphors involve detecting an incongruity. However, unlike in jokes, the incongruity is only partially resolved. As Attardo emphasises in the quotation above, the Incongruity-Resolution model (and consequently the GTVH) and the BT model can be equally apt to explain this process (cf. also Howell 2007 for an application of the GTHV metric and co nceptual blending to Brussig’s (1995) Helden wie wir).
In the analysis of the examples below, I will attempt to bring together all the points made above and combine CMT, BT and GTVH in the study of potentially humorous metaphors in my data. I will use CMT to demonstrate how language can be exploited to
I will now turn to discuss the problems related to the translation of (potentially humorous) metaphors.
7.6 Translation of (Humorous) Metaphor
As theorists in CMT demonstrate, metaphor is a pervasive feature of everyday language. However, scholars in TS have almost exclusively concentrated on the translation of metaphor in literary texts, and poetry in particular. In contrast, the use of creative metaphor in non-literary texts such as advertisement or newspaper articles only receives a passing treatment.
Newmark (1995: 104-113) considers the type of text the metaphor appears in (literary, non-literary), the type of metaphor (dead, clichéd, original, etc.) and the relationship between source and target language (related or distant languages) to be relevant contextual factors for choosing one translation approach rather than another. More generally, he suggests that the translator ’s decision process should always consider the relevance a metaphorical expression has within the text.
In a more pragmatic vein, Dobrzyńska (1995) tackles the problem of translating metaphors as stylistic devices used in given contexts for specific communicative purposes. For Dobrzyńska, transferring a metaphor across cultures poses problems related to the connotation given to the words in the original text, which may not be found in the target language. For example, she explains that the P olish expression ‘Ale leje wodę’ literally means ‘Isn’t he pouring water?’ but metaphorically describes someone who says trivial, unsubstantial things. This negative connotation given to the word ‘water’ in Polish (being thin, unsubstantial) may not be present in the target language into which we want to translate it (ibid.599). Hence, the translator’s awareness of the culture-specificity of metaphors is fundamental for providing an adequate translation.
Boase-Beier ’s (2006: 96-100) discussion on the translation of metaphor concentrates on the interpretative process from a cognitive point of view. She points out that Stylistics and TS have recently focused on two different aspects of metaphor, which are however strictly linked. Like Cognitive Linguistics, Stylistics is interested in the cognitive mechanism at work in the process of metaphor creation and understanding. In contrast, scholars in TS concentrate on the cultural differences that are linguistically realised by metaphors (cf. the Polish example above). Boase-Beier suggests that ‘universal’ metaphors that are based on linguistic and conceptual similarities do not pose problems in translation. In contrast, those metaphors that are influenced by the culture within which they are embedded challenge translation. For instance, she explains that those metaphors that use tea cups or games of cricket as source domains in English may not have an equivalent in German (or, for that matter, in Italian). However, as we have seen earlier, ‘universal’ metaphors can also vary across cultures, thus requiring attention. Both
Dobrzyńska and Boase-Beier conclude that understanding the conceptual components of
a metaphor can facilitate its translation. Similarly, Schäffner (2004) proposes the integration of cognitive approaches in the study of metaphor translation. In her view, CMT can reveal how a given target domain is conventionally constructed metaphorically in the source and target culture. Therefore, it can help translators capture the differences between the two and facilitate the transfer of a metaphor from the former into the latter (cf. also Alexieva 1997 for a similar approach to metaphor translation). As Schäffner explains:
Translatability is no longer a question of the individual metaphorical expression, as identified in the ST, but it becomes linked to the level of conceptual system in the source and target culture (ibid.1258).
Schäffner ’s claim is clearly consistent with Kövecses’s (2005) analysis of cross- cultural variation in metaphor as discussed in Section 7.2.1 above. In her analysis, Schäffner examines the translation of political speech from English into German according to this approach. Her findings interestingly show how metaphor can be modified in translation because of the cultural variation. She finds five different ways in which metaphor can be manipulated. Sometimes, the underlying conceptual metaphor may be transferred but only part of its individual manifestations is retained. In other cases, some entailments (inferences about or connotations of the source domain) of the original conceptual metaphor can be made more explicit. It can also happen that the metaphor in the TT is more elaborate than the original one. At other times, the ST and TT may contain different metaphorical expressions which can be subsumed under the same conceptual metaphor. Finally, the metaphor in the TT can highlight different aspects of the
Rojo Lopez (2002) focuses in particular on the translation of potentially humorous metaphors in the fictional work by David Lodge (1985) Small World, translated into Spanish by Esteban Riambau Saurí. Like Schäffner (2004), Rojo Lopez suggests a broader approach that focuses on the manipulation of ‘cognitive frames’ (Fillmore 1976, quoted in Rojo Lopez 2002) or shared knowledge in the ST. In her view, it can help translators understand the text and hopefully facilitate their task (ibid.39). To this end, Rojo Lopez presents a model that takes into account the stylistic, pragmatic and cognitive factors involved in the creation of humour. Rojo Lopez ’s model is based on the analysis of four procedures (modification, reinforcement, metaphoric mapping and metonymic mapping) that Lodge uses in order to manipulate the frames or knowledge of the world for humorous purposes. Bearing in mind the scope of this chapter, I focus specifically on Rojo Lopez ’s investigation into ‘metaphoric mapping’.
Interestingly, Rojo Lopez shows how Lodge uses more or less conventional metaphors drawing from the ANIMAL domain to refer to his characters ’ features or behaviour (e.g. “fangs” instead of “teeth”, “nuzzle” instead of “smell and stroke”). In this way, his readers are led to rely on their knowledge about animals in order to interpret the text and grasp its potential humour (i.e. human beings are animals). Problems in translation may arise when the linguistic items of the target language cannot convey the same images, thus hindering the construction of the same cognitive process of the original. For example, she explains that the Spanish translator opted to translate “fangs” as “camillos”. Unfortunately, this term in Spanish is used both for animal and human canines. Therefore, the humorous reference to the ANIMAL domain is lost in translation. Rojo Lopez ’s
To sum up, translating metaphor is often complicated by an array of linguistic, cognitive, pragmatic and stylistic factors. All the studies above clearly demonstrate that scholars in TS who are interested in the translation of metaphor are likely to benefit from the cognitive insight provided by Cognitive Linguistics. In the next subsection, I will consider the translation strategies discussed in the literature in relation to metaphor.
7.6.1 Translation Strategies for Metaphor Both Dobrzyńska (1995: 599) and Rojo Lopez (2002: 60) see three possible solutions in transferring (potentially humorous) metaphors across languages. These are: using the same metaphoric expression, using another metaphor with a similar sense, or using another linguistic device, for example paraphrasing the metaphor. In contrast, Newmark (1995: 106-113) proposes a larger set of translation strategies for metaphor. In Newmark’s view, since metaphors convey a meaning (or ‘sense’ in his terminology) and an image, translators may:
a) transfer the metaphorical expression, with some lexical variation;
b) translate the metaphorical expression literally or transform it into a simile, and add extra information;
c) substitute the original metaphorical expression with a target language metaphor that conveys a different image but the same meaning;
d) transfer the meaning of the metaphor but not the image it evokes, that is 265 d) transfer the meaning of the metaphor but not the image it evokes, that is 265
e) omit the metaphor;
f) compensate for the loss of a metaphor by adding another elsewhere in the text. It should be noted that the difference between strategy (a) and (c) is not clear-cut. As a matter of fact, it is very likely that any variation in the lexical items may correspond to a variation in the image. However, the two strategies diverge because the former conveys an image that is very similar to the target one. In contrast, the latter creates an image that is (completely) different. The data analysis below will show this difference in more detail.
As I have commented earlier, Schäffner’s (2004) description of five options of metaphor manipulation in translation relies on the CMT approach. However, she also ma kes use of Newmark’s taxonomy for her analysis and remarks on its high prescriptivism (ibid.1256-1257). More importantly, it should be noted that Schäffner discusses Newmark’s (1981) previous model that does not include the compensatory strategy I reported above. Therefore, drawing from Toury (1995), Schäffner (ibid.) points out compensatory alternatives such as the transformation of a non-metaphoric expression into a metaphor (non- metaphor → metaphor) and the addition of extra metaphoric materia l in the TT (zero → metaphor). They are accepted here as a further clarification of strategy (f) above.
In my opinion, the strategies described above are very similar to those discussed in this study for both wordplay and culture-specific allusions (cf. Ch. 5 and 6 respectively) and can be placed onto the foreignisation-localisation continuum (Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998; Ramière 2006) reported in Chapter 6. For example, strategies (a) and (b) can be regarded as source-oriented approaches that attempt to retain the original metaphor and can be
To conclude, until recently HS and TS have paid little attention to the creation of humour via metaphor, its understanding and its translation. As Rojo Lopez acknowledges (ibid.66-67), further research is certainly needed and her work is an interesting attempt to demonstrate how the translation of metaphor can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach. With this in mind, I will now investigate how metaphor is exploited for humorous purposes in my data. Moreover, the contrastive analysis of the ST and TT aims to understand the translation process at work in transferring them. This will allow me to examine the differences between the two datasets in relation to their potential humour.
7.7 Data Analysis
As in the previous two chapters of data analysis, I carried out a preliminary examination of those turns preceding an instance of canned laughter in the ST. I have already argued that this condition is regarded here as an indication of the scriptwriters’ (and production crew’s) intention to convey humour. Hence, the presence and length of a recording of canned laughter are marked by means of one, two or three smiley faces (☺; cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2 above). In addition, like Semino (2008), I have identified metaphorical
In a number of cases of the 17 potentially humorous metaphors examined here some characters contribute to the conversation by adding extra elements to the metaphor introduced by another character (extended metaphor). This seems to enhance the potential humour of the text, as confirmed by the presence of various recordings of canned laughter. Since each of these cases can be explained in terms of the mapping of a particular source domain into a particular target domain, I count them as one instance of humorous metaphor (cf. Subsection 7.73). Due to time a space limitations, only some examples are discussed below but a complete list of the 17 potentially humorous metaphors in the ST can be found in Appen dix IV, “Humorous Metaphors” at the end of this thesis.
CMT will be used in the analysis in order to discuss the relationship of individual examples with conventional conceptual metaphor in English. Moreover, I will show how the scriptwriters often selected the source domains of the metaphors in order to convey idiosyncratic cues about the six main characters and enhance the general themes around which the series revolves. In the last subsection, the examination of a more complex novel metaphor developed during a conversational exchange among the six main characters will demonstrate that a combined use of both CMT and BT can explain humorous potential better than the use of CMT alone. As with wordplay and culture- specific allusions, all examples will be also discussed according to the GTVH metric and
The discussion of each example in the ST from a cognitive and linguistic point of view is followed by the examination of their dubbed Italian counterparts. This analysis seems to indicate that the Italian translators were extremely sensitive to the use of metaphor as a humour trigger. Moreover, it shows that dubbing can facilitate the manipulation of the text in order to convey its entertaining function.
Last but not least, this data analysis (as in the previous chapters) is divided into subsections that have been labelled according to the strategy used to transfer the metaphors from the ST into the Italian TT, with the exception of the last Subsection 7.7.3. Drawing on Newmar k’s set of translation strategies, I have found that transferring the metaphor (with some variation) and substituting it with an equivalent one were mostly used. Hence, the following discussion will be mainly focused on the use of these two strategies. I have detected only one example that involves paraphrasing the intended meaning of the metaphor (or ‘neutralisation’). Similarly, the omission of the metaphor was used for one single instance and the metaphor is uttered by a character who appears only once in the series. Therefore, I will not be discussing these two instances in the following data analysis, but they are reproduced in Appendix IV , “Humorous Metaphors”. Interestingly, I found no instances of transference with the addition of extra explanatory material. Finally, some compensation is used in conjunction with other strategies, as I will explain shortly.
7.7.1 Transference This strategy involves the preservation of the source and target domain but with slight changes in the elements involved, which are due to the choice of the linguistic expressions the metaphor contains. This occurred in seven instances out of 17 in my data. In this subsection I discuss three interesting examples of creative metaphors (or similes that are extended via metaphorical expressions) in the ST, respectively uttered by Rachel, Joey and Ross.
As I have already argued throughout this thesis, each one of the six main characters embodies an exaggerated prototype with specific idiosyncrasies (Culpeper 2001: 88-89). Rachel, in particular, comes from a rich family and has never worked in her life. Her father has always provided her with everything she needed and her not-to-be husband was supposed to continue on the same line. She has never questioned herself about the fact that other people work and earn money in order to be able to buy goods. She loves shopping for clothes, shoes, accessories, etc. but she has never earned the money she spends. Most of this information is introduced in Episode 1 and reinforced by the metaphor below. Another example can be found in Episode 2 when Phoebe has just found out that her bank added 500 dollars to her account by mistake. Phoebe does not feel comfortable spending money she has not earned and Rachel suggests: “Yeah, but if you spent it, it would be lik e shopping!”. In example (7.1), taken from Episode 1, Rachel is on the phone with her father and she uses the following metaphor in order to explain to him the reason why she left just before her wedding:
[7.1] Rachel: C'mon Daddy,
Rachel: Come on Dad, you listen to me! It's like, it's like,
Rachel: Avanti papà, devi
must listen to me! The fact is it's like all my life, everyone has
ascoltarmi! Il fatto è che per
tutta la vita gli altri mi hanno
that all my life, the others told
me: ‘You are a slipper! A You're a shoe! You're a shoe!
detto: ‘Sei una ciabatta! Una
slipper! A bad/ugly shoe!’ So You're a shoe!’ And today I just
ciabatta! Una scarpaccia!’ Così
today I stopped and I said: A sto pped and I said, ‘What if I
oggi mi sono bloccata e ho
what if I didn’t want to be a don’t wanna be a shoe? What if
detto: ‘E se non volessi essere
slipper? What if I wanted to be a I wanna be a- a purse ☺☺,
una ciabatta? E se volessi essere
handbag? O maybe a hat?’ No, y'know? Or a- or a hat!’ ☺☺
una borsa? O magari un
you don’t have to buy me a hat, No, I'm not saying I want you to
cappello?’ No, non mi devi
I’m saying I’m a hat… It’s a buy me a hat I'm saying I am a
comprare un cappello, sto
metaphor Dad!! ha- ☺ It's a metaphor, Daddy!
dicendo che sono un cappello...
Ross: Here is the origin of your ☺☺☺
È una metafora papà!! ☺
Ross: Ecco l’origine dei tuoi problems.
Ross: You can see where he'd
problemi. ☺☺
have trouble. ☺☺☺
In line with her character, personal history and interests, Rachel chooses the source domain of ACCESSORIES to talk about her feelings regarding the view of herself that was imposed by others and the new IDENTITY (target domain) she may be developing. Therefore, in CMT terms, the underlying conceptual metaphor may be expressed as IDENTITIES ARE ACCESSORIES . Indeed, Rachel uses a metaphor to express how she thinks others see her (“You’re a shoe”) and how she might want to see herself (“What if I don’t wanna be a shoe? What if I wanna be a- a purse, y’know? Or a- or a hat!”). Clearly, Rachel uses the ACCESSORIES as the source domain of her metaphor because of its relevance among her priorities and interests (human concern). Thus, the metaphor reinforces the set of inferences that the audience is likely to draw about Rachel and her character (a rich and superficial woman).
In my opinion, the humour of this example works at several levels. Firstly, it seems to reside in the incongruity that Rachel’s metaphor conveys. Most, if not all, cultures usually consider identity and material possessions at the opposite ends of a scale of values. Rachel seems to share this moral value because she wants people to see her as a capable
and thoughtful person. Nevertheless, she talks about her identity in terms of material possessions, thus acting superficially and incongruously.
The potential humour is reinforced by Rachel’s father’s reaction to her metaphor, since
he thinks she is asking him to buy her a hat. The audience may infer that this reaction is due to his knowledge and expectations about his daughter. In other words, he seems to believe that Rachel is a materialistic person. Ross’s following turn (“You can see where you have trouble”) seems to underline that both Rachel and the people around her are equally superficial. Finally, I would like to add that, at a higher level, the scriptwriters seem to have exploited Rachel’s metaphor to poke fun at North American culture more generally . Rachel is a ‘shopaholic’ and also a clear product of the mass consumption society she lives in. In a broader sense then, the butts of the joke are not only Rachel and her father but also North American society as a whole (cf. also Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998 on consumption and identity). In GTVH terms, the semantic and conceptual clash can be seen by a contextual identity/accessories SO. At concrete level it seems to evoke a human/non-human SO while at the abstract level is can be said to activate the possible/impossible SO since a person cannot be an accessory. Besides, the TA KR defines the disparaging function of this metaphor, which targets Rachel, her father and
North American society 2 . In the TT, the metaphorical expressions were transferred but it is possible to notice
some variation. In the or iginal version, Rachel repeats “you are a shoe” four times. In the TT, ra ther than translating the word “shoe” with its Italian correspondent word “scarpa”, the translators replaced it twice with one of its hyponyms, which is “ciabatta” (“slipper”). The third time, “shoe” was translated with “scarpa” but the suffix -ccia was added at the end of it. This is a pejorative suffix in Italian which may denote bad quality (“scarpaccia”,
2 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
refers to a type of footwear usually considered neither valuable nor glamorous and “scarpaccia” only conveys the meaning of a bad quality shoe. As I have argued before, Rachel is a sophisticated person who comes from a very rich family. She is used to spending a large amount of money on quality and expensive items of clothing and
accessories (e.g. in the same episode she buys a pair of expensive boots with her father’s credit card). Therefore, the TT receivers may wonder whe ther the words “ciabatta” and “scarpaccia” equally conjure up the domain of accessories or clothing she may be interested in. In my opinion, the Italian audience might not perceive the original opposition between Rachel’s previous wealthy life style and her new life. Yet, the use of “ciabatta” and “scarpaccia” seem to reinforce Rachel’s point that people see her in a negative light. They are particularly negative for Rachel as they are not fashionable accessories such as a “hat” or a “purse”. Hence, “ciabatta” and “scarpaccia” seem to compensate for the previous loss. Interestingly, the word “hat” was translated with its Italian equivalent whereas, “purse” was translated as “borsa” (“handbag”). This item is still part of the ACCESSORIES source domain but it may be closer to the Italian s’ perception of expensive accessories. In general, both the original SOs and TAs and the
other KRs seem to be successfully retained 3 . As can be seen, there are five recordings of canned laughter that support the metaphor in the ST and only two in the TT.
Example (7.2) below is taken from Episode 1 as well. Joey utters a humorous simile that is later extended via a metaphorical expression. As we have seen many times so far,
3 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
273
Joey is portrayed as rather simple-minded, not being able to grasp implied meanings in conversation. We have also seen that his main interests are women and sex (cf. example (5.3) in which Joey says that he would kill himself rather than not being able to perform sexually) and food alike. The domains of WOMEN and FOOD function as metaphoric source domains i n many of Joey’s contributions because, in Kövecses’s terms, they are part of ‘his human concern’ (cf. Appendix IV, “Humorous Metaphors” at the end of this thesis). Example (7.2) can be seen as a self-standing joke and I will apply Attardo’s (1998, 2001) distinction between jab and punch lines to its analysis. The scene opens with Ross, Chandler and Joey in Ross’s new flat. Ross has just been left by his lesbian wife and he is very upset. He suggests that if there is only one woman for every man he has lost his chance to be happy. Joey tries to cheer him up by means of a metaphor and Chandler’s punch line closes the scene:
Joey: But what the hell are you about? ‘One woman’? ☺☺☺
[7.2] Joey: What are you talking
Joey : Ma di che diavolo stai
talking about? ‘Only one That's like saying there's only one
parlando? ‘Una sola donna’?
woman’? It’s like saying: ‘You flavour of ice cream for you.
Sarebbe come dire:‘Hai
only have one ice-cream flavour Lemme tell you something, Ross.
solamente un unico gusto di
to choose from’. Let me tell you There's [sic.] lots of flavours out
gelato da scegliere’. Lascia che ti
dica una cosa. Ci sono un sacco di something. There are lots of there. There's Rocky Road, and
flavours to choose from. There's Cookie Dough, and Bing! Cherry
gusti da scegliere. C'è il gusto
Rocky flavour, Gianduia flavour, Vanilla ☺☺☺. You could get
Rocky, il gusto Gianduia, e
and Bingo! Vanilla Cherry. You 'em with Jimmies or nuts, or
Bingo! Ciliegia vanigliata. Li
can eat them with wafers, or with whipped cream! This is the best
puoi mangiare con le cialde o con
nuts, or with whipped cream! thing that ever happened to you!
le noci o con la panna montata!
This is the best thing that has ever You got married, you were, like
Questa è la cosa migliore che ti
happened to you! You got what, eight? ☺☺ Welcome back
sia mai successa! Ti sei sposato
married you were what? Eight? to the world! Grab a spoon!
che, quanti anni avevi? Otto?
Bentornato alla vita. Prendi un
Welcome back to life. Take a
teaspoon of ice-cream! hungry or horny! ☺
Ross:
I honestly don't know if I'm
cucchiaino di gelato!
Ross: Frankly I don't know if I ’m Chandler: You stay out of my
Ross : Francamente non so se
hungry or sick. freezer. ☺☺☺
sono affamato o nauseato.
Chandler: Sta’ lontano dal mio Chandler: Stay away from my
freezer ☺
freezer.
In the ST, as in Rachel’s metaphor, the scriptwriters appear to mock the great availability of every kind of consumption product in the United States. In this case, women (the target domain) are constructed in terms of the wide range of ice-cream
flavours available on the market (the source domain) and ways of having ice-cream (with nuts, whipping cream, Jimmies). Joey’s choice of the source domain of FOOD confirms it has a central position in his priorities. Describing women in terms of food is not novel in English as entrenched metaphors that define women as ‘tarts’ or ‘cakes’ are part of everyday language (cf. Goatly 1997: 155-156 on ideology and metaphor). However, Joey’s use of ice-cream flavours is an example of a creative use of language. As in the previous example, Joey’s metaphor portrays a scenario where human features and objects (food) are blending and clashing in an unresolved tension that triggers humour.
In more general terms, this example can be considered as potentially humorous because it is based on two clichés present in many Western societies. Many men see women as objects (in this case ice-cream flavours) that they can obtain. Since Ross does not have much experience with women (as we can inf er from Joey’s hyperbole “You got married, you were like what e ight?”) and has just been left by his wife, Joey points out to him that the advantage of being single is being able to have many new sexual experiences (“grab a spoon”). However, Joey’s over detailed account seems to go beyond its purpose, thus becoming almost inappropriate (Culpeper 2001: 88-89).
Ross’s turn (that can be seen as a jab line in the exchange) and Chandler’s final turn (punch line) reinforce the humorous potential of the metaphor. Ross processes both the literal and metaphorical meaning of Joey’s utterance and replies exploiting both. From the literal point of view , Ross plays on Joey’s metaphor implying that his detailed
explanation of ice-cream flavours prevents him from going beyond the literal 275
interpretation and make him feel hungry (cf. Goatly 1997: 127-128 on asymmetric interpretation of metaphors for humorous purposes and Norrick 1993: 30 on the use of extended metaphors as a means of punning in conversation, be it intentional or due to misunderstanding). In contrast, from a metaphorical point of view, Ross’s jab line seems to indicate that Joey’s metaphor creates such strong connections between the two domains ( FOOD and WOMEN ) that Ross cannot help being aroused by it and fantasising about women. Both interpretations have high potential for humorous effects. Finally, Chandler’s punch line closes the scene with a warning (“you better stay out of my freezer”). The potential humour of Chandler’s punch line lies in its indirect disparaging comment on Joey’s vivid description and Ross’s over-interpretation of the metaphor. According to the GTVH metric, the clash and potential humour of this metaphor can be explained by a contextual food/women SO. Interestingly, it seems to evoke both the concrete human/non-human sex/no-sex SOs, but I will choose only one for easy of categorisation, as suggested in Subsection 4.4.3 above. Hence, I consider it as an instance of the sex/non-sex SO because it seems contextually more relevant. Finally, at the abstract level this example seems to activate the possible/impossible SO since a person cannot be an ice-cream. Although at different levels, the TAs seem to be Joey, Ross and
North American society 4 . In the TT, Joey’s metaphor was literally translated into Italian because it does not
contain specific linguistic ambiguity. However, it contains culture-specific allusions that I will discuss shortly. In general, it can be said that Italian culture and society share similar stereotyped ideas regarding interpersonal relationships between men and women, involving the objectification of the latter. The Italian audience is therefore likely to grasp
4 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
276
the original intended image and potential humour conveyed by the whole exchange. However, the translation problems here are mainly related to the culture-specific references to ice cream flavours. As I stated before, the U.S. is the country with the greatest variety of any consumer product, including ice-cream flavours. Some of these ( “Rocky Road” and “Cookie Dough”) cannot be found in Italy. The translators opted for combining the foreignisation and localisation approach (Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998). They retained the original name for “Rocky Road”, albeit shortened to “Rocky” while they localised “Coockie Dough” as “Gianduia”, which is similar in taste but more familiar to Italian s. “Cherry vanilla” was instead translated literally as “Ciliegia vanigliata”. Italians are likely to have no difficulties with this, although the Italian counterpart is actually “Spagnola”. Moreover, as “Jimmies” are not very common in Italy, the translators opted to adapt the text to the target cultural context by t ranslating “Jimmies” as “cialde” ( “waffle”), which are typically associated with ice-cream in Italy.
Finally, Ross’s turn reveals an interesting shift. In the ST he says that he does not know whether he is feeling “hungry or horny” while in the TT he say he does not know whether he is “affamato o nauseato” (“hungry or sick”). Although the humour of Joey's metaphor is retained, the inferences we draw from Ross’s jab line differ. From the ST the audience may infer that Ross is partly aroused by Joey’s speech while the TT may lead the target audience to think he is disgusted by it. A possible explanation is that the translators have o pted for a ‘generalised’ compensation (cf. Harvey 1995: 82-84) trying to reinforce the image of pain and emotional frailness that the character Ross conveys throughout the episode and the series. Another interesting shift can be found in Chandler’s punch line. The translators translated “you” as a singular “tu”, which seems to
terms of characterisation. As a final note, only the recording of canned laughter after Chandler’s punch line was retained in the TT.
In example (7.3), again from Episode 1, Ross utters a novel metaphor that can be explained by means of CMT. As I have mentioned earlier, Ross studied at university with Chandler and then continued in order to obtain his PhD. He works in a museum and he is pursuing an academic career (during the following series he will start teaching palaeontology at the University). Yet, he can be seen as a case of prototypical distortion. His higher education and interest in palaeontology are often exhibited in non-appropriate ways and situations, leading to humorous effects (e.g. in Episode 3 Chandler points out that Ross always “over pronounces every word” and in Episode 6 everybody makes fun of him while he tries to explain the concept of monogamy from an anthropological point of view). Despite his self-confidence and his logical attitude to what surrounds him, Ross is a fragile man who often strives for other people’s approval and understanding. In this scene, Ross uses a simile to explain his feelings after being left by his wife:
[7.3] Ross: I just feel like
I feel as if someone put someone reached down my
Ross : Sto come se mi avessero
Ross:
their hand in my throat, grabbed throat, grabbed my small
messo una mano in gola, preso
my intestine, pull it out of my intestine, pulled it out off my
l'intestino, l'avessero strappato
mouth and tied around my neck. mouth and tied it around my
dalla bocca e me l'avessero
avvolto intorno al collo. Chandler: Cake? neck...
Chandler : Dolcetto? ☺
Chandler : Cookie? ☺☺
In the ST, Ross tries to explain his negative emotional experience in terms of physical pain. This metaphor may therefore fall under Kövecses’s (2002: 46) conceptual metaphor
5 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
I would like to argue that, in this example, the scriptwriters exploited the force of the image conveyed by the simile for two reasons. On the one hand, the use of such an absurd image is likely to elicit the amusement of the audience who, as in the case of Rachel and Joey, laughs at Ross’s expense. On the other, it implicitly suggests the peculiarities of Ross’s character, his interests and concerns. In this simile, Ross makes reference to a specific part of the intestine, not simply to the intestine in general. The small intestine allows the absorption of all the nutriments into the blood, which means that it is highly relevant to our existence. In addition, he uses the term “(small) intestine” rather than “bowels”. The specificity of this reference can be related to Ross’s education, his ‘personal history’ and ‘human concern’. He draws from a familiar domain to talk about a new, and painful, experience.
Another interesting feature of this passages lies in the fact that both the dramatic scenario depicted by the simile and its implied req uest for sympathy on the others’ part are disrupted by Chandler’s subsequent offer of food. Ross’s utterance is directly connected to the EATING schema, which involves having, digesting but also enjoying food. However, the scenario described by Ross’s simile is rather unpleasant because it directly refers to the digestive organs. In addition, it involves a scenario where part of the digestive tract is removed from the body. As a matter of fact, people do not like talking about the bodily process involved in eating because it is likely to cause abstaining from food. Chandler’s offer of cookies is insensitive towards Ross’s request for help and sympathy. Moreover, it clashes with the image con veyed by Ross’s metaphor, which
the scenario depicted by the metaphor is physically impossible. Finally, the TA is Ross 6 . In the TT, Ross’s simile contains two relevant differences. Firstly, the specific
reference t o the “small intestine” in Ross’s metaphor has been reduced to a generic “intestino” (“intestine”). This may create a loss in terms of characterisation because it
removes the indirect reference t o Ross’s high level of lexicalisation regarding the human organs. Secondly, the word “cookie” was not translated with its equivalent “biscotto” but with the word “dolcetto” (“small cake”). The translators’ choice may have been caused by the cultural difference between North-Americans and Italians regarding biscuits. While the former tend to have biscuits very often during the day, the latter rarely have them after breakfast. The term “dolcetto” is more generic and it may have been considered as more adequate for the evening time during which the scene is set. In spite of these minor shifts, the SOs, TA and other KRs were retained in the TT, as also confirmed by the recording of canned laughter at the end of Chandler’s turn 7 .
7.7.2 Substitution This strategy suggests replacing the original humorous metaphor with another that can convey similar textual functions. In CMT terms, it involves the substitution of the original source, the target or both domains with others in the TT. In my data this technique
6 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression. 7 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
Example (7.4) below is taken from Episode 18. In this scene, all six friends are playing poker in Monica and Rachel’s flat. According to the rules of poker, every player has to decide whether to bet or not on the value of the card combination in their possession. Joey makes a creative use of metaphor to tell his friends he is not betting on his cards:
[7.4] Phoebe: OK Joey, your bet.
Phoebe: Joey, it’s your turn. Joey: Ahhh, I fold like a cheap
Phoebe: Joey, sta a te.
Joey: Ohh, I feel as a poor bitten hooker who got hit in the stomach povero cane randagio bastonato in up stray dog on a snowy and by a fat guy with sores on his
Joey: Ahh, mi sento come un
rainy day… Well, I pass! face. ☺☺☺ [the girls look at
un giorno di neve e di pioggia...
Beh, passo!
him, confused] Oh, I’m out. ☺☺
In the ST, Joey ’s simile exploits two meanings of the verb ‘to fold’ to create an effect that can be associated to horizontal punning. In poker procedure and terminology this verb means forfeiting interest in the current pot. However, Joey exploits the literal meaning of the verb in order to introduce a simile involving an incongruous and disturbing comparison between playing poker and prostitution. Joey uses this grim scenario to show his disappointment for not having a good hand of cards. In his description, losing at poker is as upsetting as being a prostitute (“hooker”) brutally beaten up by an obese man “with sores on his face”. This simile evokes the PROSTITUTION domain (schema or script) and further related inferences (e.g. slavery conditions, life threatening job, violence, etc.). It also involves a very specific scenario of disease and physical aggression. To some extent then, Joey’s simile can be related to Kövecses’s (2002: 46) conceptual metaphor EMOTIONAL HARM IS PHYSICAL DAMAGE . However, his metaphorical description appears highly inappropriate to the relatively trivial situation he
In my opinion, all these factors contribute to the potential humour of this exchange. At the author-audience level, the receivers of the ST are likely to reinforce their inferences regarding Joey’s character and react to his lack of contextual sensitivity. In GTVH terms then the semantic and contextual clash that this potentially humorous metaphor seems to evoke can be expressed according to the SO: losing at poker/being hit while prostituting. Moreover, it seems to activate a concrete sex/no-sex SO and an abstract actual/non-actual SO since Joey is not a prostitute. As in other cases, the TA seems to work at different
levels: it can be both prostitutes and Joey himself, as I have suggested above 8 . It should
be finally noted that some viewers may not find this simile humorous at all, due to the nature of the source scenario. In the TT, the pun based on the verb ‘to fold’ could not be retained because its Italian equivalent is ‘passare’ (‘to pass’), as used at the end of Joey’s turn (“passo” for “I’m out” in the ST). Therefore, the translators opted for making the idea of EMOTIONAL HARM more explicit (Schäffner 2004) by substituting “I fold” with “sto” (meaning figuratively “I feel”) before the simile. Furthermore, they substituted the original simile with a different one so as to retain the original device for humorous purposes. Interestingly, the
8 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
Italian translators decided to deploy a self-censorship approach by changing the source domain of the simile, which appears to tone down the force of the original ST. Despite conjuring up a negative scenario, the simile in the TT does not refer to a taboo topic such as prostitution and its related negative connotations. The Italian translators replaced the prostitute with a stray dog on a snowy and rainy day. Interestingly though, the adjective “beaten up” (“bastonato”) was preserved, thus conveying the same idea of PHYSICAL DAMAGE suggested by the original simile. All in all, the differences between the ST and TT seem to result in a partial preservation of the original potential humour. This can be practically indicated by the fact that the contextual SO becomes Joey/the stray dog which evokes a human/non-human SO rather than the sex/no-sex SO (and taboo topic) in the
original 9 . However, the potential effectiveness of the original seems to be minimised. Finally, the two recordings of canned laughter in the ST were omitted in the TT.
Example (7.5) from Episode 16 displays another example of novel and creative metaphorical expression that has been substituted in the TT with an equally creative metaphor. The latter conveys a different image but is similar in meaning. In this scene Chandler tells his friends that the company he works for has recently employed a young woman he finds very attractive:
[7.5] Chandler : It’s not just that
Chandler: It’s not just the fact she’s cute, okay. It’s just that...
Chandler: Non è solo il fatto che
that she is cute, ok?... She is she’s really really cute. ☺☺
è carina, ok?... È che lei è
really cute. Ross : It doesn’t matter. You
davvero carina.
Ross: I doesn’t matter. You don’t don’t dip your pen in the
Ross: Non ha importanza. Non si
eat from the c ompany’s plate. company ink. ☺☺
mangia nel piatto della
compagnia. ☺☺
9 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
In the ST, Ross uses a metaphor to warn Chandler against starting a sexual relationship with his colleague. The context clearly helps to disambiguate the meaning of Ross’s metaphor. My re search on the expression “dip your pen in company ink” has only produced results in discussion forums and an entry in the Urban Dictionary. The latter
claims to be “a slang dictionary with your definitions” 10 whose definition for “dip your pen in company in k” was added in 2005 while my data is dated 1994. I could not find
such entries in the Cambridge or Oxford Dictionaries. In my opinion, Ross’s metaphor is striking and potentially humorous for many reasons. Firstly, the elements of the source WRITING domain (or script) are mapped directly onto
the taboo SEX target domain. This mapping can evoke other potential mappings, which may result in further sexual innuendos (e.g. the pen may correspond to Chand ler’s penis and the ink pot to his co lleague’s vagina). Secondly, at a higher level of abstraction, Ross’s metaphor produces a conceptual clash and incongruity between the formal WORKING domain (or script) and a private SEX one. Thirdly, the fact that Ross talks about the “company ink” refers cleverly to Chandler’s working context. This is likely to make the audience perceive Ross as witty and creative. In GTVH terms, the semantic and conceptual clash I have explained above can be expressed according to the SOs: pen and company ink/penis and vagina, sex/no-sex and normal/abnormal, since having sex with a colleague is usually considered unprofessional. The TAs can be both Chandler and more
generally people who would like to have a sexual relationship with a colleague 11 . In the TT, the Italian translators replaced the original metaphor with one that exploits a
different source domain but has similar meaning. Rather than using the WRITING domain
10 http://www.urbandictionary.com
11 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
(or script), the Italian translators opted for the EATING one, thus substituting the action of ‘dipping one’s pen’ with ‘eating’ and ‘ink’ with ‘plate’. Nevertheless, they retained the reference to Chandler’s company (“il piatto della compagnia”), thus conveying Ross’s
witty link between sex and Chandler’s working environment. It could be argued that the TT lacks the original visual effect produced by mapping the elements of the WRITING
domain (or script) into the target SEX one. However, the use of the EATING domain seems to compensate adequately for this loss since sex is often metaphorically related to eating, and women are often described in terms of food (cf. example (7.2) above and Goatly 1997). Although I do not consider it for my quantitative analysis, it seems interesting to point out that the Italian TT adds an extra SO to the original metaphor (food/no-food),
and it retains its targets 12 . Unlike in the previous instance, the differences between the ST and TT in example (7.5) do not seem to cause (relevant) shifts at the macro level. The
recording of canned laughter supporting Ross’s metaphor was preserved in the TT.
7.7.3 A Complex Example: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT In the analysis that follows I apply the methodological approach of BT to a metaphor which is exploited for humorous purposes. This is also an example of what Mio and Graesser (1991:91) call ‘humorous disparaging metaphors’. I first deal with the original text and conclude with a discussion of its Italian dubbed version. The conversational exchange I am discussing below is the ‘teaser’ of Episode 2 (cf. Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Attardo 1998: 241) and as such can be analy sed according to Attardo’s (1998, 2001) distinction between jab and punch lines. In the scene, the six main characters are at
12 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
Central Perk. The conversation revolves around the importance of kissing within sexual intercourse between men and women. The male and female characters take opposite sides, thus creating the following humorous exchange:
Monica: What you guys don't don’t understand is, for us,
[7.6] Monica: What you guys
Monica : Quello che voi ragazzi
understand is, for us, kissing is as kissing is as important as any part
non capite è che, per noi, il bacio
important as all the rest. of it.
è importante quanto tutto il resto.
Joey: Yeah, of course!... Really? Joey: Yeah, right!
Joey : Sì, certo!... Veramente? ☺
Phoebe: Of course! ☺☺☺...Y'serious? ☺☺
Phoebe : Certo!
Rachel: A person’s secret is all in Phoebe: Oh, yeah!
Rachel : Il segreto di una persona
that first kiss. Rachel: Everything you need to
è tutto nel primo bacio.
Monica: Absolutely. know is in that first kiss.
Monica : Assolutamente.
Chandler: Yeah, I think for us, Monica: Absolutely.
Chandler : Sì, credo che per noi il
kissing is like the first act of a Chandler: Yeah, I think for us,
bacio sia come il primo atto di
comedy. Do you understand? kissing is pretty much like an
una commedia. Capito? Cioè
That is like stand-up comedian opening act, y’know? I mean it’s
come il comico che ti devi sorbire
you have to put up with before… like the stand-up comedian you
prima… che escano fuori i Pink
Pink Floyd comes out. have to sit through before Pink
Floyd. ☺☺
Ross: Yeah, and it's not that we Floyd comes out. ☺☺☺
Ross : Sì, e non è che non ci
don't like the comedian. It's only Ross: Yeah, and- and it’s not that
piaccia l’attore comico. È solo
that it’s not him we bought the we don't like the comedian, it's
che non è per lui che avevamo
comprato il biglietto.
ticket for.
that-that... that's not why we
Chandler: See, the problem is bought the ticket. ☺☺☺
Chandler : Vedi, il problema è
that, after the concert's over, no Chandler: The problem is,
che dopo che è finito il concerto,
matter how the show went, girls though, after the concert’s over,
comunque sia andato lo show, le
are always looking for that no matter how great the show
ragazze continuano a cercare
foreplay and, you know, when was, you girls are always looking
sempre quei preliminari e, sai,
one is in the car, one tries… just for the comedian again ☺☺,
quando si è in macchina, in
tries to stay awake. y’know? I mean, we're in the car,
mezzo al traffico, si cerca... si
Ross : That’s true! we're fighting traffic... basically
cerca solo di stare svegli.
Rachel: Yeah, well, I give you a just trying to stay awake. ☺☺☺
Ross : È vero!
piece of advice: take care of that Rachel: Yeah, well, word of
Rachel : Beh, allora vi do un
foreplay. Otherwise next time advice: Bring back the comedian.
consiglio: teneteci a quei
you ’ll stay home, listening to a Otherwise next time you’re gonna volta ve ne starete a casa ad
preliminari. Altrimenti un’altra
good album alone. find yourself sitting at home,
Joey: Are we still talking about listening to that album alone. ☺
ascoltare un bell’album da soli.
Joey : Stiamo ancora parlando di
sex?
[Rachel and Monica give each
Ross: Yes. other a five as a sign of
sesso?
Ross: Sì.
agreement] ☺☺ Joey: [to Ross] Are we still talking about sex? [Ross rises his thumb to confirm they are still talking about sex]. ☺☺☺
From the very beginning, the conversation in the ST polarises. Monica, Rachel and Phoebe emphasise the importance of kissing within sexual intercourse. In her first turn,
Monica makes no explicit reference to sex, wh ich is replaced by the pronoun “it”. This linguistic strategy is commonly used in order to refer to taboo topics. Similarly, the other characters leave the taboo topic unspoken throughout the conversation except for Joey wh o utters it in his punch line (“Are we still talking about sex?”). This may imply that, apart from Joey, they all share the same set of values regarding sex as a taboo topic, which may be part of their ‘ideological point of view’ (Fowler 1986: 130, 1996:16, quoted in Semino 2002: 96). Unlike the female characters, Chandler, Ross and Joey consider kissing irrelevant and/or superfluous.
This point is put forward in Chandler’s first turn by means of a simile and supported by Ross’s following comment. In the simile, sexual intercourse is compared to a rock concert involving a band such as Pink Floyd and kissing in particular is compared with the opening act that precedes the main performance. Within this comparison, women’s attitude towards kissing after the main sexual act is then presented as nonsensical. This idea is expressed in Chandler’s second turn, which extends the simile via a metaphorical expression involving driving home tired after the concert. Chandler’s (or the scriptwriters’) choice of the ROCK CONCERT domain among other possible kinds of stage performances is pivotal. Indeed, at the beginning of a rock concert, an emergent and less popular band or singer (the opening act) usually performs before the main band. This allows the audience some time to find a place and enjoy the main event. Some people may like to attend this introductory part but most of the audience tends to pay little or no attention to it. Therefore, the supporting band is usually considered as superfluous. The same could not happen in other types of events. For example, if we want to go to the theatre and watch a play, we cannot attend the second act and miss the first one in order to enjoy it fully.
In CMT terms, Chandler’s metaphor can be expressed as SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT . Various elements of the ROCK CONCERT source domain are mapped into the SEX target domain. The agents in the source domain are th e ‘spectators attending the concert’, which correspond to ‘people having sex (a man and a woman)’. The ‘opening act (the comedian)’
corresponds to ‘kissing’ while Pink Floyd corresponds to ‘the sexual intercourse’, etc. (cf. Figure 7.2 and 7.3 below).
However, BT provides a better account of how male characters in this scene use a novel metaphor to convey the central inference that ‘women’s attitude to kissing makes
no sense’. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 are representations of the conceptual integration network t hat can explain Chandler’s metaphor. Both represent the conceptualisation of the target
domain ( SEX ) according to the source one ( ROCK CONCERT ). Figure 7.2 shows how men perceive a sexual encounter from their point of view (Chandler’s first turn). Figure 7.3 shows how men think women perceive a sexual enc ounter (Chandler’s second turn). As suggested earlier on, the ‘generic space’ is not reproduced here because its elements are
already present in both input spaces (i.e. ‘agents’, ‘event’, etc.):
The rock concert Men’s perception of a sexual encounter
(Men’s point of view)
Agents : Spectator(s)_______________________Agents: People having sex (man and woman) (man and woman) Event : Rock concert________________________ Event: Sexual encounter Preliminary Stage: Comedian__________________ Preliminary Stage: Kissing Main Stage : Pink Floyd’s performance_______________ Main Stage: Sexual intercourse Goal : Enjoy P.F.’s performance_____________ Goal: Enjoy sexual intercourse
Agents : Spectator(s)/People having sex Event : Rock concert/Sexual encounter Preliminary Stage : Comedian/Kissing
Main Stage : Pink Floyd/Sexual intercourse Goal : Enjoyment of the main stage
Emergent Structure:
Kissing is superfluous and/or irrelevant
Blend
Figure 7.2: Conceptual integration network: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT , Men’s point of view
In Figure 7.2, the mapping of the elements of the source domain ( ROCK CONCERT ) onto the target domain ( SEX ) and their projection into the blended space show that the chronological and hierarchical sequences of both events match perfectly. In particular, in the blend there is a perfect match between the main goal of attending a rock concert and of engaging in a sexual encounter, which, in both cases, is to enjoy the event’s main stage (Pink Floyd’s performance, sexual intercourse). This leads to the central inference that the preliminary stage in both events (the comedian, kissing) is superfluous and/or irrelevant.
The rock concert Women’s perception of a sexual encounter
(Men’s point of view)
Agents : Spectator(s)_______________________Agents: People having sex (man and woman) (man and woman) Event : Rock concert________________________ Event: Sexual encounter Preliminary Stage: Comedian___________________ Preliminary Stage: Kissing Main Stage : Pink Floyd’s performance______________ Main Stage: Sexual intercourse Goal : Enjoy P.F.’s performance_______________ Goal: Enjoy sexual intercourse
Agents : Spectator(s)/People having sex Event : Rock concert/Sexual encounter Preliminary Stage : Comedian/Kissing
Main Stage : Pink Floyd/Sexual intercourse Preliminary/ Post-stage : Going home tired/Kissing Goal : ??
Emergent Structure:
Kissing is both preliminary and post-stage Illogical sequence and relevance clash.
Central Inference:
Women’s attitude to kissing makes no sense
Blend
Figure 7.3: Conceptual integration network: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT, Women’s perceived point of view
Figure 7. 3 represents Chandler’s further elaboration of his metaphor in his second turn with a consequent new emergent structure (he is ‘running the blend’ in Fauconnier and Turner’s 2002: 301 terminology). He aims to attack the women’s attitude towards kissing within the whole sexual encounter. In order to do so, Chandler adds new structure (the post-stage) to both the source and target domain. Thus, he shows that in the ROCK CONCERT domain this involves driving home tired after the main act. Moreover, he points out that women’s conceptualisation of the SEX domain involves kissing as both preliminary and post-stage. Women’s perception of sexual intercourse cannot be deemed
the women’s viewpoint involves a nonsensical fusion between the preliminary stage and the post-stage. This clash leads to the central inference that ‘women’s attitude towards
kissing makes no sense’. This example further confirms Attardo’s suggestion above that the incongruity in humorous metaphors is not resolved. The interpretation process of this example does not lead to the discarding of the first interpretation in favour of another. On the contrary, the interpretation is enriched by the cumulative blending process that produces a clash. In my opinion, the scenario this metaphor presents also contributes to the humour of the exchange. It retains the opposing elements of the two domains: the sexual intercourse, which can be said to be the most intimate experience between two human beings, and a rock concert, which is a collective experience involving hundreds or thousands of people. In GTVH terms, the conceptual clash this metaphor conjures up and its potential humour can be explained according to a contextual two having sex/many attending a concert SO. Moreover, it seems to evoke the concrete sex/no-sex SO and the abstract normal/abnormal SO since it unexpectedly compares sex to a rock concert. The TAs seem to be Monica, Rachel, Phoebe and women in general 13 .
Rachel’s second turn is also an interesting example of elaboration of the metaphor. Due to space constraints, I do not visually represent Rachel’s development of the
metaphor but I will attempt to explain it as clearly as possible. Rather than questioning or rejecting Chandler’s (and Ross’s) metaphor, Rachel chooses to exploit it. She makes use
13 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
the comedian, they will probably experience a less attractive substitute, which is listening to the album alone . This suggests that if they neglect women’s needs, they will not have sexual partners and will have to resort to masturbation. In this case the SOs can respectively be: having a sexual partner/not having a sexual partner and sex/no-sex and normal/abnormal, since sexual intercourse is supposed to be between two people. The TA
are Joey, Chandler, Ross and men in general 14 . Like example (7.2), this complex metaphor is a remarkable illustration of the relation
between topics and characterisation. Joey’s concluding turn can be seen as the punch line which the metaphor has prepared the ground for. Although the receivers of the text, or the audience, may not find it difficult to follow the flow of the characters’ conversation and the metaphoric expression used, Joey does. Unlike example (7.2), in which Ross consciously exploits the literal and metaphorical meaning of Joey’s metaphor, here Joey cannot grasp the intended meaning of Chandler’s metaphor and its further elaborations. This reinforces the audience’s inferences regarding Joey’s (low) cognitive skills and makes them laugh at him. Finally, there is also a (stereotyped) characterisation of heterosexual men and women as having opposing attitudes towards sex, a concern for sex and some sexism on the part of the men in particular.
Generally speaking, the translation of the text does not seem to present significant linguistic difficulties, since the metaphor can be literally translated into Italian (cf.
14 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphor.
Zabalbeascoa 1996: 251, Harvey 1995: 65:86 and Dobrzyńska 1995 mentioned above). From the cultural point of view, the use of the name of a world famous rock band such as Pink Floyd allowed the translators to retain the original reference in Chandler’s metaphor. However, it is possible to notice an important shift at the micro level of the text. In the TT, Chandler’s reference to the “opening act” was (perhaps erroneously) translated as “il primo atto di una commedia” (“the first act of a comedy”) rather than the supporting band or the entertainer before the featured performer. This seems to undermine the point that Chandler’s metaphor intends to make (kissing is superfluous), as I have explained above. However, it should be acknowledged that the subsequent part of Chand ler’s turn counterbalances this discrepancy because it further explains his previous point.
Besides , the second part of Chandler’s metaphor is made explicit (cf. Schäffner 2004: 1267). While Chandler still refers to “kissing” as “the comedian” in the original version,
he talks about “preliminari” (“foreplay”) in the Italian one. Similarly, Rachel’s jab line is translated with the same explicit reference to the SEX domain. As a consequence of this,
the TT seems to minimise the cumulative humorous effect of the original, which culminates in Joey’s punch line. Although the general humour (its SOs, TAs and the other four KRs 15 ) of the exchange is retained, making Chandler’s metaphor and Rachel’s reference to it more explicit seems to minimise the humorous forc e of Joey’s punch line at the end of the exchange. In additi on to this, the target audience’s inferences regarding each of the characters may differ. For example, Chandler and Rachel may be perceived as less witty. Conversely, Joey might be thought to be even more simple-minded because he cannot adequately interpret the topic of the exchange even when it is made explicit (by using “preliminary”).
15 LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
A more appropriate solution could be to retain the original reference to Chan dler’s metaphor, may be changing it slightly. For instance, Rachel’s jab line could have been “ringrazia il comico alla fine” (“thank the comedian at the end of the concert”). This not only refers back to the action of kissing that the women consider very important, but also refers to the end of the rock concert (and the implied sexual intercourse) that Chandler mentions in his second turn.
Finally, only one out of the seven recordings of canned laughter that support the metaphor in the ST was retained in the TT. However, it should be pointed out that the translators added extra turns and characters’ laughs which seem to compensate for the losses caused by the translation process (cf. Harvey’s 1995). For example, in the original after Ross’ jab line Monica is shot smiling while in the TT she is heard laughing. Furthermore, in the TT Ross’s comments on Chandler’s metaphor (“È vero!”, “That’s true! ”) has been added while he is off screen. As I have argued in Chapter 4 and during the analysis in Chapter 5 and 6, it seems that the Italian translators prefer using such devices rather than canned laughter. It goes without saying that this is allowed by dubbing and would not be possible in subtitling. I will return to this in the next chapter.
7.8 Findings and Conclusions
As I hope I managed to demonstrate, the analysis of humorous metaphors in Friends has benefitted from an eclectic approach. The application of CMT and BT to the examples above has proved useful in explaining the humorous potential of the metaphors in my data. In particular, CMT has helped me demonstrate how novel metaphorical expressions can exploit the conceptual metaphors that are part of their receivers’ background knowledge.
In turn, the combined use of CMT and BT has shown that the latter can successfully handle complex metaphor because it takes into account the dynamic nature of conversational humour expressed via metaphor. Finally, the GTVH approach has been fruitful in analysing each metaphorical expression in the ST and TT from both the linguistic and pragmatic point of view (script oppositions and targets). I will now conclude this chapter by returning to my research questions. This will help me give a comprehensive account of my findings and conclusions to this chapter.
As for RQ1, I hope I have managed to show that the production crew and in particular the scriptwriters of Friends creatively exploited conceptual metaphors that belong to North-American culture so as to create potentially humorous novel metaphors. For example, they used a conventional conceptual metaphor according to which women are described in terms of food (example (7.2) abo ve). In addition, they used (‘universal’) conceptual metaphors that can be said to be shared by many other cultures (e.g. emotional harm is expressed in terms of physical pain in examples (7.3) and (7.4)). The creative metaphors in Friends can be described as such because of the peculiar source domains deployed (e.g. ice-cream flavours in example (7.2)). Furthermore, they are wittingly embedded within conversational exchanges, which resuls in high quality comedy. For instance, in some cases one or two characters contribute to the conversation by adding extra elements to the metaphor introduced by another character (extended metaphor; cf. examples (7.2) and (7.6)). As with wordplay and culture-specific allusions, the application of the GTVH metric to the study of potentially humorous metaphors in my data has shown that they mainly evoke the sex/no-sex SO. In particular, many of these metaphors are related to taboo topics and prejudiced humour (e.g. examples (7.4), (7.5) and (7.6) above). Thus, to some extent, such humour can be said to reflect and reinforce
These findings are once again consistent with the general assumption that sex in Friends is one of the character’s main concerns and also one of the central themes of the series. As I have suggested earlier, the scriptwriters often selected the source domains of the metaphors not only for humorous purposes but also to convey idiosyncratic clues about the six main characters as well as hints of their personal interests. For examples, Rachel, Joey and Ross use metaphors suggesting their ‘personal history’ and ‘human concerns ’. As a result, more often than not they are also the TA of their own metaphors. More interestingly, as with wordplay and culture-specific allusions, the other characters may perceive the metaphor as potentially humours and disparaging (e.g. example (7.2) above) or not (e.g.: example (7.1)). Further details on the SOs and TAs for metaphor in my data are provided in Chapter 8.
During the analysis I have also demonstrated that the language- and culture- dependency of these potentially humorous metaphors can cause translation problems. Therefore, in order to answer to my RQ2, I have carried out a comparative investigation of these metaphors in the ST and TT. By doing so, I have attempted to establish what types of strategies were used to transfer the original metaphors into Italian. Table 7.1 below summarises my findings. Unlike wordplay and culture-specific references, I have not detected any instances of compensation. The column on the left contains the translation strategies applied while the column on the right hand side reports the number of instances per strategy:
Translation Strategy
Metaphor
Applied in the TT
Table 7.1: Summary of translation strategies applied to the TT
As can be seen, four out of the six translation strategies postulated by Newmark (1995) were deployed in the first series of Friends. Despite the fact that other strategies were not used for potentially humorous metaphors, I have proven that they can be deployed in AVT for wordplay and culture-specific allusions. Thus, they can be considered as potentially appropriate translation techniques for the AVT of humour in general, especially when dubbing is involved.
Although the analysis above is based on a limited amount of data, some conclusions can still be drawn: The Italian translators strived to retain the original device as humour trigger, be it a metaphorical expression, a simile or a combination of the two. The frequent use of the ‘substitution’ strategy may depend on the fact that many of the original metaphors involve word play. Hence the translators substitute some parts of the text so as to retain its potentially humorous function (example (7.5) above). In other cases, the Italian translators substituted the original metaphor with an equivalent TL metaphor. This may be due to the fact that the TL metaphor can convey a similar meaning but it is more recognizable by the target audience (cf. example (7.6)). Interestingly, substitution mostly affected the source domain, but further research is needed to establish whether this depends on cultural factors or simply pragmatic ones.
Unlike wordplay and culture-specific allusions, the use of ‘neutralisation’ was very rare. A possible explanation is that the metaphors under investigation are often relevant to and embedded within the conversation exchanges. Hence,
paraphrasing them might be detrimental to the understanding or appreciation of the text. However, more analysis is certainly needed.
By and large, the Italian translators seem to have prioritised the entertaining function of the ST (Zabalbeascoa 1996) over other issues (e.g. textual equivalence and fidelity). This leads me to my RQ3 on the possibility of finding differences between the ST and TT in terms of humour potential. As I have pointed out above, the manipulation of some elements of the original metaphor in translation seems to produce micro shifts, particularly in terms of TA and characterisation. For instance, the Italian audience might not perceive the original opposition between Rachel’s previous wealthy life style and her new life as expressed in example (7.1). In a ddition, the omission of Ross’s specific reference to a human organ in (7.3) seems to cause a loss of the metaphor’s characterisation function. Similarly, the substitu tion of Joey’s sex-related domain as a source for his comparison in example (7.4) might cause a (partial) loss of idiosyncratic clues. Similar considerations can be made for Chandler, Phoebe and the other characters. 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. Such a suggestion needs to be verified by further research, which could also open new avenues in the understanding of humour appreciation. In general, the contrastive analysis confirmed once more that dubbing allows translators to operate creatively on the text, thus overcoming some of the problems humour poses in translation.
298
As for the GTVH, its application to the contrastive analysis of humorous metaphor seems to further confirm what I have suggested in Chapter 5 and 6. The GTVH has demonstrated to be extremely useful in highlighting how the sources of incongruity (SOs) are modified via translation. For instance, in example (7.5) I have shown how the WRITING source domain is replaced by an EATING domain, which however still evokes the original concrete and abstract SOs (sex/no-sex and normal/abnormal respectively). In contrast, in example (7.4) the substitution of the PROSTITUTION source domain with a stray dog changes the concrete SO from sex/no-sex to human/non-human. As I have hinted at above, the TAs of metaphor can also be slightly modified by the translation process. However, the analysis above has also shown that the GTVH struggles to capture other aspects of humour translation. For example, I have argued above that preserving the original SOs can still result in some losses of the TT’s humorous potential. Moreover, the LA knowledge resource does not distinguish between translations strategies (cf. transference in (7.1) and substitution in example (7.4) above). I will return to these points in more detail in the following chapter.
Last but not least, as with wordplay and culture-specific allusions, the number of recordings of canned laughter for humorous metaphors in the two datasets varies. While the total number of the recordings of canned laughter supporting 17 instances of humorous metaphors in the ST is 33, there are only 13 recordings for 16 instances in the TT. I will now turn to the next chapter, which also concludes this thesis.
Chapter 8. Conclusions
[K]nowing why they [the translators] translate as they do and being able to call upon this knowledge in their interaction with others is an integral part of knowing how to translate. (Ulrych 2000: 424)
8.1 Introduction
The aim of this study has been to explore the production of humour in the first series of the TV programme Friends and its translation into Italian. This chapter offers some general conclusions on my research. In Section 8.2 I will summarise and reflect on my findings so as to answer my research questions, as outlined in Chapter 1. I will draw some observations on the way humour is conveyed in the ST via wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor and I will also comment on the way the Italian translators dealt with the problems these mechanisms pose. In addition, I will take into account the differences in terms of humour potential between the two datasets.
In Section 8.3 I will consider the possible implications that this thesis may have for both HT and TS. I will discuss the applicability of the (SSTH and) GTVH to both the ST and the TT, pointing out its advantages but also its weaknesses. In addition, I will comment on the possibility of a broader investigation of the AVT of humour. In Section
8.4 I will discuss some issues that have arisen during my investigation. I will consider the limitations of this study and the difference in the use of canned laughter in both datasets for the three mechanisms investigated here. In Section 8.5 I will conclude this chapter by offering some suggestions for future research.
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.
8.3 Contribution
After considering the main findings of my research, I am now in a position to elaborate on the contribution that this thesis can make to HS and TS. Regarding HS, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using the GTVH to the study of potential humour in an audiovisual setting. As for TS, I consider some specific issues relating to the AVT of humour and dubbing in Italy in particular.
8.3.1 Implications for HS With this thesis, I have intended to contribute to a better understanding of humour and its multifaceted nature. As I have demonstrated in Chapter 2, there is no general consensus among scholars regarding the essence of this phenomenon. However, I hope I have at least been able to show how the three mechanisms of humour creation under investigation here work in comedy.
My attempt to apply the GTVH to the study of Friends is certainly the main contribution to HS. A similar effort to deploy the GTVH in the study of TV comedy can
be found in Attardo (1998, 2001). More recently, Walte (2007) has used the SSTH and GTVH for her analysis of Friends. In her opinion, both theories can aptly describe how jokes are structured and which KRs are needed for a joke. Moreover, she adds that the SSTH and GTVH can prove that people laugh about opposing and overlapping scripts. However, she claims that both procedures do not seem able to account for emotional aspects of humour such as the feeling of supremacy. She therefore concludes that neither the GTVH nor the SSTH can be seen as general theories of humour (ibid.116).
The application of the GTVH certainly needs further scrutiny (cf. Subsections 2.4.3. and 3.6.1 on some criticism of the GTVH) and some scholars in various fields of study are currently working on it (cf. Attardo 2007 for a discussion). My application of the GTVH metric to my data analysis has helped me consider its advantages and limitations. On the one hand, this approach shows how the quantitative analysis of parameters such as SO and TA can be connected to some features of the text, i.e. theme development and characterisation. For instance, the set of concrete SOs I have summarised above can be seen as the humorous strands of the series and are directly connected to the themes developed in it. Moreover, it shows that the six main characters’ conversations
On the other hand, the applicability of the GTVH to the analysis of humour in TV comedy has some limitations. For example, it is not always easy to frame my data according to the SO categories (cf. Subsection 4.4.3 above). Secondly, even if the SOs are retained, as postulated in Attardo (2002a), the GTVH does not seem to capture the type of loss (e.g. elegance, conciseness) the translation process produces. In addition, sometimes it was difficult to decide exactly who and/or what the TA is, and how many different entities should be included (cf. example (5.7)). Furthermore, it was not always easy (or possible) to establish the LM for all instances of humour (cf. example (5.13) above). The LA knowledge resource seems to present some advantage but also some limitations. For example, it can show how the ST (and its potential humour) is manipulated during the translation process (e.g.: a paronymous pun is replaced by a homophonous pun in example (5.2)). However, it cannot capture the substitution of a humour trigger with another as in the case of the idiom in example (5.9). Similarly, it can show that a proper name is substituted with a common noun (cf. example (6.7)). However, it cannot detect the change that takes place when a proper name is replaced by another name that proceeds from the source (or target) culture, as in example (6.5). As with wordplay and culture-specific allusions, the LA does not distinguish between the transference and the substitution of a metaphor (cf. footnotes for examples (7.1) and (7.4) respectively). More
315
importantly, in the course of my investigation I have encountered cases where the TA seemed to be missing but both the narrative strategy (NS) and the language (LA) were still present (cf. examples (5.7) and (6.9) above). Hence, this may cast doubts on the hierarchical dependency of KRs that the GTVH postulates (i.e. each knowledge resource influences and determines the following ones; cf. Attardo 1994, 2001), at least for humour in comedy. Similarly, the absence of a KR due to the translation strategy used does not seem to directly affect the presence of the other KRs. Put more simply, if a pun is neutralised and its LM (cratylism) is cancelled, the TA can still be detected (cf. (5.4) and (5.6) above). However, this does not mean that the GTVH cannot be a valid tool for the analysis of humorous texts. What I would like to emphasise here is that more work seems to be needed for the definition of parameters such as SO and LM and their hierarchical relationship.
8.3.2 Implications for TS As may be clear from the analysis above, the target-oriented approach (Venuti 1992, 195, 1998) adopted in the translation of the first series of Friends into Italian seems to result in
a levelling out of source-related elements. Interest ingly, Goris’s (1993) investigation of a corpus of French dubbed films gives similar results, which may call for future cross- cultural examinations of the dubbing practice. In addition, the Italian translators of Friends seem to have had the tendency to make the TT more explicit (Toury 1980: 60), which might affect its elegance, ambience and conciseness (Antonopoulou 2004). To add to this, my contrastive analysis seems to reveal that the translation procedures applied to the Italian version of Friends cause some micro-shifts (e.g. TA) between the two datasets.
For instance, Joey is less targeted in the TT than in the ST whereas the opposite happens to Monica (cf. Tables 8.5 and 8.6). Similar considerations can be made for Chandler, Phoebe and the other characters. Hence, neutralisation might be seen as detrimental to the humorous potential of the series (cf. also Ranzato 2006). However, further research has to
be done in order to confirm such claims. To conclude, I would like to comment on the state of affairs of Italian dubbing. As I
mentioned earlier, scholars in TS (Ranzato 2006; Pavesi and Perego 2006) as well as professionals (Paolinelli 1994, 2004; Galassi 1994) have pointed out that in Italy dubbed texts are often seen as second-rate productions and practitioners have to work under difficult conditions (e.g. time pressure, low salaries, and so on). Regarding the AVT of humour, Chiaro (2005, 2006) provocatively suggests that the Italian audience does not seem to appreciate humour in dubbed TV comedy and films because of its poor quality. Furthermore, Chiaro (2004: 50) reports a bitter comment by Toni Bobba (a representative of AIDAC, the Italian association of dubbers and translators), who claimed that: “nobody cares about quality” in AVT. The amount of research done in Italy and elsewhere on AVT and its reception seems to prove the contrary (Antonini 2005; Fuentes Luque 2003; Chiaro 2004, 2005). People are interested in the quality of what they watch and researchers can contribute to a better understanding of the problem and offer solutions to help professionals in their demanding but fascinating work.
As a researcher interested in the AVT of humour, I have tried to contribute to the understanding of its production process. I have mainly offered a descriptive account of what the Italian translators did while dealing with the problems posed by wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor. Nonetheless, during my analysis I have also provided some evaluative comments on the patterns I detected. This fine-grained
In the next section I conclude this chapter by commenting on some issues related to my analysis.
8.4 Issues Arising From the Analysis
As I have mentioned in Chapter 4 (Section 4.4) and throughout the chapters of data analysis (Ch.5, 6 and 7), I had some methodological and analytical problems during the categorisation of my data. Its systematic classification was seldom straightforward. For example, some instances of humour could fall into the wordplay as well as the metaphor group (e.g. Joey’s “I fold like a cheap hooker…” in example (7.4) above). In addition, it was sometimes difficult to establish the distinction between FEI-based puns and culture- specific key-phrases (KPs). Since I have already explained how I have tackled these problems in Chapter 4, I devote the following subsections to other issues. Firstly, I consider some limitations of this study, with particular reference to the size of the data analysed and its peculiarities. Secondly, I comment on the use of canned laughter in the ST and the TT. I have chosen to return to this point because canned laughter is the criterion I used to select the data I analysed.
318
8.4.1 Limitations of this Study The amount of data analysed in this thesis may appear small if compared to the total size of each dataset (56,861 words for the ST and 57,043 for the TT). A clarification is therefore in order here. As I pointed out earlier, I selected Friends because of its potential funniness and the translation problems that it may cause. Moreover, I chose to concentrate on those instances of potential humour in the ST which are supported by canned laughter (cf. Section 4.4 Subsection 8.4.2 below). However, my preliminary investigation demonstrated that not all humour in the ST poses translation problems (cf. Section 4.4). Hence, only the main mechanisms of humour creation that satisfy this criterion have been included in this study, i.e. wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor.
Despite their apparent sparseness, I believe that the analysis of these three phenomena has produced interesting results. Firstly, it has revealed recurrent patterns in humour creation in Friends. Moreover, it has demonstrated that wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor are used to convey peculiar clues about the six main characters. Finally, it shows how the production crew and the scriptwriters exploited them to enhance the themes of the series. These key factors also seem to contribute to the entertainment function of the series and its success.
8.4.2 Humour and Canned Laughter As I have often pointed out during this thesis, I used canned laughter as a criterion to establish the production crew’s intention to convey potential humour in the ST. I have chosen this approach because there is no consensus about the nature of humour, as
As may be evident from the analysis of the data, many instances of potentially humorous wordplay and culture-specific allusions are embedded in conversational exchanges delivered mostly by the six main characters. As a consequence of this, an instance of potential humour can often contain more than one recording of canned laughter. This also explains why the total number of instances of potential humour does not match exactly the total number of recordings of canned laughter in the ST.
In Table 8.8 below I have summarised the total number of recordings of canned laughter that are directly connected to the instances of wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor in the ST and TT:
Instances of Canned Laughter for
Wordplay 37 9 Culture-Specific Allusions
Table 8.8: Instances of canned laughter for Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT
As can be seen, the number of instances of canned laughter in the two datasets is very different. However, it is generally consistent with the findings discussed in Section 4.3.2
8.5 Suggestions for Further Research
I would like to conclude this chapter and this thesis with the following ideas for further research: As I have suggested earlier, the five types of concrete SOs I detected during my analysis can be seen as the main humorous strands in Friends. However, it could
be worth investigating this point further. For example, it could be interesting to verify whether such SOs are retained in the following nine series or whether they change. Additional elaboration and definition of parameters such as SO and LM and their hierarchical relationship in the GTVH metric is certainly welcome.
The integration of insights from other disciples such as Cognitive Linguistics can foster the application of the GTVH to a wider range of humour types, i.e. humorous metaphor. However, this area of research needs to be developed more.
I have also remarked on the fact that, albeit small, there are some differences in the ST and TT regarding the TAs. It would be interesting to verify whether or not such differences increase in the translation of the following nine series of Friends.
Moreover, this could help to unveil possible correlations between the manipulation of TAs in translation and humour perception.
A greater application of the GTVH to the contrastive analysis of ST and TT in terms of humour potential is certainly required. This may provide a methodologically sound approach for detecting differences between the two
datasets on a larger scale. During the analysis I managed to isolate some recurrent translation patterns in my data (Holmes 1988: 71). However, further scrutiny into the translation of the
following nine series of this sitcom might demonstrate whether or not such patterns were preserved.
Finally, as I have argued earlier, the vast majority of canned laughter in the ST (80%) derives from recorded audience reactions whereas the rest is tape-recorded (Walte 2007: 54). Some research has demonstrated that canned laughter encourages audience reaction but does not increase humour ratings (e.g. Chapman 1973; Pistole and Shor 1979). It could be worth verifying whether and to what extent the type of canned laughter can influence humour ratings. For instance, it may be possible that live audience reactions help to perceive canned laughter as a less farfetched device.
In the course of my discussion on canned laughter in the ST and TT in Chapter 4, I have suggested its use may depend on habit. For instance, North Americans may be more accustomed than Italians to canned laughter in comedy. Here I would like to make some suggestions that may inspire future research in both HS and TS. For example:
1. Can the same pattern be found throughout the remaining nine series of Friends or has it changed?
2. Have previous TV series like The Crosby Show or more recent ones like My Wife and Kids received a similar or different treatment?
In HS, the first question could result in interesting findings about the way canned laughter is used in North-American sitcoms and their Italian dubbed counterparts. This could tell us more about American a nd Italian viewers’ attitudes to canned laughter in the past and present (e.g. has the norm changed or is it changing?). In TS, both questions suggest a diachronic investigation of Italian dubbing aiming to verify recurrent patterns or find new ones. The analysis could also be extended to a multicultural comparison that may reveal similar or different approaches to canned laughter in other dubbing countries. Both studies in AVT and cross-cultural communication could also benefit from an extended analysis of this phenomenon.