Suggestions for Further Research

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.