Language-based humour

Language-based humour is a prominent feature of literary texts, films, and TV programmes, and it is frequently referred to in many studies (e.g., Luque 2010 and Schröter 2010) as wordplay. In some cases, this form of humour relies on the clash between two meanings of a word and “the expectations shared by the framer of the message and the addressee” (Vasconcellos 1986: 134). The addressee, in this case, is surprised by the punchline of the joke, which differs entirely from what s/he expects. Consider the following joke, taken from Alexieva (1997: 138):

Teacher: What does it mean when the barometer falls? Boy: Er … the nail has come out of the wall, sir?

The humour in this joke originates from the double meaning of the word fall (i.e., it has both abstract and concrete meanings). However, Alexieva argues that the wordplay in the joke does not only depend on the two meanings of fall, but that the domains of human knowledge and experience that are associated with wordplay should also be taken into consideration. In this light, the two meanings of fall serve to “activate” and “contrast” two different domains. The first domain is related to the barometer as a tool used to measure atmospheric pressure, and the other is connected to “the physical domain” of objects that fall down because of the force of gravity. In

addition, the strength of the wordplay’s humorous effect is determined by the distance between these two domains and the way they are connected (1997: 138).

In addition to the use of the double meaning of a word (i.e., homonymy), wordplay can take other forms (e.g., paronymy, homophony, homography, and initialisms [see Chapter 2]). One of the most interesting is known as a spoonerism. Toury (1997) discusses spoonerisms, their behaviour in real translation situations, and their humorous function. He states that some types of spoonerism, such as fart smeller (the output (10) of smart feller) are humorous in themselves and they attract and amuse the reader/hearer, regardless of the context in which they are used. Others cannot be appreciated unless they are embedded in a specific context, such as Town Drain (the output of town train, as in you must leave Oxford this afternoon by the Town Drain) (1997: 278).

The humorous effect of spoonerisms on the intended reader/listener can only be achieved on the condition that s/he realises that the instance of a spoonerism is a form of play and s/he has the ability to “extract the rules that generate the output utterance” (ibid.). However, in some cases, input expression and output are presented in the same text, making the task of the addressees easy in terms of comprehending and appreciating the instance of a spoonerism. The following example, taken from Toury (1997: 279), illustrates this.

“When I was a kid, you had a gift for making me laugh …” “Well, you’re no longer a kid,” Mr. Hersh said, bewildered, “and let’s face it, it’s turned out you’re not such a fart smeller. Smart feller, I mean.” (Richler 1971: 97-98)

In relation to the translation of wordplay, Delabastita (2004: 601) states that the linguistic untranslatability of wordplay is increased by the linguistic incompatibility between the source and target texts. He considers puns as “textual phenomena” that need “textual solution[s]”. However, in some instances, wordplay can be culture-specific, which requires shared knowledge. Koponen (2004: 2) stresses that wordplay is normally source-language and culture-specific, and, therefore, producing a close translation is not possible, especially when the two languages do not have comparable grammatical and phonetic structures and syntax.

Zabalbeascoa also states that the translation of wordplay is not only problematic at the linguistic level (i.e., grammar, lexis or semantic structure), but it is also complicated at the cultural level (since wordplay can include cultural references). This complexity requires that the translator has awareness and competency in order to find the best solutions (1996: 237).

Delabastita argues that the complexity involved in rendering wordplay is not only related to its nature, but also to “the specific semiotic set-up of the situation of discourse in which the wordplay occurs and/or in which the translation has to be carried out”. For example, dealing with wordplay in a conference speech is more complicated than tackling it in non-fictional prose or TV shows (1997: 10).

The intended effect of wordplay cannot be achieved easily in the TL, especially when dealing with some texts that are rich with puns. For example, Flotow (1997: 55) gives an example of how a translator (Erika Wisselinck) dealt with wordplay when translating Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology into German. She states that the translator footnotes much wordplay and accentuates in these footnotes that English puns are difficult or impossible to translate. However, despite the excessive use of footnotes, Wisselinck managed to utilise other strategies, such as finding related puns in German (ibid: 56).

As a result of this complexity, different scholars (e.g., Newmark 1988, Hatim and Mason 1998, and Baker 1998) have discussed the possible strategies of translating puns, one of which is compensation. According to Newmark, the strategy of compensation involves compensating for the original pun “by another pun on a word with a different but associated meaning” (1988: 217). However, Delabastita (1997:11) states that there is a difficulty when adopting the commonly used translation strategies in the process of rendering wordplay:

between compromise easy the hamper puns are, they as ‘overdetermined’ so Being and expression, vs. content function, vs. form free, vs. word - for - word target, vs. source grinding a to strategies negotiation approved and customary the bring often and on, so 15). 2010: Verbruggen in (cited halt

Delabastita (1996) suggests different translation strategies for puns, including (a) translating the wordplay in the ST with wordplay in the TT; (b) translating the wordplay, but losing some of its aspects; (c) replacing the wordplay with some other rhetorical devices (e.g., irony, repetition and alliteration); (d) using the strategy of literal translation and rendering the wordplay as it is; (e) omitting the wordplay. Popa (2004: 154) argues that applying these strategies is not an easy task as it “includes both textual and extratextual concerns”; for example, wordplay may contain some references that are not appropriate for the target language audience. Therefore, the translator “rewrites” humour in such a way that it follows the accepted norms in the target culture.

Veisbergs (1997) presents different techniques for the translation of wordplay that is based on idioms, also called “idiom-based wordplay”. These strategies include equivalent idiom transformation (idioms by idioms, contextual transformation by contextual transformation),

extension (inserting additional explanatory information), analogue transformation (using a ST idiom that is semantically and stylistically close to the TT one), substitution (replacing the original idiom by a TT one), compensation (inserting a special textual device at some point in the TT to compensate for the loss of the effect of the ST idiom), omission of the wordplay, and the use of metalingual comment (e.g., footnotes, endnotes, parentheses).

Toury (1997: 285) addresses two main approaches to the translation of spoonerisms, namely the scientific and communicative approches. In the scientific approach, priority is given to the “authenticity” of the spoonerism, i.e. transferring the SL lapse into the TL using the strategy of transliteration, over the understanding and appreciation of the utterance. In contrast, the communicative approach gives priority to the “intelligibility” of the ST for the intended reader (1997: 84). Using this approach, the translator produces a TL spoonerism which, according to Toury, should enhance coherence within the translated text.

The translator’s task when tackling wordplay seems more complicated in subtitling due to temporal and spatial constraints. Therefore, there is an agreement among many scholars that the creativity of a subtitler is the yardstick in rendering puns. Gottlieb argues that a translator should make use of some compensatory strategies to compensate for the loss of the wordplay in a particular subtitle by “inserting wordplay in another” (1997: 222). Luque also discusses compensatory translation as one of the translation solutions a translator can adopt to convey wordplay. He states that this technique involves “transposing humour at another point in the text” (2010: 186).

Luque presents other procedures, including literal translation, explanatory translation, effective or functional translation. The literal translation, despite its faithfulness to the ST, can sometimes manage to retain the humorous effect of the wordplay, especially if such wordplay has a preformed TL equivalence. In explanatory translation, the meaning of the wordplay is transferred, but the comic effect is sacrificed. Functional translation involves a complete reformulation of the joke in which the wordplay is used so that the humorous impact is maintained (ibid).

Juusti (1999: 22) puts great emphasis on the creativity of the translator and considered the process of rendering wordplay “recreative” when the pun is translated successfully into the target language and “modifying” if the “wordplay no longer raises a laugh in the TL audience”. Jing (2010:85) argues, on the basis of Relevance Theory, that when translating puns into another language, a translator should give high priority to successful communication with the target audience by recreating “the intended effect” in the target text.

Zabalbeascoa (1996: 251) argues that, when dealing with wordplay or other types of humour, especially in AV productions, the translators should familiarise themselves with the different strategies proposed by scholars in the field of translation. He stresses that some professional translators lack the necessary training to make use of the existing “theoretical books and statements” in their daily practice (ibid). Schauffler (2012: 57) shares Zabalbeascoa’s conviction concerning the importance of the translator’s professional skills and individual approach in the process of rendering wordplay. Schröter (2005: 367) stresses that “apart from the characteristics of the source-text sequence, the individual translator and his or her specific choices are the most decisive factor in the translation of language-play in films”.

In addition to the role of the translator, there is another important factor in the process of translating wordplay, which is the background knowledge of the target language viewers, their age and their experiences. In other words, the target audience should have the ability to recognize the pun. Leppihalme (1996: 203) states that the translator and target language audience must be “skilled” and familiar with the cultural references included in the wordplay.

In relation to the audience’s ability to elicit wordplay in the text, Korhonen (2008: 19-20) argues that some types of wordplay (e.g., initialisms) can be challenging for both ST and TT audiences. She gives an example from the American animated cartoon series The Simpsons, in which the understanding of the initialism BC requires a thorough knowledge of American politics since the initialism refers to birth control, which has been a controversial issue in the United States.