This article was downloaded by: On: 18 February 2009 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

JOKES AND TRANSLATION
Diana-Elena Popa a a Dunrea de Jos University of Galai, Romania Online Publication Date: 09 September 2005

To cite this Article Popa, Diana-Elena(2005)'JOKES AND TRANSLATION',Perspectives,13:1,48 — 57 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09076760508668963 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668963

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

00 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology © 2005 D. Key-words: Romanian and British English. The definition also abstains from any exclusivist quest of the linguistic conditions necessary for a text to be funny. The keywords in the definition are ability.48 JOKES AND TRANSLATION Diana-Elena Popa. Dunărea de Jos University of Galaţi. The definition does not purport to explain why some texts are funny while some others are not. Viewed as a multi-dimensional process.com Abstract This study applies the Skopos Theory and Christiane Nord’s functionalist approach. I wish to emphasise cultural differences that determine whether one is able or not to perceive a situation to be funny. The theories appear to be excellent for an analysis of the linguistic and cultural coordinates that need to be rendered in a target text in order to make for a successful translation of jokes. since humour appreciation ceases to be uni-dimensional. Lacking a pre-theoretical definition. Therefore. I use an operative definition of humour: “Humour is the ability to appreciate the situations when wordplay is funny or amusing. and humour are all axiomatic concepts of the human condition. and the context. The word situations refers to the fact that humour is socially dependent and depends on interaction in a process between people. and wordplay. the speaker and listener(s). and which all fall under the systemic common denomination of system-incorporating network. 2005 Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 . Romania.” (Popa 2003: 54) This definition may be vague and over-simplified. and cultural parameters. functional constancy Introduction Existence. consciousness. Yet humour seems to be one of the least understood. humour.-E. phenomena because its hermetic structure refuses to open up to the researcher. But the definition primarily focuses on the speaker’s ability to do so by means of situational. Popa Vol. The study examines concrete jokes in the English-Romanian language pair and looks at the strategies open to translators for successfully transferring both the linguistic and cultural information embedded in the source texts to the target language. as well as the Hallidayan methodology to humour translation. Skopos. Wordplay refers to the language content in 0907-676X/05/01/0048-11 $20. helen_anaid@hotmail. social. not merely linguistic mechanisms. functionalist approach. No. The analysis highlights the cultural component in joke translation. linguistic incompatibility. identity. Moreover. humour is here defined according to the purpose for which it is used. By foregrounding ability. 1. ability takes pride of place over competence. but it has the advantage of not reducing humour to a purely linguistic definition. it relies on mutually independent elements such as the text. It merely presupposes that all speakers are competent enough to generate humorous text by virtue of its linguistic elements and also to recognise a text as humorous by means of these very components. This definition also comprises the ability to recognise humorous text. though thoroughly studied. cultural components. translation of jokes. situations. 13.

Agreeing with. for example. must not lose sight of the Skopos of the translation. . Corpus This study focuses on verbal humour. because they are self-contained linguistic units that usually follow normal grammatical pa�ern. and linguistic content of the sourcelanguage joke to the target-culture and. newspapers. I analyse the connection between linguistic choices and the immediate situational and cultural contexts in jokes with specific reference to translation. As far as jokes are concerned. and Anne–Marie Laurian (1989: 5). and 3. Susan Bassne� (1980: 80). they should contain socio-cultural references to either a British or a Romanian framework.Popa: Jokes and Translation 49 humour. Purpose of study In this contrastive study between English and Romanian. Salvatore A�ardo (2002: 173-194). specifically jokes.1 The jokes come from printed sources (collections. Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 The jokes used in the present study were selected according to several criteria: 1. My concern is with discussing the linguistic mechanisms in texts and the external factors that contribute to the recognition of a text as humorous. who believes that joke translation primarily poses linguistic challenges. magazines. (Popa 2003: 54) Finally. it is impossible to make a clear-cut distinction between these two sources. it is my basic assumption – or hypothesis – that jokes can be translated. Approaching the issue from a functionalist perspective. and linguistic features to the target joke does not necessarily mean that the translation is successful. a translator must bear in mind that: 1) joke translation is a complex phenomenon that has to take into account the transfer of the situational. 2) a successful transfer of all the situational. cultural. I regard translation as a communicative act. Yet. I posit that jokes belong to the same type of texts that people negotiate in order to make meaning. 2. My corpus consists of 150 English and 150 Romanian jokes selected from my collection of more than 1. and web sites). As products of social interaction. e-mails. cultural. I wish to stress that my approach is not meant to provide a formal definition of humour for canonising notions of an idealised speaker or listener(s)’ competence for recognising or creating humour. the jokes must be syntactically correct. jokes therefore foreground the cultural and social contexts in which they are negotiated. as well as dialogues or narration that I have heard and subsequently wri�en down.000 wri�en jokes. at the same time. Unlike Anne Leibold (1989: 109). for a translation product to be adequate. the jokes must have the discourse organisation of short narratives or questions and answers.

an Englishman. a Scotsman. A Romanian transla- . to produce amusement and even cause laughter. in particular jokes: clients.language – in a social context. held it out over the beer. and mode. too. The Irishman. Skopos-oriented translation procedures are highly relevant for humorous texts.” In order to establish the adequacy (which would involve procedures and strategies in translation). This involves the genre-related function of humour in general. as if nothing had happened. which. SPIT IT OUT YOU BAS**RD!!!!” (2) A Scots boy came home from school and told his mother he had been given a part in the school play. I address the communicative levels of genre (cultural context) and register (situational context). Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. determines the methods and strategies for a�aining this purpose. I incorporate Halliday and Martin’s co-tangential circles model (1993: 25). it is worth distinguishing between two levels of translation. picked the fly out of his drink. it may illustrate how laughter builds consensus (the ingratiation function). This works in the target-language socio-cultural context. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The second level concerns the interpersonal functions involved at the moment joke translation goes further than to amuse. Volume 13: 1 Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 A systemic functionalist approach to joke translation My analysis borrows points from Hans Vermeer’ Skopos Theory and Christiane Nord’s functionalist approach to translations. “I play the part of the Sco�ish husband!” The mother scowls and says: “Go back and tell your teacher you want a speaking part. as in the following first example (1). The first level is the pragmatic function of translations of humorous texts. and translators have to be fully aware of the function of jokes in the target-language socio-cultural framework.” [What’s the difference between Ceausescu and Iliescu? One was a cobbler and the other one is cunning. as it relies on the lexical choices . They each bought a pint of Guinness. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer. three flies landed in each of their pints. or repairs by dissolving awkward situations or teases by introducing criticism (as in the following second example (2)). the two levels co-exist in jokes. and continued drinking it. “SPIT IT OUT. The function in the target language and culture is different from that in the source language and culture. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage.” says the mother. For the sake of clarity. Hans J. The la�er is analysed in terms of field.50 2005. Usually. We find functional constancy in the following joke (4). In such a social context. (1) One day. namely. As a function. tenor. the main focus is the function a translation has for the target audience. and were stuck in the thick head. Vermeer’s Skopos Theory views translation as a process in which it is of prime importance to determine the purpose of a translation. we need to know exactly what purpose the translated joke should serve. Consequently. senders. “Wonderful. (2) and (3)) are concerned. and an Irishman walked into a pub together.] It is obvious that as far as these examples ((1). For my work at the discourse-semantical and lexico-grammatical levels. just to mention a few interpersonal representations. and started yelling. we cannot speak of any functional constancy. This is also the case with the following Romanian joke (3): (3) “Care este diferenţa dintre Ceauşescu şi Iliescu? Unul era cizmar şi altul şiret. in turn. “What part is it?” The boy says.

died in a controversial car accident. Vermeer argues that when they translate culture-specific text-types. cultural. “No. at first glance seems to be unproblematic for translation. it is impossible to get anywhere near a good translation unless we take into account Christiane Nord’s clear-cut distinction between translation problems and translation difficulties (Nord 1991). When a passer-by said. they do it to the country. Consequently. cultural. (1996: 90) (5) Prince Charles was out early the other day walking the dog. Hans Vermeer perceives culture as “the total of conventions to be observed in a society” (Vermeer 1992: 9). and textual systems.” Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 A translation of this joke requires balancing between culture-bound elements (Prince Charles). There is no such a thing as a perfect translation. There are cultural differences or. Example (4) above. greeting somebody) and a word-play: the greeting ‘Morning!’ and ‘mourning’ for somebody who has died. that Prince Charles is a member of the royal family. new aspects either of form or of content or of meaning and thereby new aspects of the world. Joke (3) challenges us with several translation problems due to differences between the source and target communicative situations at the pragmatic levels.Popa: Jokes and Translation 51 tion would preserve the general function of amusing. translation is “a specimen of socio-culturally determined linguistic behaviour containing both culture-specific and culture-universal components”. thus enriching the target culture” (1992: 13). translators must also “introduce into a society and its literary tradition. in some sense. since the Skopos of any translation is a successful translation. “Morning. as well as its teasing character. methodologically speaking. that his former wife. this distinction is used to study methodological difficulties when there is no obvious ‘equivalence’ between the source and target languages and cultures. thus emphasising its social side. just walking the dog. linguistic. universal” (1992: 38). the information that Britain has a royal family. who is Iliescu. (Mel Brooks) Functional constancy is important for at least one reason: if translations (here target jokes) fulfil the same function they had in the source culture. (4) If Presidents don’t do it to their wives. while the joke about the Romanian President (3) is not easily rendered into the target language and target culture. what are cizme (‘boots’)? There are linguistic and text-specific issues that make a translation difficult – in this case the use of the homophones şiret (meaning shoe lace) and şiret (meaning ‘cunning’).” Charles said. be�er. . this is arguably closer to a�aining the Skopos of the translation. whereas translation difficulties are subjective and relate more to individual translators’ pragmatic. pragmatic. In other words. culture-universal components (walking the dog early in the morning. A translator of the above joke (5) therefore implicitly must introduce into the target language. Wolfram Wills posits that there are aspects of translation that “transcend cultural boundaries and are. According to Christiane Nord. Below. Yet. Its criticism works perfectly in both English and Romanian. Princess Diana. linguistic. and textual competence. culture-specific elements in the Romanian socio-cultural background: who was Ceauşescu. translation problems are objective and pertain to differences between communicative. Romanian.

as they comprise the determinative factors and circumstances that make it possible for the audience to recognise them as jokes by means of a process of deduction. in Bucharest. such a culture shock generally annuls all laughprovoking aspects. SĂ STINGĂ LUMINA!” [At the Otopeni International Airport.”]3 Translations of jokes like (7) and (8) may lead to Wi�e’s “culture shocks” and run counter to the jokes’ function as humour.“Hot water.4 I posit that normally these contexts are within the texts. Let us have a look at a Romanian joke (6): (6) . there is this huge poster that says: “THE LAST ONE TO LEAVE. I use Halliday and Martin’s . because they would then be presented outside their situational and cultural contexts. etc.Why doesn’t he speak English anymore? .” (Wi�e 1994: 74) In joke translation. as we cannot be sure to what dimensions of reality the translations refer. we may turn to one of the jokes that used to travel in Romania during the Communist Golden Era: (7) “În Otopeni se afla o pancartă: ULTIMUL CARE PLEACĂ.] Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 In this case (6).Dar de ce nu mai vorbeşte acum engleza? .Ca şi chineza.Cum vorbeşte Iliescu engleza? .“What’s colder than cold water?” . the listener does not understand it. At least.Apa caldă. Ion Iliescu was formerly the president of Romania. the translation does not render the goal and function it had in the source culture.Pentru cã l-au rugat chinezii sã nu-i mai înjure. [. TURN OFF THE LIGHTS!”] Example (8) belongs to the same category: (8) -Ce-i mai rece ca apa rece? . Volume 13: 1 that it is public knowledge that Charles did not really love Prince Diana. roughly corresponding to the English idiom “It is Greek to me. What happens if people project their own cultural frame of reference on a foreign culture?2 Gudrun Wi�e terms this a culture shock.How does Iliescu speak English? . His English was poor and he did not speak Chinese. In order to illustrate this.In the same way that he speaks Chinese. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. hence preventing the joke from achieving its translation Skopos (provided this is to cause amusement). this obliges translators to “anticipate the possible effects different translation alternatives may leave upon the target receptor. ‘Chinese’ makes its appearance because of the Romanian idiom that when somebody “speaks Chinese”. .52 2005. [. In her view. . In order to determine the contextual coordinates.Because the Chinese asked him to stop calling them names.” The joke goes further in saying that President Iliescu cannot even speak but only swear in Chinese.5 Translations of such jokes become experientially ambiguous. the information that must be introduced into English culture in a translation relates to the name ‘Iliescu’. This process of deduction cannot be applied to situational and cultural items.

it follows that the speakers make different lexico-grammatical choices according to the specific purpose they want to a�ain. at the interpersonal distance. Thus. we can now . a joke hovers between being a means for achieving on-going action (which is illustrated in the functions of humour) and being a means for reflecting on experience (e. Since genres are different ways of using language. However. Using this distinction between the two dimensions of mode. and (b) the experiential distance. we must determine whether. tenor. to humour translation. or ‘accompanies’ the social process) or a reflection (in which language constitutes the social process).g. tenor. the experiential distance determines whether language is an action (in which it ‘is outside’. Register is sub-divided into the sections of field. we have to deal with a face-to-face encounter or are reading (writing) a collection of jokes. So (7) and (8) can be described as: Field: political joke Mode: interactive face-to-face Tenor: friend to friend The two jokes are meant to make listeners aware of factors in the cultural background that do not usually surface or are not discussed openly. The experiential distance level ranks situations according to the distance between language and the social process it refers to.” Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 An analysis of the situation provides us with relevant information about language use in the source and target texts. This implies that different genres will open up to different lexico-grammatical choices – different words and grammatical structures. we look at (a) the interpersonal or spatial distance.. The genre in (7) and (8) is represented in the act of telling political jokes. and field) also has a significant impact on the type of language used. genres are not the only contextual elements that determine lexicogrammatical choices. and mode.“Why are families like fudge?” . the Hallidyan functional contextual elements are highly pertinent to a translation analysis.“They are mostly sweet with a few nuts in it. namely that of the context of culture (genre) (1993: 25). It corresponds to the difference between playing games and writing fiction.Popa: Jokes and Translation 53 co-tangential circles that describe language as included in the larger circle of context of situation (register). which is integrated into an even wider circle.6 However. A configuration that derives from the actual layout of the joke could be: Field: family joke Mode: interactive face-to-face Tenor: friend to friend In determining the mode. The next example (9) is a case in point. Because the translation Skopos is achieved by means of lexico-grammatical choices and because all lexico-grammatical choices can be predicted from the situational and cultural context. and particularly. Register (mode. In order to translate the joke. I shall discuss features about translating this joke into Romanian: (9) . most political and family jokes).

[Mostly sweet but it also has some nut(ty characters)] Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 This translation into Romanian uses the co-ordinating ‘but’. and a highly affective involvement. it is typically organised according to turn-by-turn sequencing. This interrogative (“Why?”) is an imperative in the sense of “Let me tell you a joke!” or “Let me tell you why families are like fudge. an analysis reveals the following lexico-grammatical choices. Halliday argues that the three variables of tenor. if necessary. we may also. which define the semantic content of “fudge”. abbreviated forms. Volume 13: 1 characterise a basic difference between situational spoken and wri�en language use. A friend-to-friend interaction will normally presuppose equal power. which plays on the ambiguity between nuts that belongs to a cooking frame of reference and nuts that represents a mental state. we must choose the spoken language for the target text. In the family joke (9). is encoded in the English semiotic system and belongs to British culture. At the tenor level. frequent contact.54 2005. Yet this is not adequate: nuts is a key element in the English joke. Each situational variable has a predictable and systemic relationship with lexico-grammatical patterns. I presuppose that this is friend-to-friend interaction. the use of nucă in the singular (at the lexical level) and the use of the . Field defines the focus of the activity we are engaged in and varies from being highly technical to being down-to-earth. The clause structure illustrates that it is an informal situation that uses the interrogative. and vocatives. which is a prerequisite for an adequate target rendition of a joke. meaning ‘a so� creamy light brown sweet made of sugar. This therefore implies that the vocabulary is informal as well. The spoken language has a dynamic structure. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. it also includes spontaneity features such as hesitation and repetition. the interlocutors’ social roles will influence their language use. and mode are the three kinds of meanings that language is structured to produce. it seems to me that there are two possible solutions: (a) to transfer the semantic content of the word nuts in Romanian. In such interactions. The English joke playfully compares families and “fudge”. do not exclude each other. which are contrasting in meaning. In the following example (9). A possible choice in Romanian would be cozonac (‘pound cake’).” There is no problem in translating this interrogative into Romanian. which is quite sweet and has nuts in it. These features point to the fact that the situational se�ing is ‘informal’. but use it in the singular and re-arrange the grammatical structure of the sentence so that it follows from the word order that nut (nucă) is a metaphor for lunatic like in: (9a) In general dulce dar mai are si câte o nucă. In other words. use slang. In order to transfer the joke’s function. The English word “fudge”. because the two clauses. milk. But there is a difficulty at the lexical level. bu�er’. although this would not apply to this particular joke (9). The joke at hand is down-to-earth and only requires a superficial knowledge of families as a phenomenon. Knowing that we are dealing with an informal target text. field. Two other lexical items also limit the lexical elbow-room for a Romanian translation: they are “sweet” and “nuts”. This feature cannot be realised in Romanian.

we would have to find something that works naturally both at the language level (embedded in the lexical system) and at the cultural level (being cultural specific and playing on a well-known idiom). in which the idea of “black sheep” in a family is not funny because the comparison has been overused. The following can be cautiously posited: it is important to determine the function of the joke in the target socio-cultural framework. Next. namely to amuse and cause laughter. many commonly known solutions cannot convey the source text’s ability to cause laughter. Another possibility is to render only the communicative meaning and disregard the semantic and syntactical content of the source joke altogether. it is wise to see whether the register configuration also works in the target culture. Before rendering it into other languages and target cultures (in this case Romanian). and sparkle of the source-language text.Popa: Jokes and Translation 55 coordinating conjunction dar (but) (at the syntactical level) in Romanian are meant to make up for the non-existence of a lexical and semantic equivalent of the polysemous English word nut. it does: it is culturally appropriate to joke about families in Romanian. like in English. This leads on to another important point: good translators of humour must also be aware of the genre potential of a particular culture. a translated joke will have to work at two main levels. In that case. This comprises all linguistically achieved activity types recognised as meaningful and appropriate in a given culture. As shown.7 Genre potential could be described as the possible configurations of register variables that are allowed in specific cultures at a given time. In the case at hand. to be the black sheep of the family is a set phrase in Romanian. The above analysis has provided some indications of the factors that should be taken into account in the translation of jokes. there is a higher. [Why is a family like a flock of sheep? It’s mostly white sprinkled with a few black ones]. interpersonal . the analysis of humour translation shows that jokes can be translated. although the Skopos of a translation may be a�ained in joke translation. We must consider the pragmatic function of a joke. Conclusion As hypothesised. So. A possible solution might then be: (9b) Care e asemănarea dintre o familie şi o turmă de oi: majoritatea sunt albe dar mai scapă şi câte una neagră. However. Thus the register configuration: Field: family joke Mode: interactive face-to-face Tenor: friend to friend is culturally recognised in British culture. Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 It should be mentioned that. as was just illustrated in the “flock of sheep” translation (9b). spontaneity. provided it is accepted that o�en translations cannot be as effective as the source texts. this second solution is open to criticism: it does not render the originality.

Volume 13: 1 level that plays on the functions of humour (e. It was used as data for my MA thesis (Popa 2003). Functional constancy will normally mean that the Skopos of the translation is a�ained. I hope that this analysis has succeeded in showing that joke translation is neither exclusively humour-type dependent. When they generate culture-specific text-types needed for introducing new form. As pointed out by Anne Marie Laurian (1989: 6). Although the two jokes co-exist in terms of time. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. and linguistic features. I submit that all jokes are unique in the way they encompass situational. As the two levels usually co-exist.000 wri�en English and Romanian short narrative jokes and question-and-answer jokes. translators enrich target cultures. and creativity required for the translation of humour (including jokes) that make translators feel they are confronted with an untranslatable text. Humour and jokes are based on ‘secret’ agreements or shared information between the speaker and the audience in the source culture. A�er all. Notes 1. It should also be noted that my aim was to draw a�ention to the fact that joke translation is a complex phenomenon that requires transfer of the features discussed to a target text in a way that is in keeping with the translation Skopos and the overall purpose of achieving a successful translation. imagination. to build consensus. and elements of meaning. The concept of functional constancy is also relevant to joke translation. In practical translation. translators must strive to convey both of them in translation. it is not primarily because of the ‘objective’ translation problems but because of ‘subjective’ translation difficulties that relate to the translator’s competence. there is always going to be a source-language joke and its translation in the target language. If this information is not introduced (or does not already exist) in the target-language and socio-cultural world. there can be no ‘secret’ agreements between the parties. nor simply linguistically bound. as Debra S. cultural. it is the effort. they do so in different spatial frames of reference. unless there is linguistic incompatibility between the source and the target language. their translations will have a negative impact on the target audience. By approaching the issue from a functionalist perspective.56 2005. My study has identified some factors that appear to be relevant for the practice of translation. and discourse management). to dissolve awkward situations.g. This also annuls a joke as humorous in the target culture. I posit that when jokes seem impossible to translate.. which I discussed above. and cause a “culture shock” in Wi�e’s sense. This eventually annuls a joke’s ability to amuse and cause laughter. Basically. These la�er functions are o�en situation and culture dependent and may differ from one joke to another as well as from one joke category to another. Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 . there are obstacles to the a�ainment of the Skopos of a joke translation: these concern Nord’s distinction between translation problems and translation difficulties. content. This collection includes more than 1. If translators fail to introduce the new elements and simply project the source text’s cultural frame of reference to the target environment. it implies that the original function of a joke is transferred to target cultures. There are no ready-made solutions and there is no guarantee that a successful transfer of all the features of a joke in the target language also implies that this is a successful translation. Raphaelson-West (1989: 130) argues.

1989. It is just as important as our equally.A. Leibold. Who Says It Can’t Be Done. Nord. Anne. Text Analysis in Translation. Diana-Elena. & J. Knowledge and Skills in Translation Behaviour. Translation and Humour. M. and most of the jokes’ humour becomes unavailable. Deduction refers to our intuitive ability to deduce context from text. In: Dollerup. The Absence of Reference in Romanian Joke Translation. 1989. Genre is here used in the meaning of ‘class of texts marked by a particular style. Cay & Anne�e Lindergaard (eds. Vermeer. London: Methuen. Romania. Philadelphia & New York: John Benjamins. Romania). META XXXIV. 35-43. the two jokes clearly did have a Skopos. Wi�e. Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. Language. Translation as a Means for a Be�er Understanding between Cultures.). On the Feasibility and Strategies of Translating Humour. Dunarea de Jos University of Galati.K. Bassne�-McGuire. 2002.An Almost Impossible Semantic Equivalence. 173-194. Works cited A�ardo. META XXXIV. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. 1992. 3-16. Wolfram. In my experience. highly developed ability to predict language from context. Salvatore. In: Snell-Hornby. Manchester: St Jerome. 2003. 53-60. Romania] Popa. 1997. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Translating the Language of Humour . Romania). 1993. This category of jokes and the cultural gap in translation are discussed in Popa (2002: 13). ‘projection’ seems to be found in most cases of joke translation. 13 Popa. 2002. Anne-Marie. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. 1994. By ‘li�ing’ the translations out of these contexts. The Language of Humour and the Social Context: English vs. 1980. Genre is here used as in a Hallidayan framework. these Skopoi are obscured. 2. R. namely that of all the linguisticallyachieved activity types recognised as meaningful and appropriate in a given culture. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Christiane. In the original textual contexts (as part of a complete linguistic event). ANTARES 13. 1989. META XXXIV. Translation as a Knowledge-Based Activity: Context. Popa.). In: Beaugrande. Aims. Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009 . Halliday. Diana-Elena. Visions. 3. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights. [Unpublished MA Thesis. Translation Today: Old and New Problems. 1992. 1996. The Translation of Humour. Mary & Franz Pöchhacker & Klaus Kaindl (eds. Susan. 109-111. Nord. or subject. Humour et traduction au contact des cultures. 1991. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 5-14.’ 7.Popa: Jokes and Translation 57 All translations in this article have been done by the author. Christiane. Heidrun . 6. Martin. 5. Laurian. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Culture and Cognition. V/07-08-09/2002 (Galati. Both abilities provide evidence of the language-context relationship. Pi�sburgh: University of Pi�sburgh Press. 2003. Wills. 4. 109-111. Debra. Raphaelson-West. Hans. VI/09/2003 (Galati. Wills. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 6978. ANTARES 14.). Translation Studies. Diana-Elena. Wolfram. form. The Translator 8. René de (ed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful