Humour translation: difficulties and strategies

1. Humour: definitnion and types

Humour is phenomenon that all the people in the world know and use, so basically one may

assume that the term is well-known. In general, humour may be defined as all words, situations,

occurrences that provide amusement or evoke laughter. According to Longman Dictionary of

Contemporary English, humour is 1. the ability or tendency to think that things are funny, or funny

things you say that show you have this ability, 2. the quality in something that makes it funny and

makes people laugh. Many translation scholars provided their own definitions of humour. One of

them is Jeroen Vandaele who explains that humour is what causes amusement, mirth, a

spontaneous smile and laughter (2002: 147). Moreover, he emphasizes that humour as a meaning

effect has an undeniable, exteriorized manifestation, which can be seen as smile or laughter

(2002: 150-153). However, for the purpose of this paper, humour would be understood as funny

efect evoked by words, while humour translation would refer to the way of achieving this effect in

the target language recipient.

Various scholars present various classifications of humour. Vandaele distinguishes between:

a comic situation, unintended humour, intended humour and unachieved humour (2002: 159-160).

All of these can be achieved in both verbal and visual humour. In verbal humour, one may achieve a

funny effect by using words. It can be either written or spoken. Among other things, the most

common kinds of verbal humour are: a pun, which is the language-based jokes, where a word may

be replaced with another that sounds and often looks similar, but has a distinctive meaning

(Attardo 2002: 177); a word-play that is making jokes by using words in a clever way; a riddle,

which is a question that is deliberately very confusing and has a humorous or clever answer; a joke,

which is something that you say or do to make people laugh, especially a funny story or trickare

(Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Visual humour, on the contrary, does not use

words to produce funny effect but focuses on what the recipient sees that causes him laugh. It is
often connected with situational humour, which is based on a situation that is comical. Visual

humour is often used in comedy films or in farces. Sometimes both visual and verbal humour

occurs in comedy films or plays. What should be emphasized is that each type of humour creates

different type of effect on its adressee, because it uses various mechanisms to achieve a funny

effect.

2. Humour translation and theory

Humour translation can be considered in terms of various theoretical approaches. According

to the theory by Eugene Nida, two kinds of equivalence can be distinguished: formal and dynamic.

Formal equivalence is a literal translation. This will be harder to read, but it will be closer to what is

written in the source text. A literal translation may mean that the text is translated word for word.

Dynamic equivalence suggests that the translator should convey a message in a such way that the

response of the recipient to the target text would be exactly the same as of the recipient of the

source text (Nida 2004:161-165). Translating of humoruos texts is consistent with the dynamic

equivalence presented by Nida. A humorous text should be amusing for the target text receiver in a

corresponding way to the source text receiver.

Skopostheorie is another theory of translation proposed by Hans J. Vermeer. He was

concerned with action oriented approach that is regarding translation proces as a series of actions.

Each action has its purpose, so translation also must have its purpose. Vermeer calls the purpose

Skopos (from Greek). Skopostheorie focuses on the purpose of the text being translated. Vermeer

underlines that the source text is oriented towards the source culture, whereas the target text is target

culture oriented (Nord 1997). The translator should be aware of the effect their translation would

have on the text receiver and should be able to explain the reason for their decissions. This means

that the choice of a certain method must be deliberate: What the skopos states is that one must

translate consciously and consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text

(Vermeer 2000: 198).

 Lawrence Venuti introduces the notion of the translator's invisibility. He regards that

translators should render the source text in such a way that their contribution to the text is invisible

to the text recipient. If the invisibility effect is acquired, the text is perceived as fluent. Venuti states

that "fluency" is the most important quality for a translation and all traces of foreignness or alterity

tend to be purposely erased. At the same time, Venuti stresses that the translator's attempt to make

their contribution in the work invisible and consequetly to make their work look as an original text

is not good in case of all texts. Nevetherless, he draws our attention to the fact that it is the target

reader's needs and expectations from the target text that the translator should take into consideration

while working on a text (Venuti 2008: 1-5). Those several theories that I have already presented are

very crucial and helpful when it comes to humour translation.

3. Difficulties involved in humour translation

A translator may encounter a whole range of problems while translating humour. Vandaele

emphasises that translating humour is a highly difficult process on account of many complications

that the translator will have to face. Cultural and linguistic differences between language

communities create probably the most serious problem it translation process. For the reason of those

dissimilarites, a translator may may find translating culture-oriented humour extremely complicated

or, in some cases, even immpossible. People belong to different cultures and thus, laugh from

different things. There is a discrepancy between addressees from various cultural backgrounds

which manifests itself in different objects of jokes (Vandaele 2002: 163-165). This is the reason

why a good translator should not only be skilled in linguistic issues but also have broad knowledge

of source and target cultures.

3.1. Humour untranslatability

Humour untranslatability is one of the most common problems connected with humour translation.
According to J. C. Catford, there are two types of utranslatability: linguistic and cultural. The

former describes the situation when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for SL

item, whereas the latter signalizes the situtation when there is the absence in the TL culture of a

relevant situation feature for the SL text (qtd. In Bassnet 1992: 32). Anton Popovi came up with

similar two types of untraslatability: the first one describes the situation when there is no possibility

to replace linguistic elements of the SL with ones in the TL in structural, linear, functional or

semantic terms in consequence of a lack of denotation or connotation ; the second one is a

situation where the relation between the creative subject and its linguistic expression in the original

does not find an adequate linguistic expression in the translation (qtd. In Bassnet 1992: 34).

3.2. Shifts of meaning in humour translation

In relation to untranslatability which many translators have to face, there may be not other

option but to introduce some shifts o meaning while translating a humorous text. Popovi names it

as shifts of expression, he states that ... Translation by its very nature entails certain shifts of

intellectual and aesthetic values (Popovi 1970: 79). In this sentence he explains that translation is

reproducing the original text in terms of form and content, but we cannot expect it to be exactly the

same as the source text. We cannot avoid differences in culture and language, target text is not a

mirror reflection of the source text. Due to the different nature of languages, the translator needs to

make decisions on which units of the source text to transfer. The units that they fail to transfer, they

have to transform or, in other words, to apply shifts of expression. The translator needs shifts for the

sake of the faithful rendering of the source text in another language. What the target text

addressee sees as a shift is in fact the preservation of the source text, or at least the endeavour to do

so. As Gideon Toury argues, the translators decision process is governed by norms. As long as the

translator sees the source text as a point of departure, and on the other hand, take into consideration

the norms of the target culture, they perform in a responsible and faithful way towards the source

text and the target culture, to which the target text belongs (Popovi 1970).
 4. Possible humour translation strategies

While translating a humorous text, a translator is highly recommended to understand the

source text in a very thorough way and examine all the cultural backgrounds that are present in the

source text. Then they should adopt an appropriate strategy of translation. Translator's choices may

depend on various factors, such as source culture and target culture, differences between source

language and target language, or the nature of the text. Taking into consideration all those

constraints, a translator may adopt the following strategies: substitution, reproducing,

domestication, omission and compensation.

Substitution is based on substitution of joke in the source language with the one in the target

language so that it is comprhensible and entartaining for a recipient in a target language and culture.

Attardo calls substitution a free translation and emphasizes that although it is not a translation at the

semantic level, it can be successful provided that it elicits the laughter that the speaker was

seeking (Attardo 2002: 189).

Reproducing is adopted when a joke exists in a source culture but it cannot be found in the

target culture. Reproducing is related to the domestication strategy, which is applied to make a

certain joke in the source text amusing for the target reader. Domestication is a non literal

translation aimed to adapt the source text to the knowledge of the recipient and his point of view

determined by their language or culture. (Attardo 2002: 186)

Omission as a translation strategy should be avoided as frequently as possible. It can only be

used in the most complicated cases, when a translator finds it absolutely impossible to render a joke

into the target language. Omission is often connected with the compensatory strategy. In this case a

translator compensates for the loss of a joke that was not translated by introducing another joke,

which is not present in the source text, in different place of the text. Omission and compensation

can be disussed in terms of gain and loss in the translation process. A joke that cannot be
translated is regarded as a loss in translation, whereas a gain is a joke which is inserted into other

part of the translated text to compensate for the previous loss (Gottlieb 1997: 222).

To conclude, translators of humour has to face many problems involved in translation of

such texts. However, they are likely to be successful in their work, provided that they have excellent

linguistic skills, they spend much time studying source text culture and then decide on certain

translation strategy that would be suitable for the translated text. I presented many translations

strategies, such as substitution, reproduction (domestication), ommission, compensation. We, as

translators, should bear in mind that while translating a humorous text, our translation should be

target culture and reader oriented. It is them, for whom the target text should be amusing, not the

source culture reader.

1907 words
References:

1. Attardo, Salvatore. 2002. Translation and Humour: An Approach Based on the

GeneralTheory of Verbal Humour (GTVH). In Jeroen Vandaele (ed.), Translating Humour,

173-192. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

2. Bassnet, Susan. 1992. Translation Studies, 13-42. London: Routledge

3. Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.

London: Oxford University Press.

4. Chiaro, Delia. 2005. Foreword. Verbally Expressed Humor and Translation: An Overview of

a neglected field. DeepDyve.com, 135-145. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.

5. Gottlieb, Henrik. 1997. On the Polysemiotics of Subtitling Wordplay. In Dirk Delabastita

(ed.), Traductio Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing,

207-227.

6. Nida, Eugene. 2004. Principle of Correspondence. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The

Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 153-165.

7. Nord, Christiane. 1997. Basic Aspects of Skopostheorie. In Christiane Nord, Translating as

a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 27-30.

8. Popovi, Anton. 1970. The Concept Shift of Expression in Translation Analysis, In James

S. Holmes (ed.), The Nature of Translation. The Hague, Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.

9. Vandaele, Jeroen. 2002. Introduction: (Re-)Constructing Humour: Meanings and Means. In

Jeroen Vandaele (ed.), Translating Humour, 149-170 Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

10. Venuti, Lawrence (2008). "Chapter 1". The Translator's Invisibility: A History of

Translation (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.: Routledge.

11. Vermeer, Hans (2000). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action, in: Lawrence

Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London. New York: Routledge,