The Audiovisual Translation of Humour Dubbing The First Series of The TV Comedy Programme Friends Into Italian-with-cover-page-V2

Accelerat ing t he world's research.
MD_PHD THESIS_The Audiovisual

Translation of Humour Dubbing the
First Season of the TV Comedy
Programme Friends ...
Margherita Dore
Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 
T he audiovisual t ranslat ion of Fixed Expressions and Idiom-based puns

Margherit a Dore
Manipulat ion of Humorous Cult ure- Speciﬁc Allusions in AVT

Margherit a Dore
Humour in Audiovisual Translat ion. T heories and Applicat ions

Margherit a Dore
The Audiovisual Translation of Humour: Dubbing
the First Series of the TV Comedy Programme
Friends into Italian
Margherita Dore
(BA in Modern Languages, MSc in Translation Studies)
Thesis submitted for a degree of Doctor in Philosophy

Department of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
September 2008
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted for an
award of higher degree elsewhere.
Margherita Dore, September 2008
Lancaster University
ii
Ai miei genitori, mia sorella e i miei fratelli
iii
Acknowledgments
In reaching the final stage of this endeavour, I would like to thank all those people
who helped and supported me throughout it. Firstly, I would like to thank my
supervisor Dr. Elena Semino whose continuous guidance and support often went
beyond the academic involvement a student could normally expect. Secondly, I am
grateful to my family for their love and encouragement. Words may not express my
affection for them but dedicating this work to them will hopefully demonstrate it.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues Yufang Ho and Dimitra
Valdimirou who made this experience at the Department of Linguistics and English
Language at Lancaster University more enjoyable. I would also like to thank all my
friends for being there and believing I could achieve this more than myself. In
particular, I would like to thank Irene Mulas, Tiziano Satta, Luca Mura, Theodoris
Papadopoulos, Cleopatra Kouveli, Daniela Ponzio and George Kollias, Ramin
Ramezani, Hayat Kara, Bruno Casella and Mišela Mauric, and the Italian friends in
Lancaster who made these last few months unforgettable. I am particularly grateful to
Michela Masci for being an enthusiastic colleague and great friend during my teaching
years at the Department of European Languages and Culture at this University.
Special thanks go to Yannis Katsaros for his loving support and friendship.
Last but not least, I am deeply indebted to the Regione Sardegna and their “Master
& Back” programme, which financially supported most of my Doctoral research.
iv
Abstract
Humour is a relative, idiosyncratic and generally complex phenomenon, which also
varies according to culture and time. It is therefore not surprising that scholars in
various fields of research (e.g. Palmer, Attardo, Oring amongst others) struggle to
provide a unified definition of humour. However, they attempt to unveil the
mechanisms that this phenomenon involves and the function(s) it has within the text in
which it occurs. In Translation Studies, some scholars (e.g. Delabastita, Zabalbeascoa,
Chiaro to name just a few) have produced a fair amount of literature on the
audiovisual translation (henceforth AVT) of humour, concentrating in particular on
those language and culture-specific features (punning, wordplay, allusive wordplay,
etc.) that pose significant problems in translation. In doing so, they have taken into
account those factors that influence the translator’s decision making process such as
time pressure and expertise.
On the grounds of these considerations, this study aims at contributing to this on-
going research in the AVT of humour, and dubbing in particular. To this end, I have
carried out an in-depth analysis of the original North-American and the Italian dubbed
version of the first series of the TV comedy programme Friends (aired for the first
time in U.S.A. in 1994, in Italy in 1997). My investigation is obviously based on the
scholarly research on the AVT of humour but it also draws insights from various
fields (e.g. Film Studies, Corpus Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Stylistics).
More importantly, I have supported my textual and contrastive analysis of the source
text (ST) and target text (TT) by means of the Semantic Script Theory of Humour
(SSTH, Raskin 1985) and in particular the General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH,
Attardo and Raskin 1991, Attardo 1994, 2001).
v
By means of this eclectic approach, I have attempted to explain how the
scriptwriters of Friends exploited wordplay, culture-specific allusions and creative
metaphors for humorous purposes. Moreover, I have found that they use these devices
in order to convey idiosyncratic clues about the six main characters and to enhance the
themes of the series (i.e. friendship, interpersonal relationships, work, and sex). My
contrastive analysis of the ST and the TT indicates that the Italian translators were
sensitive to the role these mechanisms play in the success of the series. Hence, they
deployed several translation strategies to retain them, which often resulted in a high
level of manipulation of the ST. More importantly, my research demonstrates that
such a manipulation produced some interesting differences between the two datasets
in terms of humour potential. Finally, it confirms that dubbing can greatly influence
the translators’ decision making process. As a matter of fact, this translation mode
allows translators to adopt creative solutions that are not applicable in subtitling.
vi
List of Acronyms
AVT: Audiovisual Translation

BT: Blending Theory
CMT: Conceptual Metaphor Theory
FEI: Fixed Expression and Idiom
GTVH: General Theory of Verbal Humour
HS: Humour Studies
KR: Knowledge Resource
LA: Language
LM: Logical mechanism
NS: Narrative strategy
RQ: Research Question
SC: Source Culture
SI: Situation
SL: Source Language
SO: Script opposition
SSHT: Semantic Script Theory of Humour
ST: Source Text
TA: Target
TC: Target Culture
TL: Target Language
TS: Translation Studies
TT: Target Text
vii
Table of Contents
Declaration ii
Acknowledgments iv
Abstract v
List of Acronyms vii
Table of Contents viii
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 The Scope of this Study: Humour and its Translation 2
1.3 A Preliminary Introduction to Friends 5
1.3.1 World-Wide Success 6
1.3.2 Academic Research 7
1.4 Research Questions 10
1.5 The Structure of the Thesis 12
Chapter 2. Humour Studies and Humour in Comedy 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Defining Humour and its Relationship with Laughter 18
2.3 Overview of the Theories of Humour 21
2.4 Script-Based Theories 26
2.4.1 The Semantic Script Theory of Humour 27
2.4.2 The General Theory of Verbal Humour 34
2.4.3 Application of the GTVH and Some Criticism 38
2.5 Humour in Conversation 40
2.5.1 Function(s) of Humour in Conversation 42
2.6 Humour in TV Comedy 44
2.7 Conclusions 47
Chapter 3. Audiovisual Translation and Humour 49
3.1 Introduction 49
3.2 Audiovisual Translation (AVT) 50
3.3 Subtitling 55
3.4 Dubbing 57
3.4.1 Constraints and Advantages of Dubbing 60
3.5 Italy and its Dubbing Tradition 64
3.5.1 Historical Background 65
3.5.2 Present Situation 66
3.6 On the (Im)Possibility of Translating Humour 73
3.6.1 Attardo’s Theory of Humour Translation 78
3.7 The AVT of Humour 80
3.7.1 Priorities and Strategies in the AVT of Humour 82
3.8 Conclusions 88
Chapter 4. Data and Methodology 91
4.1 Introduction 91
4.2 The Data 92
4.2.1 Description of Friends 92
4.2.2 Reasons for Choosing this Data 94
4.3 Some Considerations Regarding the ST and TT 95
4.3.1 The Two Parallel Corpora 95
4.3.2 Canned Laughter 98
4.4 Methodology 102
4.4.1 Technical Issues 103
4.4.2 Identifying Instances of Potential Humour in the Data 104
4.4.3 Identifying Script Oppositions and Targets in the Data 110
4.4.4 Further Methodological Issues 113
Chapter 5. Humorous Wordplay 116
5.1 Introduction 116
5.2 Wordplay 119
5.3 Punning 120
viii
5.3.1 Punning and Humour 121
5.3.2 Categorisation of Puns 122
5.4 Translation of Puns 125
5.5 Data Analysis 128
5.5.1 PUN→PUN 131
5.5.2 PUN→NON-PUN 138
5.5.3 PUN→RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE 141
5.5.4 PUN→ZERO PUN 143
5.5.5 COMPENSATION 145
5.5.6 Preliminary Conclusions 147
5.6 Puns Based on Fixed Expressions and Idioms (FEIs) 149
5.6.1 Categorisation of FEIs 150
5.6.2 FEIs and Variation 152
5.6.3 Variation of FEIs and Humour 156
5.7 Translation of FEI-Based Puns 158
5.7.1 Translation Strategies for FEI-Based Puns 159
5.8.1 Substitution 164
5.8.2 Omission 167
5.8.3 Preliminary Conclusions 173
5.9 Rhymes 175
5.10 Findings and Conclusions 177
Chapter 6. Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions 185
6.2 Defining the Concept of Culture-Specific Allusion 188
6.3 Categorisation of Culture-Specific Allusions 189
6.3.1 Types of Culture-Specific Allusions 190
6.3.2 Sources of Culture-Specific Allusions 192
6.4 Function(s) of Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions 194
6.5 (AV)Translation of (Humorous) Culture-Specific Allusions 197
6.5.1 Translation Strategies for allusive Proper-Names (PNs) 199
6.5.2 Translation Strategies for allusive Key-Phrases (KPs) 201
6.5.3 The AVT of Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions 203
6.6.1 Transference of SL Name 210
6.6.2 Explanation (or Retention and Guidance) 214
6.6.3 Replacement by SL Name 216
6.6.4 Neutralisation or Omission and Use of Common Noun 219
6.6.5 Omission of Name 224
6.6.6 Compensation 228
6.6.7 Translated Key-Phrases (KPs) 230
Chapter 7. Humorous Metaphors 246
7.2 Conceptual Metaphor Theory 248
7.2.1 Metaphor and Variation 250
7.3 Blending Theory (BT) 252
7.4 Complementary use of CMT and BT 256
7.5 Metaphor and Humour 258
7.6 Translation of (Humorous) Metaphor 261
7.6.1 Translation Strategies for Metaphor 265
7.7.1 Transference 270
7.7.2 Substitution 280
7.7.3 A Complex Example: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT 285
Chapter 8. Conclusions 300
8.2 Main Findings 301
8.2.1 Research Question 1 301
ix
8.3 Contribution 313
8.3.1 Implications for HS 314
8.3.2 Implications for TS 316
8.4 Issues Arising From the Analysis 318
8.4.1 Limitations of this Study 319
8.4.2 Humour and Canned Laughter 319
8.5 Suggestions for Further Research 321
Appendix I – Summary of Episodes 324
Appendix II – Humorous Wordplay 334
Appendix III – Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions 338
Appendix IV – Humorous Metaphors 345
CD-Rom Content 348
Bibliography 349
Primary Online Resources 378
Secondary Online Resources 378
x
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Reproduction of the hierarchical organisation of Knowledge Resources 36

Figure 3.1: Hours of dubbed and subtitled programmes broadcast weekly in Italy 67
Figure 3.3: Percentages of dubbed programmes broadcast weekly on national Italian channels 67
Figure 6.1: Revision of Ramière’s model of procedures for the translation of source-culture
allusions 206
Figure 7.1: Grady et al.’s conceptual integration network: surgeon as butcher 254
Figure 7.2: Conceptual integration network: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT, Men’s point of view 289
Figure 7.3: Conceptual integration network: SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT, Women’s perceived
point of view 290
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Reproduction of Attardo’s (1994) categorisation of Theories of Humour 23

Table 2.2: Summary of Script Oppositions postulated in Raskin (1985) 30
Table 4.1: Number of spoken words in the ST and the TT 96
Table 4.2: Recordings of canned laughter in the ST and the TT 100
Table 4.3: Summary of Script Oppositions used during the analysis in this thesis 112
Table 5.1: Modified version of Delabastita’s (1996) typology grid 123
Table 5.2: Summary of Delabastita’s (1996) suggested translation strategies 126
Table 5.3: Categorisation of puns in the ST 128
Table 5.4: Comparison of puns in the ST and the TT 149
Table 5.5: Summary of Veisbergs’s (1997) suggested translation strategies 159
Table 5.6: Comparison of FEI-puns in the ST and the TT 174
Table 5.7: Summary of translation strategies applied to the TT 181
Table 6.1: Summary of Leppihalme’s (1997) framework of types of allusions 191
Table 6.2: Combination and revision of Leppihalme’s (1997) categorisation of allusive PNs
and KPs and Davies Gonzáles & Scott-Tennet’s (2005) taxonomy. 208
Table 6.3: Contrastive analysis of the use of translation strategies for PNs and KPs 242
Table 7.1: Summary of translation strategies applied to the TT 297
Table 8.1: Concrete SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
the TT (detailed) 303
Table 8.2: Concrete SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
the TT (general) 303
Table 8.3: Abstract SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
Table 8.4: Abstract SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
Table 8.5: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
Table 8.6: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and
Table 8.7: General strategies for Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusion and Metaphor 310
Table 8.8: Instances of canned laughter for Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor
in the ST and the TT 320
xii
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
Analyzing or judging the translation of humour should

always involve understanding to the best of one’s ability
what the translator’s motivations, criteria and circumstances
were in dealing with each item of the text.
(Zabalbeascoa 2005: 206)
1.1 Introduction
In this thesis I conduct a contrastive analysis of the fist series of the TV comedy
programme Friends (1994-2004, Marta Kauffman and David Crane) and its dubbed
Italian version. The former is the Source Text (ST) and the latter is the Target Text
(TT). In particular, I concentrate on three general mechanisms of humour creation that
are often regarded as sources of translation problems: wordplay, culture-specific
allusions and metaphor.
Consequently, this study combines insights from both Humour Studies (HS) and
Translation Studies (TS), and its subfield of research Audiovisual Translation (AVT).
However, the inner complexities of humour, its development and translation within a
multisemiotic system such as the audiovisual setting call for an eclectic approach that
extends beyond these fields. Therefore, this study also integrates observations by
scholars in Film Studies, Corpus Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Stylistics.
Furthermore, it takes into accounts suggestions provided by professionals in AVT.
In this introductory chapter I will first present the reasons that motivate this study.
Subsequently, I will briefly introduce my data and highlight its undisputed success
across the world in terms of popularity. I will then summarise some of the academic
research that Friends has inspired in many fields.
The world-wide popularity of this TV comedy series motivates my research. As a
matter of fact, this sitcom is successful outside the boundaries of the language and
1
culture within which it was created. This seems to go against the traditional view in
translation theory that humour cannot be translated. Bearing this in mind, I aim to
answer the research questions outlined in Section 1.4. This chapter will conclude with
an overview of the thesis.
1.2 The Scope of this Study: Humour and its Translation
Among the many cognitive abilities of human beings, creating humour may be
considered one of the most complex. Humour can be described as a linguistic,
semiotic, cognitive and social phenomenon. Its fascination lies in the fact that it can
serve a wide range of purposes: in-group bonding (Archakis and Tsakona 2005: 41),
disparagement, correction of socially improper behaviour (cf. Superiority Theory,
Raskin 1985, Attardo 1994), and so on and so forth. It is therefore not surprising that
scholars from different disciplines (e.g. Linguistics, Psychology, Philosophy,
Cognitive Linguistics, etc.) are interested in its multifaceted nature. This academic
interest has culminated in the creation of a research field in its own right called
Humour Studies (HS).
HS has stimulated research and produced interesting debates. With this thesis, I
aim to contribute to the on-going research in this field. In particular, I hope I can shed
some light on three mechanisms (wordplay, culture-specific allusion, metaphor) used
in Friends in order to create humour (although they can be also found in various types
of texts). In addition, I am also interested in testing the applicability of the Semantic
Script Theory of Humour (henceforth, SSTH, Raskin 1985) and in particular the
General Theory of Verbal Humour (henceforth, GTVH, Attardo and Raskin 1991;
Attardo 1994, 2001) to the analysis of humorous narratives and their translation. The
GTVH metric helps to detect linguistic, pragmatic and contextual factors that can
2
account for the potential humour of a text. More importantly, the GVTH metric can be
used in the contrastive analysis of the ST and TT. Despite receiving little attention so
far (cf. Antonopoulou 2002, 2004 and Dore 2002), this approach can reveal interesting
differences between the two datasets. However, the use of the GTVH for the analysis
of TV comedy and its translation also shows this model’s limitations. Both strengths
and limitations will be discussed at the end of each chapter of data analysis as well as
in the concluding chapter of this thesis.
As mentioned above, my main concern is the translation of humour in the
audiovisual setting, with specific reference to dubbing. Wordplay, culture-specific
allusions and metaphor appear to be intriguing mechanisms for the production of
humour in Friends. More importantly, the possibility of their transfer across languages
and cultures is often challenged. According to some scholars in TS, the process of
humour translation is impossible (e.g. Lendvai 1996, Hickey 1999, etc.) while others
hold the opposing view (Delabastita 1996, Zabalbeascoa 1996). Chiaro (2005)
summarises the issue when she points out that:
[H]umour discourse, which is naturally impeded by linguistic and social

barriers, actually succeeds in crossing geographical frontiers. The
translation of Verbally Expressed Humour (VEH) concerns one of the
most complex types of language to translate owing to the fact that it needs
to come to terms with the very tenets of translation theory, those of
equivalence and (un)translatability (ibid.135).
‘Equivalence’ is a controversial term in TS. A concise but comprehensive overview
of the issues revolving around this concept can be found in Kenny (1998a), who
generally defines equivalence as: “the relationship between a source text (ST) and a
target text (TT) that allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the
first place”. Here I will simply point out that the concept of formal equivalence
3
described above has subsequently been developed in terms of ‘dynamic, or functional,
equivalence’ (Nida and Taber 1969). The functional approach sees the production of a
TT in terms of its specified purpose (its skopos; cf. Vermeer 1996, quoted in Schäffner
2004: 1255). In humour translation, the concept of equivalence can be seen according
to this functional approach. In other words, translators aim to produce a TT so that the
target audience can experience “the same or a similar effect” (Vandaele 2002a: 151)
conveyed by the ST. I will return to this issue in more detail in Chapter 3 when I
discuss the peculiarities of the AVT of humour (cf. Section 3.6 in particular).
As can be seen, humour translation (and translation in general) poses a range of
“objective problems” (pragmatic, linguistic and textual) that can be further
complicated by “subjective difficulties” (e.g. translators’ expertise, time pressures)
(Nord 1991, quoted in Popa 2005: 51). The objective problems that arise in dubbing
are directly related to the multisemiotic nature of this translation mode. Constraints
such as lip synchronization and the combination of visual and verbal text come into
play. Researchers need to take into account all these factors in order to understand the
way professionals tackle the problems translation poses (cf. the quotation from
Zabalbeascoa 2005 at the beginning of this chapter).
Unlike some scholars in TS who offer prescriptive models that suggest how to treat
a given phenomenon during the translation process (cf. Newmark’s model for the
translation of metaphor in Ch.7 in this thesis), the scholars mentioned above favour an
approach that takes into account the contextual and cultural factors influencing the
work of the translator (cf. also Delabastita’s and Veisbergs’s models in Ch.5 and
Leppihalme’s and Antonopoulou’s suggestions in Ch.6). This view falls into the
framework of Descriptive Translation Studies which investigate translations “as they
manifest themselves in the world of our experience” (Holmes, 1988: 71). Translators’
4
behaviour is analysed according to the socio-historical context they work in and the
translation norms such context has established (Toury 1995). As a consequence of this,
researchers can offer an insight into the translation process they analyse and possibly
detect procedural patterns. For example, they may be able to establish whether a
source- or target-oriented approach is favoured. In discussing literary translation,
Venuti (1992, 1995, 1998) respectively calls these approaches ‘foreignisation’ and
‘domestication’. In a foreignising or source-oriented approach, translators attempt to
retain in the TT the linguistic and cultural differences of the ST, thus making evident
that the former is a translated version of the latter. In a domesticating or target-culture
approach, the TT is made fluent, “intelligible and even familiar to the target-language
reader” (Venuti, 1992: 5; cf. also Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence reported
above). These concepts can obviously be applied to the analysis of any type of
translate text, including TV comedy.
With these premises in mind, I will conduct my research on the Italian dubbed
version of the first series of Friends by considering the Italian cultural context (i.e. its
dubbing tradition) and the translators’ working environment and situation. This can
help me understand the reasons why they opted for particular solutions rather than
others. This contrastive analysis can also help me highlight the differences between
the ST and TT. By doing so, I hope to shed some light on the translation of humour in
the first series of Friends and (if possible) draw some general conclusions about it.
1.3 A Preliminary Introduction to Friends
Friends is a North American TV comedy programme created by Marta Kauffman and
David Crane. It comprises ten series in total. The National Broadcasting Company
(NBC) broadcast it weekly in the U.S.A. from 1994 to 2004 (Walte 2007: 55). Full
5
details of each episode of the first series can be found in Appendix I, “List of Data”.
In Chapter 4 I offer an exhaustive description of the programme, explaining in
particular the reasons for choosing the first series for this study. In these subsections I
describe Friends in terms of its remarkable world-wide success and (some of) the
academic research it has inspired.
1.3.1 World-Wide Success
Friends was broadcast for the first time in the U.S.A on 22nd September 1994. The
NBC aimed to produce a successful sitcom that would ensure and maintain good
ratings. In their report on the pilot episode, the NBC analysts discussed the viewing
rates in relation to the audience the series intended to target (18-24 year old viewers).
Moreover, they commented on both the characters and storyline’s credibility1. The
NBC analysts seemed sceptical about the future success of the series and concluded
their report by giving it a failing grade.
Despite this initial uncertainty, the series soon became an acclaimed success and
the six main actors were nominated and won many awards for their performance in the
series: Jennifer Aniston (starring as Rachel Green), Courteney Cox (Monica Geller),
Lisa Kudrow (Phoebe Buffay), Matt LeBlanc (Joey Tribbiani), Mathew Perry
(Chandler Bing) and David Schwimmer (Ross Geller). In the U.S. the ten series
scored an average of 25 million viewers per series. The programme was exported to
other English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom (cf. Ross 1998: 91-95)
and Australia2, thus extending its popularity. Similar success soon followed world-
1
The report is available at: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0510041friends1.htmlfind (last
visited: 09/08/2008)
2
Information on Friends’s ratings in the U.S. and other English-speaking countries can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/. These websites also
contain information regarding the various prizes the main actors and the series itself were awarded. I
6
wide. The programme was purchased, translated and broadcast in many European
countries, including Italy3.
Interestingly, in the U.S.A. the ten series of Friends were usually broadcast on
Thursdays at 8.30 or 9.30 p.m., which is considered primetime. This contributed to the
programme’s high viewing rates. In Italy the first four series were broadcast for the
first time by the state-owned channel RAITRE around 8.30 p.m. Due to its increasing
success, Friends was transferred to RAIDUE, a more popular RAI channel. Series five
to ten were broadcast by this channel around the same time (8.00 p.m.). Primetime on
Italian TV is usually around 9.00 p.m. or later; nevertheless, the scheduling of the
programme just before this time guaranteed high viewing rates for Friends. On a
recent visit to Italy, I have found that both RAIDUE and ITALIA UNO (a privately
owned TV channel) are currently rerunning the programme, thus confirming its
enduring popularity.
The success of the series has also produced a wealth of interest in the academic
community. In the next section I will summarise some scholarly research on the series.
1.3.2 Academic Research
Scholars and researchers have investigated Friends from different points of view. For
instance, Ross’s (1998: 92) study focuses on the language of humour. In discussing
the way North-American TV comedy developed, Ross notices that Friends moves
away from the idea of the family, which is the central focus of the traditional sitcom.
am aware that Wikipedia and The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) cannot be considered entirely
reliable sources of information. However, I used them here so as to give a general idea of Friends as a
word-wide phenomenon.
3
Information on the broadcasting of Friends and viewing ratings in Italy are available at:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends. Cf. footnote 2.
7
This seems to have contributed to its success, which is also confirmed by related
merchandise produced and marketed across the world (ibid.)4
Fouts and Burggraf (2000) consider the use of disparaging comments regarding
women’s body weight in a series of TV sitcoms, one of this being Friends. They claim
that they have chosen Friends because of its popularity among young adolescents
(ibid.926). Tagliamonte and Roberts (2005) instead investigate the language in
Friends. Their analysis attempts to verify whether the language used on television can
influence the way people talk. Interestingly, their study suggests that the repeated use
of intensifiers such as ‘so’, ‘very’ and ‘really’ in Friends has encouraged their
everyday use in English.
The investigation of the humour in Friends has also been the subject of several
studies. For example, Purandare and Litman (2006) analyse the actors’ acoustic
prosody in Friends by means of computerised programmes. They show that while
expressing humour the male characters tend to use a higher pitch of voice while
women use a lower one. Hence, they suggest a gender difference in humour
production in the series (ibid.212). It would be interesting to verify whether dubbed
versions retain similar prosodic features.
Walte (2007) carried out an extensive study of the humour in the ten series of
Friends. She aims to understand who the initiators and targets of the humour of the
series are. Moreover, she attempts to verify how the humour developed throughout the
ten series of the programme. Finally, she considers the themes upon which the humour
develops and their relation to the characters’ gender.
On the basis of her analysis, Walte claims that the characters are almost equally the
targets of the humour in the series but Chandler is often the initiator of disparaging
4
Cf. also Friends’s official website at: http://www2.warnerbros.com/friendstv/index.html.
8
humour towards his friends and others. In contrast, Joey and Phoebe do not joke about
others whereas Ross often makes fun of himself. As Walte explains, these results
reflect the way the scriptwriters of the series portray the six main characters (i.e.
Chandler is quick-minded and sarcastic, Joey simple minded, etc.; ibid.81-83).
Regarding the relevance of sexuality and taboo-related topics in Friends, Walte finds
that sex- and taboo-related jokes are very frequent. In particular, Joey appears to be
the one who mostly utters (in)direct sex-related comments, which are also consistent
with his character (e.g. womaniser). Interestingly, Chandler and Rachel are those who
are mostly targeted by sex-related jokes (ibid.96-97). As for the development of the
humour in the series, Walte points out that major changes in terms of initiators or
targets of jokes and sex-related jokes are not relevant. Hence, the humour can be seen
as constant throughout the ten series (ibid.104). Finally, Walte finds that in general the
three male characters seem to be more responsible to the production for humour than
the female ones but the difference is not extremely marked (ibid.108).
More importantly, Walte concludes that what seems to appeal to the audience is the
fact that the characters in Friends experience situations that can happen to anybody in
life. However, these situations often lead the characters to confront non-standard
problems the audience can laugh about. In addition, she claims that Friends seems to
include some soap-opera elements (Ross is in love with Rachel, Chandler and Monica
eventually fall in love and marry) that appeal to the audience and make them loyal to
the series (ibid.116-117). Despite the fact that romance can be found in various types
of fictional productions apart from soap-operas (e.g. novels, TV dramas, etc.), it may
certainly help to maintain good viewing rates. Interestingly, during my analysis in
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 I reach similar conclusions about the main characters and the
9
humour in Friends. Hence, I will return to Walte’s study in Chapter 8, where I will
summarise my findings.
Scholars in TS have also devoted much attention to the translation of Friends.
Lebtahi (2004) compares the French subtitled and dubbed versions of various Anglo-
American sitcoms, including Friends. Romero Fresco (2006) specifically concentrates
on the dubbed version of Friends into Spanish. According to his findings, the
language used in the Spanish version does not flow naturally and is often inconsistent
in terms of register (ibid.147). Ranzato (2006) reaches similar conclusions in her
comparative examination of the Italian, Spanish, French and Brazilian-Portuguese
versions of Friends. In particular, Ranzato shows how the Italian and Spanish versions
tend to manipulate the text to the extent that it becomes banal while the French is
more faithful to the ST. Interestingly, Ranzato points out that the Portuguese version
tends to be more explicit regarding taboo-related topics (ibid.152-159). It should be
noticed that the Brazilian-Portuguese version is probably subtitled and this may to
some extent influence the translators’ decision making process (cf. Bucaria 2007 on
the use of subtitling in translating humour).
As can be seen, Friends is not only a world-wide success in terms of viewing
ratings and revenues but it is also the object of considerable academic interest. Hence,
Friends constitutes a valid candidate for the study of humour in audiovisual material
and its transfer across linguistic and cultural boundaries.
1.4 Research Questions
It can be said that Friends is a TV comedy programme whose main objective is to
entertain its audience. Hence, it relies on the production crew and in particular the
scriptwriters’ ability to convey potential humour via the characters and the fictional
10
world they inhabit. In order to be appreciated across languages and cultures, this
programme has to be translated. However, humour translation (and translation in
general) is often believed to be impossible. Despite this assumption, there is empirical
evidence to the contrary. Like many other potentially humorous texts (books, cartoon,
etc.), Friends was transposed into several languages and has became popular across
the world. It seems therefore interesting to investigate how the translation of its
humour has been achieved.
Furthermore, nowadays state-owned and private TV channels across the world
purchase a large amount of entertainment programmes produced in other countries,
especially the U.S. (cf. Ch. 3). Due to this continuously growing market, the AVT of
humour becomes increasingly important everywhere in the world. The case of the
long-established dubbing tradition in Italy seems worth researching because it has
developed its own peculiarities (cf. Ch. 3, Section 3.4).
Bearing in mind the specificity of the text under investigation and the peculiar
constraints and advantages existing in dubbing, I intend to focus my investigation on
the translation of three main mechanisms for the creation of humour: wordplay,
culture-specific allusions and metaphor. These phenomena are exploited in Friends
for humorous purposes, as I will show, but are also regarded as potentially
problematic in the translation literature. In particular, I aim to answer the following
Research Questions (RQ):
RQ1. How are wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor used for
humorous purposes in the first series of Friends (Source Text)?
11
RQ2. What strategies have been adopted in order to translate humorous
instances of wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphor in the
Italian dubbed version of the first series of Friends (Target Text)?
RQ3. What differences between the Source Text and the Target Text does a
contrastive analysis of these three phenomena reveal, with specific
reference to humorous potential?
I will return to my research questions at the end of each chapter of data analysis
and in the concluding Chapter 8. At the end of this thesis I hope I will be able to draw
general conclusions about the findings in my data. In addition, I will also suggest
further implications for the on-going research in both HS and TS.
1.5 The Structure of the Thesis
This thesis comprises eight chapters, including this introductory chapter.
In Chapter 2, I provide an overview of relevant areas of research from HS. Because
of the focus of this thesis, I concentrate on the development of incongruity-based
theories and their application to the linguistic investigation of humour. In particular, I
devote a large part of my discussion to Raskin’s (1985) Semantic Script Theory of
Humour (SSHT) and its further development, the GTVH (Attardo and Raskin 1991;
Attardo 1994, 2001), mentioned earlier. I specifically consider their applicability to
the study of potentially humorous texts longer than jokes. In addition, I discuss the
possibility of using the GTVH as a tool for revealing the differences between the ST
and TT, with specific reference to their potential humour. In the second part of the
chapter I take into account the peculiarities and functions of humour in conversation. I
12
review some research regarding the way potential humour is construed in comedy and
perceived by the audience.
In Chapter 3, I present the second part of my literature review. Firstly, I describe
the similarities and differences between the two most used translation modes in AVT,
which are subtitling and dubbing. As my main interest is the dubbing of Friends, I
focus on the various constraints and advantages that this translation mode involves
(e.g. lip synchronisation, omission of original soundtrack, time pressure, etc.).
Secondly, I discuss the historical and cultural reasons that led Italy to adopt dubbing
rather than subtitling as its main AVT mode. Subsequently, I explain the present
situation of dubbing in Italy. I then move on to consider the specific issues that the
translation of humour raises. In particular, I offer an overview of the on-going debate
on the (im)possibility of translating humour. This is followed by a brief summary and
discussion of Attardo’s (2002a) theory of humour translation and Zabalbeascoa’s
(1996) study of the priorities in dubbing humour.
In Chapter 4, I present my data and methodology. I describe Friends in more detail
and explain the reasons for choosing the first series. I give an account of some
interesting differences between the two datasets, which include, in particular, a
striking difference in use of canned laughter in the ST and TT. I then outline the
methodology according to which I have carried out my analysis. This includes a
detailed description of the approach I use to select instances of potential humour in the
ST. Moreover, I explain how I apply Raskin’s SSTH and Attardo’s GTVH to my data.
Chapter 5 is the first of three chapters of data analysis. I concentrate on wordplay
as a mechanism of humour creation in Friends that potentially poses translation
problems. I first review the relevant literature on the categorisation of puns and puns
based on fixed expressions and idioms (most notably Delabastita 1996, Moon 1998,
13
Veisbergs 1997) and then I carry out my data analysis. A briefer discussion on the
creation and translation of wordplay based on rhyming is also included. In general, my
analysis confirms the difficulties relating to the translation of wordplay due to its
language dependence. In addition, it shows how wordplay is used to convey
characterisation cues and to support the themes of the series. The contrastive analysis
of the two datasets demonstrates that the Italian translators strived to retain the
original mechanism. When this was not possible they attempted to retain the ST’s
entertainment function by means of other strategies. The translations of the ST into
Italian resulted in some differences in the potential humour and characterisation. I
provide a detailed discussion of my findings at the end of the chapter.
Similarly, in Chapter 6, I start by considering some relevant studies regarding
culture-specific allusions, with particular reference to their potentially humorous
function. In order to categorise my data, I discuss the possibility of combining some
scholarly research that classifies this phenomenon according to type (Leppihalme
1997) and source (Davies González and Scott-Tennent 2005). The analysis reveals
that the types and sources of culture-specific allusions in my data are coherent with its
genre (TV comedy programme starring six main characters of average education,
apart from Ross). Moreover, it shows that a large amount of culture-specific allusions
are drawn from the so-called ‘popular’ culture, which fit the fictional world of the
series. Hence, culture-specific allusions contribute to the characterisation of the six
main characters. All these factors confirm the difficulty of transferring the culture-
specific allusions in Friends into Italian. The contrastive analysis of the ST and TT
demonstrates that the Italian translators deployed various translation strategies in order
to retain both the original mechanism of humour and the text’s entertaining function.
However, when this was not possible, they attempted to retain at least the potential
14
humour of the text. The resulting differences between ST and TT are pointed out
throughout my analysis and at the end of the chapter.
In Chapter 7, I discuss the way humour is conveyed in Friends by means of
metaphor. As with the other mechanisms, I first discuss some relevant literature
regarding metaphor production and comprehension. In particular, I refer to two
influential approaches in metaphor research: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and
Blending Theory (BT). I then consider the relationship between humour and metaphor
and the problems arising in transferring potentially humorous metaphors across
languages and cultures. The analysis of the ST shows that the scriptwriters seem to
exploit the image or the linguistic expression upon which these metaphors are based in
order to convey humour. More importantly, they use these creative metaphors so as to
transmit idiosyncratic features about the character who utters them (e.g. Rachel is a
shopaholic; Joey is a womaniser; etc.). The contrastive analysis of the ST and TT
shows that the Italian translators attempted to transfer the metaphor, sometimes
substituting the source domain in the TT. As with the other mechanisms, the
translation process resulted in some differences in terms of the potential humour and
characterisation.
Finally, in Chapter 8, I reflect in more detail on my analysis and elaborate its
results. I then pinpoint the implications of my research for both HS and TS. I conclude
by considering some limitations of my analysis as well as possible avenues for further
research.
15
Chapter 2 Humour Studies and Humour in Comedy
Chapter 2. Humour Studies and Humour in Comedy
And conversation is the natural home of punning, allusion, and joking.

(Norrick 1993: 1)
2.1 Introduction
The difficulty that arises in any attempt at defining humour in general terms is caused
by the fact that humour itself is a relative, idiosyncratic concept that varies according
to culture and time. As a matter of fact, individuals in every social group or culture
make great use of humour in their everyday life and conversations. It is therefore not
surprising that Humour Studies is an interdisciplinary field that covers research from
anthropology, psychology, philosophy and linguistics (Norrick 1993: 3, Palmer 1994:
3). Scholars interested in humour have sought to explain its essence, mechanism(s)
and effects on society by means of different approaches and from different points of
view.
The goal of the present chapter is to offer an overview and discussion of some of
the most prominent theories of humour that can hopefully provide the reader with
sufficient knowledge on this fascinating phenomenon. Since each chapter of data
analysis in this thesis focuses on one type of humour creation (Ch. 5 discusses the use
of wordplay; Ch. 6 deals with culture-specific allusions; Ch.7 investigates the use of
potentially humorous metaphor), the relevant literature on each of these topics is not
introduced here.
Before presenting my overview, in Section 2.2 I will consider some scholars’
attempts at defining the concept of humour, its use and functions in everyday life and
language. In particular, I will refer to the controversial relationship between humour
and laughter. This is an important point because it will form the basis against which I
16
will select the data under investigation in this thesis. In Chapter 4, I will provide more
details regarding the use of (canned) laughter in my methodology.
In Section 2.3 I will summarise some of the theories of humour which were mostly
developed throughout the twentieth century. In Section 2.4 this will culminate in a
discussion of the currently most influential theories for the analysis of humour. I will
first introduce Raskin’s (1985) Semantic Script Theory of Humour (SSTH) and its
main tenets. I will then move on to describe its subsequent revision: the General
Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH), first outlined in Attardo and Raskin (1991) and
further developed in Attardo (1994, 1998, 2001). I will also consider some scholarly
research based on the application of the GTVH and some criticism that has resulted
from it.
In Section 2.5 I will briefly discuss important issues relating to the production of
humour in conversation. This is particularly relevant because to some extent sitcoms
attempt to replicate everyday language and situations (Bubel and Spitz 2006: 73). In
Section 2.6 I will focus on the specific case of humour in TV comedy, the way it is
construed and perceived. I will point out the differences between humour in naturally
occurring language and comedy. In particular, I will suggest that conversational
exchanges in comedy are not entirely realistic and are often exaggerated for humorous
purposes.
In Section 2.7 I will conclude this overview by reporting Nilsen’s (1989:123)
definition of humour. It summarises in a fairly concise way most of the different
positions I will introduce below. However, this cannot be a definite explanation of
what humour is. As this thesis will demonstrate, on-going research is still needed to
shed light on this phenomenon, as well as its translation.
17
2.2 Defining Humour and its Relationship with Laughter
As anticipated in the introduction, the very essence of humour cannot be easily
captured because of its multifaceted nature. However, Raskin (1985: 2) remarks that
“the ability to appreciate and enjoy humor is universal and shared by all people, even
if the kinds of humor they favor differ widely”. Hence, he defines humour as “a
universal human trait” (ibid.; emphasis in original). By describing “an individual
occurrence of a funny stimulus [as] the humor act” (ibid.3; emphasis in original),
Raskin aims to establish what factors characterise and influence it (e.g. participants,
their experience and psychological status, the society they live in, the stimulus, the
situation it describes). Among these factors, Raskin also includes laughter, and
attempts to explore the relation between humour and laughter from a physiological
and psychological point of view. He discusses the various manifestations of laughter
and states that “humor usually causes laughter” but “humor holds no monopoly for
laughter” (ibid.4-5, 14-19). Yet, he concludes that humour and laughter can be used
interchangeably because in his opinion they are similar or adjacent terms (ibid.8; 28).
Similarly, Chiaro (1992: 11) and Nash (1985: xi, passim) seem to suggest that
humour and laughter have an implicit relationship while Palmer (1994: 1, passim) and
Morreall (1983) see laughter as an integral part of humour. In contrast, Oring (2003: x)
talks about laughter and humour as separate phenomena pointing out that they are
conditions of our humanity and therefore ‘cultural universals’. Nevertheless, he also
sees laughter and humour as directly linked.
Norrick’s (1993) extensive study of humour in conversation deals with humour and
laughter from the interactional point of view. He suggests that laughing establishes
rapport among the participants in a conversation (ibid.5, passim). He labels laughter as
the “appropriate” response to a humorous stimulus, and claims that: “joking and
18
laughter are linked as an adjacency pair” (ibid.23). From a technical point of view,
Norrick considers laughter as a parameter that signals the presence of humour in the
text. However, he also highlights the fact that some people can choose not to respond
or to withhold laughter. In doing so, they may be signalling that they understand and,
at the same time, distance themselves from the humour they perceive (ibid.133; cf.
also Mulkay 1988: 114-119 for a similar discussion).
Hay (2001) analyses the relation between humour and laughter from another
perspective. She does not object to the association of humour with laughter but she
demonstrates that people can use other strategies to support humour, some of which
can be considered more appropriate in a given context. She lists these strategies and
accompanies them with a wealth of examples. Ways of supporting humour can be, for
example, contributing more humour (e.g. jointly constructing the scenario), echoing
the words of the speaker, offering sympathy or contradicting self-deprecating humour.
Making use of irony can also be considered as a support strategy (cf. Hay ibid.60-61
for a full list). Interestingly, in my opinion Hay’s analysis shows how some of these
supporting strategies can depend on personal choice or style (e.g. contributing with
more humour, irony) while others are socially imposed (e.g. contradicting self-
deprecating humour). More research in this area is obviously needed and it could
provide fascinating results.
Clearly, the relationship between humour and laughter is one of the most
controversial and debated. Attardo (1994: 10) questions this usually taken-for-granted
relation and points out that more often than not humour is incorrectly assimilated to
laughter. He supports his claim by reporting, among others, Freud and Bergson’s
works, which seemed to suggest that humour is funny because it elicits a laugh and
vice versa (cf. also Norrick 1993: 139-164 on humour and laughter). Attardo’s
19
counterargument against these claims is based on Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1974) analysis
of the concepts of humour and laughter. According to the latter, there are five reasons
why humour and laughter cannot be considered directly related. Laughter can be
provoked by other causes (e.g. hallucinogens), it may serve other purposes (e.g.
express embarrassment; cf. also Norrick ibid.37-40) and is not directly connected to
the intensity of humour (e.g. some people may respond to humour with an intense
laugh, others only with a mild laugh). Moreover, humour can elicit a laugh in some
people and only a smile in others. Finally, both smile and laughter can be simulated,
thus requiring interpretation (e.g. in different social context they may have different
meanings) (ibid.11-12; cf. also Norrick’s discussion above).
The above observations confirm the difficulties involved in defining humour. More
importantly, they demonstrate that laughter cannot be used as the sole parameter to
gauge the potential funniness of a text. In my opinion, humour and laughter can be
seen as distinct phenomena, which are however connected. In this thesis I accept
Attardo’s (1994: 9) broad definition of humour as “whatever a social group defines as
such”. However, as I will explain in Chapter 4, I use laughter as a way to
operationalise the definition of humour, thus offering solid ground for its linguistic
analysis. This becomes particularly relevant when dealing with TV comedy, which
often makes use of pre-recorded or canned laughter that accompany some of the
characters’ turns. Canned laughter can be seen as a valuable tool for determining the
jocular nature of a turn in the text under investigation (cf. Section 4.4 on my
methodology).
It is worth noting that Attardo himself acknowledges the use of laughter as one
possible parameter for detecting humour when he deploys Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1981)
and Roventa-Frumaşani’s (1986) definition that “a text is humorous whose
20
perlocutinary [intended] effect is laughter” (ibid.13). This idea is also supported by
Archakis and Tsakona (2005: 44), who suggest that “laughter can at least establish a
humorous frame of interpretation for the utterance with which it occurs”. After all,
“anything laughed at is worth investigating” (Vandaele 2002a: 222; my emphasis).
In the next section I will give a brief account of some theories of humour, focusing
in particular on modern approaches to it.
2.3 Overview of the Theories of Humour
Limitations of space prohibit an extensive review of the large literature on humour
produced throughout human history. Furthermore, such a task certainly falls beyond
the scope of this thesis. Comprehensive discussions of theories of humour have been
provided by scholars from various fields such as Philosophy (Palmer 1994, Critchely
2002) and Folk Studies (Oring 2003). Others have concentred on the social function of
humour (Mulkay 1988, Billig 2005). In the first chapter of his 1994 book, Attardo
offers a long survey of the studies on humour by Greek, Latin, medieval and modern
scholars, who analysed it not only from a linguistic, but also philosophical and
psychological points of view.
In this chapter I base my overview on Morreall (1983), Raskin (1994) and Attardo
(1994) as they offer comprehensive descriptions of the theories of humour put forward
by scholars in various fields. Both Morreall (1983) and Raskin (1985: 30-41) propose
a tripartite categorisation of these theories. Morreall (ibid.4-37) distinguishes among:
 Superiority theories: Plato, Aristotle but also Hobbes suggested that we
laugh at others because we consider ourselves as superior;
21
 Incongruity theories: Kant, Schopenhauer and, to some extent, Beattie
claimed that humour is the result of experiencing an incongruity between
what we know and what we expect;
 Relief theories: Spencer and Freud saw laughing at others as a form of
relieving pleasure.
Raskin (1985: 30-41) focuses in particular (but not only) on modern approaches to
the study of humour. Interestingly, he points out that different theories highlight one
or two prominent features of humour. Hence, their synthesis can foster a better
understanding of humour than considering each feature separately (ibid.30). Like
Morreall, Raskin suggests a group that comprises theories based on incongruity. This
group includes theories based on the idea that humour occurs when two concepts or
ideas clash because their meanings oppose each other. These are essentialist theories
that aim to explain the essence of the phenomena from a structuralist point of view
(ibid.31-36). Raskin’s script-based theory (the SSTH) and Attardo’s subsequent
development (the GTVH) can also be included in this group, as I will show later in
this chapter.
Raskin’s (ibid.36-38) second group includes a larger set of theories (hostility,
superiority, malice, derision) whose basic idea is that humour is created by the
speaker’s aggressive attitude towards the object of her/his humorous utterance
(disparagement). As Raskin points out, many researchers that used this approach
considered themselves followers of Hobbes. The latter suggests that laughter is an
expression of the speaker/receiver’s sense of superiority over the target of the
humorous utterance. Drawing from Bergson, Raskin explains that humour can be seen
as aggressive when it attempts to correct a socially unacceptable behaviour (defined as
22
‘exclusive’ humour and opposed to ‘inclusive’ humour, which is used for a cohesive
purpose).
Raskin’s third and final group includes theories that tend to see humour as a means
of freeing oneself from the conventions imposed by society. He labels it the ‘release
theory’ group and identifies Freud as its main proponent. Raskin sees these theories as
directly associated with suppression/repression laughter, although they are usually
related to sex (ibid.39).
Attardo (ibid.47-50) summarises Raskin’s (1985) general classification outlined
above and labels the three groups as ‘Incongruity’, ‘Hostility’ and ‘Release’
respectively. In particular, he highlights each group’s orientation. As I have said
earlier, ‘Incongruity Theories’ aim to understand the essence and the creation process
of humour. Therefore, Attardo considers them as cognitive-based approaches. In
contrast, the sociolinguistic orientation of the ‘Hostility Theories’ emphasises the
interpersonal (or social-behavioural) aspect of humour. Finally, the ‘Release Theories’
mostly analyse humour from a psychological point of view because they try to
understand its psychological causes and effects. I have reproduced Attardo’s
summarising table below for the sake of completeness. The theories are subsumed
under three groups but they are not hierarchically ordered. They are all at the same
level:
Cognitive Social Psychological

Incongruity Hostility Release
Contrast Aggression Sublimation
Superiority Liberation
Triumph Economy
Derision
Disparagement
Table 2.1: Reproduction of Attardo’s (1994: 47) categorisation of Theories of Humour
23
More importantly, Attardo points out that there have recently been some relevant
developments in humour research from the linguistic point of view (ibid.59). Thus, he
provides a survey of the most prominent linguistic theories of humour, including
Structuralist Theories, Semiotic and Text Theories, Script-Based Theories and
Theories of Contextual Humour. I will briefly introduce the first two groups here
because they have contributed to the development of the Script-based Theories, which
include Raskin’s SSTH and Attardo’s GTVH. The Theories of Contextual Humour
will be treated separately because they are relevant to the analysis of conversational
humour and comedy in particular.
In a nutshell, Attardo explains (ibid.62-63) that Structuralist Theories are mainly
based on Greimas’s (1983 [1966], quoted in Attardo ibid.) ‘Isotopy-Disjunction
Model’ and focus on the analysis of verbal jokes. According to Greimas, jokes are
composed of two main sections whose isotopies are in implicit opposition. More
specifically, he points out that, when a text is produced, it can contain various
different meanings resulting from the linguistic items of which it is composed. In
order to establish a single meaningful reading of a whole text, a disambiguation
process is needed. Hence, Greimas introduces the notion of isotopy as a tool that
facilitates this disambiguation process. An isotopy allows the interpretation of all the
elements composing a text according to a single meaning given by the context within
which they are embedded (ibid.69).
However, Attardo points out that the level of interest in the notion of isotopy has
led to problems in its precise definition because scholars in various fields of research
(e.g. Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1976, the Groupe  1977, Eco 1984) tend to broaden and
sometimes confuse its meaning (ibid.74-81). For this reason, Attardo seeks to give a
general, yet precise, definition of this concept by stating that an isotopy is a coherent
24
set of options chosen between the various meanings of the lexical items of which a
text is composed. Therefore, when the isotopy is established, the text is disambiguated.
Most importantly, Attardo explains that this process is usually carried out according to
a linear reading of the text which allows its receivers to understand it (ibid.94).
Drawing on Morin (1966), Attardo finds three functions that account for the linear
composition of a joke. The first function (F1) establishes the content and the context
of the text. The second function (F2) contains a ‘connector’, which is a word whose
meaning (isotopy) is given according to its context. The connector also links this part
of the text to the following one. The third function (F3) introduces the ‘disjunctor’,
whose role is to display the opposition between the first serious sense (established in
the previous part of the text) to the second humorous one. This model is based on the
linear sequence of the elements listed above (F1 + F2 + F3). The connector and
disjunctor in the text operate in order to create the humorous effect (cf. also Tsakona
2003 on the analysis of jokes according to these three functions). This process
explains how the humorous effect is created by the speaker and processed by the
receiver (ibid.85-101). As I will demonstrate shortly, the isotopy can be seen as the
forerunner of the concept of ‘script’, which is introduced in the next section.
Attardo’s second group includes what he calls Semiotic and Text theories. The
latter (or Linguo-Literary Approaches) are language-based and focus on literary texts
with humorous content. The Semiotic Theories mainly derive from Koestler’s (1964)
book on creativity and the ‘Bisociation Theory’ proposed in it. In Koestler’s (1964: 35,
quoted in Attardo ibid.175) view, bisociation is a cognitive process provoked by the
presence of two incompatible ideas in the same text (or context). Perlmutter (2000:
155) explains the concept of bisociation connected to humour as “the collision of lines
of thought”. This clash reveals itself in the last part of the joke, its punch line, thereby
25
making us laugh (cf. also Kyratzis’s (2003) use of bisociation in his study on
humorous metaphors).
For Attardo (ibid.175), these cognitive approaches can be associated with the
incongruity theories mentioned above. Indeed, they combine the notion of isotopy and
script opposition (described in the next section). Drawing on Manetti’s (1976)
semiotic approach to humour, Attardo explains that the punch line of a joke carries a
relevant load of information which also triggers the opposition between the isotopies
of the text by identifying its incongruous parts. Most importantly, Attardo points out
that Manetti’s major contribution to the understanding of the process of humour is
based on the idea that certain isotopy oppositions can be considered as recurrent
patterns. Manetti introduces the so-called ‘relational grid’, according to which it is
possible to establish which oppositions can be considered humorous in a given culture.
In this light, it seems plausible to think that a humorous text is created on the basis of
pre-existing isotopy oppositions in a given culture. However, Attardo reminds us that
Manetti fails to present any list of possible oppositions (ibid.177-178). This gap is
filled by Raskin’s theory, which will be discussed in the next section.
2.4 Script-Based Theories
As mentioned earlier, the semantic theories of humour do not seem to present a list of
possible (isotopy) oppositions that can be exploited in producing humour. Raskin’s
Semantic Script Theory of Humour (SSTH) seeks to fill the gap in the understanding
of the mechanism(s) involved in humour creation. Hence, I summarise Raskin’s work
in the first subsection below. This will be followed by an account of Attardo and
Raskin’s subsequent revision of the SSTH, called the General Theory of Verbal
Humour (GTHV) (Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 1994, 1998, 2001). In the final
26
subsection, I will discuss some developments of the GTVH and its use in the study of
various types of humorous texts. Moreover, I will consider some criticism in terms of
its applicability.
2.4.1 The Semantic Script Theory of Humour
Raskin (1985: 41) claims that little has been done by humour theorists in explaining
the structure of humour from a linguistic point of view. Hence, he proposes a script-
based theory of verbal humour. Raskin concentrates on the linguistic analysis of
“joke-carrying text”, although he points out that the theory can in principle handle
texts that contain multiple jokes (ibid.45). He clearly states that his aim is to propose a
set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the text to be funny (ibid.57). In his view,
jokes can be considered humorous if they satisfy two fundamental conditions:
1. The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts;
2. The two scripts with which the text is compatible are in opposition (ibid.99).
In order to understand Raskin’s statements and his theory’s practical application, I
must first explain the pivotal notion of ‘script’.
A ‘script’ is defined as “a large chunk of semantic information surrounding the
word or evoked by it” (ibid.81). Attardo (1994: 199) adds: “It is a cognitive structure
internalized by the speaker which provides the speaker with information on how
things are done, organized, etc.”
According to Raskin’s (1985) usage of the term, the notion of script does not seem
to differ substantially from those of ‘isotopy’, ‘frame’ or ‘schema’ as adopted in
Linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics. It originally derives from Schank and
27
Abelson’s (1977: 41) seminal work on Artificial Intelligence, which defines a script as
“a structure that describes appropriate sequences of events in a particular context”.
Raskin (1985: 81) also notices that in the literature the term ‘script’ has been
sometimes used to refer to a temporal sequence of frames. However, it should be
pointed out here that some scholars tend to use the terms ‘script’, ‘frame’ and ‘schema’
to refer to different types of background knowledge1. Nonetheless, Attardo (1994: 200)
reports that many scholars agree with the idea that scripts contain “information which
is typical, such as well-established routines and common ways to do things and to go
about activities”. This further explanation seems a fair compromise and it is also
accepted here.
To return to Raskin’s (1985) explanation, scripts can contain both lexical
(linguistic) and non-lexical (encyclopaedic) information and they are connected to one
another by virtue of semantic links (such as synonymy, hyponymy, antonymy and so
on). For example, the script SPOON can be connected to the script CUTLERY because
the latter is its hyperonym, or superordinate. When we hear or read a sentence or text,
its constituting elements evoke and combine scripts. The whole text thus becomes a
‘semantic network’ of scripts according to certain combinatorial rules. These rules
shape not only the text, but also its coherent interpretation (ibid.80-86).
Raskin (ibid.104-114) points out that ambiguity in language is caused by the fact
that a text can be fully or partially compatible with two or more scripts (e.g. the script
BUYING CANDLES in a text can be associated with the scripts BIRTHDAY and GO TO
CHURCH; my example). However, this partial or full overlapping of two scripts is not
a sufficient condition for the creation of a humorous text. Raskin’s empirical
investigation, carried out on a corpus of jokes, demonstrates that humour is created
1
Cf. For example Schank and Abelson (1977) for an in-depth discussion on the concept of ‘script’,
Bartlett (1932) and Rumelhart (1980) for ‘schema’ and Goffman, E. (1974) and Minsky (1975) for
‘frame’.
28
when the scripts that are potentially evoked by these texts not only overlap but are
also in opposition.
Raskin’s well-known example (ibid.100; 117-127) is used here to demonstrate the
practical application of his theory:
[2.1]“Is the doctor at home?” the patient asked in his bronchial whisper.
“No,” the doctor’s young and pretty wife whispered in reply. “Come right in.”
According to Raskin, in (2.1) the humour is caused by the fact that the text is
partially compatible with both the DOCTOR (and HUSBAND) and LOVER scripts, which
“are perceived as opposite in a certain sense” (ibid.100). The former requires his
physical presence in order to provide a medical service. His absence instead leads to
the introduction of the opposing script LOVER (and ADULTERER), which can also
evoke a sex/no-sex opposition that explains the humour of the text.
As I said earlier, Manetti introduced the idea of a set of pre-existing isotopy
oppositions but he does not provide a list of possible oppositions. In contrast, Raskin’s
SSHT fills this gap by proceeding as follows. Firstly, he analyses a corpus of jokes
and for each of them he establishes the contextual (and essential) script opposition
they evoke. In the example above, this contextual script opposition is doctor vs. lover
(from this point onwards Raskin uses lower case for the sake of readability and I will
do the same). Secondly, he explains that the opposition(s) in each joke he analyses can
be subsumed under three further levels of abstraction. I have summarised them in
Table 2.2 below. These three levels comprise respectively one three and five types of
script oppositions. In the left column I have included the general level with only one
script opposition of what Raskin calls the ‘abstract’ level. In the middle column, I
29
have reproduced the three script oppositions of the abstract level. In the right column I
have reproduced the five types of script opposition of the ‘concrete’ level:
General Script Opposition Three abstract types of Script Five concrete types of Script
Oppositions Oppositions
Good/Bad
Actual/Non-actual Life/Death
Real/Unreal Normal/Abnormal Obscene/Non-obscene
Possible/Impossible Money/No-money
High/low stature
Table 2.2: Summary of Script Oppositions postulated in Raskin (1985: 108-114; 127)
According to Raskin, each of the jokes he analyses “describes a certain ‘real’
situation and evokes another ‘unreal’ situation, which does not take place and which is
fully or partly incompatible with the former” (ibid.108). For example, the joke in (2.1)
above describes a situation in which “the patient comes to the doctor’s house to see
the doctor” which is opposed to “the patient comes to the doctor’s house not to see the
doctor” (ibid. 110; my emphasis). Furthermore, Raskin (ibid.111) points out that the
jokes he analyses can fall into three different types of oppositions between the real and
unreal situation that they describe or evoke, which are:
1) Actual situation vs. non-actual situation: there is an opposition between the
actual setting of the joke and a non-existing situation which is incompatible with it. In
Raskin’s view, example (2.1) above can be classified as an instance of this actual/non-
actual opposition because it is true that the patient went to see the doctor and it is false
that he did not go to see the doctor2.
2) Normal versus abnormal state of affair: there is an opposition between an
expected and an unexpected state of affairs. For example, Raskin proposes the
2
It should be noted that Raskin’s explanation for the real/unreal SO and his definition of the
actual/non-actual SO are not clear-cut. However, this does not cause major methodological problems to
my analysis as I will not be making use of the real/unreal SO.
30
following example: ‘“Who was that gentleman I saw you with last night?” “That was
no gentleman. That was a senator”’ (Esar 1952, quoted in ibid.25). In Raskin’s view,
the opposition is between the normal expectation for a senator to be a gentleman and
the abnormal state of affair which the joke introduces (the senator is not a gentleman).
3) Possible versus impossible situation: there is an opposition between a plausible
and an implausible situation. Raskin explains that the joke: ‘Nurse: “That’s a pretty
bad cold you have, sir. What are you taking for it?” Patient: “Make me an offer!”’
(Spalding 1976: 163, quoted in ibid.25) contrasts a possible and an impossible
situation. It is possible to conceive a situation in which a nurse takes care of a patient
and asks him/her what medication s/he is taking. However, a situation involving
someone selling an illness can be said to be impossible.
As anticipated above, Raskin also proposes a set of more concrete oppositions. He
explains that jokes can be categorised according to five binary categories that are
“essential to human life” (ibid.113): good vs. bad, life vs. death, obscene vs. non-
obscene, money vs. no-money, high vs. low stature (cf. right column in Table 2.2
above). In his view, some of these more concrete dichotomies can be found in the
same joke. For example, a joke about old age can include both the good/bad and the
life/death oppositions (ibid.114).
In his review of Raskin’s taxonomy, Attardo (1994: 204, 2001: 20) points out that
the three abstract classes of oppositions above are more likely to be shared by many, if
not all cultures. By way of contrast, he observes that the five concrete oppositions tend
to vary from culture to culture. For example, Attardo suggests that the five-fold
taxonomy could include the excrement/non-excrement script opposition, which is
often present in jokes and other types of humorous narratives. Interestingly, Attardo
(2001: 20) also reports a recent further development suggested in Di Maio’s (2000)
31
unpublished doctoral thesis. The latter proposes an intermediate level of oppositions,
which can be placed between the contextual script opposition and the concrete one.
For instance, in example (2.1) the levels of script oppositions should be: 1)
doctor/lover; 2) sex/no-sex; 3) obscene/non-obscene, 4) actual/non-actual and 5)
real/non-real. Unfortunately, Di Maio does not offer a list of possible oppositions for
this intermediate level (Attardo p.c.). Moreover, the introduction of another level may
lead to an unmanageable categorisation process.
Both Raskin and Attardo explain that the number of script oppositions that can be
found is virtually infinite and they can be identified according to the linguistic rules
summarised above. However, I personally find that identifying them is, to some extent,
a matter of subjective judgement and interpretation (I will return to this point in Ch. 4,
Subsection 4.4.3 and Ch. 8, Subsection 8.3.1). In addition, Raskin’s five-fold
taxonomy seems questionable because some oppositions are very specific (i.e.
life/death and money/no-money) while others are extremely general (good/bad,
obscene/non-obscene and high/low stature). In addition, in my opinion the money/no-
money opposition can be essential to human life in some cultures but not in others (e.g.
the members of an African tribe may not consider money as essential to their lives).
Furthermore, it could be argued that, even if humour based on the good/bad
opposition is likely to be found in many if not all cultures, what counts as good and
what counts as bad may differ. Finally, Raskin only mentions the high/low stature
opposition in his discussion of the doctor joke (cf. example (2.2) above) but does not
explain it clearly. As a consequence of this, it seems somehow difficult to categorise
examples according to his taxonomy.
Despite the problems outlined above, I find Raskin’s general idea of classifying
script oppositions according to different levels and Attardo’s and Di Maio’s further
32
elaborations very useful. I believe that the categorisation process can help me identify
patterns of humour creation in my data. Moreover, it can facilitate the contrastive
analysis of the ST and TT and help me detect possible differences between the two
datasets. In Chapter 4, I will offer a detail account of my methodology and I will
explain how I have adapted Raskin’s model and Attardo’s and Di Maio’s suggestions
to the analysis of my data. This revised version will then be adopted during my data
analysis in Chapter 5, 6 and 7.
Before moving to the discussion of Attardo and Raskin’s revision of the SSTH, it
seems worth mentioning the relationship between jokes and Grice’s (1975) ‘Co-
operative Principle’ of communication. As Raskin (1985: 102-104) explains, Grice
proposes a bona-fide mode of communication requiring the commitment of the
speaker(s) to four maxims: quantity, give exactly as much information as required;
quality, say only what you believe to be true; relation, be relevant; manner, be
succinct.
However, several scholars such as Nash (1985:113-116), Raskin (1985) and Grice
himself (1989, quoted in Attardo 1994: 272) have noticed that jokes (and humorous
texts in general) tend to subvert the four maxims of the Co-operative Principle. A
speaker who utters a joke cannot respect this bona-fide mode of communication and
its maxims if s/he wants her/his joke to be effective. Humorous exchanges thus seem
to be based on a paradox: they are successful communicative acts, while at the same
time breaking or flouting the rules which are supposed to guarantee successful
communication (Grice’s maxims).
Raskin’s (1985: 100-107) possible solution to this paradox is that the speaker and
hearer commit to what he calls a non-bona-fide-communication mode. By doing so,
“the hearer does not expect the speaker to tell the truth”. As Attardo (1994: 286-290)
33
further explains, when the non-bona-fide mode is established, the hearer suspends
her/his disbelief in order to enjoy the humour of the text. S/he accepts something that
may or may not be true and s/he will react accordingly (e.g. laughing or smiling). If
the hearer refuses to co-operate, the text will not achieve its goals.
2.4.2 The General Theory of Verbal Humour
At first in collaboration with Raskin himself (Attardo and Raskin 1991) and later
independently, Attardo (1994, 2001) has developed a revision of the SSTH called the
General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH). Attardo (1994) retains the main tenets of
the SSTH but identifies two main problems in Raskin’s theory. On the one hand, its
applicability seems to be limited to short humorous texts such as jokes, despite the
fact that humour is also known to be present in longer texts (such as short stories,
novels or, for the purpose of this study, television productions) (ibid.208). On the
other hand, this theory seems to be unable to distinguish between verbal humour
(based on language) and referential humour (based on content) (ibid.217-219; cf. also
Vandaele 2002 for similar considerations).
Furthermore, Raskin considers his theory as a semantic theory of humour whose
aim is to offer a linguistic analysis of “how the text is organised” (Aymone 2007: 219)
and adds: “Linguistics makes no psychological claim” (ibid.). In contrast, Attardo
(1994: 143) sees the possibility of analysing the mechanism of humour creation and
perception according to the Incongruity-Resolution model developed in Psychology.
According to this model, the interpretation of a joke involves two steps. At first, the
receiver interprets the text according to the linguistic cues and the script they activate.
The punch line forces the receiver to detect the incongruity and then reinterpret the
linguistic cues in the text according to another script, which is in opposition to the one
34
activated previously. The first step of this interpretative process is labelled as
‘Incongruity’ while the second step is described as the ‘Resolution’ of the incongruity.
The creation of humour can be explained according to the Incongruity-Resolution
model, as I will show shortly.
The GTVH is therefore designed to offer an analytical tool for the linguistic
investigation of humour at large, thus accounting for both the verbal and referential
levels of this phenomenon. In order to do this, Attardo (1994: 223-227) introduces
five parameters, along with the already established notion of script opposition
developed by Raskin. These parameters are called Knowledge Resources (KRs) and
are requirements of a humorous text. The KRs are organised according to a
hierarchical structure. At the top of this structure there is the script opposition (SO).
This is followed by the logical mechanism (LM), which is the parameter that explains
how the two scripts are brought together (i.e. by juxtaposition, ground reversal, etc.; cf.
Attardo et al. 2002: 18 for a full list). According to the Incongruity-Resolution model
mentioned above, the SO is the parameter that reveals the incongruity while the LM is
the parameter that resolves it. The situation (SI) describes the context (objects,
participants, activities, etc.) while the target (TA) defines “the ‘butt’ of the joke”
(ibid.224). The narrative strategy (NS) is responsible for the organisation of the text
(e.g. a dialogue, narrative, figure of speech, etc.). At the bottom, we find the KR
called language (LA), which contains the information regarding the verbalisation of
the text. I have reproduced the hierarchical organisation of the KRs in Figure 2.1
below for the sake of clarity:
35

SO

LM

SI

TA

NS
LA
Figure 2.1: Reproduction of the hierarchical organisation of Knowledge Resources (Attardo 1994: 227)
The hierarchical organisation implies that, starting from the top and moving to the
bottom, each knowledge resource influences and determines the following ones
accordingly. While acknowledging the on-going development of this theory, Attardo
points out its advantages. Firstly, it easily distinguishes between verbal and referential
humour because it specifically differentiates language. Secondly, it allows the analysis
of jokes in terms of their similarity (i.e. the higher the number of parameters shared,
the greater the similarity between two or more jokes; cf. Ruch et al. 1993 for some
empirical testing of the GTVH that confirms this claim). Thirdly, since it requires an
investigation of the narrative strategy of the text under examination, it can be applied
to various types of humorous texts (ibid.227-229).
In Attardo (1994: 254-270) a chapter is devoted to the application of the GTVH to
texts other (and longer) than jokes. Attardo makes an interesting distinction between
those texts that have a structural organisation similar to jokes (with a build-up and
punch line) and those that do not (ibid.265). It goes without saying that the application
of GTVH to the former is more feasible while Attardo advocates a future development
of GTVH that will help it handle the latter. Attardo’s (1998, 2001, 2002b) subsequent
efforts have therefore concentrated on this direction. In particular, Attardo (2001: 38)
36
finds that while jokes are likely to have only one script opposition, longer texts may
have several (cf. also Brock 2004, who supports this claim).
Hence, Attardo (ibid.82-90) introduces new tools that can handle texts longer than
jokes and their complex humour. Firstly, he distinguishes between the well known
punch lines (humorous triggers at the end of the text), and what he names as jab lines
(humorous triggers that occur within the body of the text). Secondly, he extended the
GTVH to include the following main categories:
 Strands, which are sets of thematically or formally connected jab or punch
lines. At least three connected jab or punch lines are required to make a
strand. Two could just be considered a coincidence.
 Stacks, which are sets of thematically or formally related strands.
 Combs, which are strands of three or more jab or punch lines appearing in a
relatively limited part of the text.
 Bridges, which are strands with two groups of jab or punch lines appearing
at a relative distance within the text.
 Serious relief, which is defined as that part of a humorous text that does not
contain funny elements (for example the introduction). However, this part
has the important role of building up expectations in the receiver’s mind
and increasing the effect of the punch line.
Attardo uses all these terms for what he terms ‘vector analysis’, which is based on
the notation of segments of humorous texts (from a starting point determined by the
presence of a serious relief to the punch line). This allows a quantitative analysis of
the text that aims at detecting and categorising its constituting elements, leading to the
classification of the text as humorous or not. During my analysis I will specifically
37
take into account the distinction between jab and punch lines, and I will refer to the
concept of strand.
This brief presentation of the GTVH is followed by some discussion regarding its
applicability and criticism. However, I hope I have demonstrated that Raskin’s and
Attardo’s theories can be included in the cluster of incongruity theories, as suggested
above.
2.4.3 Application of the GTVH and Some Criticism
Several scholars in different fields have applied the GTVH to various instances of
humorous texts (e.g. Ritchie 2000, on computational humour; Archakis and Tsakona
2005, on humour and identity) but also (potentially humorous) non-linguistic data (cf.
Attardo 2007: 226 for a summary). Some of these studies have focused on the
distinction between jab and punch lines and their function within the text (cf. Tsakona
2007; Antonopoulou and Sifianou 2003). In particular, Tsakona’s (2003) empirical
investigation of a corpus of 194 Greek and 59 English jokes demonstrates that jab
lines do not disclose any information that can ruin the humour conveyed by the punch
line. Jab lines usually establish the non-bona-fide mode of the text and its humorous
tone, thus preparing the ground for the punch line, which offers the humorous climax
(ibid.325-327).
Scholars interested in the translation of humour have also applied the GTVH metric
in their investigations (cf. Attardo 2002a; Antonopoulou 2002, 2004; Zabalbeascoa
2005). However, I will discuss these studies in the next chapter, which contains two
sections entirely devoted to the issues related to the translation of humour in general
and the AVT of humour in particular.
38
However, the GTVH has also attracted some criticism. For instance, Ruch et al.’s
(1993) empirical application of the GTVH to a corpus of jokes leads them to question
the position of the logical mechanism within the GTVH metric. Raskin casts doubts
on the significance and very existence of the LM (Aymone 2007: 223-224). Although
he acknowledges these problems, Attardo also points out the LM is optional like the
resolution in the Incongruity-Resolution model. He explains that in some types of
humour (e.g. nonsense humour), there is no resolution and consequently, there is no
LM. However, this does not mean that this parameter has to be entirely rejected. This
claim will be taken in particular consideration during the analysis of humorous
metaphors (Ch.7 of this thesis), which involve a partial resolution of the incongruity
they contain.
In his review, Cłopicki (2003: 157) confirms the GTVH’s validity for the study of
humour in longer texts. Yet, he highlights the fact that this theory does not seem to
account fully for other entities in the text such as characters, places, objects and events.
Müller (2007: 51) instead points out the difficulty of identifying jab lines within a text,
which may differ considerably according to each analyst’s approach. These areas
clearly deserve to be pursued further.
As for my data, I have found that many examples cannot be precisely defined
according to the jab and punch line distinction. This is mainly due to the nature of the
genre under investigation. Unlike jokes that can be considered self-standing texts,
potentially humorous turns are embedded in conversational exchanges whose
boundaries are not always clear-cut. However, some exceptions can also be found. For
example, some potentially humorous exchanges in Friends are framed within well
defined scenes. In such cases, jab and punch line can be categorised in a fairly
straightforward way. I will return to these points in more detail in Chapter 4 where I
39
discuss my methodology. I will now turn to the issues related to conversational
humour.
2.5 Humour in Conversation
The relevance of context in humour understanding is pivotal. Some scholars have
concentrated on the analysis of jokes in connection to the context within which they
are uttered. According to Attardo (1994: 295-296), within this branch of humour
research, there is a distinction between canned and conversational (or situational)
jokes. Canned jokes are defined as jokes that have already been used by other
speakers in several situations and are available, for instance, in books or collections of
jokes. Conversational jokes may occur spontaneously in conversation and may be
caused by a given situation. They are generally defined as ‘witty’. He also highlights
the fact that these two classes tend to overlap and interchange. Attardo stresses the
fact that the former is a kind of ‘reused’ joke that is usually decontextualised.
However, he also makes it clear that, once canned jokes are used in a given context or
conversation, they are influenced by it and can enter the class of conversational jokes.
In addition, he claims that it is easier to reproduce a canned joke within a new context
than transforming a conversational joke into a canned one (cf. also Nash 1985: 56-58
and Oring 2003: 85 on similar considerations).
Attardo (ibid.297-298) also points out that, unlike conversational jokes, canned
jokes require an introduction (e.g. “Do you know that one…” etc.; my example).
Nonetheless, conversational jokes can sometimes exploit a part of the previous
discourse and build on it, while canned jokes cannot. Norrick (1993) devotes a chapter
of his book-length study to the analysis of the way audiences and joke tellers negotiate
40
the joke preface together. Clearly, the distinction between canned and conversational
jokes cannot be clear-cut.
In their discussions, both Attardo (1994, Ch.10) and Norrick (1993) refer to
Sacks’s (1972, 1974) and Sherzer’s (1978) contributions to humour research, which
are based on their work in Conversation Analysis. The former is the most prominent
proponent of the Conversation Analysis framework, which helps to understand how
people construct a conversation and build social order through talk. As Attardo
(ibid.311) explains, Sacks (1974) offers a detailed micro-analysis of the structure of
jokes in conversation according to Conversational Analysis. In particular, he
demonstrates that both canned and conversational jokes have a similar structure which
contains an introduction of the joke, its telling and the audience’s reaction.
Attardo (ibid.312) also reports on Sacks’s (1972) analysis of the mechanisms used
in constructing conversational humour. The latter considers in particular how punning
and wordplay are exploited to this end. In Sacks’s view, punning in conversation is
mainly possible because the interlocutors exploit the literal and idiomatic meaning of
what he calls ‘proverbials’ (or ‘formulaic expressions’). Evidence of both Sacks’s
claims can be found in Chapter 5 in this thesis, in which I investigate humorous puns
in my data and particularly puns based on the exploitation of the literal and idiomatic
meaning of fixed expressions.
Finally, Attardo also explains that, in his attempt to continue Sacks’s work, Sherzer
(1978) suggests that puns are likely to be found at the end of an exchange because
they are based on proverbials whose double meaning can be exploited to sum up a
topic and create (final) cohesion. However, in the light of what I have reported above
regarding the existence of jab lines and their jocular nature, it can be argued that puns
can be found both in final position but also throughout the text, especially in long ones
41
such as my data. In general, Attardo criticises Sherzer’s approach because it mainly
focuses on the playful nature of language. As Attardo points out, language play is not
humorous per se even though humour is a playful linguistic mode (ibid.313-316). I
will further discuss this point in Chapter 5, where I concentrate in particular on
wordplays that carry potential humour.
It is now worth considering the function(s) of humorous instances in conversation.
2.5.1 Function(s) of Humour in Conversation
In his introductory chapter on natural occurring humour in conversation, Norrick
(1993) importantly points out that:
[J]oking allows us to manipulate talk and participants in various ways, by

presenting a self, probing for information about the attitudes and
affiliations of our interlocutors, realigning ourselves with respect to them
and, of course, injecting humour into a situation, which helps to relieve the
tension and foster friendly interaction (ibid.5).
All these functions have been investigated in humour research and deserve special
mention. For example, Tannen (1984) analyses humour and irony at a Thanksgiving
dinner and suggests that those who use humour in conversation leave a stronger
impression of themselves on other people. Moreover, Tannen highlights the fact that
people display peculiar ways of creating humour, which she defines as their “brand”
of humour, their personal style in joking. For example, some people may pick on
others’ pronunciation and mock their way of talking, but without causing offence
(ibid.132).
Antonopoulou and Sifianou (2003) also explore instances of humour that do not
aim to cause offence. These scholars analyse humorous telephone exchanges between
42
peers and show how interlocutors make use of potentially offensive puns. However,
they also demonstrate that in this type of social interaction the use of potentially
aggressive humour is not perceived as harmful because it is not meant as such
(ibid.767). Sometimes, the receiver of a potentially aggressive pun may utter another
potentially offensive comment in reply. However, the friendly context within which
these exchanges take place does not disrupt the normal flow of the conversation, thus
proving the flexibility of humour production and perception.
Norrick (1993: 63) claims that wordplay and punning can be used in conversation
to challenge, test and attack the interlocutor(s) and, at the same time, to show the
speaker’s wit. Along with jokes, puns, wordplays, Norrick (ibid.45-81) also studies
the use of anecdotes. One of the most interesting points he makes regarding personal
anecdotes in conversation is that they help to promote a positive self-image.
Anecdotes often refer to humorous but also painful experiences and if the teller is able
to joke about it, s/he is likely to be positively evaluated by their interlocutors. In
addition, Norrick maintains that an anecdote can present an amusing scene which calls
for listeners’ reaction (e.g. to laugh, comment, tell a counter-anecdote, etc) (ibid.48; cf.
Hay 2001 on humour support). Norrick finally claims that conversational humour
among friends usually aims to entertain and create in-group bonding rather than
expressing the audience’s or the speaker’s superiority (ibid.111).
As can be seen, the analysis of humour in naturally occurring conversations can
reveal important information about the people involved in them. For example, it may
show the joke teller’s wit (or lack of it) and the interlocutors’ (in)ability to grasp
implied meanings and humour. More importantly, it can make evident how the norms
established in a given socio-cultural setting may determine the (in)appropriateness of
humour (Attardo 1994: 319).
43
In the next section I will consider the specific case of humour in TV comedy,
which is also the main focus of this thesis.
2.6 Humour in TV Comedy
TV comedy is increasingly popular, thus becoming extremely influential because it
reaches, in some cases, millions of viewers (Ross 1998: 91-92). In describing sitcoms,
Palmer (1994: 142) suggests that they “depend upon a fit between narrative flow and
joke theme, despite their overwhelming emphasis upon the flow of gags”. Sitcoms
seem indeed structured according to recurrent patterns, which enhance their main
themes and attempt to ensure the audience’s appreciation and consequently the
programmes’ good viewing rates.
Tagliamonte and Roberts (2005) claim that data taken from TV comedy can be a
surrogate to “real-world” because TV comedy attempts to replicate everyday language.
However, Walte (2007: 5) points out that “television does not reflect real interaction;
rather it tries to recreate an idealized little community”. Regarding humour, it could be
suggested that, like real conversations, TV comedy contains conversational and
potentially funny wordplay and jokes. These can be used to convey challenging,
offending as well as harmless humour. Moreover, they can also foster characters’
friendly or antagonizing relationships with one another. Finally, characters may tell
personal anecdotes with humorous potential, which also contribute to their positive
perception by other characters. However, real and TV comedy conversation differ in
many ways that I do not have the space to review here. What is more important to
point out is that conversational exchanges among the characters in comedy are often
exaggerated for humorous purposes. This is possible because TV comedy involves a
character-character level of communication and an author-(scriptwriters)-audience
44
level. In contrast naturally occurring humour in conversation involves only a level of
communication between two or more interlocutors.
For the purpose of this thesis, it is therefore important to understand how humour is
conveyed at both levels. Drawing on Clark and Schaefer (1992: 260) and Goffman
(1976, 1979), Bubel and Spitz (2006: 72) propose a model for the analysis of the
perception of humour in TV comedy that takes into account these two levels. This
model is based on the idea that TV spectators are ‘overhearers’. To describe this
concept, Bubel and Spitz give the example of a person on a bus who unintentionally
hears other people’s conversation(s). Spectators, like overhearers, do not fully share
the same knowledge as the participants of the conversation. Therefore, they cannot
directly negotiate meaning but they have to infer and make ‘conjectures’ on the basis
of what the participants say.
For Bubel and Spitz, the producers, scriptwriters, directors, camera staff and cutters
in the editing team of a TV programme are all involved in the construction of meaning
with a specific audience in mind. They produce a script on the basis of communication
processes that lead the audience to create a desired meaning. By referring to Clark
(1996) and Short (1981), Bubel and Spitz suggest a model that comprises a top level
created corresponding to the character-character interaction and an underlying level in
which the whole film production crew, the actors and the audience pretend that the
interaction at the top level (the fictional word and its dialogues) is real (ibid.73).
Not surprisingly, Bubel and Spitz argue that a spectator, like an overhearer in a real
situation, is likely to draw inferences regarding a character on the basis of what s/he
utters. These inferences depend on and are integrated by the audience’s “prior
knowledge of personalities – real-life or fictional – who display such features”
(ibid.74). More precisely, they claim that:
45
[C]haracterization means that in the course of a TV drama, while we are

making sense of the dialogue with the help of our world knowledge, we
also gain an impression of the characters uttering the dialogue. At the
same time, each bit of dialogue and the information about the characters it
carries also adds to this world knowledge (ibid.75).
With these premises in mind, Bubel and Spitz analyse two jokes performed by two
main characters, Renée and Ally, in one episode of the TV comedy programme Ally
McBeal (1997-2002, David E. Kelley) by means of the GTVH metric. Their
investigation demonstrates that Ally’s joke is potentially more humorous that Renée’s.
They carried out an informant-based study that further confirmed this. However, their
analysis of the context within which the jokes are told shows that viewers perceive
jokes as less humorous when they do not fit their view of the character who utters
them. Since the joke Ally tells does not fit her character, her joke is perceived as less
humorous than Renee’s and vice versa (ibid.92- 98).
Snell’s (2006) study further confirms the relevance of prior world knowledge in the
construction and understanding of humour in TV comedy. She combines the GTVH
metric and schema theory in the investigation of the potential humour of the TV
comedy series Little Britain (2003- , David Williams, Matt Lucas). She shows that the
humour in this series can be explained in terms of an incongruity between the
schemata/scripts in the audience’s mind about a given persona (e.g. VICTORIAN LADY
and its related social schema) and what they are presented as on the screen (Emily, a
transvestite who fails to appear as a Victorian lady) (ibid.61).
As can be seen, the studies reported above corroborate the idea that elements such
as conversational interaction and characterisation are highly relevant for the
construction of potential humour in TV comedy. In particular, the way characters are
constructed and perceived is pivotal to the enhancement of humour. As Culpeper
46
(2001) explains, fictional characters are perceived, at least in part, in terms of
readers’/viewers’ knowledge and expectations about different social categories.
However, in comedy, particular characteristics may be taken to extremes, resulting in
‘prototypical distortions’, so that characters can be described as ‘exaggerated
prototypes’:
They [exaggerated prototypes] fail to exhibit contextually sensitive

behaviour. (...) Such prototypical distortions are, of course, more typical of
fictional worlds than the real world (...) [They] can become established as
fictional stock figures in their own right (88-89).
All the six main characters in Friends seem to fit Culpeper’s definition, at least to
some extent, as I will show during my data analysis in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
2.7 Conclusions
In this chapter I have presented an overview of some of the vast literature on humour.
In particular, I hope I have shown the difficulties that arise in the attempt of capturing
this phenomenon and its many aspects. I have offered an overview of many scholars’
attempts to define humour from different points of view. In Section 2.2 I have
accepted Attardo’s idea that humour is what a social group considers as such. Since
canned laughter can be seen as a device to signal this choice, I have chosen to analyse
those instances of potential humour in the ST that are accompanied by it. This
approach facilitates the analytical process of my data.
To conclude, I would like to report Nilsen’s (1989) definition of humour. I have
chosen it because it is an interesting summary of the various theories mentioned above.
He claims that:
47
Humour is based on complication. In the first place, there are always

scripts, the natural one and the unexpected one. And there is a kind of
oppositional relationship between the two scripts. And there is frequently
a key word or a trigger that operates to change the mind of the listener into
a new mind set. And there has to be tension for something to be humorous
[...]. And for humour to be effective, it must operate on more than a single
level of analysis (phonological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, etc.)
(ibid.123).
This definition is adopted in this thesis but it cannot be seen as a definitive
explanation of the essence of humour. On-going research can contribute to shed more
light on this phenomenon. Regarding the way humour is construed in the audiovisual
settings and TV comedy in particular, I have reported on some scholarly research that
emphasises the relevance of humour and characterisation for a programme’s success.
In particular, I have emphasised the importance of analysing such textual features at
both the character-character and author-audience level.
In TS, humour translation has often been the subject of fierce debate with regards
to the feasibility of its transfer across cultures. In the next chapter, I will report and
comment on some scholarly discussion on this topic. This is preceded by an analysis
of specific issues that arise in AVT.
48
Chapter 3 Audiovisual Translation and Humour
Chapter 3. Audiovisual Translation and Humour
The intensity of the audience reaction to a comic line is far

more important than any literary fidelity to the original sense.
A funny line is intended to get a laugh. If it fails to do so
when translated into the foreign tongue, then the translation
has failed, whatever its literary excellence or fidelity to the original.
(Rowe 1960: 120)
3.1 Introduction
The continuously growing import of audiovisual material, mainly from the United
States, into Europe (Paolinelli 1994: 152, 2004: 174; Yvane 1995: 452, quoted in Díaz
Cintas 2003: 193) has created a vast demand for translation and adaptation. Chiaro
(2004: 39) reports the results of research carried out by the European Audiovisual
Observatory regarding the marketing of US-generated fiction and films broadcast in
the five principal European markets (Germany, Spain, France, United Kingdom and
Italy). This research shows that the largest percentage of entertaining material
broadcast on European channels is imported from the U.S. (70-80%). These four
countries, apart from the UK, have to translate these products into the target language
(TL) before broadcasting. It is therefore not surprising that the translation process and
its driving reasons have become the focus of interest for a large number of scholars in
Translation Studies (TS).
Due to space and time limitations, I cannot offer an extensive review of TS in
general. In this chapter I will focus on a literature review of Audiovisual Translation
(AVT). In Section 3.2, I will discuss some terminological issues regarding AVT and I
will briefly introduce the two most popular modes of AVT, namely subtitling and
dubbing. In Section 3.3, I will consider the factors that make subtitling a wide spread
alternative, analysing its constraints and advantages. However, as my main interest is
49
the dubbing of Friends, I will devote Section 3.4 to an extensive discussion of this
AVT mode, its constraints and advantages. In Section 3.5 I will discuss the Italian
dubbing tradition. I will explain the historical and cultural reasons that led Italy to
adopt dubbing rather than subtitling, as well as the present situation of dubbing in
Italy. In Section 3.6, I will move on to consider the specific issues that the translation
of humour raises, considering in particular what scholars say about potentially
humorous wordplay and culture-specific allusions. I will stress the lack of research on
the translation of potentially humorous metaphors. This is followed by a brief
summary and discussion of Attardo’s (2002a) theory of humour translation. Before
concluding this chapter, in Section 3.7 I will specifically comment on the AVT of
humour and I will summarise Zabalbeascoa’s (1996) study on dubbing humour.
3.2 Audiovisual Translation (AVT)
Some scholars point out that AVT is often underestimated (Delabastita 1989: 194,
1990: 97) or considered as a necessarily low quality activity (Zabalbeascoa 1996: 235).
Despite being labelled as a subfield of TS, AVT has gathered a wealth of research.
However, due to its constant development, AVT has suffered from some
terminological confusion. For example, Luyken et al. (1991) suggest the term
‘language transfer’ to refer to the different types of translation strategies applied to
audiovisual texts, which can include subtitling, voice-overs, commentary or dubbing.
Other scholars such as Heiss (1996) and Ulrych (2000) focus on the type of text to be
translated. They use ‘multimedia translation’ as an umbrella term to describe the
translation of all those texts created through a multi-semiotic channel, be they films,
TV programmes or plays for the theatre.
50
In his introduction to the special issue of The Translator on screen translation,
Yves Gambier (2003) offers an extensive discussion of the state of the art in what he
refers to as ‘screen translation’ or ‘audiovisual translation’ (AVT). In reviewing the
various terms used in the audiovisual field, Gambier points out that the term ‘language
transfer’ does not seem to take into account the extra-linguistic elements it involves
(e.g. pictures, sounds, etc.). In addition, he remarks that ‘multimedia translation’ often
includes not only theatre but also computer games, web pages, etc. without
distinguishing between the media and codes used. Consequently, he prefers the terms
‘screen translation’ or AVT because this helps to narrow down the analysis to those
TV and radio programmes and films that are broadcast on a screen (cinema screen,
TV set or computer screen) (ibid.171-172). Considering that nowadays the term AVT
seems to be the most commonly applied, I tend to agree with Gambier and I will use
this term, along with screen translation, throughout my thesis.
Among the many types of AVT (e.g. interlingual subtitling, dubbing, voice-over,
interpreting; cf. Gambier ibid.172-177 for a complete list), the most popular ways in
which audiovisual texts are transposed from the source language (SL) into the target
language (TL) are dubbing and subtitling. In general, the choice of one mode over the
other depends on many factors, among which are the production cost, the tradition
developed by individual countries and the relevance of the source text (ST) within the
receiving culture.
Luyken et al. (1991) analyse the choice of a certain translation mode in relation to
the specific characteristics of the receiving audience: age, education, foreign language
competence. Their investigation reveals that a preference for dubbing increases with
age since older people’s reading skills and hearing abilities decrease. Highly educated
audiences and those who claim to be proficient enough to watch a programme in the
51
SL prefer subtitling. In contrast, those who claim not to understand a foreign language
prefer dubbing (ibid.114-116). In general, Luyken et al. highlight that each of these
processes employs particular techniques aiming to overcome the linguistic barriers
posed by the medium itself when they claim that:
Any method of Language Transfer will inevitably interfere with the

original film or programme but it should attempt to be as unobtrusive as
possible so that, ideally, the new viewer’s experience of the programme
will differ as little as possible from that of the original audience. Highly
professional and competent application of the various methods of
Language Transfer, be it subtitling, voice-over or lip-sync dubbing, is
therefore essential in order to preserve the original artistic identity of the
audiovisual production to the widest possible extent. For whether
emotionally supported or rejected, Language Transfer will play an
increasingly significant role in the future direction of the television
industry and the development of European identity. (ibid.29; my emphasis)
The emphasis on the word ‘ideally’ derives from the fact that the situation
portrayed by Luyken et al. can only be described as ideal. As a matter of fact, the
process of Language Transfer, or AVT (by virtue of what I have just said), often faces
a large number of constraints forcing translators and adaptors to manipulate texts in
such a way that they are likely to differ greatly from the originals.
Marleau (1982), Delabastita (1989, 1990), Petit (2004) etc. investigate a variety of
problems and constraints related to these two modes of translation. The specific
constraints and advantages of subtitling and dubbing are discussed separately in
dedicated Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below. Here I concentrate on some general problems
that arise in transferring audiovisual material across languages and cultures.
With reference to the peculiarities of the original cultural context, La Polla (1996:
53) underlines the fact that the original image in the audiovisual text is not and cannot
be modified because of the particular visual references it carries, which are able to
speak on their own. However, some scholars in TS have recently considered the future
52
possibility of manipulating the visual text (the picture) of audiovisual products, be
they TV programmes (Zabalbeascoa 1996: 254) or documentaries (Gambier 2003:
181). Certainly, the fast development of new technologies may ultimately make this
possible. However, it is useful to remember that cinematographic productions such as
films and documentaries may have an important artistic value, like paintings or
sculptures. I believe that many directors may raise objections to the manipulation of
the visual text of their films. Who, for example, would be willing to modify Fellini’s
La dolce vita (1960)?
AVT obviously causes a large amount of problems. As La Polla (1996: 54)
explains, AVT always involves a cultural shift, not only in linguistic terms but also by
virtue of the connotations that the source language can convey by means of idiomatic
expression, metaphor or a character’s individual register. Although the translator may
find target-culture counterparts in such cases, they will be unlikely to retain the
cultural connotation of the original in its entirety. However, it is important to point out
that the linguistic transfer may often suffer from the influence of the source language
over the target language. Luyken et al. (1991: 159-160) give examples of Anglicisms
that are found in the German dubbed versions of famous television programmes like
the American soap opera Dynasty (1981, Richard and Esther Shapiro).
In addition, Luyken et al. (ibid.158) not unreasonably point out that AVT is also
influenced by the human factor. In their view, variables such as the translator’s
knowledge of the source culture and language (her/his expertise), and the time
pressure under which translators have to work can play a significant role in terms of
accuracy (ibid.163-165).
As Gambier (2003: 183) reminds us, the contrastive analysis of ST and TT can help
us understand not only the language norms and the processes at work in a given
53
culture but it also offers the opportunity to question general concepts such as
manipulation, equivalence, acceptability etc. (these issues will be discussed shortly in
more detail). Ulrych (2000: 408-409) however warns us that this can be achieved only
by broadening the view of the field of ‘multimedia’ or AVT studies, which should be
integrated with insights from other disciplines. Along with the classical translation-
related disciplines like linguistics, literature and philology, fields such as
communication studies and semiotics can also adequately support such an endeavour
and affirm AVT as a field in its own right (cf. also Chaume Varela 2004 for similar
considerations and an application). For this reason, I support my discussion by
referring to studies from fields other than TS where possible (e.g. Film Studies, but
also insights offered by professionals in AVT).
Taking into consideration the complex and multifaceted context of dubbing and
subtitling, Delabastita (1989) clearly states that the process can be investigated and
analysed better by using a descriptive approach. This allows scholars in the field of
translation studies to understand what guides the translator’s decision-making process
or why s/he uses a source or target-oriented approach (Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998
respectively calls these approaches ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’; cf. Chapter 1,
Section 2.1 for a definition). Moreover, such an investigation should take into account
the kind of relationship that exists between the target culture and the source culture,
and how this affects the TT. Finally, one should always be aware of the genre to
which the text under investigation belongs, e.g. entertainment, drama and so on
(ibid.205-209). In other words, if a researcher wants to understand the reasons why a
given programme or film has been translated or manipulated, s/he should first
understand the set of norms governing the cultural context within which it is
54
embedded. All these elements help to draw the translation process map which will
undoubtedly enhance the development of this discipline.
Bearing all these reflections in mind, I now move on to summarise the subtitling
process, its constraints and advantages.
3.3 Subtitling
Subtitling, or ‘interlingual subtitling’ is defined in Gambier (2003: 172) as “moving
from the oral dialogue to one/two written lines and from one language to another,
sometimes to two languages”. Paolinelli (1994: 151) explains that subtitling becomes
a viable alternative to dubbing because of many factors such as lack of adequate
dubbing studios (and related equipment), production cost (this is one tenth of the cost
of dubbing) and tradition. Moreover, he remarks that there are some target cultures
that have a positive attitude towards foreign ones and tend to welcome subtitling more
than others. However, Paolnelli also draws attention to the fact that this positive
attitude to subtitles can involve a process of linguistic and cultural imperialism by the
SL (ibid.152; cf. also Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998 on similar considerations). I will
suggest that, despite some advantages, subtitling also presents peculiar linguistic,
aesthetic and psychological constraints, as explained below.
Marleau (1982: 271-285) defines subtitling as a ‘necessary evil’, describing the
disadvantages of this kind of translation and, at the same time, acknowledging the
need for it. In pinpointing its drawbacks, he explains that, since human beings
perceive an acoustic text faster than a written one, subtitles have to condense the
verbal text. Condensation is a consequence of not only temporal but also spatial
constraints given that subtitles must fit in the only two available lines at the bottom of
the screen. Regarding this restriction, several scholars have tried to determine the
55
number of characters allowed for each subtitle. Marleau himself (ibid.280) and
Delabastita (1989: 204) suggest that the average number of characters in each subtitle
should be around sixty or seventy (including spaces between words and punctuation
such as commas and question marks).
Marleau also highlights the fact that subtitles cover part of the visual image thus
depriving the target audience of part of it. Moreover, due to the position of the TT, the
target receivers have to divide their attention between the visual and the written text,
involving a partial loss of both. In addition, he also notes that subtitles are hardly
legible when they are presented on a bright background (ibid.274). He also points out
that while reading the subtitles viewers are likely to experience a ‘visual shock’,
which is caused when subtitles appear and disappear from the screen. He calculates
that, in a two-hour film, the viewer perceives a visual shock, on average, every three
seconds (ibid.275-276). Finally, aesthetic losses are caused by the condensation of the
TT, which often impairs the natural flow of the dialogue that spoken language
conveys. It should be noticed here that a similar criticism has been made for dubbing,
but I will comment on this later in this chapter.
Taylor (2000) explains that subtitling can lead to the loss of the ‘interpersonal
element’ (Kovačič 1996: 297, quoted in Taylor 2000: 159). He offers the example of
someone who opens the door to a guest and invites her/him in with a sentence (e.g.
“Please come in”) and a hand gesture. The accompanying utterance could be omitted
from the subtitle but this situation could simply be considered unrealistic by the
viewers who, in real life, are used to some sort of verbal greeting, even if redundant
(ibid.159). However, it should be noticed that such loss cannot be considered
particularly relevant because it does not seem to impair the understanding of scene
itself.
56
Despite this criticism, Taylor’s study supports the use of subtitles by remarking on
some of its important advantages. In his opinion, subtitling allows the receiving
audience to enjoy the nuances of the original language such as accent, intonation and
rhythm, all traits of the actor’s linguistic style. This happens because subtitling
preserves the original soundtrack, overcoming the linguistic barriers through the use
of a written text. For example, Taylor states that subtitling Roberto Benigni’s La vita è
bella (1997, Roberto Benigni, Life Is Beautiful) enabled the Anglo-American audience
to enjoy the peculiarities of Benigni’s Tuscan accent, inflection and acting style
(ibid.164). Although it is debatable whether the American audience can really grasp
the nuances of Benigni’s Tuscan accent, it is also undeniable that subtitles are likely to
develop a greater awareness of the source culture and language in the target audience.
For his part, La Polla (1994: 57-58) acknowledges that subtitling in principle could
retain these elements, but in practice it rarely does because the typical subtitle is
written in the standard target language. More importantly, he points out that it hardly
manages to recreate the effect of, for example, a fast and complex monologue
delivered by a comedian (as in the example of Roberto Benigni above).
To sum up, subtitling can be considered a relatively cost effective kind of AVT
which also retains a higher number of source-culture elements than dubbing. However,
it also involves a large number of disadvantages that make watching a subtitled film a
very different experience from that of audiences in the source culture.
3.4 Dubbing
As in the previous section, I will discuss dubbing by reflecting on its constraints and
advantages. In technical terms, dubbing can be described as the recreation of the
original verbal text of an audiovisual product into the target language by adjusting it
57
according to the visual and non-verbal original texts (soundtrack, special effects),
which remain unaltered. The translator provides a first ‘raw translation’ which is
subsequently matched with the lip movements of the actors on the screen. In addition,
the dubbing team also attempts a coherent combination of the text with paratextual
elements such as the speaker’s intonation, gesture and posture. Luyken et al. (1991:
160) define all these paratextual features as ‘nucleus sync’. Moreover, they point out
that: “the quality of the end product results directly from the harmonious fusion of
these parts” (ibid.39). Although they acknowledge that each process can vary slightly,
Luyken et al. also maintain that the procedure applied to achieve the final result in TV
and cinema productions is substantially similar (ibid.79). Because of its relevance to
this thesis, I will briefly describe the technical process involved in dubbing.
Luyken et al. (ibid.73-79) describe dubbing according to a hierarchical and
temporal structure. The first step is usually to note on paper relevant information
about its paratextual elements. This should also be made available to the producer of a
script. The second step requires that the audiovisual text be copied onto a master copy
which includes its time-code. This allows the time within which each character’s lines
are uttered to be accurately determined, in order to create an adequate lip
synchronisation (or lip sync). Dubbing requires a new cast of actors to perform in the
target language. They are selected by the casting director and usually divided into
three classes according to their acting skills and expertise (A, B and C quality); this
will influence production costs as ‘A’ quality actors will ask for higher fees. Thus the
production team has to balance this cost according to the general production budget
and the level of success that is forecast for the programme (ibid.74-75). For example,
in Italy Disney productions are usually expected to provide good revenues and the
production usually invests in top quality actors for their dubbing.
58
The actual recording of the new verbal text is carried out in the dubbing studio
where the director advises the actors on their delivery as they perform. The recording
process can take place in one of two ways. The first way is for the actors to perform
their lines as a group. The alternative is for each actor to perform individually; the
individual recordings are subsequently rearranged, or mixed, by means of a
computerised system. The former technique is called the ‘single-track’ system while
the latter is known as the ‘multi-track’ system. Both techniques require the actors to
learn their lines and perform them while watching the original visual text.
Alternatively, the dubbing studio can project the visual images onto a screen and
present the translated text at the bottom of the screen. In this case the actors, by means
of specific symbols combined with the writing, are able to distinguish and perform
their lines accordingly. This system proves to be quite accurate but time consuming
(ibid.75-76).
After the new verbal text has been performed, a preliminary mix and edit is carried
out in order to recreate an adequate match with non-verbal elements such as the
soundtrack and special effects. The final mix is created by the dubbing director, editor
and dubbing mixer who ensure the optimum merging of all the texts. Once the
approval of the broadcasting station has been secured, the transmission of the
audiovisual material will occur (ibid.78-79). Dries (1995: 12) notices that in the
1990s, most dubbing studios switched from analogical to digital equipment (the
Magnetic Optical Disc, or MOD). Although more expensive than the audio and video
tapes, this technology allows for higher accuracy, less person-power and faster
production.
As shown by the brief account presented above, translating the verbal text is just a
small part of the dubbing process as a whole, although it is clearly essential to it. The
59
translator is mainly involved in the process described above as ‘raw translation’ (more
or less a word-for-word translation), which is then manipulated and adjusted by the
dubbing team. Nevertheless, the translation of the verbal text is influenced by a large
number of constraints, which are described below along with the advantages of using
the dubbing mode.
3.4.1 Constraints and Advantages of Dubbing
In his study, Cary (1960: 110-115) describes the constraints involved in dubbing but
he also considers its advantages. He points out the fact that dubbing is a team effort,
where translators have to adhere to a set of constraints affecting their freedom of
creativity. As well as this, dubbing involves formal constraints deriving from
synchronisation. As mentioned earlier, synchronisation has to take into account not
only lip movement, but also the actor’s gestures, facial expressions, voice inflection,
accent and so on (ibid.112). Romero Fresco (2006) further explains: “dubbing is thus
not only a matter of (achieving) synchronisation, nor is it about (overcoming)
constraints, but about (achieving) the satisfactory interaction of the different
audiovisual codes” (ibid.140; original wording).
Regarding lip sync, Myers (1973) notices that American, English and German
audiences consider it to be the most important aspect of coherence in dubbing, while
Italian audiences prefer sacrificing perfect lip sync in favour of a good acting
performance by the dubbing actors (ibid.58). Interestingly, thirty years later Gambier
(2003: 173) offers similar conclusions but he also points out the lack of empirical data
to support such statements. Some research in this sense can again be found Luyken et
al. (1991). Their informant-based analysis confirms that German and English
60
audiences have a low level of tolerance of inadequate lip sync (ibid.119). However,
further research is certainly needed to shed more light into this neglected area.
Along with the constraints reported above, Cary points out the difficulties at the
lexical level that are caused by differences in the number of syllables between words
in the ST and the TT (ibid.113). Chaume Varela (1998: 17) highlights the specific
example of English audiovisual texts that have to be translated into Spanish or Catalan.
He shows that producing adequate lip sync is often difficult due to the fact that
English has a large number of monosyllabic words while Spanish generally has words
with two or more syllables. The same problem applies to other Romance languages
such as Italian and French.
As can be seen visual and verbal constraints play a major role in AVT. For instance,
Luyken et al. (1991: 159-160) demonstrate that forced attempts to respect lip sync
produced a target-language translation that is more artificial than the original and
involves unusual modification of German grammatical structure. Similarly, Herbst
(1996) analyses the German dubbing of Anglo-American audiovisual texts and places
particular stress on the lack of coherence in the German versions. Although he takes
into consideration the real contextual constraints within which translators have to
work, as discussed above, Herbst highlights some possible reasons upon which this
lack of coherence may depend. In particular, he suggests that a relevant factor could
be the established practice of using a draft (or raw) translation as the source of the
final dubbed text. In his view, abandoning such a practice could help to improve both
the coherence of target texts and the process itself. For Herbst, adequate coherence
may result in receivers’ increased toleration of Anglicisms and other types of textual
manipulations. Moreover, he suggests that as long as lip sync is respected in terms of
the quantity (matching at least the times when the characters on the screen move their
61
mouths), rather than quality (a perfect match of lip movement), it can help to salvage
the coherence of the entire text (ibid.99-102).
Most of the factors mentioned so far are common to all the so called ‘dubbing
countries’ (France, Germany, Italy and Spain) and they have attracted a large amount
of criticism. For example, Italian scholars in TS, Italian Studies and Film Studies
(Rossi 1999; Raffaelli 1994, Taylor 2006, Patou-Patocchi 2006) use the term
‘doppiagese’ (‘dubbese’ in Pavesi and Perego’s 2006 terminology) to describe the
language of films and TV programmes as rather flat, redundant and far from reflecting
the language actually spoken by the target culture. Consequently, audiovisual products
in general have often been considered as inaccurate and low quality (Zabalbeascoa
1996: 235).
A further interesting technical pitfall in dubbing is what Vöge (1977: 121, but also
cf. Dries 1995: 12) defines as the ‘radio-play effect’; that is the repeated use of the
same voices for a great number of films. Two main reasons can explain this effect.
First, small countries have only a small pool of actors available. Second, even in
larger countries like Germany and Italy, with a large acting pool, only a quite small
number of actors actually work in dubbing. Similar problems may derive from the fact
that some famous source language actors are usually dubbed by the same actor, with
both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, this creates a certain
degree of coherence within the target culture, since the audience will tend to associate
a given voice with a particular foreign actor. On the other hand, it gives almost
monopolistic control to dubbing actors, with inevitable consequences for the
production costs (Dries ibid.12-13). It can also give rise to some rather bizarre
situations. For instance, Lionello (1994: 48), a famous Italian director, dubbing actor
and translator, admits that he once found himself in the situation of dubbing both Peter
62
Falk and Terry Thomas in the Italian version of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World
(1963, Stanley Kramer Questo pazzo, pazzo, pazzo, pazzo mondo).
It should be finally noted that some acoustic elements in AVT cannot be dubbed.
Zabalbeascoa (1997: 339) explains that sometimes some original elements are
necessary to the development of the plot and they can only be subtitled. For example,
the songs performed in Moulin Rouge (2001, Baz Luhrmann), could neither be
omitted nor dubbed. For this reason, they are subtitled while the spoken part of the
film is dubbed.
It may be clear at this stage that dubbing involves a high level of professional
expertise and team work. In particular, the translator’s creativity becomes an
important means through which the constraints faced during this process can be
overcome. Chuame Varela (1998: 19-21) crucially remarks that the translator’s skills
are demonstrated by his/her capacity to create a new verbal text which coherently
merges with the non-verbal one. If the translator is constrained both by the target
language and culture and the source text itself, dubbing allows her/him to rely on a
unique advantage: the possible total substitution of the original verbal text. This
allows the adaptation of language and culture specific references while ensuring that
the audience are, at best, only partially aware of any changes. In addition, the camera
angle used in a scene can easily be exploited in order to adjust dialogue in the TT. For
example, if a character is shot from behind or framed by a long shot, the audience will
not notice non-perfect lip sync. The translator, however, has to take into consideration
the extent to which the source elements are relevant to the entire meaning of the
audiovisual text and arrange her/his translation according to the formal, content,
texture and semiotic constraints the text may present.
63
Paolinelli (1994: 152) also acknowledges that dubbing teams are frequently able to
demonstrate their ability to carry out ambitious attempts at recreating the expressive
capacities of the original ST in the TT, and also the ability of the actors who perform
it. This is the essence of the dubbing mode that seeks to retain the illusion created by
the original work of art while simultaneously making it available across cultural and
linguistic boundaries.
Bearing these reflections in mind, I now move on to analyse the specific Italian
situation in terms of theoretical and practical AVT.
3.5 Italy and its Dubbing Tradition
As I have briefly anticipated earlier, age and education can play an important role in
the audience’s preference for subtitling or dubbing. In addition to this, factors such as
tradition, habit and familiarity with one or the other mode contribute substantially to
their adoption and appreciation in each individual country. Nevertheless, changes
seem to be taking place both in traditionally dubbing and subtitling countries.
Nowadays, in Spain and France it is easier to find cinemas showing original versions
of foreign films with subtitles while countries like Greece and Denmark have started
dubbing audiovisual products like soap-operas and family films (Díaz Cintas 2003:
196-196). The reasons for these changes are likely to lie in the constant evolution of
the technology involved in AVT. Films are now mostly available on the market in
DVD format, which can contain several dubbed and subtitled versions. Hence,
Gambier (2003: 173) shrewdly questions whether the usual division between ‘dubbing’
and ‘subtitling’ countries is nowadays becoming obsolete. Although partly in
agreement with Gambier’s statement, I retain this distinction in this thesis because I
believe that the tradition developed throughout the 20th century by individual countries
64
will remain to some extent in the development of AVT for many years to come.
Therefore, analysing AVT can tell researchers a great deal not only about the norms
governing this process but also about the cultural context within which it is embedded.
Alongside the factors listed above, Luyken et al. (1991: 24-27) explain that
choosing subtitling or dubbing in Europe also depends on the size of the receiving
audience, their tendency to accept foreign programmes and their real knowledge of a
foreign language. In large countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy there
are plenty of home-produced programmes. Hence, audiences in these countries prefer
watching native-language programmes and tend to opt for dubbing for imported
productions. On the other hand, smaller countries tend to import a larger number of
foreign programmes, because of the production costs, and thus use subtitling as the
preferred AVT mode. Italy is one of the so called ‘dubbing countries’. In the
following subsections I will offer a brief summary of the historical reasons that have
led to this choice and I will discuss the present situation of AVT in this country.
3.5.1 Historical Background
When the acoustic element was introduced into cinema production, the problem of its
translation arose in non-English speaking countries because the majority of films were
produced by cinema studios in Hollywood. At first Italy adopted subtitles. However,
the relatively high number of illiterate people in this country between the 1920s and
1930s forced American production studios such as Fox and Paramount to provide
alternatives which would not discourage cinema-goers of restricted reading ability.
The American studios initially opted for the re-production of the original films into
local versions with target-language actors (e.g. The Big Trail, 1931, Raoul Walsh, Il
65
grande sentiero) but their high costs soon led to the introduction of the dubbing mode
(Bollettieri Bosinelli 2000: 19-20).
Historical and political reasons also played an important role. In Italy (but also in
Germany and Spain), the choice of dubbing is the result of the nationalistic regime
that ruled the country during the early decades of the twentieth century (Danan 1991).
The Italian Fascist regime was concerned with building a strong nationalistic spirit
through propaganda and this covered every means of media production, including
cinema. This regime built and supported acting schools and studios like the Centro
Sperimentale and Cinecittà in order to control imported material through dubbing.
Mussolini imposed dubbing as the only mode of translation and justified this choice as
an attempt to protect the Italian language and identity (Fasold 1983: 77, quoted in
Danan 1991: 611-612). Dubbing was subsequently adopted for almost all imported
productions in Italy, as I show in the next subsection.
3.5.2 Present Situation
Nowadays the Italian audience are so accustomed to dubbing that it has also become
their preferred option. Antonini’s (2005: 211) research on the numbers of hours of
dubbed and subtitled programmes broadcast weekly in Italy confirms that dubbing is
almost the only solution used. As shown in Figure 3.1 below, the number of hours of
translated programmes broadcast in Italy each week is as follows:
66
Figure 3.1: Hours of dubbed and subtitled programmes broadcast weekly in Italy (Antonini 2005: 211)
As can be seen, imported TV programmes in Italy are predominantly dubbed (346).
Only a small portion is subtitled (17.5). In addition, Chiaro (2004) has analysed the
percentage of dubbed production broadcast weekly on the main national Italian
terrestrial channels, as shown in Figure 3.3 below:
Figure 3.3: Percentages of dubbed programmes broadcast weekly on national Italian channels (Chiaro 2004: 40)
Interestingly, the three channels belonging to the state television RAI (RAIUNO,
RAIDUE and RAITRE) broadcast a relatively small amount of imported productions.
This may be due to the fact that Italians pay for a TV licence in order to watch these
67
channels. Consequently, RAI invests a large portion of this money to foster national
audiovisual productions. In contrast, privately owned channels like ITALIA1 and LA7
target young viewers and tend to broadcast popular U.S. productions such as The
Simpsons (1987- , Matt Groening) or Ugly Betty (2006, Fernando Gaitán).
Therefore, it may not be surprising to find that only one percent of Italians have
sufficient competence in a foreign language to be able to watch a film in its original
version (Paolinelli 2004: 176). Very occasionally, if the imported material does not
justify the dubbing or voice-over costs, subtitles may be used. For example, interviews
involving foreign singers broadcast by the music channel MTV are usually subtitled.
In other cases, factors like time pressure and the high-value of the audiovisual material
lead to subtitling. A significant example of this is presented by the Mostra
Internazionale d’Arte Cinematografica - the Italian cinema festival. During this event,
given the high number of films presented in the brief period of ten days and the
cultural relevance of an event presenting ‘art films’ (Pisek 1997: 38; Antonini 2005:
211), subtitling is used as an alternative to dubbing.
I will now discuss the ways in which Italian scholars and practitioners suggest that
the problems I discussed in the previous section are, or could be, overcome.
Conclusions derived from both the theory and practice in AVT can be considered
equally useful because, as Ulrych (2000: 410) puts it, they are “simply two sides of
the same coin: theory informs practice, which in turn contributes towards a theoretical
framework”.
As suggested earlier, the retention of language- and culture-specific elements such
as accents is almost impossible in dubbing. However, they are likely to have a
connotative valence only within their own culture. In order to compensate for such
loss, echoing Camuzio (1993, quoted in La Polla 1994), La Polla proposes the use of
68
‘doppiaggio creativo’ (creative dubbing). This process involves the introduction into
the TT of accents, inflections or other elements that are familiar to the target audience.
However, he warns that this cannot be taken as a norm or absolute law for dubbing;
rather, he suggests the application of familiar TT cultural references when appropriate,
for example in conveying humour (ibid.56-59, cf. also Patou-Patucchi 2006: 120). On
similar lines, Raffaelli (1994: 285) mentions the successful application of ‘doppiaggio
creativo’ not only to light-hearted productions such as Many Rivers to Cross (1956,
Roy Rowland, Un napoletano nel Far West) but also to more ‘serious’ ones like Trash
(1970, Paul Morrisey, Trash. I rifiuti di New York).
Nowadays this translation procedure seems to be applied only to fictional and
comic characters such as those in Disney films (e.g. Thomas O’Malley, the cat with
Irish origins in The Aristocats (1970, Gli aristogatti), TV series (Tequila and Bonetti
1992, Tequila e Bonetti) (Pavesi 1994: 132) or TV animated cartoons like The
Simpsons (1987- , Matt Groening), where a number of supporting and one-off
characters have been connoted by Italian accents and dialects for humorous purposes
(Dore 2002). Ferrari’s (2006) contrastive analysis of the Anglo-American original and
the Italian dubbed version of the TV series The Nanny (1993, Fran Drescher, La Tata)
confirms this trend in Italian AVT. In the dubbed Italian version, the main character,
Fran (Fran Drescher), a woman of Jewish origins from Queens becomes Francesca
Cacace, a woman of marked Italian origins. Ferrari suggests that this target-oriented
approach has contributed enormously to this sitcom’s success in Italy. It could be
argued that such a high level of manipulation creates an “unfaithful” reproduction of
the ST. Yet, I believe that in this context the dubbing team’s solution of adopting
target-culture references can be seen as an attempt to compensate specific references
in the ST that the target audience are likely to miss anyhow.
69
Paolinelli’s (2004) work is a detailed account of the situation of Italian dubbing. He
denounces the tendency to consider films according to their marketing potential rather
than as works of art, which has been affecting its quality in the last decade. In
considering the reasons for this, he points out firstly that the fast growth of new
technologies such as satellite television has resulted in the creation of new dubbing
companies. The main objective of these companies is to gain new markets and clients
by cutting the production costs, thus leading to a poorer quality of services and
products (ibid.173). Furthermore, Polinelli points out that American production
companies usually invest 50% or more of the film’s production cost in its promotion.
In addition, they usually invest in high-quality dubbing because they are aware of its
high economic returns. Hollywood productions usually cover most of the Italian
market (70%). In contrast, European companies spend approximately only 6% for
promotion and consequently struggle to be exported into the American market. Their
only support comes from the European Union’s Media Program that attempts to
protect European productions and their adequate transfer. In the light of this, Paolinelli
suggests the creation of a ‘European Dubbing Agency’ which can protect and promote
European movies and TV programmes (ibid.174). It is worth noting that such an
agency should include subtitling, so as to target a larger pool of spectators.
As for the Italian situation, Paolinelli explains that the ADIAC (Associazione
Italiana Doppiatori e Adattatori Cinetelevisivi – Italian Association of Dubbers and
Adapters for Cinema and Television; my translation) has been working hard to make
sure that the quality of dubbing in Italy is respected and kept to high standards
(ibid.177). Therefore, he advocates a more active distribution of Italian audiovisual
products of certified quality. This can be done by offering contracts for dubbers that
clearly state the need for quality. Moreover, he suggests that the distribution and
70
broadcasting companies should hire only dubbing firms and studios that comply with
high standards of quality (ibid.179-181).
Interestingly, the AIDAC seems to emphasise the role of dubbing actors and
adaptors (cf. definition above). Hence, the figure of the translator seems to exist only
as a marginal contribution to the whole dubbing process. Galassi (1994: 62-63) also
informs us that an adaptor may not even know the source language of the material s/he
works on (be it Chinese, Hindi, English, etc.). In Italian AVT what really counts is
her/his ability to adequately adapt the TT to the visual elements on the screen (cf. also
Patou-Patucchi 2006:118).
Pavesi and Perego’s (2006) analysis provide a valuable insight into the adaptors’
professional situation in Italy. In particular, their work confirms that there is a very
limited number of adaptors who deal with the majority of the audiovisual material
imported into the country. Most of them are male and, not surprisingly, live in Rome
(where most dubbing studios are). Pavesi and Perego have interviewed the ten most
hired adaptors who confirmed that, although being very proficient in Italian, they do
not necessarily hold a degree in translation or related fields. Moreover, they work
from home so that they rarely have the possibility to share their experience and
difficulties with other colleagues. Interestingly, Pavesi and Perego have discovered
that adaptors are more and more aware of the fact that dubbed productions often fall
into ‘doppiagese’ (cf. Section 3.2 above). They try to avoid this by making use of
linguistic devices (e.g. lexical dislocation, slang, idiomatic expressions, colloquial
cleft sentences) that can recreate the illusion of the ST’s informal language. However,
the adaptors also hasten to point out that their main priorities in adapting the TT are its
maximum ‘speakability’ and ‘performability’. Consequently, the dubbing actors will
find the TT easier to perform and the whole dubbing process will speed up (ibid.108;
71
cf. also Pavesi 1994: 132). This confirms once again the importance of production
costs within AVT.
As reported earlier, Gambier has suggested comparative analysis as a means of
discussing issues such as manipulation and equivalence raised by AVT. In the case of
Italian dubbing, scholars (Agorni 2000) as well as professionals (Galassi 1994,
Lionello 1994) crucially point out that the concept of equivalence towards the ST can
be questioned by the practice and the translation mode itself. Equivalence in AVT
cannot be considered pivotal if the final production is an attempt to adjust the original
cultural context to the target one. This seems to be a norm ruling Italian dubbing (cf.
Lambert and Delabastita 1996, quoted in Ulrych 2000: 403). For example, culture-
specific references (e.g. names of places, measurement units, institutions and so on)
tend to be made more familiar to the target audience by means of explication,
substitution or omission (Bovinelli and Gallini 1994: 89-98). The translation of
culture-specific references is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
However, Ulrych’s (1994) comparative analysis of the original and Italian versions
of the film The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1918, Karel Reisz, La donna del tenente
francese) shows that the opposite can be found in Italian dubbing. Ulrych explains that
for this film the Italian translation team retained Anglo-Saxon terms of address (Mr.,
Miss, Mrs.). In Ulrych’s view, this choice does not distract Italian audiences probably
because they are quite tolerant of the influence of foreign cultures. Ulrych’s most
interesting considerations are related to the differences between the Anglo-American
and Italian acting codes. She points out that the dubbing actors tend to retain the
Italian acting code, thus creating a mismatch between the verbal and visual text. For
example, Ulrych explains that in The French Lieutenant’s Woman, the Italian actress
who dubs Sarah, one of the female characters, presents paralinguistic features (pace,
72
pitch of her voice) which portray Sarah as a submissive woman. However, in the
original, Sarah’s nucleus sync and voice convey an idea of dignity and the ability to
have control over her feelings. Therefore, this seems to create incongruities between
the personality traits displayed by the original semiotic modes involved and the
language used in the target text (ibid.158-159).
As is clear from this brief discussion, Italian dubbing (and dubbing in general) is
the result of a great creative effort on the translators’ and adaptors’ part. As a matter
of fact, the successful resolution of all the problems listed above requires a high level
of translating expertise, which is commonly neglected.
In the next section, I will concentrate on the (un)resolved question regarding the
possibility of translating humour.
3.6 On the (Im)Possibility of Translating Humour
As mentioned in the previous chapters, humour presents several problems of
definition. Not surprisingly, its translation is equally problematic. Scholars in various
fields have debated the issues related to the translation of humour, often holding
diverging or even opposing views. What follows is a discussion of some scholars’
hypotheses and orientations on this matter.
Lendvai (1996: 89-98) presents a detailed analysis of 207 English jokes and
categorises them into various types (using antonymy, homonymy, polysemy and so on)
to demonstrate that they are untranslatable because of their cultural and linguistic
specificity.
Similarly, in her book-length study on humour, Chiaro (1992: 77-99) casts doubts
on the possibility of translating humour and wordplay in particular. After examining
73
the various ways in which jokes and humour are created in English and other
languages, she concludes that:
The intertwining of formal linguistic features and socio-cultural elements

contained in a joke is often so specific to a single language community
that, beyond its frontiers, the joke is unlikely to succeed (ibid.78).
She adds that another possible explanation for the unsuccessful translation of jokes
is that translators may sometimes be afraid of manipulating the ST and thus resort to
literal translations, rather than the ‘dynamic’ translation suggested by Nida (1964,
quoted in Chiaro ibid.85; cf also Ch.1, Section 1.2 in this thesis). Hence, Chiaro
negatively describes translation as a ‘necessary evil’ in that it is never correct but is
nonetheless indispensable (ibid.92). Her negative view on the possibility of translating
humorous texts has been extended to her subsequent discussion on dubbing humour
(cf. Chiaro 2000). However, more recently Chiaro (2005) seems to contradict herself
when she explains that, even when purely linguistic equivalence is not achievable,
translators can still count on their ability to transfer the ST’s humorous function (to
trigger laughter, smiling and exhilaration). In accordance with this, she concludes that:
“humorous texts are indeed translated no matter what” (ibid.136; emphasis in
original).
Hickey (1999) tries to demonstrate that theoretically speaking, humorous texts
cannot be translated because of their language- and culture-specificity. He considers
culture-specific allusions particularly difficult because they rely on cultural and social
peculiarities of the source culture that the target culture cannot be expected to know
(ibid.4-5 1 ; cf. also Leppihalme 1996, 1997 and Antonopoulou 2004 for similar
considerations and Ch.6 in this thesis for a discussion). Like Chiaro (1992), Hickey
1
Hickey’s study is available online. Therefore, the page numbers are arbitrarily given according to how it is
printed.
74
maintains that wordplays based on linguistic ambiguities (puns, puns based on idioms)
are so deeply rooted in the SL that their transfer is impossible (ibid.5). As a
consequence of this, he suggests a ‘pragmalinguistic’ approach to overcome such
problems. In Hickey’s view, this is a functional and pragmatic approach that allows
the translator to identify what type of linguistic feature is used in order to create the
humorous incongruity of the text (e.g. wordplay, joke based on a culture-specific
allusion). Once the type of device used has been detected, the translator should
generate her/his TT while retaining the original formula and, if necessary, overlooking
the semantic elements composing the ST (ibid.12). In doing so, the TT can attempt to
produce an analogous effect on its receivers (i.e. amusing them, making them laugh,
etc.).
Hickey’s (1998) discussion of perlocutionary equivalence has already supported
such pragmatic orientation in translation. In his view, translators have to take into
consideration the whole range of possible reactions in the target culture, and translate
accordingly. He states that:
[J]ust as the ST is capable of producing or likely to produce or stimulate

one or more analogically related perlocutionary effects on its original
readers, so also any TT must, in turn, be capable of producing ‘analogous’
perlocutionary effects on its readers (ibid.219).
As can be seen, wordplay and culture-specific attention have stimulated interesting
research in TS, as well as HS. It seems therefore worth analysing both phenomena in
detail. I will devote Chapters 5 and 6 respectively in this thesis to this end. Unlike
wordplay and culture-specific allusions, metaphor has received relatively little
attention in HS, even though it is regarded as a device for humour production in some
influential studies (e.g.: Mio and Graesser 1991, Tsur 1992, Oring 2003). As a result
75
of this, it is not surprising that little attention has been paid to the translation of
potentially humorous metaphors in TS. However, in my opinion, metaphor seems to
include both language- and culture-specific peculiarities that become extremely
important when they are exploited for humorous purposes. Hence, analysing how
metaphor is transposed into another language and culture becomes a fascinating topic
of research, which I will pursue in Chapter 7.
Some general considerations about the translation of humour in general terms are
also worth discussing here. Delabastita dismisses the theoretical debate regarding the
(un)translatability of humour by virtue of the mere existence of translation and its
pragmatic functionality (1994: 223-243). In other words, potentially humorous texts
are translated everyday and are successful in their translated version. Hence, this can
suffice to prove the feasibility of humour translation. Some scholars not only consider
the translation of humour to be possible and successful, but also claim that some
translations may be even better than the originals, in that they make for a potentially
more humorous effect than the original (e.g. Knight 1989: 105-108). Leibold (1989)
endorses this orientation while investigating the humour present in a longer, non-joke
humorous text. Not unreasonably, she states that the translation of humour:
“requires the accurate decoding of a humorous speech in its original

context, the transfer of that speech in a different and often disparate
linguistic and cultural environment, and its reformulation in a new
utterance which successfully recaptures the intention of the original
humorous message and evokes in the target audience an equivalent
plausible and playful response” (ibid.109; emphasis in original).
Hatim and Mason (1997) summarise the viewpoints described above when they
point out that “the intended meaning materialises only when pragmatic considerations
76
are brought to bear on what the text producer does with words and what the text
receivers accept” (ibid.19; cf. also Vandaele 2002b: 156 for similar considerations).
In a similar vein, Popa (2005: 50) adopts a pragmatic approach to the translation of
jokes. In her view, there are two factors that translators have to take into account when
dealing with such texts: the pragmatic function of humour (to amuse and/or cause
laughter) and its various interpersonal functions (e.g. build consensus, repair, criticise,
etc.). She concludes that since these two factors usually co-exist in a joke, translators
must strive to convey both (ibid.56).
To sum up, translating humour can be achieved because it is normally possible to
convey at least part of the intended meaning(s) and the effect(s) of the source text
across language and culture. However, this process has to take into account the target-
culture expectancies for a given type of text. Rather than striving to preserve the
original linguistic devices or semantic equivalence, translators may opt for a ‘free’
translation, which, however, retains the original textual function.
However, translation strategies that make use of a pragmatic approach striving to
achieve a perlocutionary effect are not in themselves unproblematic. For instance,
Leppihalme (1996: 214) notices that some of these strategies involve the insertion of
target-culture references into the TT. This may lead its receivers to doubt that they
were present in the original text. Moreover, Leuven-Zwart (1990: 84-85) points out
that translators tend to provide extra information while aiming to convey the original
intended effect. In her view, such a strategy can create stylistic shifts between ST and
TT and, consequently, have relevant effects on the receiver’s reaction. However,
Fawcett (1997: 129-130) highlights the fact that stylistic changes in the TT can also be
caused by a translator’s tendency to satisfy the expectations of a target language or
culture.
77
Interestingly, Attardo’s (2002a: 174) position on this matter seems to represent a
balance between the aforementioned views. He explains that the absolute (perfect)
translation does not exist, either within the same language (in terms of paraphrases) or
across languages. In line with this, the process of translation is, by nature,
approximate. He therefore proposes his own approach to the translation of humour,
which I briefly discuss in the next subsection.
3.6.1 Attardo’s Theory of Humour Translation
Attardo’s (2002a) approach to the translation is based on his General Theory of
Verbal Humour (GTVH, cf. Ch.2 in this thesis). He explains that, since puns and jokes
in general can be analysed according to the six knowledge resources postulated by the
GTVH model, they can also be translated accordingly. This process ideally suggests
preserving all six knowledge resources. However, Attardo acknowledges that the full
practical actuation of his approach is hardly ever likely to happen. For this reason, he
crucially points out: “if necessary, let your translation differ at the lowest level
necessary for your pragmatic purposes” (ibid.183; emphasis in original). His advice
to translators is to approach their translations according to the hierarchical
organisation of the knowledge resources. He writes: “[the translator] will attempt to
preserve all similarity between the texts, starting at Language and if that should be
impossible, will at least attempt to preserve the Script Opposition of the original”
(ibid.190). By doing this, the TT is likely to have “faithfulness and the aesthetic
effects that were originally present in the source text” (ibi.184; emphasis in original).
As I said in the previous chapter, scholars in TS have applied the GTVH model to
their research and commented upon it. For example, Zabalbeascoa (2005) finds that
Attardo’s theory aims to preserve sameness rather than funniness. He claims that
78
translating a joke by retaining all six KRs does not guarantee similar potential humour
in the TT. Moreover, Zabalbeascoa points out that a translator is more likely to
prioritise the funniness of a TT over its equivalence to the ST (ibid.202).
Antonopoulou (2002: 198) instead remarks that the LA KR cannot be considered as
a parameter for joke similarity during the contrastive analysis of STs and TTs.
However, since LA is at the bottom of the KRs hierarchy, it does not impair the
effective application of Attardo’s approach. More importantly, Antonopoulou’s (2002,
2004) application of the GTVH metric to the investigation of jab lines in original and
translated humorous narratives shows that this approach can shed some light on the
strategies used in humour translation. More specifically, it proves to be useful for the
understanding of the creation and appreciation of humour in the source and target
cultures. In a similar vein, I believe that Attardo’s approach can fruitfully be applied
to the comparative analysis of ST and TT involving humour (cf. also Dore 2002).
Hence I will apply it to my data analysis.
To conclude, it may be clear at this stage that I believe humour translation to be
possible. In particular, I favour the pragmatic and functional approach, as suggested in
Hickey (1999, cf. section above). According to this, translators dealing with humorous
texts should be ready, if necessary, to sacrifice semantic equivalence in favour of
retaining the humorous effect. This may also help in preserving the entertaining
function of the text as a whole (cf. also Subsection 3.6.1 below).
I will now consider the specific problems posed by humour translation in the
audiovisual setting.
79
3.7 The AVT of Humour
Scholars in TS who are interested in AVT tend to focus either on the subtitling or
dubbing of humour. This usually depends on personal or professional reasons and
interests. For example, I am Italian and my interest in the dubbing of audiovisual
material is greatly influenced by this factor. Gottlieb, a Danish scholar, researches
mainly the subtitling of humour from English into Danish.
Gottlieb’s (1997: 207-232) study offers interesting remarks on audiovisual sources,
and especially TV entertainment programmes, which are relevant for future data
analysis as well as dubbing in general terms. His descriptive approach to the Danish
subtitled version of one episode of an English satirical programme, Carrott’s
Commercial Breakdown, takes into consideration a wide range of problems related to
the content of the ST (the different types of wordplay), the specificity of the medium
(which combines verbal and non-verbal texts) and the translator’s human constraints
(time pressure, the translator’s experience and creativity). Moreover, he has pointed
out the peculiar context within which the audiovisual material is embedded: Carrott’s
Commercial Breakdown is a live show which requires a precise synchronisation of the
visual and subtitled text in order to ensure the target audience’s intended reaction. In
discussing the translation strategies the translator used to convey the potential humour
in the original text (e.g. compensation, equivalent puns in the TT, puns rendered as
non-puns, and so on), Gottlieb demonstrates that they retain the original intended
effect only in a limited number of occasions. For this reason, he proposes an
alternative subtitled version of the programme which preserves a greater number of
the original wordplays. It could be argued here that Gottlieb does not clarify whether
his version has been produced under the same conditions as the investigated
translation (e.g. time constraints).
80
Similarly, Bucaria (2007) has analysed the Italian subtitling of the Late Show with
David Letterman (1982-1993, David Letterman) and found that the translators’
decision making process is very much dependent on contextual and pragmatic factors
related to the subtitling mode (time pressure, the ST and the original audience’s
reaction are heard by the target audience). As a consequence of this, potentially
humorous instances such as puns, puns based on the visual and verbal texts, and
allusions have been translated by means of a source-oriented approach even if the
target audience are unlikely to grasp the humour they try to convey (cf. also Lebtahi
2004).
In his study of dubbed and subtitled humour, Pisek (1997) finds some examples
where the original wordplay is retained because of a close correspondence between
the source and target language. For example, in the German subtitled version of
Fawlty Towers, the play of words between ‘hammer’ and ‘hamster’ of the original was
retained (‘Go and get me a hammer’ - ‘My hamster?’- ‘How can I knock a nail in with
your hamster?’) (ibid.48). In his analysis of the German dubbed version of Woody
Allen’s film Annie Hall (1977) Pisek shows how dubbing can exploit features of the
audiovisual text such as camera angles to preserve some of the original humour. For
example, he explains that the German translators and dubbing team decided against
the faithful rendering of the original dialogue so as to preserve the linguistic device
(wordplay) in a scene of the movie (ibid.43-44). Interestingly, I have found that Gaiba
(1994:106) analyses exactly the same wordplay in the Italian dubbed version to find
that the translators opted for a similar approach. They exploited the fact that the
characters are shot from a distance to recreate the wordplay, while ignoring its
semantic equivalence.
81
Regarding wordplay based on the visual and verbal text, it seems worth
mentioning an example cited by Chiaro (1992: 85, 2000: 36, 2006: 200). She explains
that in a scene taken from the film The Big Chill (1983, Laurence Kasdan, Il grande
freddo) the main character Harold Cooper (Kevin Kline) is asked to father a child
because he has “good genes”. Although the context of the utterance is clear, Harold
looks at his thighs because he is wearing denim trousers. By doing so, he plays on the
homophony of the words ‘jeans’ and ‘genes’. As Chiaro points out, the Italian
translator resorted to a literal rendering of the dialogue which retained the word ‘genes’
(in Italian, ‘geni’), but destroyed the original wordplay. Interestingly, Gaiba (1996:
110-111) also discusses this example. She offers a solution based on a functional
approach which changes the semantic meaning of the original but which successfully
retains the verbal-non-verbal pun. She suggests using the Italian idiom ‘sei in gamba’
(meaning ‘you are clever’) that plays on the meaning and on the word ‘gamba’
(meaning ‘leg’) and the visual element when the character looks at his thighs.
As can be seen, the AVT of humour involves a great number of linguistic, cultural
and technical constraints but it is nonetheless achieved. In the following subsection I
discuss some priorities that should be taken into account in the AVT of humour and in
dubbing in particular. Moreover, I summarise some strategies that can be used to
overcome the problems that arise during this process.
3.7.1 Priorities and Strategies in the AVT of Humour
The heated debate on the (im)possibility of translating humour has stimulated progress
of research in TS. In particular, Zabalbeascoa (1996) aims to demonstrate that
translating humour is possible and proposes a model that takes into account the
contextual constraints and priorities of both the medium and the translator.
82
The contextual constraints are mainly related to the nature of the ST (different
types of humour), the specificity of the medium (which combines verbal and non-
verbal elements) and the translator’s human constraints (time pressures, the
translator’s experience and creativity). The concept of ‘priority’ is demonstrated to be
both original and pivotal in the translation of comedies and humorous texts in general.
However, in the specific case of the dubbing of humour (e.g. in television programmes
such as The Challenge, Yes, Minister and Fawlty Towers that are his case studies),
Zabalbeascoa (ibid.245) identifies the following main set of priorities:
 guaranteeing good popular ratings;
 eliciting laughter;
 ensuring there is adequate linguistic and textual structure to the medium.
Having established these priorities, translators should be ‘free’ to create a TT
which retains the original purpose of the ST.
Zabalbeascoa also offers a classification of jokes according to the type of
translation strategy available for dubbing. Zabalbeascoa has based his classification of
examples taken from TV programmes such as The Challenge and Yes, Minister and
their Catalan dubbed version. Some examples are reproduced below along with
Zabalbeascoa’s back translation for the sake of clarity:
1. “International or bi-national jokes” do not rely on any language- or culture-
specific feature (e.g. wordplays or proper names). Their translatability may depend
on the texts’ content, which may or may not be considered funny in the target
culture. The translator’s knowledge of the target culture’s expectancy norms will
thus be essential in establishing an adequate transfer. Zabalbeascoa’s example is a
translation of an English ST into Catalan:
83
ST: A Minister with two ideas. I can’t remember when we last had one of
those.
TT: Un Ministre amb dues idees. No recordo qui va ser l’últim que vam
tenir.
(Gloss: A Minister with two ideas. I can’t remember the last one we had).
In this example, the humour translation does not depend on specific features of
the source language (SL). It simply hinges upon the indirect reference to
politicians’ lack of cognitive skills, which the translator considered to be
humorous in the target culture as well (ibid.251).
2. “National-culture-and-institutions jokes” contain specific source national,
cultural or institutional references. Adapting these in translation retains the
intended effect(s) of the original. However, adaptation can take various forms such
as explanation, expansion etc. In an example taken from Yes, Minister, the speaker
refers to the English tabloid The Daily Mirror implying that this newspaper has
political views opposite to his ones. As Zabalbeascoa points out, this reference is
likely to be lost if the target audience do not have the required background
knowledge. He suggests making the text’s meaning more explicit so as to retain its
humour:
ST: It wasn’t me who put it that way, it was The Daily Mirror.
TT: No sóc pas jo qui ho diu això, és el Daily Mirror.
(Gloss: I am not the one who says that, it is The Daily Mirror).
Suggested alternative TT: L’expressió no és meva sinó del líder de
l’oposició.
(Gloss: I did not coin that phrase, it was the Leader of the Opposition).
84
However, it could be argued that this process minimises the intended humorous
effect based on the receiver’s ability to grasp the implied meaning. A possible
alternative could be using a referent that comes from the source culture but that is
also likely to be recognised by the target audience (ibid.252). For example, the
translator might have mentioned an equivalent newspaper to The Daily Mirror. In
Chapter 6 in this thesis, I will examine in detail the translation of potentially
humorous culture-specific allusions.
3. “National-sense-of-humour jokes” refer to stereotypes developed within a given
community on certain subjects (e.g. underdogs). They may not convey the same
humorous effect(s) in another culture. The translator may then resort to changing
the source stereotype for one which is familiar to the target culture. For example,
Zabalbeascoa reports that, in the Catalan version of Fawlty Towers, Manuel, a
funny character from Barcelona who can barely speak English, becomes Mexican.
Further evidence of this strategy can also be found in the data investigated in this
thesis. In the Italian dubbed version of the first series of Friends, Rachel’s Italian
boyfriend Paolo is changed into Pablo from Spain, and all his lines are translated
accordingly. This happens mainly because Paolo is portrayed as flirtatious and
prone to betrayal (ibid.252-253).
4. “Language-dependent jokes” exploit source-language specific features. In this
case, Zabalbeascoa provides an unsuccessful example of a translation into Catalan,
again from Yes, Minister. In his view, the TT does not retain the idea of playing
with two idiomatic expressions as displayed in the ST. Thus, it becomes
humourless. The Minister comments on the reason why people go into politics:
ST: ... the other half are in it for what they can get out of it.
85
TT: ... i els altres només procuren omplir-se les butxaques.
(Gloss: ... and the others are just trying to line their pockets).
For Zabalbeascoa, the Catalan version cannot retain the wordplay between ‘in’
and ‘out’ in the original idiomatic expression; it can only convey its implied
meaning (ibid.253). Puns and other types of wordplays will be discussed in detail
in Chapter 5 in this thesis.
5. “Visual jokes” may be only visual or combine visual and verbal elements.
Zabalbeascoa proposes the example of a picture of a button used to suggest silence
because it refers to the expression ‘button (up) your lips’. This is an interesting
example of a visual and verbal metaphor. As Zabalbeascoa explains, in such cases,
translators are more likely to adopt some form of compensation in order to match
verbal and non-verbal texts coherently (ibid.253-254). As for puns and wordplay, I
will discuss some examples of visual jokes in Chapter 5. In addition, the use of
metaphorical expressions will be discussed in Chapter 7.
6. “Complex jokes” can incorporate two or more of the aforementioned types of
joke (e.g. language and cultural references such as allusive wordplays). The
strategy used to deal with such jokes may depend, once again, on the set of
priorities that the translator has to satisfy and the function of the text:
ST: They call him ‘Pilgrim’, because every time he takes her out he makes a little
progress.
TT: Li diuen ‘Tirantlo’ perquè quan es lliga una noia sempre dóna en el
Blanch.
86
(Gloss: They call him ‘Tirantlo’ because whenever he chats up a girl he always
makes his mark).
In this example, Zabalbeascoa attempts to compensate for the loss in his own
translation of an English joke, which refers to John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (a
Christian allegory). He suggests referring to the Tirant lo Blanch (a story about a
medieval knight), because it is more familiar to the Catalan audience and it can retain
the original joke about an amorous conquest (ibid.254-255). Clearly, being able to
appreciate the potential humour in the text balances the mismatch between the original
visual element (e.g. English context) and the target-culture allusion.
As can be noticed, Zabalbeascoa’s strategies are intended to adjust the TT to the
target culture’s expectations regarding humour for the sake of the programme’s
success. For his analysis, Zabalbeascoa tends to consider audiovisual texts as
containing highly humorous parts to be analysed separately and categorised according
to the translation strategy applied to each of them.
To conclude, Zabalbeascoa’s study pinpoints specific features of humorous texts at
the micro level. However, it seems to me that Zabalbeascoa does not consider two
important points related to audiovisual material. Firstly, his examples are limited to
self-standing jokes while a large amount of humour in audiovisual texts is based on
conversational exchanges between characters (cf. also Ch.4 in this thesis). Secondly,
Zabalbeascoa does not seem to take sufficiently into account the level of manipulation
at the macro level produced by translation (e.g. the characters may be perceived
differently by the target audience; cf. Lebtahi 2004).
These issues will be thoroughly discussed in the data analysis as well as the
conclusions in this thesis. However, I will consider some of the types of humour
87
mentioned by Zabalbeascoa since wordplay, culture-specific allusions and metaphors
are included in his taxonomy.
3.8 Conclusions
In this chapter I have presented an overview of AVT. I have attempted to highlight the
large number of formal, semiotic and technical constraints in AVT. More specifically,
I have summarised the type of constraints and advantages that subtitling and dubbing
involve. Subtitling is often chosen because it is a cost effective and easy to implement
procedure. Moreover, it allows the target viewers to enjoy the nuances of the original
language such as accent and intonation. Finally, it can develop a greater awareness of
the source culture in the target audience. However, subtitling also involves major
problems, among which the fact that it offers only a condensed version of the spoken
text. Moreover, viewers have to divide their attention between the visual and verbal
text. In other words, the experience of watching a subtitled film can hardly be
compared to watching a non-subtitled one.
Similarly, dubbing presents a wide range of constraints (e.g. lip sync) and
advantages (e.g. creation of a new soundtrack). Choosing one or the other mode is
usually a matter of taste, habit and availability of adequate equipment (e.g. dubbing
studios). However, I have shown that habit can also be influenced by historical
reasons, as in the case of Italy.
Adopting a descriptive perspective in the examination of a ST and a TT can help to
understand the reasons behind the translator’s decision making process. The analysis
of the TT can reveal important information about the translation approach used. For
example, it may show that translators tend to opt for a high level of manipulation of
the TT. In such cases, the TT may be significantly distant from the ST in terms of
88
semantic resemblance. At other times, translators may choose a faithful reproduction
of the original text, which can result in a loss in terms of potential effect. Through
such investigation, scholars are able to postulate the norms governing the field in a
given time and in a given culture which, in turn, allow translators themselves to
improve their performance.
In the case of Italy, both scholars and professionals continue to analyse the dubbing
process, complete with its pitfalls and peculiarities. As shown above, dubbing is the
result of a great creative effort on the part of the entire dubbing team. Despite being
mainly target-oriented, Italian cinema-goers are aware of the non-original status of
productions, and willingly accept them as such. However, this does not mean that they
passively accept poor quality dubbed productions.
In the second part of this chapter I have attempted to summarise the theoretical
debate on the (im)possibility of translating humour in general and in audiovisual texts
in particular. Some scholars point out the language- and culture-specificity of the
devices used to create humour, with particular reference to wordplay and culture-
specific allusions. However, the translation of metaphors that carry potential humour
deserves greater attention.
On the basis of my discussion above, I would like to conclude with the following.
The process of humour translation and the AVT of humour seem to depend on the
unique characteristic of each case, and its analysis should always take into account the
peculiar factors involved in each and every particular process. However, I believe that
translators should regard the transfer of the potential humour of film or TV comedies
as an important priority that is likely to guarantee these programmes’ success.
Furthermore, translators should not neglect the fact that the potential humour of a text
can also serve various functions. For example, it can enhance the themes developed in
89
the film or TV series, or it may convey characterisation cues. Hence, translators
should take all these factors into account and make use of the approach that best suits
the ST’s features.
With these premises in mind, my contrastive analysis of the first series of Friends
will focus in particular on wordplay, culture-specific allusion and metaphor (Chapters
5, 6 and 7 respectively). In doing so, I will attempt to understand how they are
exploited for humorous purposes (RQ1). Moreover, I will try to identify what types of
strategies the Italian translators deployed in order to overcome the linguistic and
culture-related problems these device involve (RQ2). Finally, I will attempt to
establish what type of differences can be detected between the ST and TT, with
particular reference to the humour potential of both datasets (RQ3).
Before doing so, in the next chapter I will discuss the methodological approach I
use to select and analyse the instances of potential humour in my data.
90
Chapter 4 Data and Methodology
Chapter 4. Data and Methodology
Humour moves in mysterious but traceable ways.

(Vandaele 2002b: 170)
4.1 Introduction
This chapter serves as an introduction to the data that I will be investigating in the
three chapters that follow. Moreover, here I describe my methodology. In Section 4.2,
I will give a detailed description of my data, explaining the reasons for selecting it. In
addition, in Section 4.3 I will provide some quantitative information regarding the
source text (ST) and the target text (TT). In particular, I will discuss the difference in
the number of spoken words and use of canned laughter in the two parallel corpora. In
Section 4.4 I will describe the methodological approach I use during my analysis.
Firstly, I will point out some technical issues about the acquisition and transcription of
the data. Secondly, I will explain how I have detected and isolated the instances of
potential humour in the ST. Thirdly, I explain how I have adapted Raskin’s (1985)
model and Attardo’s (1994, 2001) and Di Maio’s (2000, quoted in Attardo 2001: 20)
suggestions to the analysis of my data. Bearing in mind that the main scope of this
study is discussing the audiovisual translation (AVT) of humour, I will also refer to
the way these instances of potential humour are compared with their dubbed
counterparts. By doing so, I will highlight some aspects involved in the AVT of
humour and some difficulties I have encountered during the analytical process.
91
4.2 The Data
In Chapter 1 I have briefly introduced Friends and its world-wide success, referring in
particular to its broadcasting in the U.S.A. and Italy. Furthermore, I have also reported
some academic research on Friends carried out in different fields of study. In the
following subsection I will describe my data in more detail. Subsequently, I will
justify my choice of analysing this particular series.
4.2.1 Description of Friends
As mentioned earlier, the data under investigation comprises two parallel datasets, the
ST and the TT. The former contains the transcription of the original version of the first
series of Friends. The latter consists of the transcription of its dubbed Italian version. I
have noted earlier that Friends is a North American TV comedy programme created
by Marta Kauffman and David Crane. The National Broadcasting Company (NBC)
broadcast it weekly in the U.S.A. from 1994 to 2004, producing a total of ten series
(Walte 2007: 55). Full details of each episode of the first series can be found in
Appendix I, “List of Data”.
This sitcom revolves around the lives of six main young characters, namely
Chandler, Joey, Ross, Monica, Phoebe and Rachel. Monica and Rachel share
Monica’s flat while Chandler and Joey live together in a flat opposite Monica’s. Ross
and Phoebe have their own flats. They all live and work in New York, U.S.A. and the
usual settings for the funny and sometimes grotesque situations involving them are
their flats and a coffee shop called Central Perk, where they meet on a regular basis.
What seems to appeal to the audience this programme targets (late teens to mid
twenties) are the themes developed in the series (interpersonal relationships, sex, work
and, above all, friendship) and the language used (accessible everyday language,
92
including slang at times). Indeed, the fictional world within which the characters act
shares common features with many Western societies. The situations the characters
talk about or are involved in could be similar to those that members of the target
audience are likely to experience in their lives.
As I mentioned in Chapter 2, TV comedies attempt to replicate everyday life and
situations but they also distort them for humorous purposes. The characters in Friends
can be said to be examples of ‘distorted’ or ‘exaggerated prototypes’ (Culpeper 2001:
88-89, cf. Section 2.6 for a definition). For example, Joey is generally perceived as
over-confident but also absent-minded, often unable to grasp the implied meaning of
other characters’ utterances. In contrast, Chandler is quick-minded, witty, but also
insecure and his turns are often extremely sarcastic. Ross is a sensitive, highly
educated but also maladroit kind of man. The female characters are equally peculiar.
Rachel is a sexy shopaholic while Phoebe is extremely eccentric and unpredictable.
Finally, Monica is a perfectionist and extremely competitive woman, who is also
obsessed with her weight (cf. also Ross 1998: 94; Walte 2007: 59-60).
The humour in Friends is directly linked to the general themes developed in the
series and the way the six main characters deal with the situations they experience. In
addition, it frequently revolves around various prejudices such as sexism and
homophobia. For example, the six main characters’ conversations are often gender-
based discussions about sex, which exploit stereotyped ideas (e.g. men are
womanisers and women fake orgasm). Similarly, homophobic comments are usually
the result of biased opinions about sexuality and gender, which are exploited for
humorous purpose. In other words, the humour of the series seems to derive in part
from the fact that the scriptwriters often exploit the characters’ conversational
93
exchanges to show that the latter are biased and victims of their own stereotypes (cf.
example (4.3) below).
These aspects of the six main character’s personalities and the humour in the series
will become more evident during the discussion of some excerpts in the data analysis.
4.2.2 Reasons for Choosing this Data
As I have remarked in the introductory chapter of this thesis, Friends has had an
enormous success both within and outside the boundaries of North American society
and English-speaking countries. Hence, it is a good candidate for investigating the
process of humour creation in audiovisual settings and, more importantly, its
translation.
I have chosen the first series because it sets recurrent patterns about the themes
developed in Friends. Moreover, it introduces the six main characters’ idiosyncratic
features and the fictional world within which they act.
As mentioned earlier, I concentrate on wordplay, culture-specific allusions and
metaphor in Friends. Firstly, I aim to understand how the production crew and the
scriptwriters in particular exploited these devices so as to create humour. In Humour
Studies, much research has focused on self-contained types of texts such as jokes.
Only recently has more attention been paid to humour in longer texts (cf. Ch. 2 for a
discussion). Consequently, this thesis seeks to contribute to the on-going research on
the mechanisms at work in the production of potential humour in longer texts, such as
conversational exchanges in comedy.
Secondly, I intend to verify what type of translation strategies the translators used
in order to transfer potentially humorous wordplay, culture-specific allusions and
metaphors into Italian. In TS, some scholars have tackled some of the problems
94
relating to the translation of wordplay and culture-specific allusions. However, only a
few of them have concentrated on the AVT of these devices and virtually nobody has
dealt with the AVT of (potentially humorous) metaphors. Hence, I consider the
problems that these devices pose in AVT. I review the techniques suggested in the
literature to help translators overcome them, and verify their application against my
data.
Finally, I aim to unveil the differences between the two datasets regarding these
three phenomena. In particular, I attempt to establish differences in terms of humour
potential between the ST and TT due to translation. This can hopefully encourage
future developments in the theoretical debate regarding the AVT of humour.
4.3 Some Considerations Regarding the ST and TT
In the following subsections I will provide some observations and general comments
on the two parallel corpora. In particular, I will highlight the differences in the number
of spoken words and some related issues. In addition, I will discuss the use of canned
laughter by the production crew for the original text and by the dubbing team for the
translated version.
4.3.1 The Two Parallel Corpora
Most Friends series contain 24 episodes each, apart from series 3 and 6 which have 25
episodes and series 10 that only has 18, for a total of 236 episodes. The average length
of each episode is 22 minutes, which becomes approximately 26 when including the
opening theme and the closing credits. A few exceptions can be found in series 9 and
95
10 in which some episodes run for 29 minutes or more1. Both Appendix V, “Complete
Transcription of Data” (available on the CD I submit along with this thesis) and
Appendix I, “List of Data” (at the end of this thesis) give the precise number of words
spoken in each episode along with other information. For ease of comparison, I have
gathered the information regarding the number of spoken words in each episode in
both datasets in Table 4.1 below. In addition, I have included the total and the average
number of words in each corpus.
Episode Number of words
ST TT
1 1902 2446
2 2346 2496
3 2357 2268
4 2379 2234
5 2451 2332
6 2445 2349
7 2044 2055
8 1997 2058
9 2388 2283
10 2563 2635
11 2589 2490
12 2246 2346
13 2468 2535
14 2090 2280
15 2354 2452
16 2532 2563
17 2480 2543
18 2357 2459
19 2547 2678
20 2600 2680
21 2275 2180
22 2326 2093
23 2553 2351
24 2572 2237
Total 56861 57043
Mean 2369.2 2376.8
Table 4.1: Number of spoken words in the ST and the TT
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends; cf. Ch.1, footnote 2.
96
The table above clearly shows that the number of words in the TT is (slightly)
higher that in the ST, as is usually the case in translation (Kenny 1998b: 52). This is
partly due to the fact that in the dubbed version of the first series of Friends some
turns are added to the original text (see highlighted turns in Appendix V, “Complete
Transcription of Data”). These turns are usually uttered by characters that are off-
screen; at other times the characters are framed in a long (or medium) shot so that the
addition goes (mostly) unnoticed. In my opinion, the added turns (normally containing
phatic talk) are mostly used to fill the gaps created by the omission of long recordings
of canned laughter in the TT (see Section 4.3.2 below). My preliminary contrastive
analysis has also revealed another difference between the two datasets. Some
characters’ turns in the ST are uttered by different characters in the TT (see
highlighted turns in Appendix V, “Complete Transcription of Data”). The only reason
that I can find is that sometimes the characters’ turns overlap. This usually happens
when they are giving a brief comment on a more important turn. Probably the dubbing
team attempted to retain the overlapping effect by using extra turns without paying a
great deal of attention to who uttered them. In this way the text seems to replicate a
typical real life situation, thus making the scene portrayed in the fictional world more
realistic. As in the case of added turns, the long shot makes most of these
discrepancies barely perceptible.
More interesting is the insertion of characters’ laughs in the TT. Indeed, sometimes
it is possible to hear characters laughing in the TT when they are not in the ST. These
additions not only seem to work as gap fillers (as with added turns) but also seem to
be employed to elicit a laughter response from the TT’s audience, thus avoiding the
frequent use of canned laughter as is the case in the ST (cf. Section 4.3.2 below).
97
All in all, these differences between the two datasets highlight the level of textual
manipulation that dubbing allows in AVT. Subtitling could certainly not apply such
modifications because the ST can still be heard. However, the detractors of dubbing
could comment that these differences are only the tip of the iceberg. From this
perspective, dubbing means manipulation and consequently a distortion of the original.
I personally tend to favour the former position because I believe that the dubbing
team’s main priority and ultimate objective is to convey the potential humour of the
original. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a clearer insight into the AVT process can lead
to its further development and possibly improvement.
4.3.2 Canned Laughter
North American sitcoms make a large use of recorded audience reactions, be they
laughter, applause, whistles or sympathetic “oohs”. These can be recorded live, or a
taped version can be inserted in the post-production phase (Fouts and Burggraf 2002:
928). Recorded live canned laughter usually includes the audience’s whistles, clapping
etc., along with pure laughter. In contrast, only one person’s laugh can normally be
heard in tape recorded canned laughter.
Canned laughter is particularly employed to encourage a positive and amused
response in the audience who watch the programme on TV. The use of canned
laughter as a tool for eliciting laughter has attracted a fair amount of interest in
academic research, especially in the field of Psychology. Interestingly, some empirical
studies have demonstrated that external stimuli such as canned laughter result in the
audience’s amused reaction and increased perception of the funniness of the text (e.g.
Smyth and Fuller 1972; Martin and Gray 1996). In contrast, others have shown that
98
canned laughter encourages audience laughter but does not increase humour ratings
(e.g. Chapman 1973; Pistole and Shor 1979).
More recently, scholars in Psychology have focused on canned laughter from a
sociological point of view. For example, Fouts and Burggraf (2002) have
demonstrated how canned laughter is used to reinforce derogatory comments on
female characters’ body weight in Friends and another TV comedy series called Mad
About You (1992-1999, Paul Reiser and Danny Jacobson). This is likely to influence
young female spectators’ perceptions of femininity because they foster the stereotyped
idea that beauty is directly linked with thinness and vice versa. On a lighter note,
Platow et al. (2005) demonstrate that people are influenced by canned laughter if it
can be associated with in-group members (i.e. students that hear other students
laughing). These findings are undoubtedly interesting but they can only partly (if at all)
be applied to the study of canned laughter in TV comedy. The audience who watch the
programme in front of the TV are most probably unaware of the type of audience
present during its recording. More importantly, Platow et al. confirm that canned
laughter creates awareness in the audience of the potential humour of the text
(ibid.548). This supports my methodological approach to analyse those instances of
potential humour that are accompanied by canned laughter (cf. Section 4.4.2 below).
The use of canned laughter in Friends is a sort of hybrid because it deploys both
live audience reactions and taped recordings of canned laughter. Friends was (usually)
performed live in front of an audience and recorded to be later broadcast on TV. Most
of the canned laughter (80%) is the result of the live audience’s reaction while the rest
was added in post-production (Walte 2007: 54). This procedure can be explained by
the fact that sometimes live audience response can cover some of the characters’ turns.
At other times, audience response may not have been as lively as expected by the
99
scriptwriters so the production crew add instances of taped canned laughter. I do not
make distinctions between live or taped reactions and I consider both as ‘canned
laughter’ in a broad sense.
The contrastive analysis of the use of canned laughter in the ST and the TT reveals
a striking difference between them, as Table 4.2 below shows. The first column on the
left provides the number of each episode in the series while the second and the third
columns provide the number of instances of canned laughter in the ST and TT
respectively:
Episode Recordings of Canned Laughter
ST TT
1 130 55
2 133 55
3 143 45
4 133 35
5 138 46
6 121 32
7 131 26
8 146 43
9 136 55
10 140 35
11 142 31
12 132 47
13 130 38
14 145 17
15 158 20
16 159 23
17 152 14
18 117 31
19 127 13
20 137 49
21 117 13
22 139 42
23 130 58
24 123 38
Total 3259 861
Mean 135.79 35.88
Table 4.2: Recordings of canned laughter in the ST and the TT
100
As can be seen, for every episode the dubbing team dramatically reduced the
number of recordings of canned laughter that are present in the original text. On
average, the ST has almost 136 recordings of canned laughter per episode while the
TT has approximately 36. This means that less than a quarter of the original number of
instances was retained in the TT. Only on one single occasion (in Episode 8) did the
dubbing team add one instance of canned laughter in the TT where there is none in the
ST. This happened because a potentially humorous instance was inserted where there
is none in the ST, most likely for compensatory purposes (Harvey 1995). Clearly,
dubbing allows a great deal of freedom about deciding whether or not to retain this
device. Interestingly, these findings seem to oppose Zabalbeascoa’s (1996: 256) claim
that canned laughter is seldom omitted in AVT.
More generally, various suggestions can be made to explain the difference in the
use of canned laughter in the U.S.A. and Italy. For example, North American
producers were the first to apply this device in their TV comedy shows at the
beginning of the 1950s (Provine 1996: 42; Walte 2007: 54). Hence, the North
American audience is nowadays used to hearing it and they probably consider canned
laughter as part of the whole product. In contrast, Italian dubbing studios have often
chosen to omit it completely or in part. Moreover, Italian productions rarely include
canned laughter. Therefore, the Italian audience may find it hard to accept its presence
in the text.
Besides, it is possible that there are cultural differences in the North American and
Italian’s attitude to humour, which are reflected in the use or omission of canned
laughter. Provine (ibid.43) remarks that North American producers continued to use
canned laughter because it proved to elicit a positive audience response. It could be
said that canned laughter underlines the potential humour of a turn, like the cymbal
101
clash after a punch line in stand-up comedy. In contrast, other countries do not like to
hear recorded laughter in the background. Drawing on Holzer (1999), Walte explains
that this is likely to be the reason why German sitcoms do not use this device.
Preliminary studies on the perception of translated humour can be found in Fuentes
Luque (2003), Chiaro (2004, 2006) and Antonini (2005).
Finally, I would like to point out that during the data analysis I signal the presence
of canned laughter in both the ST and the TT. In order to do this, I graphically
represent an instance of canned laughter by means of smiley faces, i.e. ☺. These are
further categorised according to their length and marked by an increasing number of
smiley faces (☺ means that the recording of canned laughter is ≤ 1.0 second long;
☺☺ means that it lasts between 1.0 and 2.0 seconds; ☺☺☺ means that it lasts ≥ 2.0
seconds). Interestingly, the taped instances of canned laughter are usually short and
quiet and only one person can be heard laughing. In contrast, the live audience’s
reaction can vary from a general laugh to long instances of laughter accompanied by
whistles, “oohs”, etc.
I will now move on to explain my analytical methodology.
4.4 Methodology
In the next subsections I will briefly present the methodology according to which I
carried out my research. First, I will introduce the technical issues involved in the
transcription of the spoken text, which mainly affect the TT. I will then move on to
describe the process I have adopted in identifying and isolating instances of potential
humour in my data. In order to support my methodological approach, I will refer to
some similar examples in the literature. In addition, I will point out the advantages and
limitations posed by such methods. I will then move on to explain how I have adapted
102
Raskin’s (1985) model and Attardo’s (1994, 2001) and Di Maio’s (2000, quoted in
2001: 20) suggestions to the analysis of my data. Finally, I will conclude this chapter
by describing the analytical process used in comparing the original and translated
instances of humour.
4.4.1 Technical Issues
Although my study concentrates on the TV aired versions of Friends, I have used the
medium of Digital Versatile Disk (DVD) to compare the ST and TT. I purchased the
DVD in Italy as the dubbed (or subtitled) Italian version is not available in the UK.
There are three main reasons for choosing the DVD format. Firstly, the TV and DVD
versions are the same, apart from the obvious fact that the latter is not interrupted by
advertisements. Secondly, the DVD medium enables the use of computer resources,
which make the comparison of data more efficient on an analytical level (the ‘speech-
to-text’ facility is one obvious advantage, amongst many others). Finally, the DVD
provides both the English source soundtrack and the Italian dubbed one on one disk,
which again allows for an efficient, easy-to-implement heuristic approach to their
comparison.
In the first stage of my research, I searched the Internet in order to find relevant
information on my data. I discovered that several web sites had the English version of
the scripts of almost all the series of Friends. They were available on line for
downloading. Therefore, I downloaded the scripts of the first series. I then checked
these scripts against the spoken version on the DVD so as to make sure that they were
complete, correct and that they did not require revision.
In contrast, the Italian version of the scripts was not available online. For this
reason, I transcribed the Italian scripts by means of a computer software called
103
“Subrip_097” (available for downloading free of charge on the Internet). This
program isolates the subtitled images from the DVD and saves them separately. It then
uses optical character recognition to transfer the images into plain text format, which
can be imported into Microsoft Word, or any other word processor. This process
allowed me to easily manipulate the document in Word format. Subtitles are in fact a
condensed version of the spoken text. Therefore, I had to revise the transcribed
document against the spoken version on the DVD. In general, this facilitated my
transcription of the dubbed version, which would otherwise have been extremely time-
consuming.
4.4.2 Identifying Instances of Potential Humour in the Data
As I anticipated earlier, my analysis starts with the selection of instances of potential
humour in the ST, which are subsequently compared to their Italian counterparts.
However, defining what should count as an instance of humour is often problematic
and subjective. As Chiaro (2005: 135) reminds us, it “may well be easier said than
done”. Many factors come into play when attempting to capture this phenomenon. For
my investigation, I have proceeded in the following way.
I have considered the whole production crew (producers, scriptwriters, director,
etc.) as ‘a social group’ (Attardo 1994: 9) that attempts to create and convey what they
think is a potentially humorous text. Since there is no general agreement on what
humour is, I have used the presence of canned laughter as my main practical criterion
for selecting potential instances of humour in the ST. As I mentioned earlier, in most
cases the presence of canned laughter in Friends indicates an actual reaction from the
live audience. The production crew retained them while producing the final version of
the programme and also inserted instances of taped canned laughter (cf. Subsection
104
4.3.2 above). Hence, canned laughter in Friends can be regarded as the production
crew’s way to signal what they consider to be potentially humorous stretches of text.
This approach allowed me to isolate those turns uttered immediately before a
recording of canned laughter, which can be considered as potential instances of
humour. This method is not novel since other researchers have used canned laughter
as a yardstick for identifying instances of potential humour in comedy. For example,
Walte (2007) uses canned laughter to detect humour in all ten series of Friends.
Pelsmaekers and Van Besien (2003) use it to isolate humorous instances in the
subtitled Dutch version of Blackadder (1983-1989, Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson
and Ben Elton). In their study in Computational Linguistics, Purandare and Litman
(2006) deploy canned laughter to investigate the humour in Friends and its connection
to the six main characters’ prosodic features.
Similarly, Chiaro (2004: 45) makes use of canned laughter in the contrastive
analysis of a large corpus comprising original and dubbed Italian versions of various
TV sitcoms and cartoon series. However, she also points out that canned laughter is
sometimes used to underline turns containing sharp or clever remarks. In her view,
these turns are difficult to define as instances of what she calls (pure) Verbally
Expressed Humour (VEH). Therefore, she terms them ‘Non-Specific VEH’. Although
in agreement with Chiaro’s point, I believe that such a fine distinction falls beyond the
scope of this study and will not be used here.
There are some potential limitations regarding the use of canned laughter to
establish instances of potential humour in a text. Canned laughter can be used to
accompany different types of humour, for example visual humour. For instance, in
Episode 1 of the first series of Friends, Ross approaches Rachel to shake her hand
after not seeing her for long time. In doing so, the umbrella he carries suddenly opens,
105
thus creating a funny gag. Ross’s embarrassment is underlined by a recording of
canned laughter. The number of recordings of canned laughter in ST I have reported
in Table 4.2 above accounts for instances of humour expressed via the verbal text,
visual humour, combination of both, and so on. Therefore, only part of that figure is
directly connected to the three mechanisms investigated during the data analysis in
this thesis.
In addition, it should be pointed out that canned laughter does not capture all the
instances of potential humour in the text. The ST contains some parts that are not
supported by canned laughter but that can be considered as humorous if examined
according to analytical models such as the SSTH or GTVH. For example in Chapter 5
I discuss the following extract taken from Episode 6. In this scene, all six friends are
in Monica and Rachel’s flat. Joey has just told his friends that he is going to star in an
Al Pacino film. When he tells his friends that he will be the replacement for Al
Pacino’s bottom, everybody laughs at him. Chandler and Ross make fun of Joey
playing with the literal and idiomatic meaning of some fixed expressions in English:
[4.1]Joey: C’mon, you guys. This is a real movie, and Al Pacino’s in it, and that’s big!
Chandler: Oh no, it’s terrific, it’s... it’s... y’know, you deserve this, after all your
years of struggling, you’ve finally been able to crack your way into
showbusiness.☺☺☺
Joey: Okay, okay, fine! Make jokes, I don’t care! This is a big break for me!
Ross: You’re right, you’re right, it is...So you gonna invite us all to the big
opening?☺☺☺
Both Chandler and Ross’s turns in (4.1) are marked by long recordings of canned
laughter. However, Joey’s words “This is a big break for me!” in his second turn seem
to carry similar potential humour because they can be perceived as a play between the
literal meaning of the idiomatic expression and the context of the conversation (Joey
starring as Al Pacino’s bottom). Nonetheless, I concentrate on those instances of
106
potential humour in the ST that are accompanied by canned laughter. Hence, this and
other potentially humorous stretches of text are excluded from my analysis.
Despite its limitations, the analysis of the data in the following chapters
demonstrates that using canned laughter is a valid and practical way to detect which
parts of the ST can be regarded as instances of potential humour. Moreover, it
facilitates the contrastive analysis the ST and TT.
In my initial approach to the data I isolated the instances of potential humour in the
ST by examining the turns preceding each instance of canned laughter, and then
proceeded to detect their counterparts in the TT. This preliminary comparison allowed
me to make a distinction between instances of potential humour that pose translation
problems and those that do not. I have reproduced two examples of the latter below
for the sake of clarity. Example (4.2) is taken from Episode 6. Joey performs as Freud
in a play and his friends have gone to see him. Everybody dislikes the play and Joey’s
performance. However, a talent agent left a business card for Joey and Phoebe
comments on this:
[4.2]Joey: The Estelle Leonard Talent Agency. Wow, an agency left me its card!
Maybe they wanna sign me!
Phoebe: Based on this play?☺☺... Based on this play! ☺☺☺
As can be seen, the humour in (4.2) is based on contextual and pragmatic factors.
Phoebe’s question implies she cannot believe an agency may want to sign Joey after
his poor performance. However, she realises this can offend Joey and repairs by
uttering the same sentence in a more enthusiastic and affirmative tone. The instances
of canned laughter accompanying Phoebe’s utterance underline its implied humour.
Such type of potential humour does not cause translation problems. In example (4.3),
from Episode 23, everybody is at the hospital because Ross and his ex-wife are about
107
to have a baby. Carol is now living with her lesbian life partner Susan. Ross and Susan
are having an argument over who should help Carol during her labour. Carol gets
upset and asks them to leave the room. Ross and Susan continue to argue outside:
[4.3]Ross: Please. This is so your fault.

Susan: How, how is this my fault?
Ross: Look, Carol never threw me out of a room before you came along.
Susan: Yeah? Well, there’s a lot of things Carol never did before I came along.
☺☺☺
Susan is indirectly referring to the fact that Carol has only recently accepted the
fact that she is a lesbian. Consequently, she has decided to end her marriage with Ross
and start a new relationship with Susan. The potential humour of this exchange
derives from its underlying topic (sexuality and possibly homophobia) but it is not
based on language- or culture-specific elements. Therefore it does not pose translation
problems. These and other instances based on translatable mechanisms of humour
creation are of no relevance to the scope of this study. Hence, they are excluded from
my analysis. As with visual humour etc., this factor can (partly) explain why the
number of recordings of canned laughter is much higher than the number of instances
of potential humour discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
After carrying out my preliminary comparison of the ST and TT, I noticed that
three main phenomena were used for humorous purposes in my data and also seemed
to pose problems in AVT, and dubbing in particular. As anticipated earlier, they are: 1)
wordplay (including puns, puns based on the combination of the verbal and visual text,
etc.); 2) culture-specific allusions (including popular culture items, places, etc.) and 3)
metaphor. I therefore decided to focus my analysis particularly on instances of these
three phenomena in the turns preceding instances of canned laughter in the ST, and on
their counterparts in the TT. As I have commented in Chapter 3, many scholars in TS
108
and other fields have discussed wordplay and cultural-specific allusions. They have
emphasised the linguistic and cultural specificity of these devices and the difficulty of
transferring them across languages and cultures. Due to their relevance in humour
translation, I will devote a chapter of data analysis to each of these phenomena
(Chapter 5 and 6 respectively). Comparatively speaking, metaphor has received less
attention in both TS and HS. Nonetheless, many scholars in other fields have
extensively studied the variation of metaphor production across cultures (cf. for
example Deignan 2003, Kövecses 2000; 2005). Therefore, potentially humorous
metaphor and its translation deserve an in-depth analysis, which I carry out in Chapter
7.
Along with the fact that they pose a challenge in translation, I have chosen these
three phenomena because they prove to have important characterisation effects. The
scriptwriters seem to exploit these devices to create recurrent behavioural patterns for
the six main characters (e.g. Chandler is quick-minded, Joey is absent-minded, etc.).
Moreover, they seem to enhance the theme of the series, as they mainly relate to the
characters’ interpersonal relationships, friendship and taboo topics (sex in particular).
These factors (characterisation, humour, theme enhancement) play a major role in the
success of the series and its audience’s appreciation. Hence, the translators’ decision-
making process might be expected to prioritise them while transferring the ST across
languages and cultures (Zabalbeascoa 1996).
Hence, I investigate the data in the following three chapters hoping to shed some
light into the process of humour creation in Friends by means of wordplay, culture-
specific allusions and metaphor. Moreover, I examine the TT so as to understand what
translation strategies were used to transfer these devices into Italian, considering the
constraints and advantages of dubbing. More importantly, I seek to verify where there
109
are significant differences between the two datasets in terms of potential humour. By
doing so, I hope this thesis can stimulate the on-going research in AVT, humour
research and cross-cultural communication in a broad sense.
4.4.3 Identifying Script Oppositions and Targets in the Data
As I anticipated in the previous chapters, I intend to apply the GTVH metric (Attardo
and Raskin 1991; Attardo 1994, 2001) to the analysis of both datasets. In particular, I
concentrate on two Knowledge Resources (KRs): script opposition (SO) and Target
(TA). The former helps to detect recurrent patterns in humour creation in the text and
is regarded by Attardo (2002a) as the most important KR in the process of translation.
The latter helps to identify who or what is the target of such humour. Moreover, it can
show how disparaging humour also contributes to characterisation. For the sake of
completeness, the other four KRs are provided in footnotes (cf. Attardo 2001,
Archakis and Tsakona 2005, Tsakona 2007 for a similar approach). This approach can
show that the logical mechanism (LM) may change whereas the situation (SI) and the
narrative strategy (NS) are usually unchanged during the translation process. The
language (LA) shows how the humour trigger changes (e.g. a paronymous pun in the
ST vs. a homophonous pun in the TT). Therefore it is already mentioned during the
analysis of each instance.
The contrastive comparison of the SOs and TAs in the ST and TT can reveal
differences between the two datasets in terms of potential humour. I first explain how
I categorise the TA in my data, where I simply follow the suggestions in the literature
(Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 1994, 2001). I then move to explain how I classify
the SO, which requires more elaboration.
110
My categorisation of the targets in Friends focuses specifically on the six main
characters (Chandler, Joey, Ross, Monica, Phoebe and Rachel). However, during my
analysis I report the presence of other possible TA (e.g. minor characters). In the
conclusive chapter, I will provide a quantitative summary with respect to the six main
characters. All other targets will be subsumed under a general category called ‘Other’
(cf. Ch. 8, Section 8.2.1).
As I have explained in Chapter 2, Raskin (1985) proposes three possible levels of
SO for each example besides the contextual (or essential) SO (e.g. doctor/lover).
These three levels are: concrete SO (e.g. obscene/non-obscene), abstract SO (e.g.
actual/non-actual) and general SO (real/non-real). Since the essential SO is very
context-dependent and the general SO can virtually be applied to any instance of
potential humour, they cannot be used to detect possible recurrent patterns in the ST.
Attardo (1994: 204, 2001: 20) has pointed out some problems with Raskin’s concrete
level and the ‘obscene/non-obscene’ SO in particular. In addition, he has reported Di
Maio’s (2000, quoted in ibid.) suggestion of an intermediate level between the
contextual and the concrete SO (e.g. sex/no-sex). I have also expressed my concerns
about the five-type concrete group (cf. Ch.2, Subsection 2.4.1).
Nonetheless, I consider Raskin’s general approach useful for my analysis (cf.
Subsection 2.4.1 above). Hence, drawing from Raskin’s taxonomy, as well as from
Attardo and Di Maio’s suggestions, I have elaborated the following procedure to
categorise my data. I use Raskin’s three-way distinction for abstract SOs to classify
the instances of potential humour in my data in general terms. In addition, I have
adapted Raskin’s set of concrete SOs in order to make them relevant to my data. I
have retained his ‘life/death’ and ‘money/no-money’ categories. I have then added
three further SOs. The first one is the ‘sex/no-sex’ SO, as suggested by Di Maio
111
(Raskin mentions this SO but only as part of the obscene/non-obscene SO; cf.
Subsection 2.4.1 above). The other two are ‘human/non-human’ and the ‘child/adult
behaviour’ SOs. To my knowledge, these two types of SO are not present in the
literature so far. I have chosen these five SOs because of their relevance to my data.
These five types of SOs can also be considered as the main humorous strands (Attardo
2001: 83, 141; cf. also Subsection 2.4.2 for a definition) in Friends. For the sake of
clarity, I have summarised the explanation above in Table 4.3, which is reproduced
below:
Three abstract types of Script Five concrete types of Script

Oppositions Oppositions
Sex/no-sex
Actual/Non-actual Human/non-human
Normal/Abnormal Child/adult behaviour
Possible/Impossible Life/death
Money/No-money
Table 4.3: Summary of Script Oppositions used during the analysis in this thesis
The abstract and concrete levels will be applied to the analysis of each example,
along with the contextual level. Raskin (1985) and Attardo (1994, 2001) suggest that
an instance of humour can evoke more than one SO of the same concrete level (e.g.
sex/no-sex and money/no-money). However, for ease of categorisation, I have chosen
to allocate each example to only one SO. Selecting an SO rather than another is
dependent on my understanding of the theories I use and the context within which the
instance of potential humour is embedded. For instance, the conversational exchange
in example 4.3 above seems to evoke contextual SOs such as: Carol’s former
life/Carol’s present life, living with Susan/living with Ross. At a concrete level it also
seems to evoke SOs such as: homosexual people/straight people and sex/no-sex.
Finally, at an abstract level it can be seen as evoking an actual/non-actual SO since it
112
opposes a previous situation with a present situation. The LM can be described as
‘false analogy’ or ‘referential ambiguity’ (Attardo et al 2002: 13-15) since Susan
exploits Ross’s turn (“Carol, never threw me out of a room before you came along”)
so as to utter her turn (“Yeah? Well, there’s a lot of things Carol never did before I
came along”). The situation (SI) is the context within which the conversation takes
place. Interestingly, the TA of this exchange seems to work at various levels. Susan’s
remark clearly targets Ross but it also seems to attack homophobic people or
heterosexuals who hold bias opinions about sexuality and homosexuals. The narrative
strategy (NS) is the conversation itself. Finally, the language (LA) is referential
because based on the implied oppositions I have just pointed out. As can be seen,
establishing what SOs, LMs and TAs is not often straightforward. However, choosing
only one SO per example helps me give a coherent and consistent quantitative
analysis, as I will show at the end of this thesis. Finally, it is important to point out
here that it is possible to find some examples that can be captured in terms of an SO
which is not included in my framework. In such cases, other potential concrete SOs
will be given in the analysis but they will be subsumed under a general category called
‘Other’ in the final quantitative analysis in Chapter 8.
4.4.4 Further Methodological Issues
In this last subsection I consider some methodological issues that apply to different
aspects of my analysis.
In some cases, the structure of the conversational exchanges in Friends is similar to
self-contained texts such as jokes. This usually happens when conversations are
contained in well defined scenes. For instance, a scene starts after the opening theme
and concludes with a pose, which is marked by the insertion of a black screen frame
113
(on DVD) or a commercial break (on TV). At other times there is a clear change of
setting, for example, from Central Perk to one of the characters’ flats, etc. (cf. for
example, some conversational exchanges containing puns in Ch.5 or metaphors in
Ch.7). In such cases, I can apply Attardo’s (1998, 2001) distinction between jab and
punch line (cf. Subsection 2.4.2 for a definition) to the potentially humorous instances
in the text. In the cases described above, such a distinction is feasible and I clearly
label the characters’ turns as jab and punch lines during my data analysis. In other
cases the instances of potential humour are embedded within long conversational
exchanges whose boundaries cannot be accurately defined (cf. Müller 2007: 51 for
similar consideration). Hence, these instances will be analysed in general terms,
without attempting a distinction between jab and punch lines.
Another factor that has to be taken into account is that in some types of jokes the
potential humour is the result of a conversational exchange between two or more
(sometimes stereotyped) characters (e.g. an Englishman, a German and an Italian),
which normally concludes with a punch line. Unlike these types of jokes,
conversational exchanges in comedy are open-ended, often working towards the
development of the storyline of the episode and the series as a whole. Each episode
usually contains two or three topics that unfold simultaneously and the characters’
conversations can link back to previous topics, or even episodes. Hence, the potential
humour in my data is created by the concomitant participation of the characters
involved in the conversation. This also influences the way the audience perceives the
characters. My linguistic analysis therefore considers the context within which each
example is embedded and the broader context of the series as a whole.
A necessary step in the linguistic analysis is also the categorisation of the data into
types of humour. In this respect, I found that many instances of potential humour in
114
my data do not fit the taxonomies proposed in the literature for their categorisation,
which often tend to overlap. For example, some instances of potential humour
combine two devices (e.g. wordplay and metaphor) and can therefore fall into more
than one category. However, in the literature these phenomena are (mostly) treated
separately (cf. Chapter 5 and 7 in this thesis). Rather than including the same instance
in both groups, I took into account the context within which they are found. Hence, if
a metaphor contains a punning element but the former device is more important for
the potential humour of the text, I categorise it as an instance of potentially humorous
metaphor (cf. Ch.7).
To conclude, it is worth remarking that AVT is a peculiar translation process and
dubbing in particular presents specific constraints and some advantages, which are
considered throughout the analysis. In my general conclusions to this thesis in Chapter
8 I will sum up my findings in the light of what researchers say about the phenomena I
have investigated. This will possibly allow me to give a fairly accurate account of
what translating humour in the first series of Friends involves and put forward
suggestions for further research in the AVT of humour in general.
115
Chapter 5 Humorous Wordplay
Chapter 5. Humorous Wordplay
Wordplay is inherent in the structure of language and

therefore natural to the human mind.
(Delabastita 1996: 127)
5.1 Introduction
In Chapter 2 and 3 I have presented a general overview on both Humour Studies (HS)
and relevant sections of Translation Studies (TS). In Chapter 3 I have reported and
commented on some scholars’ views on the feasibility of transferring humour across
linguistic and cultural boundaries and I have focused in particular on the peculiarities
of the AVT of humour. In Chapter 4 I have introduced my data in more detail and
outlined my methodology.
With this chapter I start the analysis of my data, which will be continued in
Chapters 6 and 7. Each chapter of data analysis will concentrate on one aspect of
humorous creation that potentially causes translation problems. This chapter is
entirely devoted to the discussion of humour produced by means of wordplay. It has
been argued that wordplay is not per se humorous (Attardo 1994: 316; Hempelmann
2004: 387). In accordance with this, the title of this chapter reminds the reader that my
focus is on instances of potential humour conveyed by a playful use of language. The
term wordplay is used here as an umbrella term to include various types of language
play (cf. also Chiaro 2000: 32). I will define my use of the term wordplay more
precisely in the next section.
My investigation of different types of wordplay deployed in the ST for humorous
purposes aims to understand how they are created, whether they are used according to
recurrent patterns, what other function(s) they have within the ST and what translation
problems they cause. Interestingly, the analysis of the ST carried out below shows that
116
wordplay is often used to develop the general themes of the series (e.g. interpersonal
relations, sex, gender stereotypes) or to refer indirectly to taboo body parts. In
addition, the scriptwriters of Friends often exploit intentional or unintentional
wordplay at the character-character level as a means of characterisation. For example,
Joey is portrayed as simple-minded and the unintentional puns he utters seem to
underline this aspect of his character. In contrast, Chandler is generally perceived as
witty and quick-minded and he often utters puns that can be interpreted as intentional
and that aim to disparage his friends or others. To sum up, the analysis seems to
suggest that wordplay contributes to the potential humour of the series and the
development of its storyline, and also fulfils a characterising function (Delabastita
1993: 137-151). All these factors arguably play an important part in the general
success of the series and should be considered as priorities during the translation
process (Zabalbeascoa 1996; cf. also Ch. 3, Section 3.7.1 in this thesis).
As mentioned above, before dealing with the translation of wordplay, in Section
5.2 I will discuss the definition of the concept of wordplay. In particular I will justify
my use of ‘wordplay’ as an umbrella term for the phenomena analysed in this chapter.
In Section 5.3 I will discuss punning, its relation to humour and its categorisation
according to Delabastita’s (1996) taxonomy. This will lead me to consider the
difficulties arising during the translation of this phenomenon. Subsequently, in Section
5.4 I will focus on the translation strategies suggested in the literature to overcome
such problems. I will refer in particular, but not only, to Delabastita’s (ibid.) set of
translation strategies for punning. This framework will prove useful for the
investigation of my data despite one important weakness. Delabastita’s strategies have
been developed mainly for literary translation and some of them seem to be
117
inapplicable to the translation of audiovisual texts. Hence, I will suggest a partial
revision in the course of my discussion.
This chapter will continue with a discussion of other types of wordplay. In Sections
5.6, I will deal with the specific case of puns based on fixed expressions and idioms.
In order to do this, I will refer in particular to Moon’s (1998) work on Fixed
Expressions and Idioms (FEI) in English and Veisbergs’s (1997) framework for the
translation of idiom-based puns. Like Delabastita’s set of translation strategies,
Veisbergs’s taxonomy proves to be partly applicable to my data. Hence, in Section 5.7
I will offer some suggestions to modify it. Section 5.8 will be devoted to the analysis
of the translation of what I named FEI-based puns.
In Section 5.9 I will discuss the exploitation of rhyming for humorous purposes.
Although less frequent, this language-dependent device proves to be equally
challenging in translation. My data analysis will show that the Italian translators
overcame the obstacles rhyming poses by means of diminutive and augmentative
suffixes. These devices can retain the playful mood of the ST and can be considered
an alternative to some translation strategies suggested in TS, be they for rhyming,
punning etc. Needless to say, it is limited to those languages that include the use of
suffixes in their grammars (i.e. Spanish, Greek, Slovenian, etc).
With Section 5.11 I will conclude this chapter. I will provide a quantitative analysis
that aims to detect preferred translation patterns in my corpus. I will also propose a
simplified taxonomy of translation strategies for wordplay. By doing this, I will
attempt to bring together the scholars’ suggestions discussed below into a unified
framework. This will hopefully reflect the specific needs of the AVT of wordplay.
118
5.2 Wordplay
Delabastita (1996) defines wordplay in general as follows:
Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena in which
structural features of the language(s) used are exploited in order to bring
about a communicatively significant confrontation of two (or more)
linguistic structures with more or less similar forms and more or less
different meanings (ibid.128; emphasis in original).
As can be seen, in this definition wordplay is considered as an umbrella term to
include all those phenomena that involve the exploitation of linguistic structures that
differ in meaning but share some formal (phonological, graphological) similarity. This
definition is accepted and applied to this chapter so that wordplay will be said to
include the subcategories analysed here: (general) puns, puns based on fixed
expressions and idioms (FEIs), playful use of visual and verbal elements, and
wordplay based on rhyming.
In the literature, wordplay is distinguished from various forms of unintentional
linguistic ambiguities (e.g. slips of the tongue, malapropisms, etc.) because it is
considered to be a conscious exploitation of language (Attardo 1994: 168; Delabastita
1996: 131). However, it should be noted that in fictional texts the issues of
intentionality is more complex for slips of the tongue, malapropisms, and so on. For
instance, a character may utter a sentence which contains a linguistic ambiguity that is
perceived as unintentional at the character-character level. However, at the author-
audience level this ambiguity may well be regarded as intentional because it is likely
that the scriptwriter exploited it in order to convey humour. Hence, this distinction of
intentionality at different levels will be taken into account when analysing the
characters’ utterances.
119
As explained in Chapter 4, I use canned laughter as a criterion to locate potential
instances of humorous uses of language in the ST. More specifically, my analysis of
the turns preceding all instances of canned laughter led to the identification of 29
instances of wordplay. I should clarify that, in order to quantify the occurrence of
wordplay in my data, however, I counted as one instance each extract of text that
involves the exploitation of a particular word/expression, or of a pair of related
words/expressions. As a result, each instance may in fact involve more than one
occurrence of canned laughter. Hence the 29 instances of wordplay I have identified
collectively involve more that 29 instances of canned laughter, as I will show
throughout my analysis and at the end of this chapter.
In addition, The GTVH approach is applied during the data analysis so as to
account for the potential humour of these phenomena in the ST. Finally, the GTVH is
also used to detect the differences resulting from the AVT of wordplay in the TT. It
should be finally noted that in a very small number of cases I have found that the
Italian translators inserted some instances of wordplay where there is none in the ST.
In particular, in one case this compensatory strategy is supported by canned laughter.
These instances of compensation are not included in my main analysis but they will be
pointed out where relevant as an interesting phenomenon.
I will now discuss punning, which is one of the phenomena I include under wordplay.
5.3 Punning
Although traditionally and undeservedly enjoying poor reputation among other types
of humour creations (cf. Norrick 1993:60; Nash 1985: 138), punning has received a
large amount of interest, especially from scholars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics
(cf. Attardo 1994, Chapters 3 and 4 for an extensive review and discussion of this
120
phenomenon). Similarly, scholars in TS have analysed the mechanisms this
phenomenon involves, mostly focusing on the difficulties related to its transfer across
languages (cf. Section 3.6 above). I will devote the two following subsections to a
brief discussion of punning in relation to humour, its theoretical definition and
categorisation.
5.3.1 Punning and Humour
Punning is generally based on a mechanism that exploits the ambiguity of linguistic
items and structures, which allows two senses to be brought together in the same
utterance. As Attardo points out (ibid.133), ambiguity is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for punning, which has to evoke two opposing senses.
As with other types of humour, the linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to
the study of punning differ in their focus. Linguistics concentrates on the elements that
allow the two opposing senses to be brought together. For example, Greimas (1983
[1966], quoted in Attardo 1994: 62-63) calls such elements ‘connector’ and
‘disjunctor’ while Raskin (1985: 114) names them as ‘script-switch trigger’.
Psycholinguistics considers the cognitive process at work in the perception of the
potential humour of the pun. To this end, psycholinguists have proposed the two-step
Incongruity-Resolution model (Attardo ibid.134-135, 143-144). Attardo explains that
the GTVH metric can bring these two approaches together. It enables the analyst to
detect which linguistic elements in the text produce an incongruity and to account for
its potential humour. The incongruity is explained in terms of a script opposition (SO)
and its resolution by means of the logical mechanism (LM) (ibid.144-145). In the
specific case of puns, the logical mechanism is defined as Cratylism (ibid.152-153;
Attardo et al. 2002).
121
As mentioned in the introduction, Attardo (1994: 316) and Hempelmann (2004)
point out that wordplay is not humorous per se. In particular, Hempelmann develops
the relationship between SO and LM in punning. This leads him to the claim that
wordplay is the mere playing with the sound similarity of words, which becomes
humorous punning only if it involves a playing with meaning (ibid.388). Delabastita
(1996) reaches a similar conclusion when he acknowledges the fact that punning does
not necessarily result in humour. However, he also remarks that punning is able to
evoke simultaneously two or more contrasting meanings that one or more words may
have, thus calling for a “double reading” (ibid.129). Both claims seem to be confirmed
by the data analysis I carry out below. I now summarise and discuss Delabastita’s
categorising framework for punning.
5.3.2 Categorisation of Puns
Delabastita (1996) puts forward a taxonomy that distinguishes four different types of
puns, depending on their characteristics:
1. homonymy, when words have “identical sounds and spelling”;
2. homophony, when words have “identical sounds but different spellings”;
3. homography, when words have “different sounds but identical spelling”;
4. paronymy, when “there are slight differences in both in sound and spelling”
(ibid.128).
Moreover, Delabastita points out that this contrast can be produced in two ways:
a) vertical (or paradigmatic) presentation, which applies when one of the structures is
not present in the text and has to be triggered by the receiver through her/his
knowledge, or through a process of mental association;
122
b) horizontal (or syntagmatic) presentation, which applies when two or more similar
linguistic structures are present in the text (ibid.).
A slightly modified version of Delabastita’s summarising grid is reported in Table
5.1 below for the sake of clarity. All examples are taken from Delabastita (ibid.)
except for that of vertical homonymy. I have substituted Delabastita’s example with
one taken from Attardo (1994: 172) because the former does not seem to represent
adequately this type of punning:
Homonymy Homophony Homography Paronymy

V
E ‘Do you believe in Wedding belles MessAge Come in for a
R clubs for young [name of mid-1990s faith lift [slogan on a
T people?’ rap band] church]
I ‘Only when kindness
C fails’ (Attardo 1994:
A 272)
L
H
O Carry on dancing Counsel for Council How the US put US It's G.B. for the
R carries Carry to the home buyers to shame Beegees
I top [article on [article on pop band
Z ambitious young touring Britain]
O woman named Carry]
T
A
L
Table 5.1: Modified version of Delabastita’s (1996: 128) typology grid
As can be seen, Delabastita’s typology does not include instances of puns based on
synonymous words (two words with same meaning, i.e. ‘crazy’ and ‘mad’). This may
be due to the fact that this punning strategy is not often used or detected. Moreover, he
only gives a passing treatment of punning that exploits idioms, which in fact has
proven to be very interesting for humour production in my data. These will be
discussed separately in Section 5.6. In general, it is also worth noting that
Delabastita’s examples seem to involve puns that are language-intrinsic and static. In
123
contrast, many examples discussed below can be seen as instances of interactional and
dynamic puns as they are based on the conversational structure of the text.
Delabastita also distinguishes between punning which is based on purely verbal
text and punning that combines verbal and visual elements. In the former case, the
context within which the pun occurs is called ‘verbal’ and hinges upon linguistic and
grammatical ambiguities. In the latter case, the context is defined as situational (i.e.
punning advertisements. cartoons, etc.) (bid.). Although my data is audiovisual, all the
instances of potential humour discussed later in this chapter rely primarily on a ‘verbal
context’.
Finally, Delabastita claims that puns are not self-standing elements in the text but
they function in it for specific purposes. For example, apart from achieving humorous
effects, they can also challenge our stereotyped ideas on culture or taboo topics, etc.
(ibid.128-129; cf. also Norrick 1993: 61-67 on the use of punning in conversation).
For this reason, Delabastita claims that punning (and wordplay in general) is able to
“bring about a communicatively significant confrontation” (see quotation above;
emphasis in original). As I have suggested earlier, the puns in my data often involve
sexual and taboo topics or stereotyped ideas. Moreover, they function as cues that
shape characters in terms of personal concerns and idiosyncrasies.
Some considerations upon the validity of using taxonomies are called for at this
stage. Typologies are often seen as a means to constrain phenomena which cannot
easily be framed into fixed categories. Delabastita himself (1997: 3-4) points out the
difficulties relating to attempts to categorise such a complex phenomenon as punning.
However, he claims that taxonomies contribute to the analysis of the rules and
semiotic conventions that govern wordplay within different cultures. It is also
important to bear in mind Delabastita’s further suggestion that punning should be seen
124
in terms of a “‘cline’ with different degrees of intensity and typicality that may
interchange and overlap” (ibid.5). In accordance with this, the data analysis that
follows should be seen as involving a continuum that includes clear-cut cases as well
as borderline ones. The clarity of the former and the in-depth analysis of the latter will
determine the validity and applicability of the taxonomy used, as in any meaningful
classification.
All these points will be considered during the data analysis. However, before doing
so I will devote some attention to the strategies suggested by scholars in HS and TS to
overcome the problems posed in translation.
5.4 Translation of Puns
As mentioned in Chapter 3 (cf. Section 3.6 above), scholars in TS have discussed the
specific characteristics of punning and recognised it as a source of translation
problems. The discussion above further confirms the difficulties that arise in
translating such a complex linguistic and cognitive phenomenon. Attardo’s (2002a:
183) theory of humour translation, mentioned in Chapter 3, postulates the preservation
of Knowledge Resources from language (LA) to script opposition (SO), which is in
principle applicable to wordplay in general. However, Attardo does not give any
suggestion about the tools or strategies a translator should use to achieve this.
Hence, I refer to Delabastita’s (1996: 134) typology of eight translation strategies
that are at the translators’ disposal to help them deal with puns. As Delabastita
reminds us, two or more strategies may be used in combination. For example, a pun
can be omitted and a footnote is added to explain the omission (ibid.). I have
summarised them in Table 5.2 below. The lefthand column contains the names of the
strategies while the righthand column gives a brief explanation of each of them:
125
Strategy Explanation
1. PUN→PUN The pun is translated into the target language with
mirror adjustments in terms of formal or semantic
structure, or textual function.
2. PUN→NON-PUN The pun is translated as a non-punning phrase that
aims to retain one or both original senses.
3. PUN→RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE The pun is substituted by a related rhetorical
device (allusion, parody, rhyme, paradox, etc.) in
order to retain part of the original effect.
4. PUN→ZERO PUN The pun is omitted altogether.
5. PUN ST=PUN TT The original pun is reproduced in the TT in the
source language.
6. NON-PUN→PUN A completely new pun is added in the TT where
there is none, in order to compensate for the
previous loss of an original pun or for other
reasons.
7. ZERO→PUN Completely new textual material is added to the
TT and it contains punning. This is a
compensatory device which however does not
seem to have apparent precedent or
justification in the ST.
8. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE Editorial devices (e.g. footnotes, endnotes) are
added to the TT in order to explain the original
pun.
Table 5.2: Summary of Delabastita’s (1996: 134) suggested translation strategies
It is worth noting that some of Delabastita’s translation strategies can be generally
seen as instances of Venuti’s (1992, 1995, 1998) foreignisation and domestication
approaches (cf. Section 1.2 above for a definition). I will draw from Venuti’s
distinction in more detail in the last section of this chapter (cf. Section 5.11 below)
because it will help me devise a unified framework for the AVT of wordplay. For the
time being it also seems important to mention that Delabastita’s translation strategies
do not seem to differ greatly from the general translation strategies discussed in
relation to other types of phenomena. Baker (1992: 26-42, 71-78, 228-243) discusses
most of the same translation devices in literary and non-literary texts, especially
techniques (1), (2), (4), (6), (7) and (8) above.
Similarly, Hervey and Higgins (1992: 35-40) tackle several translation problems
and methods and focus on the compensatory technique described in points (6) and (7).
These two strategies do not seem to differ greatly from one another. In both cases,
126
Delabastita suggests the addition of punning text where there is none in the ST for
compensatory purposes. Hence, I propose clustering them into one single strategy
named ‘COMPENSATION’. This term is generally used in TS to describe the
insertion of extra material in the TT where there is none in the ST. Harvey (1995: 82-
84) distinguishes four types of compensation: parallel (in the same place), contiguous
(placed within a short distance), displaced (at long distance) or generalised (addition
of extra stylistic features anywhere in the text). Harvey’s framework will be applied to
the analysis below as well. Finally, it should also be noticed that Delabastita’s
EDITORIAL TECHINIQUE cannot be applied to audiovisual text since endnotes or
footnotes cannot be used in spoken texts. Hence, I will not take it into account during
my data analysis.
As can be seen, Delabastita’s taxonomy is only partly applicable to the analysis of
audiovisual texts. It should be borne in mind that Delabastita (1997: 10) himself
acknowledges that the type of text under investigation and the translation mode
applied are part of that “semiotic set-up”, which plays a major role in the translator’s
approach to puns and wordplays (cf. ibid. for a full list of other types of semiotic set-
ups). Therefore, in analysing the AVT of puns and wordplays, one has also to take
into account all the constraints and advantages imposed by the medium. As I have
mentioned earlier, Bucaria (2007: 85) has investigated the subtitling of puns in Italian
to find that the strategies used are very much dependent on contextual and pragmatic
factors related to the subtitling mode (e.g. time pressure, the original audience’s
reaction is heard by the target audience, etc.). Chiaro (2000, 2004) has instead
concentrated on the dubbing of humour and punning in particular. Although
interesting, Chiaro’s studies (2000: 32-33, 2004: 42-44) suggest two sets of translation
strategies that do not adequately fit the data examined here. For my investigation, I
127
therefore make use of those strategies in Delabastita’s taxonomy that are applicable to
my data. I will refer to the other scholars mentioned above as appropriate.
5.5 Data Analysis
The following data analysis is based on the instances of potentially humorous puns I
detected in the ST and their translated counterparts into Italian.
As explained earlier, I have found a total of 29 wordplays, which were detected
during the preliminary analysis of those turns that are followed by a recording of
canned laughter. Other wordplays that do not comply with this criterion have been
excluded. These 29 instances of wordplay in the ST include ten puns which, although
often not prototypical in form, can be categorised according to my revised version of
Delabastita’s taxonomy (cf. Subsection 5.3.2 above). Before moving to the contrastive
analysis of the examples, I would like to present a brief categorisation of the instances
of potentially humorous puns I have isolated in the ST. Table 5.3 contains a summary
of my categorisation, which includes synonymous punning. The occurrence of
compensating pun in the TT is discussed separately in Subsection 5.5.5 below:
Homonymy Homophony Homography Paronymy Synonymy Total

V
E 0 1 0 2 0 3
R
H
O 1 0 0 5 1 7
R
Tot 1 0 0 8 1 10
Table 5.3: Categorisation of puns in the ST
Despite their limited number, the puns in the table above show some interesting
patterns. As can be seen, the preferred way to create puns in the ST is by horizontal
paronymy. In other words, they are constructed by means of words that are present in
128
the text and differ slightly in both sound and spelling. Since the verbal text is spoken,
it is not surprising that there are no instances of homographic puns. Interestingly, the
only instance of vertical homophony (example (5.3) in Subsection 5.5.1 below) is
based on the similarity of sounds in connected speech. Therefore, it is not a purely
homophonic pun but I included it in this group for ease of reference. This will be
discussed in detail during the analysis and in the preliminary conclusions in
Subsection 5.5.6. Moreover, all findings will be summarised and discussed thoroughly
in the concluding remarks in Section 5.11.
The layout of the next six subsections can be explained as follows. Subsections
5.5.1 to 5.5.4 are named after Delabastita’s suggested translation strategies for which I
found examples in my data: PUN→PUN, PUN→NON-PUN, PUN→RELATED
RHETORICAL DEVICE and PUN→ZERO PUN. Section 5.5.5 is instead named
after the more general strategy of compensation, which also includes an instance of
added synonymous pun (example (5.9) below). Due to space limitations, only part of
the punning instances in my data can be discussed here. A full list can be found in
Appendix II, “Humorous Wordplay” at the end of this thesis.
Each example I examine below is numbered and presented in its original English
form, followed by its Italian translation and the back translation of the Italian version
into English (also called gloss). The first two are transcriptions from my data while
the third is my own back translation. I signal the presence of canned laughter in the ST
and TT by means of smiley faces, i.e. ☺. The length of the recording of canned
laughter is graphically signalled by the number of smiley faces (cf. Subsection 4.3.2
above).
I first analyse the instances of potentially humorous punning in the ST and examine
their structure according to Delabastita’s categorisation above. This helps me explain
129
how they are created and what linguistic elements they exploit. Subsequently, I
analyse the data according to Raskin’s (1985) taxonomy and Attardo’s (1994, 2001)
GTVH and its Knowledge Resources (KRs). In particular, I consider which script
opposition(s) (SOs) each potentially humorous pun evokes and what and/or who they
target (TA). The analysis of the SOs that the puns in the ST evoke confirms that
punning coherently matches the themes developed in the series. As I will show shortly,
many are based on the sex/no-sex SO or other taboo topics. Moreover, at an abstract
level they seem to activate a normal/abnormal SO. This is also coherent with the idea
that situations and characters in comedy are exaggerated for humorous purposes
(Culpeper 2001: 88-89).
As mentioned earlier, all the other four KRs are provided in footnotes (cf. Attardo
2001, Archakis and Tsakona 2005, Tsakona 2007 for a similar approach). I have opted
for this method because they are almost the same for nearly all the examples. In other
words, the logical mechanism (LM) of humour creation is always cratylism (Attardo
et al. 2002), situation (SI) is always the context within which the pun is embedded, the
narrative strategy (NS) is almost always conversation (or sometimes monologue) and
the language (LA) is already mentioned during the analysis of each instance.
Moreover, LA is implied in the translation process itself (Attardo 2002a: 185).
Once I complete my discussion of the pun in the ST I examine the TT in order to
verify what translation strategies were used and what implications they have. For
example, the GTVH metric allows a direct comparison of those instances of punning
that were transferred by means of other techniques such as NON-PUN, RELATED
RHETORICAL DEVICE, etc.
All in all, the investigation of the TT shows that the Italian translators were
sensitive to the function that punning has within the ST. Hence, they attempted to
130
preserve it as much as possible. When this was not feasible, they strived to preserve
the potential humour of the text and resorted to omission in some very difficult cases.
5.5.1 PUN→PUN
In this subsection I discuss some examples of puns that were transferred from the ST
into the Italian TT. Along with the obvious changes related to the use of a different
language system, the punning elements in the text have undergone some manipulation
in order to be preserved. This strategy has been used in half of the cases (5 instances
out of 10), which demonstrates that the Italian translators paid much attention to the
phenomenon and its relevance within the text.
In example (5.1), taken from Episode 11, Joey, who lives with Chandler, is outside
their flat and listens to Chandler and his mother having an argument about the fact that
she kissed Ross the night before. Chandler is very upset because his mother (who
writes erotic novels) often behaves in a sexually provocative way, which, in his view,
is not suitable for a middle-aged woman. He has therefore decided to tell her how he
feels about it. When Ross arrives, Joey hastens to tell him what he has just heard:
[5.1] Ross: You're kidding. Ross: Scherzi? Ross: Are you kidding?
Joey: No, no. He said "When Joey: Per niente. Ha detto: Joey: Not at all. He said "When
are you gonna grow up and start ''Quando maturerai e inizierai a are you gonna grow up and start
being a mom?" fare la mamma?'' acting like a mom?"
Ross: Wow! Ross: Caspita! Ross: Gosh!
Joey: Then she came back with Joey: Sai cosa ha replicato lei: Joey: Do you know what she
"The question is, when are you “Il problema è: quando replied: “The problem is: when
gonna grow up and realise I maturerai tu e capirai che io are you gonna grow up and
have a bomb?"☺☺☺ sono una manna?”☺☺ realise I am a manna?”
Ross: Okay, wait a minute, are Ross: Aspetta un attimo, sei Ross: Wait a minute, are you
you sure she didn't say "When sicuro che lei non abbia detto: sure she didn't say “When are
are you gonna grow up and “Quando maturerai e capirai che you gonna grow up and realise I
realise I am your mom?” sono la tua mamma?” am your mom?”
Joey: That makes more sense. Joey: Certo, così ha senso.☺☺ Joey: Of course, it makes more
☺☺ sense in this way.
131
In the ST, the misunderstanding on Joey’s part derives from a horizontal paronymy
between the words “bomb” and “mom”. At the author-level, this paronymy is
exploited to create a kind of effect associated with punning, i.e. a potential reference
to another meaning (‘bomb’ as a metaphor for sexiness), which is partly appropriate as
a description of the real referent, i.e. Chandler’s mother. In my opinion, the use of
interactional and dynamic (or non-prototypical) puns like this enhances the potential
humour of the exchange. Joey is not able to understand the nonsense in his own
utterance, thus foregrounding his limited cognitive skills at both character-character
and author-audience level. He cannot grasp the contextual relevance of “mom” as
opposed to “bomb” and only Ross’s turn can help him do so. Joey’s third turn at the
end of the exchange further confirms this. According to the GTVH metric, the
semantic and conceptual clash in this exchange can be described by means of a
contextual (or essential) mom/bomb SO, a concrete sex/no-sex SO and an abstract
normal/abnormal SO. The disparaging function of this pun is perceived at the author-
audience level, thus making Joey the TA1.
In the TT, the Italian counterpart for “bomb” (“bomba”) would not retain the
paronymous punning element when paired with the Italian word for “mom”
(“mamma”). Since the latter is contextually more relevant than the former, the
translators translated it with “mamma” and substituted the word “bomb” with “manna”
(“manna”). The Italian TT therefore preserves the original device (paronymous
punning), its potentially disparaging humour and characterisation function. The
contextual SO is manna/mom but the concrete and abstract SOs are still sex/no-sex
and normal/abnormal2. It should be noted that the TT also retains the reference to
Chandler’s mother’s unusual sexiness, since she is indirectly compared to godsend
1
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Paronymy.
2
132
(“manna”). In addition, the TA is preserved. The retention of the potential humour in
the TT is further confirmed by that fact that the two recordings of canned laughter in
the ST are also present in the TT.
The pun in example (5.2) is taken from Episode 15 and it also appears in the same
form in other episodes of the series, which may also explain why it was preserved in
the TT. In this episode, Chandler is offered promotion at work but decides to resign.
He explains his reasons for doing so to his friends:
[5.2] Chandler: It doesn't Chandler: Non importa. Non Chandler: It doesn't matter. I
matter. I just don't want to be voglio essere uno di quelli che don't want to be one of those
one of those guys that's in his se ne sta seduto in ufficio fino a guys that sit in their offices until
office until twelve o'clock at mezzanotte a preoccuparsi del twelve o'clock at night worrying
night worrying about the PENE.☺☺ about the PENE (penis).
WENUS.☺☺ Rachel: ... Il PENE? Rachel: ... The PENE?
[Everyone looks at him, Chandler: Percentuale Chandler: Increasing
confused] Espansione Numeri Elaborati: Percentage Processed Numbers:
Rachel: ... the WENUS? PENE. È un termine che PENE. It’s a term we use.
Chandler: Weekly Estimated usiamo. Rachel: Oh, in that sense.
Net Usage Systems. A Rachel: Ah, in quel senso.
processing term.☺
Rachel: [sarcastic] Oh. That
WENUS.☺☺
In the ST, Chandler utters a turn that contains what may be described as a vertical
paronymous pun based on the made up acronym “WENUS” and the word “penis”.
The scriptwriters have used the Latin suffix “-us” in order to make it sound more
formal and scientific, but this makes no difference for pronunciation as the vowels in
the last syllables of “WENUS” and “penis” are both rendered as /ə/. As in the previous
example, this pun can be considered as interactional and dynamic because it is
developed over several turns. Moreover, it is unintentional at the character-character
level. In his first turn, Chandler gives vent to his disappointment and assumes his
friends know what “WENUS” means. However, everybody seems confused and after
Rachel’s interrogative turn, Chandler explains that the word “WENUS” is the
acronym for a processing term they use at his company. Since he is very serious and
133
detached, Chandler does not realise the potential ambiguity of the sentence he has just
uttered. This makes him the target of his own utterance. As I have mentioned earlier,
the main characters’ sexual relationships are a recurrent topic in the series, which also
creates a pattern of sexual innuendos throughout it. Hence, this pun fits in with the
general mood of the sitcom. In GTVH terms, the incongruity and potential humour of
Chandler’s unintentional pun can be described by means of the following SOs:
WENUS/penis, sex/no-sex, normal/abnormal. As I said above, at the author-audience
level Chandler can be perceived as the TA of his utterance. However, it should be
pointed out that all his friends also show a tendency to interpret things in sexual terms
even when not intended. Hence, they could be seen as indirect TA as well3.
The Italian translators retained the original pun based on an acronym and a taboo
word. However, they transformed the vertical paronymous pun into a horizontal
homonymous one. They made the reference to the male reproductive organ explicit by
replacing the original acronym with the word “pene” (“penis”), which is used as an
acronym in the TT. As a consequence of this, they also recreated an appropriate
definition of the acronym. Although it is not the literal equivalent of the original one,
the Italian definition fits the context of the exchange. Furthermore, it should be
noticed that in the ST Chandler utters the acronym “WENUS” only once while Rachel
utters it twice. In contrast, in the Italian TT Chandler repeats the word “pene” in his
second turn while Rachel does so only once. A possible reason for this may lie in the
fact that the Italian word “pene” does exist; therefore, in her punch line Rachel can
simply underline the fact that it may have two meanings (“ah, in quel senso” meaning
“oh, in that sense”). In general the pun in the TT seems to preserve the original
potential humour and functions, although the explicit use of the taboo word seems to
3
134
make it less elegant and creative. The SOs are PENE/penis, sex/no-sex and
normal/abnormal. Similarly, the TA are retained along with the other four KRs.
However, the LA changes from paronymy to homonymy4.
Finally, it seems interesting to notice that three recordings of canned laughter
support the ST (one after Chandler’s first turn and one after his second turn, and one
after Rachel’s turn). In contrast, the TT displays only one recording of canned
laughter after Chandler’s first turn, due to his use of a taboo word. Although the pause
after Chandler’s explanation of the acronym is brief and may go almost unnoticed,
there is a long pause after Rachel’s turn, which appears to be awkward and
unmotivated in the absence of canned laughter.
As suggested earlier, the last example in this subsection can be seen as an
interesting exception to Delabastita’s suggested typology. Although it could be said
that the example below contains two puns, I treat it as one single instance of vertical
homophony based on the similarity of sounds in connected speech. The extract below
is taken from the opening scene of Episode 4. Technically speaking, this particular
scene is called a ‘teaser’, that is a humorous part that opens an episode and that may or
may not be connected with the rest of the action (Attardo 1998: 241). The teaser in
Friends is usually followed by the opening theme and it can therefore be considered a
scene whose boundaries are well defined. Hence, I will apply Attardo’s (1998, 2001)
distinction between jab and punch lines (cf. Ch. 2, Subsection 2.4.3 above for a
definition) during the analysis. In this scene, while they sit in Central Perk, the group
discusses what they would do if they were omnipotent. Joey has just entered the
coffee shop and has got involved in the discussion:
4
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Homonymy.
135
[5.3] [Joey enters Central Perk] Tutti: Ciao Joey All: Hi Joey.
All: Hey Joey. Hi. Hey, buddy. Monica: Joey, che faresti se Monica: Hey, Joey, what would
Monica: Hey, Joey, what would fossi onnipotente? you do if you were omnipotent?
you do if you were omnipotent? Joey: Mi ucciderei, io penso. Joey: I’d kill myself, I think.
Joey: Probably kill myself! Monica: Perché scusa? Monica: Excuse me, why?
☺☺☺ Joey: Senza il Piccolo Joey, non Joey: Without Little Joey, I
Monica: Excuse me? avrei ragione di vivere. would have no reason to live.
Joey: Hey, if Little Joey's dead, Ross: Joey, ONnipotente. Ross: Joey, OMnipotent.
then I got no reason to live! Joey: Tu lo sei? Ross, scusami. Joey: You are? Ross, I’m sorry.
☺☺☺
Ross: Joey, uh- OMnipotent.
Joey: You are? Ross, I'm
sorry.☺☺☺
In the English ST, the conversational exchange exploits the phonetic similarity of
“omnipotent”, “impotent” and “I’m impotent” in connected speech, which can be said
to result in a vertical homophonous pun. Hence, I have included it in the homophony
group.
At first Joey misunderstands Monica’s statement mistaking the word “omnipotent”
for “impotent” (jab line). He then explains that his own existence depends on the fact
that he is sexually active. Realising Joey’s error, Ross enunciates the word
“omnipotent” more clearly in order to clarify the misunderstanding. However, Joey
makes the same mistake again, this time understanding that Ross is impotent. This
leads Joey unwittingly to utter the punch line at the end of his turn in which Joey says
he is sorry because he really thinks Ross is impotent.
As can be noticed, this is another example of interactional dynamic (or non-
prototypical) pun as it exploits the conversational structure of the text. Moreover, it is
perceived as unintentional at the character-character level, although the other
characters laugh at Joey’s mistaken interpretation. Hence, the potential humour of the
exchange and of the pun lies once again in the inferences that the audience is likely to
draw regarding Joey’s limited vocabulary, low cognitive and intellectual abilities, as
well as his obsession with sex, which are all part of his character and recurrent
patterns in the series. Not only does Joey not seem to grasp the difference between
136
“omnipotent” and “impotent”, but he also seems to prioritise his sexuality over other
issues and this prevents him from seeing beyond it. According to the GTVH metric,
Joey’s jab lines evoke the contextual omnipotent/impotent SO while his punch line
activates the SO I’m impotent/omnipotent. At a concrete level, both SOs can be
subsumed under the sex/no-sex SO and an abstract one under the normal/abnormal SO,
since Joey explains that his existence is meaningless without sex. At both the
character-character and author-audience level, Joey is the TA of the exchange and
pun5.
In the TT, the first opposition in the pun is successfully retained with “onnipotente”
and “impotente” (“omnipotent” and “impotent” respectively). In contrast, the pun
based on Ross’s utterance which plays on “omnipotent” and the unstated, or
mistakenly understood, “I’m impotent” cannot be transferred. The Italian pun should
be based on “onnipotente” and “sono impotente” (or even “son’impotente” so as to
drop an extra syllable). However, this cannot be considered as an acceptable
alternative for two reasons. Firstly, it requires the insertion of extra sounds that are
phonetically different from the original (/s/, /o/ and /n/), which pose lip
synchronisation problems. Secondly and most importantly, Ross does not mean to say
he is impotent.
The pun results from Joey’s mistaken interpretation and is not intentional on Ross’s
part. The translators opted to translate Ross’s “omnipotent” literally with “onnipotente”
thus removing the potential ambiguity with “I’m impotent” present in the English ST.
Joey’s punch line aptly conveys part of the original ambiguity, albeit in a less obvious
way. In other words, the Italian audience may still realise that Joey misunderstands
Ross’s utterance. However, the modification in the TT seems to create a significant
5
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Homophony.
137
difference between the ST and the TT. In my opinion the TT further foregrounds
Joey’s lack of adequate cognitive skills because he misunderstands Ross’s utterance
even when he clearly spells out the word “omnipotent”. According to the GTVH
metric, the original SOs and TA are preserved (but part of the LM is missing6).
Finally, it seems surprising to notice that none of the three recordings of canned
laughter in the ST were reproduced in the TT. This may be due to the fact that the
characters’ laughs support the exchange and the translators (and the dubbing team)
may have considered them sufficient to underline its potential humour.
5.5.2 PUN→NON-PUN
Despite some manipulation, to some extent the original puns analysed in the previous
section can still be found in the TT. On the other hand, transferring only one of the
two original meanings or elements of the ST is a solution translators seem to opt for
when they do not find an adequate solution that can preserve the pun in the TT. In my
data, this strategy was used twice and both examples are presented below.
In example (5.4), from Episode 11, Rachel has decided to write an erotic novel and in
this scene she asks for her friends’ opinion:
[5.4] Rachel: Okay. Now this is Rachel: Ecco qua. Ora, questo è Rachel: Here it is. Now, this is
just the first chapter, and I want solo il primo capitolo. Io voglio just the first chapter. I want your
your absolute honest opinion. la vostra assoluta, onesta absolute, honest opinion, ok?
Oh, oh, and on page two, he’s opinione, d’accordo? Oh, e a Oh, and on page two, he cannot
not “reaching for her heaving pagina due, lui non riesce a kiss her because of her
beasts”.☺☺ baciarla per via delle tette enormous tits.
Monica: What’s a “niffle”? enormi. Monica: What’s a “bearberry”?
Joey: You usually find them on Monica: Cos’è un Joey: You usually find them on
the “heaving beasts”.☺☺☺ “corbezzolo”? the “enormous tits”.
Rachel: Alright, alright, so I’m Joey: Di solito lo trovi sulle Rachel: Alright, I’m not a
not a great typist. “enormi tette”. perfect typist.
Rachel: E va bene, non sono
una dattilografa perfetta.
6
LM: Cratylism/-; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Homophony.
138
In the ST, Rachel’s first turn indirectly remarks on the fact that her text contains a
spelling mistake. The mistaken use of “beasts” instead of “breasts” may be seen as a
vertical paronymous pun that plays on the two words. Monica finds another spelling
mistake (“niffle” instead of “nipple”), which gives way to Joey’s turn, which refers
back to the pun in Rachel’s utterance. It should be noticed here that Monica’s turn
evokes a taboo word and therefore a potentially humorous opposition. However, it is
not followed by canned laughter and is consequently excluded from the present
analysis. At this stage, all Rachel’s friends are indirectly making fun of her and her
poor typing skills. She realises this and attempts to defend herself by acknowledging
the fact that she is not a very good typist in her second turn. According to the GTVH
metric, the semantic clash produced by Rachel’s vertical pun can be described in
terms of the following SOs: beasts/breasts, sex/no-sex and possible/impossible. At
both character-character and author-audience level, Rachel is the TA of the exchange7.
In the Italian TT, the implied reference to a spelling mistake in Rachel’s first turn is
removed. Interestingly, the translators use a more colloquial and vulgar term “tette”
(“tits”) rather than “seni” (“breasts”) and replaced “heaving” with “enormi”
(“enormous”). The idea that a man cannot kiss a woman because of the size of her
breasts adds an absurdist and potentially humorous element that can be seen as a form
of ‘parallel compensation’ (Harvey 1995: 82-84). All in all, the potential humour of
the exchange seems to be retained in terms of its taboo and sexual innuendos.
Interestingly, the concrete sex/no-sex SO is retained but the more abstract SO
becomes normal/abnormal8. In my opinion, to some extent the disparaging effect (TA)
has been diminished because Rachel’s first turn in the TT does not refer to her poor
typing skills. Both recordings of canned laughter in the ST were omitted in the TT.
7
8
LM: Exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Referential.
139
Example (5.5) below is taken from the ‘teaser’ of Episode 20. In this scene, the
group of friends is in Monica and Rachel’s flat. They are having lunch and their
conversation starts as follows:
[5.5]Chandler: I can’t believe Chandler: Non posso credere Chandler: I can’t believe you
you would actually say that. I che tu dica sul serio. Io are talking seriously. I’d rather
would much rather be preferirei essere Mr. Peanut che be Mr Peanut than
Mr Peanut than Mr Salty. Mr Salty.
Mr Salty.☺☺ Joey: Scherzi? Mr Salty è un Joey: Are you joking? Mr Salty
Joey: No way! Mr Salty is a marinaio, giusto? E quindi deve is a sailor, right? So he’s got to
sailor, all right, he’s got to be, essere lo snack più da duri che be the toughest snack there is.
like, the toughest snack there ci sia! Ross: I don’t know. I wouldn’t
is.☺☺ Ross: Non lo so. Comunque, io snob peanuts. They’re
Ross: I don’t know, you don’t non snobberei le noccioline. appetising.
wanna mess with corn nuts.☺ Sono appetitose.
They’re craaazy.☺☺
The ST contains potential humour based on culture-specific allusions (Mr Peanut
and Mr Salty), which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. It will suffice to point
out that Ross’s punch line is based on a pun that indirectly refers to Mr Peanut. Indeed,
Ross takes advantage of the main topic of the conversation in order to create an
intentional horizontal synonymous pun at the character-character level. His pun plays
with the word ‘crazy’ and idiomatic meaning of ‘nut’ (‘crazy’) and seems to poke fun
at both Mr Peanut and Joey, who likes Mr Peanut. As argued earlier, Delabastita’s
typology deals with punning in terms of formal similarity, while the examples (5.5)
above show a creative exploitation of language based on semantic similarity (cf. also
example (5.8) below). Although limited in number, it seems important to report the
presence of synonymous puns in my data and advocate future research into this
phenomenon. In GTVH terms, this pun can evoke the following SOs: nuts/crazy,
human/non-human and possible/impossible, since peanuts cannot become crazy. The
TAs of Ross’s pun seem to be Mr Peanut and Joey9.
9
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Synonymy.
140
In the TT, Ross’s synonymous pun was replaced by a reference to Mr Peanut and
what it stands for. However, without the pun, Mr. Peanut and Joey are not the TA of
Ross’s disparaging humour. Ross’s turn in the TT seems to imply that he appreciates
Mr Peanut and peanuts in general. An attempt at salvaging the pun could be: “io farei
attenzione alle arachidi. Snocciolano rimproveri” (“I would be careful with peanuts.
They are always pouring out reproaches”). This wordplay is based on the fact that
peanut can be translated into Italian both as ‘arachide’ and ‘nocciolina’, and that
‘nocciolina’ is paronymous with the verb ‘snocciolare’, which idiomatically means ‘to
utter things in a sequence’. In my opinion this option could have retained Ross’s
disparaging comment on Mr. Peanut and, at the same time, conveyed similar
characterising inferences about Ross who utters a potentially humorous punch line.
The two recordings of canned laughter after Ross’s turn were omitted in the TT.
5.5.3 PUN→RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE
Replacing a pun with a related rhetorical device has been seldom applied in my data
(two instances out of ten). One instance is discussed in this subsection. In example
(5.6), taken from Episode 15, Chandler enters Rachel and Monica’s flat after a long
meeting with a career adviser. He is visibly tired and Monica tries to cheer him up:
[5.6] Monica: [brings a plate of Monica: Ecco qui. Per tirarti un Monica: Here you go, to cheer
tiny appetizers over] Here you po' su. you up a bit.
go, maybe this'll cheer you up. Chandler: Ah, sai, ho mangiato Chandler: Ah, you know, I had
Chandler: Ooh, you know, I un chicco d'uva cinque ore fa. a grape about five hours ago. I
had a grape about five hours Non vorrei esagerare con shouldn’t eat the whole of this...
ago, so I'd better split this with questo... Monica: It’s supposed to be that
you.☺☺ Monica: È fatto apposta così small: it’s a pre-appetizer. In
Monica: It's supposed to be that piccolo: è un pre-antipasto, short, it’s what they call
small. It's a pre-appetizer. The insomma quello che si chiama “canapé”
French call it an amouz-bouche. “stuzzichino”. Chandler: Ah, well, it’s more a
Chandler: [tastes it] Well.... it Chandler: Ah, beh, è più una pill.
is amouz-ing. ☺☺☺ pillola.☺☺
141
In the ST, Chandler’s punch line contains a horizontal intentional pun at the
character-character level that hinges on the paronymous similarity between the French
word “amouz” and the first part of the English word “amazing”. The latter is spelt
incorrectly in the text in order to underline Chandler’s attempt to create a sound
resemblance with the former French one, and possibly to make fun of Monica’s
obsession with sophisticated (French) cuisine. The GTVH metric can be used to
describe the potential humour of this pun. The contextual SO can be expressed as
amouz-bouche/amazing. The concrete SO can be food/no-food. Interestingly, this SO
does not fall into the set of five main concrete SOs I concentrate on. Hence, it will be
included into the general ‘Other’ group during my quantitative analysis in Chapter 8.
At an abstract level, this pun seems to activate a normal/abnormal SO because it
emphasises the unusually small size of the appetizer. Finally, Monica seems to be the
TA at both character-character and author-audience level10.
In the TT, the Italian translators cancelled the pun by omitting the French word and
substituting it with the Italian equivalent “stuzzichino” (“canapé”). In order to
compensate for the loss of the pun (‘contiguous compensation’, cf. Harvey: 1995 65-
86), they introduced a sarcastic metaphor in Chandler’s remark, which emphasises the
size of the appetizer (“è più una pillola” (“It’s more a pill”)). By doing so, Monica’s
appetiser is described as smaller than normal canapés. In GTVH terms it is possible to
say that the metaphor in the TT creates a pillola/stuzzichino SO, which retains the
original concrete and abstract SOs (food/no-food and normal/abnormal). Monica is
still the original TA at both levels11. The translators’ solution is certainly creative.
Nonetheless, in my opinion the omission of the original pun seems to minimise the
potential humour of Chandler’s turn and of the exchange as a whole. Finally, in the
10
11
LM: Mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Metaphorical expression.
142
TT the recording of canned laughter supporting Chandler’s pun in his second turn was
retained, although it is shorter in length.
5.5.4 PUN→ZERO PUN
As we have seen so far, finding a possible equivalent for the original pun in the TT
requires creativity. The extent of linguistic common ground between source and target
language is of course crucial (cf. Delabastita 1996: 135). When this is not sufficient,
or constraining factors (e.g. time pressures, translator’s expertise) do not allow for
other alternatives, translators can resort to omitting the pun altogether, as the example
discussed below demonstrates. Unlike the PUN→NON-PUN technique, this strategy
involves a complete deletion of all the original punning elements. As I have shown in
example (5.4) above, the reference to “breast” was retained in the TT, but without
ambiguity. In contrast, the only instance of PUN→ZERO PUN I have found in my
data shows a total omission of any element of the original pun. It is reproduced and
discussed below.
Example (5.7), from Episode 16, involves once again a reference to a taboo body
part. Chandler and his boss discuss work matters in Chandler’s office:
[5.7] Chandler: Mr. D., how’s Chandler: Signor Douglas, Chandler: Mr. Douglas, how’s
it going, sir? come va? it going, sir?
Mr. Douglas: Ohh, it’s been Mr. Douglas: Potrebbe andare Mr. Douglas: It’d be better. The
better. The Annual Net Usage meglio. Sono arrivate le Annual Net Usage Statistics are
Statistics are in. statistiche annuali dell'uso della in.
Chandler: And? rete. Chandler: And then?
Mr. Douglas: It’s pretty ugly. Chandler: E allora? Mr. Douglas: They are not
We haven’t seen an ANUS this Mr. Douglas: Non vanno bene. good. We haven’t been in a
bad since the Seventies. ☺☺ Non eravamo a questi livelli di crisis of this level since the
crisi dagli anni Settanta. Seventies.
The ST contains a potential horizontal pun due to the homonymy between the
acronym “ANUS” (Annual Net Usage Statistics) and the taboo body part “anus”. As
143
in example (5.2), the pun (5.7) exploits an acronym that is used in Chandler’s
workplace. For this reason, Chandler does not perceive the ambiguity as such.
Consequently, he does not react to it and the conversation with his boss goes on. In
contrast with (5.2) where Chandler first utters the “WENUS” acronym and then gives
its definition, in (5.7) the reverse happens. Mr. Douglas first utters the definition of
“Annual Net Statistics Usage” and in his second turn he utters the acronym “ANUS”.
Both (5.2) and (5.7) bear potential humour because they refer to body parts, which
contribute to the recurrent pattern of taboo innuendos in the series. However, the
former evokes a sex/no-sex SO while (5.7) is primarily connected to the taboo body
part/non-taboo body part. In my opinion example (5.7) seems to be more effective
because it prolongs the tension of the surprise effect it produces upon its receivers.
Conversely, the humorous tension in (5.2) is presented first and released by
Chandler’s second turn. Mr Douglas’s acronym is likely to go unnoticed at first
because of the context within which it is embedded and because of the fact that it is
spoken. However, Mr Douglas’s turn makes the unexpected relation between the
words he has uttered previously more obvious. The intentionality of the pun at the
author-audience level is suggested by the presence of “seen” and “this bad” in Mr
Douglas’s utterance, which could also apply, more literally, to the implied referent, i.e.
the taboo body parts. Interestingly, I find it hard to establish the TA of this pun. It
could be Chandler and Mr Douglas because they do not notice the ambiguity. It could
also be the firm Chandler and Mr Douglas work for because they seem prone to use
such ambiguous and awkward acronyms. In addition, the audience that perceives these
acronyms connected to taboo topics can be said to be a potential TA12.
12
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Homonymy.
144
In the TT, the definition of the acronym was literally translated into Italian but the
taboo word was omitted altogether. Hence, the humorous potential of the exchange
was entirely lost. In my opinion, a more adequate alternative could be found by
translating the taboo word into its Italian equivalent, “ano” (“anus”). Subsequently,
the translators could try to find a creative alternative for the acronym’s definition that
also fits its context. For example, the translators could opt for something like “Analisi
Nazionali di Organizzazione” (“National Analyses of the Organization”).
Unfortunately, this was not done, possibly due to time pressure or other pragmatic
considerations, such as the fact that this acronym appears only once in my data. In
contrast, the “WENUS” acronym reported in (5.2) is repeated elsewhere in the series,
which may be the reason why the translator decided to preserve it. It goes without
saying that, since the pun in (5.7) was omitted in the TT, the recording of canned
laughter supporting it was erased from the soundtrack as well.
5.5.5 COMPENSATION
As some scholars in TS suggest (Delabastita 1996: 134, Harvey 1995 and Chiaro 2004:
42), translators may choose to insert a pun in the TT for compensatory purposes. I
have found three instances of added puns in the TT, but only one is supported by
canned laughter. As I mentioned earlier, the instances of compensation in my data are
not included in my main analysis. However, I have decided to discuss an example here
as this is a relevant phenomenon for translation. The instance below can be described
as ‘generalised compensation’ because no puns were omitted in the text that precedes
or follows this added pun (Harvey 1995: 84).
In example (5.8), from Episode 7, Chandler is trapped in the Automatic Teller
Machine (ATM) vestibule with a young woman. He soon realises that the woman is a
145
famous top-model, Jill Goodacre, and starts fantasising about this fortunate encounter.
The text in italics represents his thoughts in voice-over:
[5.8] Jill: Would you like some Jill: Vuoi una gomma? Jill: Do you want a chewing
gum? Chandler: È senza zucchero? gum?
Chandler: Um, is it Jill: Credo di no. Chandler: Um, is it sugarless?
sugarless?☺ Chandler: Allora no, grazie. Jill: Sorry, it’s not.
Jill: [checks] Sorry, it’s not. Ma che diavolo ti succede? Chandler: Oh, then no thanks.
Chandler: Oh, then no thanks. Prendere nota: se Jill Goodacre What the hell is happening to
What the hell was that? ti offre una gomma tu l'accetti. you? Take a note: If Jill
☺☺Mental note: If Jill Anche se ti offrisse un copertone Goodacre offers you gum, you
Goodacre offers you gum, you da masticare, tu devi take it. If she offers you a tyre to
take it. If she offers you mangled prenderlo!☺☺☺ chew, you must take it.
animal carcass, you take
it.☺☺☺
The ST does not contain a pun but the humorous potential of Chandler’s punch line
seems based upon a hyperbole that conveys a paradoxical scenario in which Jill offers
Chandler “mangled animal carcass”. In GTVH terms, the potential humour of this pun
can be described according to the following SOs: gum/carcass, food/no-food and
normal/abnormal. Chandler is the TA of his own utterance13.
In the TT, the hyperbole becomes a horizontal synonymous pun. The translators
exploited two meanings of the Italian word “gomma”, “gum” and “tyre” respectively.
The first sentence of Chandler’s mental note was translated literally as “se Jill
Goodacre ti offre una gomma tu l’accetti” (“If Jill Goodacre offers you gum, you take
it”). Instead, “mangled animal carcass” was substituted with “copertone da masticare”
(“a tyre to chew”), which is parallel to “gomma da masticare” (“chewing gum”). The
TT thus retains the paradox of being offered something inedible and unpleasant and, at
the same time, displays a potentially humorous pun. However, the main SOs become
gum/tyre, food/no-food and possible/impossible since tyres are non edible. The TA is
13
LM: Exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Hyperbole.
146
still Chandler14. More importantly, Chandler’s characterising features (witty, ironic,
etc.) are preserved by the hyperbole and enhanced by the pun.
Interestingly, this example does not entirely fit within Delabastita’s suggested
translation strategy. The hyperbole could be seen as a related rhetorical device which
has been substituted by a pun (RELATED RETORICAL DEVICE → PUN) rather
than a simple insertion of a pun in the TT where there is none in the ST. In the light of
this, future research is certainly needed to refine the way puns are categorised.
In conclusion, the English ST presents three recordings of canned laughter, one
after Chandler asks if the gum is sugar free, one after he realises the inappropriateness
of his question at the beginning of his mental note, and one at the end of it. Not
surprisingly, in the TT only the recording of canned laughter at the end of Chandler’s
turn was reproduced.
5.5.6 Preliminary Conclusions
Some preliminary conclusions on the data analysis above are in order at this stage. As
I hope I have demonstrated, to some extent punning in my data seems to differ from
the examples Delabastita describes in his studies. His categorisation seems to be based
on self-standing puns that can more or less be framed as prototypical (and intentional)
exploitations of linguistic similarities and ambiguities. Therefore, they can be
described as language-intrinsic static puns. In contrast, many of the instances of
humorous puns discussed above can be seen as complex and non-prototypical. Hence,
I have suggested that they can be defined as interactional dynamic puns. They aim to
create potential humour by exploiting the conversational structure of the exchanges in
the series. Some puns can be regarded as intentional on the part of the character who
14
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Synonymy.
147
produces the ambiguous expression. However, punning is also often created when a
character exploits another character’s utterance by emphasising, more or less exactly,
the presence of a further meaning in addition to the one intended by the original
character.
In other words, it is possible to distinguish three possibilities in the way puns are
perceived within the fictional world and by the audience. First, the pun is intentional
and it is perceived as such by the other characters and the audience. Second, the pun is
unintentional and it is only perceived by the other characters and the audience. Third,
the pun is unintentional and it is only perceived by the audience. More interestingly,
unintended puns (for example in (5.1) and (5.6) above) and intentional ones (as in 5.4))
frequently seem to be exploited in order to reinforce the audience’s perception of the
main characters. For example, many unintended puns within the fictional world of the
series are uttered by Joey who is generally portrayed as simple-minded. In contrast,
intentional puns are uttered by witty characters such as Chandler or Ross. However,
Chandler also utters unintentional puns when he talks very seriously about his work
and does not notice the potential ambiguity in his turn (example (5.2) above). The
analysis above shows that punning is used to develop the themes of the series, often
underlying sexual innuendos (cf. examples (5.2) and (5.3)). This seems to confirm my
earlier claim that punning is a multifunctional device used in Friends to convey
humour and characterisation cues, and to enhance its recurrent themes.
It is not surprising that the Italian translators strived to retain the original puns as
much as possible. Table 5.4 below shows a comparison between the puns in the ST
and those retained in the TT (right column). As mentioned earlier, this analysis does
not account for the instances of compensation in the TT. They are considered at the
end of this chapter as relevant to TS:
148
Homonymy Homophony Homography Paronymy Synonymy Total

ST TT ST TT ST TT ST TT ST TT ST TT
V
E 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1
R
H
O 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 7 4
R
Tot 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 10 5
Table 5.4: Comparison of puns in the ST and the TT
As can be seen, the preferred punning strategies in both the ST and TT are related
to horizontal paronymy. Interestingly, the original synonymous and homophonous
puns were omitted in the TT.
These preliminary conclusions intend to offer a brief overview of the punning
strategies in both datasets. Since the translation of language-specific humour based on
wordplay in general is the main focus of this work, I will devote the final section of
this chapter to its detailed discussion (cf. Section 5.11 on findings and conclusions). I
will now I turn to the investigation of puns based of the exploitation of fixed
expressions and idioms.
5.6 Puns Based on Fixed Expressions and Idioms (FEIs)
As we have seen above, punning is a complex phenomenon. Even if scholars seem to
agree on what punning itself is, its categorisation is not clear-cut. The matter is
complicated further when puns are based on longer textual units, rather than on one or
two words (Attardo 1994: 132). I have already pointed out Delabastita’s cursory
treatment of this type of pun. Hence, the following discussion will be mainly based on
Moon (1998) and Veisbergs (1997). The former is a corpus-based study on Fixed
Expressions and Idioms (henceforth, FEIs) in English and their variation. The latter
offers a framework of eight translation strategies that aim to help translators deal with
idiom-based wordplay. In combining these two studies for the analysis of my data, I
149
named the phenomenon I discuss here potentially humorous ‘FEI-based puns’. I
choose this term because I aim to investigate both puns based on fixed expression and
puns that exploit idioms. As with the puns analysed above, I have examined only
those FEI-based puns that are followed by canned laughter in the ST. Like puns based
on one or two words, puns based on FEIs function as a device of characterisation and
to enhance the themes in Friends.
5.6.1 Categorisation of FEIs
Moon’s (1998) book-length study is a corpus-based investigation on the usage of fixed
expressions and idioms in everyday English. Her corpus includes several issues of The
Guardian, the Oxford Hector Pilot Corpus, and the Bank of English Corpus created by
COBUILD at the University of Birmingham.
I do not have the space to discuss this work at length here but I will summarise
some of its relevant points for my own investigation. Moon firstly points out that her
investigation is restricted to fixed expression and idioms and excludes compound
nouns, foreign phrases etc. (ibid.2). More importantly, she demonstrates that three
general assumptions about FEIs are questionable and therefore unsatisfactory. Firstly,
FEIs are usually considered as well established linguistic units that are universally
used by speakers of a language (Moon names this phenomenon ‘institutionalization’).
However, she points out that corpus studies demonstrate that the use of some FEIs
may be restricted to certain domains of discourse or communities. In addition, their
use may change over time. Secondly, FEIs are often seen as having a fixed
lexicogrammatical form, also called ‘canonical form’. Moon’s corpus analysis partly
proves this (i.e. ‘shoot the breeze’ never changes its form). However, it also shows
that many FEIs exhibit some degree of variation in their formal characteristics (cf.
150
Subsection 5.6.2 below). Finally, FEIs are usually considered to be non-compositional.
In other words, it is claimed that the expression of the meaning of a FEI does not
depend on the meaning of the single words composing it but on the unit as a whole.
Interestingly though, Moon finds exceptions to this. For example, ‘spill the beans’ can
be seen as retaining some compositionality because we can understand and appreciate
the image that it conveys (ibid.7-9). In other words, “the beans” clearly refers to some
piece of information and “spills” to the process of divulging it. Moon therefore
demonstrates that these three common beliefs regarding FEIs are not always true in
the everyday use of a language and in English in particular.
With these premises in mind, Moon discusses various approaches to the study of
FEIs (semiotic, lexicalist, functional, etc.). However, she finds that none of them
offers a satisfactory categorisation of the types of FEIs in her data. Hence, she devises
her own three-fold typology. In Moon’s view, this taxonomy can establish why a FEI
can be regarded as a single unit and in particular as a “string that is problematic and
anomalous on grounds of lexicogrammar, pragmatics, or semantics” (ibid.19). Moon’s
three categories of FEIs are:
 Anomalous collocations (e.g. ‘by and large’);
 Formulae (including sayings, proverbs and similes such as ‘like a lamb to
the slaughter’);
 More or less transparent metaphors (e.g. ‘behind someone’s back’) (ibid.19-
23).
More importantly, Moon highlights the fact that these categories tend to overlap. A
quarter of the examples in her corpus can in fact fall into two categories. Therefore,
she proposes another group called ‘dual classifications’ that can account for this
phenomenon. This approach is desirable when peculiar types of ill-formed proverbs or
151
metaphors are encountered (e.g. ‘have your cake and eat it’) (ibid.23- 24). Moon’s
approach helps to define FEIs into meaningful types. More importantly, according to
her findings, metaphoric FEIs are mostly modified for humorous purposes (ibid.170).
The investigation of my data seems to give evidence of this. However, I will discuss
Moon’s research on variation of FEIs in everyday language, which demonstrates that
this phenomenon is far more common than is usually believed.
5.6.2 FEIs and Variation
As mentioned earlier, it seems that people normally think of idioms and fixed
expression as linguistic items that do not vary in form. Baker (1992: 63-78) seems to
share this assumption when she writes that fixed expressions and idioms are:
[F]rozen patterns of language which allow little or no variation in form

and, in the case of idioms, often carry meanings which cannot be deduced
from their individual components. (…) [An idiom] allows no variation in
form under normal circumstances. (ibid.63)
To do Baker justice, she acknowledges the fact that variation is possible, but she
maintains that it is limited to specific purposes and contexts (i.e. to make jokes) (ibid.).
Moon (1998) partly confirms that fixedness is indeed a key feature of FEIs. However,
her statistical analysis of her corpus demonstrates that variation is also a significant
feature of all three types of FEIs (anomalous collocations, formulae and metaphors).
Hence, Moon devotes a chapter of her book to this phenomenon.
Moon investigates variation starting at the lexical level (e.g. verb variation
(‘set/start the ball rolling’), noun variation (‘a piece/slice of the action’), etc.). She
then moves on to analyse variation at the systemic level, which involve both syntax
and lexis (e.g. ‘get the cold shoulder/give someone the cold shoulder’). This leads her
152
to suggest a possible revision of the concept of ‘canonical form’ regarding FEIs.
Indeed, Moon shows that FEIs have a large range of institutionalised variations in
English, which appear in her data in similar numbers of instances. Therefore, it seems
impossible or at least very difficult to establish which ‘canonical form’ variation
should be tested. For instance, she argues that in the case of ‘without an axe to grind’,
‘have an axe to grind’, ‘have no axe to grind’, etc. it is difficult to establish which of
these options is to be considered as the ‘canonical form’. A possible approach would
be to consider ‘an axe to grind’ as the frozen nucleus of the FEI. However, Moon does
not consider this as a meaningful unit. A more satisfactory solution would be to
consider the examples above as a cluster of FEIs which share a common lexis
(ibid.122-123).
Along with this type of FEI clusters, Moon also finds clusters having a common
lexicogrammatical ‘frame’ (Fillmore et al. (1988), quoted in Moon 2003:146). In this
case, the lexis changes while the underlying grammatical frame remains, and allows
the interpretation of novel realisations. The most notable example is given by similes,
whose frame structure is (as) + adjective + as + nominal form.
In Moon’s view, the variation of FEIs should be approached from a conceptual
point of view. More precisely, FEI clusters should be seen as sharing a common
conceptual core that she names idiom schema. This can help processing and
interpreting the variation of FEIs. In her words:
153
[FEIs clusters] have some reference in common, a metaphor in common,

and cognate lexis, but without (necessarily) any very fixed structure or
fixed lexis. (…) Idiom schemas can be used to explain a number of things:
(extreme) variability, evaluative content, apparent compositionality, and
the ease with which allusions to FEIs or exploitations are decoded (…)
They are characterized by an underlying conceit and an overlying
preferred lexical realization (…). The exact form of words may vary or be
exploited, but it is still tied to the underlying conceit which provides the
driving or motivating force in the FEI (ibid.163; my emphasis).
The “preferred lexical realization” can be understood as one of the canonical forms
of the FEI cluster to which we can refer in order to process variation. Moon therefore
concludes that the interpretation of a novel FEI depends on two main factors. On the
one hand, the receiver has to be able to link the FEI variation to the schema
underlying the cluster of canonical forms. On the other hand, the manipulated FEI has
to make itself recognisable as belonging to a given set (ibid.168).
Clearly, the creative exploitation of FEIs can easily result in puns and wordplay in
general. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of language play receive only a passing
treatment in Moon’s study (her cognitive approach regarding the relationship of
variation and humour will be discussed in the next subsection). In contrast Veisbergs’s
(1997) work focuses in detail on the creation of idiom-based wordplays and the
problems they create in translation. In this section, I will briefly summarise and
comment on Veisbergs’s work, and I will consider the similarities between it and
Moon’s study.
Veisbergs analyses the variation (or ‘transformation’ in his terminology; I will use
both terms interchangeably) of idioms that results in punning. Like Moon, he
distinguishes between variation in terms of ‘structural’ changes that affect both the
structure and the meaning of the idiom, and ‘semantic’ changes that do not affect the
idiom’s structure but only its meaning (ibid.157-158).
154
Unlike Moon, who concentrates on what type of lexical item has been added,
omitted etc., Veisbergs’s investigation of the structural variation of idioms focuses on
the process it involves (addition, insertion, ellipsis or substitution). As can be seen,
both scholars tackle variation from a different perspective but both approaches can be
considered as useful.
Far more interesting is Veisbergs’s discussion of the semantic transformation of
idioms. He explains that in this case, the structure of the idiom does not change but the
context triggers semantic changes (e.g. “They’re so badly off these days that they can
only pay compliments”). The contextual manipulation that contains an obvious
element of wordplay is based on the double reading of the idiom and is called ‘dual
actualization’. It creates an opposition between the idiomatic and literal
(compositional) meaning of the idiom (ibid.158). According to Veisbergs, there are
four subtypes of dual actualization that can produce a pun:
 There is a type of dual actualisation that is based on the idiom’s lexical or
compositional reading, as in the example above;
 There is a type of dual actualisation that hinges upon the confrontation of
the idiomatic reading and the reformulation of the FEI. For example: ‘“I’m
as certain of it as if his name were written all over his face!” “It might have
been written a hundred times, easily, on that enormous face”’ (Carroll 1966:
128, quoted in ibid.159);
 There is a type of dual actualization where the pun plays on the literal
meaning of one or more lexical components. For example: ‘Alice...
explained as well as she could that she had lost her way. “I don't know what
you mean by your way”, said the Queen: “all the ways here belong to me -
but why did you come here at all?”’ (Carroll 1966:59, quoted in ibid.160);
155
 There is dual actualization based on vertical idiom-based punning. For
example: ‘“They gave it to me - for an unbirthday present.” “I beg your
pardon?” Alice said with a puzzled air. “I’m not offended” said Humpty
Dumpty”’ (Caroll 1966:133, quoted in ibid.). In this example, Alice uses an
idiomatic expression to ask Humpty Dumpty to repeat what he said before.
However, Humpty Dumpty understands that she is asking for forgiveness
and answers accordingly. The play is not on the components of the idiom as
such but on its literal reading.
Veisbergs’s discussion confirms the complexity of this linguistic phenomenon, and
further investigation may reveal many more subtypes. As I will demonstrate in my
data analysis, all the instances of manipulation of FEIs in it are based on dual
actualization because their understanding is always context-dependent. However,
structural variation also plays a fundamental role in the creative exploitation of the
FEIs. Hence, the analysis will take into account their structural as well as their
semantic manipulation in relation to the context within which they are embedded.
All in all, Moon’s corpus-based investigation of the variation of FEIs shows that
some types of variations are entrenched in English and how new creative FEIs can be
produced. Veisbergs’s concept of dual actualization further confirms this. In the next
subsection, I will discuss the relationship between the FEI-based puns and humour.
5.6.3 Variation of FEIs and Humour
In the previous subsections I considered how FEI can be categorised and how
variation can lead to punning. Here, I discuss the humorous function that FEI-based
puns can have in a text.
156
Moon (1998: 170) uses the term ‘exploitation’ for the stylistic variation of FEIs for
humorous purposes. In particular, she points out that exploitation happens mainly with
metaphorical FEIs because their images can be easily transformed. Moreover, she
adds: “Exploitation of metaphorical FEIs is evidence of their compositionality: puns
work by reliteralizing the FEI” (ibid.). This is confirmed by the data analysis I carry
out below and it is also the reason why I mainly focus on metaphorical FEIs rather
than Moons’ other categories (anomalous collocations and formulae).
Veisbergs (1997) seems to reach similar conclusions when he maintains that:
[W]ordplay on such fossilised idioms produces a strong stylistic effect by

creating a contrast with the ‘normal’ reading of the idiom and its
unchanged form and so defeating the reader’s or the listener’s expectation
(ibid.157).
Put more simply, the exploitation of a FEI (and the image it conveys) in the new
context leads to a confrontation of its preferred or default image/interpretation with a
new, unexpected one. As can be seen, Moon’s and Veisbergs’s explanations do not
differ substantially from Delabastita’s general definition of wordplay that I have
reported in Section 5.2 above. Hence, FEI-based puns can be seen as a subtype of
wordplay. Moreover, Moon’s idea of confrontation and Veisbergs’s suggestion of an
opposition between the literal and idiomatic meaning that dual actualization creates
can be equated with Raskin and Attardo’s concept of script opposition (cf. Section 2.4,
Ch.2 in this thesis). Like punning, FEI-based puns can be said to carry potential
humour when they involve an opposition of meanings and/or scripts. In Friends they
also seem to fulfil a characterisation and theme-enhancing function, as well as
eliciting an amused response in the audience.
157
For the time being, it seems important to remark that the structural complexity of
FEI-based puns poses several interpretation problems, which can increase when the
receiver is not a native speaker and a translation process is involved. In general, the
variation of the FEIs in a given context requires the relevant cultural and linguistic
background knowledge on the receiver’s part, which becomes pivotal in transferring it
across languages and cultures. Hence, I will now consider what scholars in TS suggest
for dealing with this phenomenon.
5.7 Translation of FEI-Based Puns
I explained earlier that Baker (1992: 72-78) sees idioms as frozen linguistic
expressions that seldom change in form. Not surprisingly then, her insight into the
problems related to the translation of idioms and translation strategies amounts to
general strategies that could be applicable to other problems. For example, she
suggests using the equivalent idiom in the TL, omitting the original in the TT if
necessary, or opting for compensation.
Leppihalme’s (1996) study instead focuses on ‘allusive wordplays’ which include
modified metaphors and idioms, catchphrases, proverbs, and so on. She carried out an
experiment in which Finnish students and translators were asked to detect allusive
wordplay in the English texts provided and translate them into their mother tongue.
On the basis of her informants’ feedback Leppihalme demonstrates the high level of
cultural knowledge required when dealing with allusive wordplay. Moreover, she
shows that students and professional translators alike failed to transfer the
communicative significance of an allusive wordplay appropriately, or its
(communicative) function within the text. This also strongly affected the quality and
internal coherence of the TT. She therefore suggests that transferring the function of
158
an allusive wordplay rather than its form may be a more desirable translation approach
(ibid.203-215). However, it could be argued that in this way the stylistic (and
humorous) effect of the original risks being partially or completely lost. Bearing these
consideration in mind, in the subsection below I review Veisbergs’s (1997) set of
translation strategies for FEI-based puns.
5.7.1 Translation Strategies for FEI-Based Puns
Veisbergs (1997: 164-171) looks into the problem of translating idiom-based puns in
depth. He examines a corpus of texts by Oscar Wilde and Lewis Carroll translated into
Latvian, German and Russian and develops a set of eight translation strategies, which
are summarised in Table 5.5 below:
Strategy Explanation
1. Equivalent idiom transformation The idiom-based pun is transferred into the TL. The play on
the same linguistic items and idiomatic meaning is retained.
2. Loan translation The original idiom-based pun is translated literally into the
TL.
3. Extension The idiom-based pun is transferred into the TL and extra
information is added to the TT. By doing so, the idiom-based
pun is more explicit or recognisable to its receivers.
4. Analogue idiom transformation The original idiom-based pun is recreated by means of a TL
idiom that is similar in form and equivalent in meaning.
5. Substitution The original idiom-based pun is recreated by means of a TL
idiom that is different in form and equivalent in meaning.
6. Compensation An idiom-based pun is added to the TT where there was none
in the ST.
7. Omission a) The passage containing the idiom-based pun is completely
omitted; or
b) The original pun is omitted but the idiomatic meaning of
the passage is preserved.
8. Metalingual comment Footnotes, endnotes or parentheses are added to explain the
original idiom-based pun.
Table 5.5: Summary of Veisbergs’s (1996: 164-171) suggested translation strategies
As with Delabastita’s typology, these categories are not mutually exclusive and
some further suggestions can be made (see below). They can also be interpreted
159
according to Venuti’s (1992, 1995, 1998) distinction between foreignisation and
domestication (cf. Section 1.2 for a definition). For example, the total equivalence
described in (1) can be seen as the perfect compromise between these two contrasting
approaches. It is faithful to the ST but it also allows the target-receiver’s impaired
understanding of the FIE-based pun. However, as Veisbergs acknowledges, the
chances that this can happen are limited. This strategy is likely to be applied if the
source and target languages are historically (culturally, linguistically) related or if the
idiom belongs to a stock of internationally used phrases (i.e. Wilde’s pun based on
‘play with fire’ translated into German, Latvian and Russian, ibid.164).
Alternatively, the translator can choose the more source-oriented strategy
suggested in (2), which allows the receivers of the TT to appreciate the image
conveyed by the original FEI-based pun. However, this approach may cause a
disruption in the natural flow of the target language or it may make the form of the
source language idiom too visible in the TT. For example, Wilde’s pun based on the
idiom to call a spade a spade was translated literally into German, Latvian and
Russian in Veisbergs’s corpus (ibid.165).
Strategy (3) can be seen as a target-oriented approach. According to Veisbergs, it
may be used when the target language can only partly retain the variation in form and
meaning of the original idiom, so that a more explicit rendering of the pun is required.
For instance, the Latvian translator preserved the pun and added extra information in
square brackets to the following excerpt from Alice in Wonderland: “In most
gardens … they make the [flower] beds too soft [so soft as the sleeping beds] – so that
the flowers are always asleep” (Carroll 1966:57, quoted in ibid.166).
Strategy (4) may be considered again as a compromise between foreignisation and
localisation because it suggests finding an equivalent to the ST in form and meaning.
160
According to Veisbergs, it is used to play on the linguistic components of the
analogue idiom in the TT. In Carroll’s (1966: 120) Alice in Wonderland for example,
the sentence: “You will be catching a crab directly”, meaning ‘get something wrong’
is also used to evoke a rower’s defective stroke. Alice interprets it literally and says:
“A dear little crab!”. In Latvian this has been translated as catching a hare and Alice’s
turn as “A small little hare!”. The translation retains the dual actualization of the
literal and idiomatic meanings but it does not evoke a rower’s defective stroke (ibid.).
In contrast, strategy (5) is more target-oriented. It results in a complete loss of the
image conveyed by the original idiom. This happens because the source and target
idioms differ in form but have equivalent meanings. In this case the top priority is to
retain the fluency and wit of the original idiom-based pun rather than its linguistic
components. For example, Veisbergs quotes Oscar Wilde’s passage:
“I should have fallen madly in love with you… and thrown my bonnet right
over the mills for your sake (…) As it was, our bonnets were so
unbecoming and the mills so occupied in trying to raise the wind, that I never had
even flirtation”.
This has been translated into Latvian as:
“(…)I would lose my head because of you and there could be nowhere to
put my head on, and what else is the head needed for…”.
It is clear that the difference between techniques (4) and (5) here is not clear-cut. In
my opinion, there is a very fuzzy line that separates them since it could be argued that
161
even if the idiom is formally and idiomatically similar to the one in the ST, the
process of ‘substitution’ still takes place.
Strategy (6) is self-explanatory and (7) may be an acceptable alternative when the
pun plays a minor role in the development of the text. Omission (a) and (b) clearly
resemble Delabastita’s PUN→ZERO and PUN→NON-PUN strategies discussed
above. However, it should be noticed that complete omission (7a) as intended by
Veirsbegs is infrequent in audiovisual translation, although I did find an example in
my data. Visual constraints such as lip synchronization usually force translators to
match visual and verbal text. In the data analysis that follows, I will interpret strategy
(7a) both as complete omission of the text and the cancellation of the pun and the
idiom alike. A sentence that fits the context of the exchange replaces the FEI-based
pun but the two are not related. Option (7b) is instead used to retain the idiomaticity
rather than the pun in the text (also defined as ‘neutralisation’ in TS (Ramière
2006:156); cf. Section 5.10 below and Subsection 6.5.3 in Ch. 6 in this thesis). In
other words, the pun is lost but the idiom is preserved. It may be used when the text
already presents a high number of wordplays, so that sacrificing one FEI-based pun
may be a better option than producing an artificial effect in the TT. As with
Delabastita’s EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE, (8) is clearly not applicable to audiovisual
text.
In general, it is possible to notice that Delabastita and Veisbergs’s typologies are
very similar. Some of the strategies suggested by each scholar could be said to be
widely applicable to various types of translation problems. However, some differences
between the frameworks can be found. For example, Veisbergs considers ‘extension’
and ‘metalinguistic comment’ as two different types of techniques while Delabastita
lumps them together in the ‘editorial technique’ category. This is relevant to my
162
analysis since metalinguistic comments are not applicable to the audiovisual setting.
However, extension can be found in my corpus, even though not with regards to FEI-
based puns. I will give some examples of this in the next chapter.
5.8 Data Analysis
The structure of this section closely resembles the previous data analysis. After
discussing what types of FEI-based puns are contained in the ST, I will turn to the
textual analysis of both ST and TT by means of Moon’s and Veisbergs’s
categorisations, which will also be supported by the GTVH. The following
subsections are named after the translation strategies applied to the ST: Substitution,
Omission (a) and Omission (b). As with the instances of humorous puns, I have
detected some attempts at compensation in the TT but they are not followed by canned
laughter. Therefore, I excluded them from the following analysis. I will return to the
issue of canned laughter in the ST and TT in more detail at the end of this chapter and
in the concluding chapter of this thesis.
On the basis of Moon’s (1997) three-fold taxonomy of FEI and Veisbergs’s (1997)
concept of ‘dual actualization’, I have isolated in the ST 13 instances of FEI-based
pun in the stretches of text preceding instances of canned laughter in the ST. As with
puns, I generally consider the exploitation of a single FEI as one instance of humorous
FEI-based pun, even if it occurs over several turns containing more than one instance
of canned laughter. However, some conversational exchanges contain two FEI-based
puns (cf. example (5.12) below) and they count as two instances of potential humour.
All the FEI-based puns I have detected in the ST are instances of dual actualization. In
five cases out of 13, both punning elements can be found in the text (horizontal
163
punning). In eight instances out of 13, one of the two punning elements is implied
(vertical punning).
Despite the fact that the following analysis is carried out on a small amount of data,
it seems to confirm the suggestion that (like puns) FEI-based puns are used as humour
triggers in Friends. In addition, it will prove that the production crew and the
scriptwriters in particular exploited intentional and unintentional FEI-based puns at
the character-character level in order to convey specific characterisation cues and
enhance the themes developed in the series. More importantly, it shows the problems
that such a language-specific phenomenon poses in translation. The contrastive
analysis aims to understand what strategies the Italian translators adopted in order to
overcome these problems. In addition, it attempts to reveal what differences the
translation process has produced between the ST and TT, particularly in terms of
humour potential.
In accordance with Veirsbegs’s hypothesis that instances of ‘Equivalent idiom
transformation’ are extremely rare I have found no examples of this strategy in the TT.
Surprisingly though, I have detected no examples of ‘Extension’, ‘Analogue idiom
transformation’ or ‘Loan translation’ either. This confirms the difficulty in finding
adequate solutions for the problems they create in translation.
5.8.1 Substitution
This translation strategy was used in seven instances out of 13 cases of humorous FEI-
based puns in my data. Due to space limitations, I will discuss only one instance here.
However, another instance can be found in example (5.12) at the end of the next
subsection.
164
In example (5.9), from Episode 18, the group of friends is playing a poker game.
After a few rounds, Rachel and Ross are the only two still playing. Monica and
Phoebe take Rachel’s side while Joey and Chandler support Ross, who is now left
with no money for his bet:
[5.9] Ross: [to Joey]: Joey, I’m Ross: Joey, sono un po' a secco. Ross: Joey, I’m a bit dry.
a little shy. Joey: Va bene, Ross. Dimmi Joey: That’s OK, Ross. Tell me
Joey: That's OK, Ross, you can che vuoi bere?☺ what you want to drink.
ask me. What?☺☺☺ [Ross Chandler: Di che hai bisogno? Chandler: What do you need,
looks at Joey, dumbfounded at Che ti serve? what do you need?
his stupidity].
Chandler: (to Ross): What do
you need, what do you need?
In the ST, Ross uses an idiomatic expression which has a meaning that applies to
poker, and a more general meaning that is a description of one’s personality (i.e. to be
nervous or uncomfortable with other people). Ross clearly intends the idiomatic
meaning only, but Joey responds to the literal meaning. This results in a punning
effect that can be described as a vertical dual actualisation. Ross adds the hedging “a
little” to the idiom (cf. Moon’s (1998:127) ‘adjective and modifier variation’) in order
to soften his request for money. Despite the contextual cues given during the exchange,
Joey cannot grasp the meaning of the idiomatic expression. In contrast, Chandler, who
is more context-sensitive, realises Joey’s mistaken interpretation and offers Ross the
money he needs.
The potential humour of this exchange does not, strictly speaking, hinge on a
structural variation on the original idiom but on the horizontal play on its literal and
idiomatic interpretations that are present in the text. As a consequence, the audience is
likely to draw inferences regarding Joey’s simplicity of mind and be amused by his
limited verbal repertoire and lack of context-sensitivity (Culpeper 2001: 88-89). This
example follows the same characterisation pattern for Joey that I have already
165
discussed in the section on puns above. The potential humour of this FEI-based pun
can be explained according to the GTVH as follows. The contextual SO is timid/short
of money which also evokes the concrete money/no-money SO. In more abstract
terms the exchange can be seen according to the normal/abnormal SO because Joey
interprets Ross’s request in an unexpected way. This also makes Joey the TA of the
exchange15.
In the Italian TT, the word “shy” does not have an equivalent idiomatic meaning.
Therefore, the Italian translators resorted to using an idiom that conveys the meaning
of lacking money, “essere a secco” (‘to be dry’) but which conveys a different image
from the original text. The equivalent hedging “un po'” was added to preserve the
original variation. As a consequence of this substitution, the translators had to change
Joey’s question into an offer to provide something to drink “dimmi cosa vuoi da bere”
(‘tell me what you want to drink’). In my opinion, the TT adequately preserves the
ST’s attempt to play on the literal and metaphorical meaning of the idiom. Moreover,
it conveys a similar set of inferences regarding Joey’s cognitive skills, which are
potentially humorous and therefore pivotal in the exchange. Interestingly, according to
the GTVH metric, the only SO that varies is the contextual one, which becomes
dry/lack of money while the concrete and abstract SOs are preserved. The TA is still
Joey and the other KRs are also retained16.
As a final point, it should be noticed that the recording of canned laughter after
Joey’s turn is reproduced in the TT. However, in the ST the recording of canned
laughter is long while in the TT it is much shorter. Therefore, there is a long pause
before Chandler’s turn, which may be felt unnecessary.
15
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Idiom.
16
166
5.8.2 Omission
As we have seen earlier, Veisbergs describes omission as: a) the complete cancellation
of the passage containing a FEI-based pun; and b) the preservation of the idiomatic
meaning of the text and loss of the FEI-based pun. In the former group I also include
those instances in which the FEI-based pun was replaced with a sentence that fits the
context of the exchange but is unrelated to the FEI-based pun. Omission (a) was used
in four instances out of 13 while Omission (b) was deployed in two instances out of 13.
This confirms the difficulties related to the transposition of such a language-specific
phenomenon. Firstly, I examine an example of complete omission and then one of
retained idiomatic meaning with consequent loss of the FEI-based pun. I will conclude
this section with an example that contains two instances of FEI-based puns that are
substituted and omitted respectively in the TT. The use of two strategies within a short
stretch of text will be discussed to show the complexities and creativity involved in
translating some humorous exchanges in Friends.
In example (5.10), from Episode 13, Rachel and Chandler are arguing about the
fact that he accidentally saw her breasts in the morning. Ross tries to make them reach
an agreement:
[5.10] Ross: Alright, alright. Ross: D’accordo, siamo tutti Ross: Alright, we’re all adults.
We’re all adults here, there's adulti. C’è solo un modo per There’s only one way to resolve
only one way to resolve this. risolvere la cosa. Visto che tu this. Since you saw her boobies,
Since you saw her boobies, I hai guardato le sue tette, credo I think, you should show her
think, uh, you're gonna have to che tu dovresti farle vedere il your peepee.
show her your peepee.☺☺☺ tuo pisellino.☺ Chandler: Y'know, I don’t see
Chandler: Y’know, I don’t see Chandler: Sai, non credo sia that happening.
that happening?☺☺ possibile. Ross: Oh, yes!
Rachel: C’mon, he’s right. Tit Ross: Eh sì! Rachel: C'mon, he’s right. It’s
for tat.☺☺ Rachel: Andiamo, ha ragione. È my right.
Chandler: Well I’m not un mio diritto. Chandler: Well, I’m showing
showing you my ‘tat’.☺☺ Chandler: Beh, non ti faccio you nothing, it that clear?
vedere un bel niente, chiaro?
167
In the ST, Rachel makes use of the idiom “tit for tat”, that the online version of The
Cambridge Idioms Dictionary defines as “actions done intentionally to punish other
people because they have done something unpleasant to you”17. In this example there
is no structural variation in the form of the idiom. However, in his second turn
Chandler exploits Rachel’s use of this idiom so as to create a vertical FEI-based pun
by means of dual actualization. The word “tit(s)” is also used in colloquial English to
refer to women’s breasts. Therefore, the opposition of “tit” to “tat” creates a
potentially humorous reference to Chandler’s penis, as can be inferred from the
context of the exchange. Hence, in GVTH terms, this semantic opposition can be
expressed as tit for tat/breasts for penis. This also evokes a concrete sex/no-sex SO
and a more abstract possible/impossible SO since ‘tit’ is not breasts and ‘tat’ is not a
penis. The TA seems to be Chandler18.
In the Italian TT, Rachel’s idiom is omitted but its idiomatic meaning is
paraphrased (Baker 1992: 74-75) into an explicit sentence (“È un mio diritto”,
meaning ‘It’s my right’). As a result of this, Chandler’s FEI-based pun is lost along
with all the knowledge resources described above. Hence, the omission of the idiom
seems to reduce the humorous potential of the exchange.
Interestingly, the two recordings of canned laughter that refer to the FEI-based pun
in the ST were omitted in the TT. Only the recording of canned laughter after Ross’s
turn was retained, although much shorter than the original one. It seems to underline
Ross’s use of the word “pisellino”, a taboo word that is modified by means of the
diminutive suffix –ino (equivalent to the English “willy”). Suffixes are attached to the
stem of a word in order to change them semantically. Diminutive or endearing
suffixes like -ino or -etto are used to tone down the force of words referring to taboo
17
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83378&dict=CALD
18
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Referential.
168
body parts, in particular when an adult speaks to a child. The use of this recording of
canned laughter may be explained in two ways. On the one hand, the Italian
translators (and the dubbing team) may have considered the fact that Ross utters this
word while addressing Chandler as potentially humorous. Ross seems to talk to
Chandler as if he is speaking to a child, thus indirectly disparaging him. On the other
hand, many if not all cultures hold stereotyped ideas about the size of male genitalia,
based upon the concept that the bigger a penis the better. The use of a diminutive
suffix may be perceived as an indirect attack on Chandler’s masculinity. Nevertheless,
in my opinion it does not fully compensate for the loss of the FEI-base pun.
In example (5.11), taken from Episode 18, Phoebe, Monica and Rachel are
commenting on Ross’s harsh behaviour during the poker game they played on the
previous night. Monica, Ross’s sister, agrees with the others and adds that she cannot
believe how competitive her brother can be. Phoebe then replies:
[5.11] Phoebe: Oh, hello, Phoebe: La sai questa: “Il bue Phoebe: Do you know this one:
kettle? This is Monica. You’re che dice cornuto all’asino.” “The ox that calls the donkey
black.☺☺☺ Monica: Ti prego! Non sono horned.”
Monica: Please! I am not as bad così polemica come Ross. Monica: Please! I’m not as
as Ross. polemical as Ross is.
In the ST, Phoebe plays with the proverb ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ by
modifying its canonical form. In Phoebe’s exploitation of the metaphorical idiom,
there is a blend between the institutionalised image and a new one where Monica is
the pot that addresses the kettle (Ross) in direct speech and accuses it of being black.
Phoebe’s implied comment that Monica is as (or more) competitive than Ross makes
her the target of the joke. On her part, Monica rightly interprets Phoebe’s indirect
disparaging attack and rejects it by making it explicit. Potential humour arises both
from the image conveyed by the exploitation of the idiom and from Phoebe’s indirect
169
attacks on Monica’s idiosyncrasies. This incongruity conveyed by this FEI-based pun
can be described according to the GTVH metric as a contextual SO: Ross and
Monica/pot and kettle. This also evokes a concrete human/non-human SO and a more
abstract possible/impossible SO since Ross is no pot and Monica is not a kettle.
Finally, Monica is the TA19, as pointed out above.
In the Italian TT, the FEI-based pun is omitted and substituted by an equivalent
proverb, which is presented in its canonical form. In Italian the pot is replaced by an
ox and the kettle by a donkey. The ox accuses the donkey of having horns. Although
the TT loses the witty exploitation of the original idiom, it preserves the idiomatic
meaning of the original exchange. Interestingly, the partial retention of the original
LM seems to explain why the other KRs are also preserved 20 . The concrete SO
becomes Ross and Monica/ox and donkey but the more abstract SOs are the same
(human/non-human and possible/impossible). Moreover, Monica is still the TA.
Nonetheless, the stylistic effect and the humour and characterisation potential seem to
be minimised. Finally, the recording of canned laughter after Phoebe’s turns in the ST
was omitted in the TT.
As hinted at above, the last example in this subsection is a complex exchange
containing three examples that can be described as variations in the canonical form of
FEIs. They are uttered by Chandler, Joey and Ross respectively. As I mentioned in
Chapter 4 (Subsection 4.4.2), the FEI-based pun in Joey’s turn (“it’s a big break for
me”) is not supported by a recording of canned laughter and has therefore been
excluded from the discussion. In the TT one of these is substituted and the other is
totally omitted. This is the reason why I included this example in this section. Besides,
this scene can be seen as similar to a self-standing joke because Joey enters the flat
19
LM: Cratylism, potency mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Idiom.
20
LM: Potency mapping; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Idiom.
170
and introduces the topic. Ross’s last turn reported below can be considered as the
punch line because it concludes the exchange and the scene changes. Hence, I can
apply Attardo’s (1998, 2001) distinction between jab and punch lines to this extract.
The scene in example (5.12), from Episode 6, is set in Monica and Rachel’s flat.
Joey has just told his friends that he is going to star in an Al Pacino film, where he
will be the replacement for Al Pacino’s bottom:
[5.12] Joey: C’mon, you guys. Joey: Andiamo, ragazzi! In Joey: C’mon, you guys! After
This is a real movie, and Al fondo si tratta sempre di una all, it’s still a several millions of
Pacino’s in it, and that’s big! produzione da parecchi milioni dollar production!
Chandler: Oh no, it's terrific, di dollari. Chandler: Yes, it’s terrific.
it’s... it’s... y’know, you deserve Chandler: Ma sì, è fantastico. After all, you deserve this. After
this, after all your years of In fondo te lo sei meritato. Dopo so many years of “learning by
struggling, you’ve finally been tanti anni di gavetta, finalmente doing”, you’ll finally be able to
able to crack your way into potrai far vedere il meglio di show the best (part) of you!
showbusiness.☺☺☺ te!☺☺ Joey: Fine, you can make fun of
Joey: Okay, okay, fine! Make Joey: D'accordo, prendetemi me. I don’t care! In any case,
jokes, I don’t care! This is a big pure in giro. Non m’interessa. this is a golden/great
break for me! Comunque, si tratta di opportunity!
Ross: You’re right, you’re right, un’occasione d’oro. Ross: Yes, after all, he is right.
it is...So you gonna invite us all Ross: Sì, in fondo ha ragione Rachel: Yes, he is!
to the big opening?☺☺☺ lui. Ross: So, are you going to
Rachel: Già! invite us to the premier?
Ross: Allora, ci inviterai alla
prima?
In the ST, Chandler’s and Ross’s FEI-based puns simultaneously exploit both the
literal and idiomatic meanings of the FEIs in order to refer to the implied taboo topic
of the exchange (Joey will be Al Pacino’s bottom double in a shower scene). More
precisely, Chandler’s jab line “you will crack your way into showbusiness” can be
referred back to two idiomatic expressions: ‘to crack something’ and ‘to make one’s
way to somewhere’ (‘to get into something/somewhere’). Therefore, it can be seen as
a creative variation and combination of the two. Joey’s second turn gives way to
Ross’s punch line that exploits the canonical idiomatic meaning of the expression ‘the
opening’ (normally used to refer to the first screening of a film). Ross’s repetition of
the word “big”, previously uttered by Joey, reinforces the reference to the taboo topic,
171
thus increasing the potential humour of his punch line. Both potentially humorous
FEI-based puns seem to activate the vertical (implied) reference to the taboo topic
(Joey’s bottom) and reinforce the bodily and sexual innuendo of the exchange. It is
important to note that Chandler and Ross consciously play with the FEIs in order to
poke fun at Joey. In contrast, Joey presumably does not intend to disparage himself, as
the lack of recording of canned laughter demonstrates. Once again, Joey is likely to be
perceived as simple-minded and will be laughed at by the audience. The semantic and
conceptual incongruities in both FEI-based puns can described according to the
GTVH metric. The former seems to present the contextual showbusiness/bottom SO
while the latter can be explained in terms of the opining of a show/bottom SO. Both
FEI-based puns may evoke the concrete taboo body part/non-taboo body part SO and
the normal/abnormal SO, along with the other KRs21. Finally, both wordplays target
Joey at character-character and author-audience level.
The Italian TT reveals some significant differences. For instance, at the beginning
of the exchange, Al Pacino’s name is omitted. This may be due to the fact that it is
repeated many times within the episode. Therefore, the translators may have found it
unnecessary here. Moreover, Chandler’s jab line does not display a combination of
two FEIs. The FEI-based pun “crack your way into showbusiness” is replaced by an
idiom that presents a new image: “farai vedere il meglio di te” (meaning idiomatically
‘to give your best’). In Italian, this expression literally means “to show the best part of
you”, and more explicitly activates the reference to Joey’s bottom rather than his
acting skills. The KRs are generally preserved22, although the original stylistic effect
is slightly affected by the translation process. The pun in Ross’s punch line is not
retained because in Italian there is a specific word that refers to the first screening of a
21
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Idiom
22
172
film. The equivalent of “the opening”, “la prima (visione)” does fit the context of the
conversation but does not retain its play on words. Hence, its KRs and potential
humour are lost.
To conclude, there are two long recordings of canned laughter in the ST (one after
Chandler’s jab line and one after Ross’s punch line). Obviously, only the former has
been retained in the TT. However, it should be noticed that the characters’ laughs
underline the potential humour of the exchange, and probably the translators and
dubbing team thought it would suffice.
5.8.3 Preliminary Conclusions
As may be clear at this stage, FEI-based puns seem particularly difficult to translate
because they exploit both language- and culture-specific elements (e.g. pot and kettle
in example (5.11) above). Although some scholars in TS have suggested several
translation options for FEI-based puns, the data analysed here shows the application of
a very limited number of strategies to dubbing. This may depend more on the
complexity of the phenomenon than on the medium used. Further research into this
phenomenon and its AVT is certainly needed.
In general, my data exhibit structural variations that are mainly dependent upon the
spoken nature of the text. For example, the additions of hedging items like “little” in
(5.9) in the ST seem to be used to tone down a character’s request or statement, rather
like would be the case in real life conversation. In contrast, other examples show that
the structural exploitation of FEIs is wittingly used to fulfil more specific functions.
As with puns, the analysis proves that the production crew and the scriptwriters in
particular exploited FEI-based puns to convey specific cues about the main characters
who utter them, either intentionally or unintentionally. Furthermore, this shows that
173
the characters are witty and articulate. For example, Chandler’s combination of two
idioms in (5.12) or Phoebe’s high level of manipulation of the idiom in (5.11) in the
ST aim both to support their point of view and to poke fun at their friends. In addition,
FEI-based puns seem to support the main themes of the series such as a concern for
sex, interpersonal relationships, friendship and work. Table 5.6 below shows a direct
comparison of FEI-based puns in the ST and TT:
FEI-based Puns
ST TT
V
E 8 4
R
H
O 5 3
R
Tot 13 7
Table 5.6: Comparison of FEI-puns in the ST and the TT
As can be seen, there is not a significant difference in the way potentially
humorous FEI-based puns in both datasets are created. Despite the very small number
of instances analysed here, the comparison between the two datasets shows that
almost half of the FEI-based puns in the ST were omitted in the Italian TT. However,
it should be noted that the table above does not account for those examples whose
idiomatic meaning was paraphrased in the TT. As we have seen in example (5.11)
such a strategy can retain part of the original potential humour. More research in this
aspect of humour translation is therefore required.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, I have found some instances of compensation in the
TT but they were excluded from this analysis because lacked canned laughter support.
Given the fact that the Italian TT shows a peculiar use of the canned laughter device,
compensation can be seen as an interesting option which may deserve more attention
in future.
174
5.9 Rhymes
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, wordplay is used in this chapter as an
umbrella term that includes a range of lexical and semantic exploitations that work at
various levels. Therefore, in this section I will consider the use of rhyming as another
type of wordplay that can be exploited to convey a potentially humorous effect.
Attardo (1994: 160) describes rhymes as triggers of a ‘startling’ effect because they
make their receivers realise that similar sounds do not correspond to similar senses.
This seems therefore similar to the surprise effect produced by wordplay and humour
in general. As for humorous rhymes, Nash (1985: 161) claims that these are
fundamentally contextual ‘by virtue of their banality, or their lawlessness, or their
residual associations’. Nevertheless, it seems interesting to see how the Italian
translators modified the original text in my data so as to preserve the effect of the
rhymes in the TT. I detected two examples of humorous rhymes in the ST.
Interestingly, in both cases the Italian translators opted for substituting the original
rhyme with Italian counterparts that rely on the addition of suffixes. Due to space
limitations, I will discuss only one instance here. The other can be found in Appendix
II, “Humorous Wordplay”.
Example (5.15), like (5.10), is taken from Episode 13 in which Chandler
accidentally sees Rachel’s breasts. She is very upset about it and decides to take her
revenge. She goes to Chandler’s flat thinking he is in the shower. As she enters the
bathroom, Rachel says the following:
[5.15] Rachel: Chandler Bing? Rachel: Chandlerino... È ora di Rachel: Little Chandler… It’s
It’s time to see your thing.☺☺ vedere il tuo cosino! time to see your little thing!
175
In the ST, Rachel’s turn plays on the rhyming effect produced by the endings of
Chandler’s surname “Bing” and the word “thing”. The potential humour seems to
hinge on the contextual association of Chandler’s surname to the word “thing”, which
is used to avoid the taboo word for male genitalia. The semantic clash can be
expressed in GTVH terms according to the following SOs: thing/penis, sex/no-sex and
normal/abnormal. In addition, the TA of Rachel’s turn is Chandler23.
The Italian translators could not retain the original rhyme because the Italian word
‘cosa’ (‘thing’) does not rhyme with Chandler’s surname, Bing. However, they
retained the original stylistic device by playing with Chandler’s first name and the
word ‘cosa’ to which they added the suffix -ino. As already discussed for example
(5.10) above, the diminutive suffix -ino is used to tone down the reference to
Chandler’s taboo body part. Moreover, it should be noticed that in Italian words are
either masculine or feminine but cannot be unmarked for gender. In this example,
‘cosa’ (feminine) becomes “cosino” (masculine) by means of the suffix. This allows
an indirect reference to Chandler’s genitalia since the word penis in Italian is
masculine. Once again, the target audience may be amused by the childish behaviour
of adult characters and they may perceive Rachel’s use of a diminutive to refer to
Chandler’s reproductive organ as an indirect attack on his masculinity. In GTVH
terms, the SOs would be little thing/little penis, sex/no-sex and normal/abnormal.
Interestingly, the Italian TT also seems to maximise the disparaging effect of the
rhyme towards Chandler24.
According to the translation categories presented above, this play on words has
been transferred into the TT by means of substitution, which preserves its
23
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Rhyme.
24
LM: Cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Rhyme.
176
characterisation function along with its potential humour. However, in the TT the
recording of canned laughter has been omitted.
5.10 Findings and Conclusions
Due to the complex nature of the data under investigation, sometimes it has been
difficult to categorise the items clearly according to the taxonomies proposed in the
literature. Despite these problems, I have isolated 29 potentially humorous wordplays
in the ST.
Considering that the ST contains a total of 54,965 spoken words, 29 instances of
wordplay may seem a very small portion of the whole data. As I have mentioned in
Chapter 4, this is partly due to the fact that the humour in Friends is often based on
contextual and pragmatic factors that do not pose relevant translation problems (cf.
Subsection 4.4.2). However, my focus in this thesis is on three major mechanisms of
humour creation that may involve difficulties in the transfer into another language and
culture difficult. Hence, I return now to my research questions.
With my RQ1, I have intended to investigate how wordplay is used in Friends for
humorous purposes. I hope I have demonstrated throughout my analysis that the
scriptwriters exploited the inner ambiguities of the English language system in order
to this (e.g. example (5.1) above). Sometimes they also made use of acronyms for this
purpose (cf. examples (5.2) and (5.7) above). Furthermore, they exploited language-
and culture-specific idioms to produce FEI-puns (e.g. ‘the pot that calls the kettle
black’, in (5.11) above). Interestingly, the exploitation of the ‘canonical form’ of a
FEI can be conventional or more creative. For example, the insertion of hedging items
may be used to tone down a request (e.g. Ross in (5.19) above) or to disparage
someone else (e.g. Phoebe in (5.11)). However, when the exploitation is more creative,
177
it calls for a direct contrast of the unmarked interpretation of an FEI with its new
marked, linguistic and often figurative form. The most striking example is Chandler’s
combination of two FEIs into a single one in (5.12) or his exploitation of the canonical
form of a FEI previously uttered by Rachel in (5.10). Finally, the use of surnames to
create rhymes (cf. example (5.15) above) can be regarded as extremely interesting in
terms of humour potential.
Interestingly, the analysis of the wordplay in the ST by means of the GTVH metric
shows the recurrent activation of the five types of concrete SOs. Hence, they can be
considered as the main potentially humorous strands in the series (Attardo 2001: 83,
141; cf. also Subsection 2.4.2 above for a definition). More importantly, many
instances of wordplay in the ST activate the sex/no-sex SO and whereas others
indirectly refer to other taboo topics, such as taboo body parts. These findings seem
consistent with the general playful mood of the programme and the prejudiced humour
(e.g. gender-based stereotypes about sex, homosexuality, etc.) it relies on.
As I have argued above, many instances of wordplay in Friends can be described
as interactional and dynamic (non-prototypical) as opposed to language-intrinsic and
static puns such as those discussed in Delabastita (1996). They are very often
developed within conversational exchanges based on various turns and therefore hinge
upon the interaction among the characters within the fictional world. Sometimes a
character consciously exploits the topic of the conversation or someone else’s
utterance to deliver a wordplay with potential humour, which is perceived as such at
both character-character and author-audience level (e.g. example (5.12)). At other
times, a character does not intentionally play on words but his/her utterance is
perceived as a potentially humorous wordplay by the other characters and the
audience (e.g. (5.3)). Finally, a character’s wordplay may not be perceived as such at
178
the character-character level but only by the audience. These considerations are
directly related to the analysis of the TAs according to the GTVH metric, which
shows that Joey is often the TA at both the character-character and author-audience
level. In contrast, other characters such as Chandler and Ross are mostly the target of
humour at the author-audience level (cf. Ch. 8 for a detailed account and discussion of
both SOs and TAs in wordplay).
All in all, wordplay in Friends both reflects and contributes to the themes
developed in the series (sex, work, interpersonal relationship, etc.) and its stereotyped
humour. Moreover, it conveys important characterisation clues, which also contribute
to the potential humour of the series as a whole. For example, Joey is usually
perceived as simple-minded and lacking of cognitive skills because of the
unintentional wordplays he utters, as in (5.1) (5.3) or (5.12). In contrast, Chandler,
who is usually considered as witty, utters intentional wordplays as in (5.6) and (5.12)
etc., which often aim to make fun of his own friends and others. Finally, Phoebe’s
peculiar behaviour and foibles are underlined by intentional wordplay as in (5.11).
The peculiar exploitations of language- and culture-specific elements are often
difficult to translate, especially when languages belong to different families. In order
to answer my RQ2 regarding the types of strategies used in dubbing the first series of
Friends into Italian, I have proceeded as follows. I have considered all the strategies
used in my data for translating wordplay and subsumed them under four general
categories:
1. Transferred wordplay, which includes Delabastita’s PUN→PUN, PUN
ST=PUN TT, EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE and Veisbergs’s ‘Equivalent idiom
transformation’, ‘Loan translation’, ‘Extension’, ‘Multilingual comment’,
‘Analogue idiom transformation’ and ‘Substitution’. All these strategies aim to
179
retain the original mechanism (cratylism) in the TT. Hence they are mostly ST-
oriented (Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998);
2. Neutralisation, which includes Delabastita’s PUN→NON-PUN,
PUN→RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE and Veisbergs’s ‘Omission(b)’,
and my suggestion of the addition of suffixes. All these strategies aim to
preserve at least the potential humour of the text if the wordplay has to be
sacrificed.
3. Compensation or added wordplay, which includes Delabastita’s NON-
PUN→PUN, ZERO→PUN and Veisbergs’s ‘Compensation’. All these
strategies attempt to compensate for losses during the translation process. They
involve the addition of new material (usually related to the target language; cf.
Venuti ibid.) that exploits the same or a similar mechanism (i.e. cratyilism or
another related device). They can be used where the loss occurred or
somewhere else in the text (Harvey 1995). They may be seen as less desirable
than the previous options but preferable to total omission.
4. Omission, which includes Delabastita’s PUN→ZERO PUN and Veisberg’s
‘Omission (a)’. These strategies result in the complete omission of the elements
that play with language. They cannot be considered in terms of source- or
target-oriented approach (Ramière 2006: 156).
Table 5.7 summarises my quantitative analysis according to these four strategies.
As mentioned earlier, I have included compensation in this part of the analysis
because it is a relevant phenomenon in TS. However, I do not consider it during my
general discussion on the humour in Friends:
180
Translation Strategy Puns FEI-Based Visual Rhymes Total

applied for wordplay in the Puns & Verbal
TT Puns
Transference 5 7 4 2 18
Neutralisation 4 2 0 0 6
Compensation 1 0 0 0 1
Omission 1 4 0 0 5
Total 11 13 4 2 30
Table 5.7: Summary of translation strategies applied to the TT
As can be seen, the Italian translators mainly opted for retaining the original
mechanisms in the TT (18 instances out of 30). However, it is extremely interesting to
notice that when the wordplay could not be preserved, they tried to salvage the
potential humour and the entertaining function of the text (cf. ‘neutralisation’, six
instances out of 30). However, total omission and omission of any reference to the
original wordplay are almost as frequent as neutralisation (five instances out of 30).
The insertion of an instance of compensation in the TT seems to suggest an attempt to
counterbalance the losses produced by other strategies such as omission and
neutralisation. Future investigation in this area would certainly be welcome.
Some considerations can be made of the basis of these findings:
 Whether wordplay is retained in the TT may depend on several reasons. For
example, translators may consider it as a top priority when dealing with a TV
comedy series. At other times, contingent factors may force the translator to
retain the wordplay in the TT (i.e. visual and verbal wordplay).
 Omission may be an alternative, for example, when the linguistic specificity of
the wordplay makes transfer impossible or may sound farfetched. However, it
should be also pointed out that omission in my data usually takes place in
translating FEI-based puns but rarely means deleting the passage altogether.
More often than not, the passage and its idiomatic meaning are preserved even
if the pun is deleted. The most likely explanation is that the translators realised
181
the relevance of the FEI-based pun for the overall effect of the passage but
could not salvage it. Therefore, they opted to convey at least part of its
idiomatic meaning.
 In general, dubbing facilitates the transfer of wordplay by means of formal and
semantic changes. Hence the AVT mode use may greatly influence the
translator’s decision making process.
To conclude, I would like to comment on some differences between the ST and TT
that the contrastive analysis brought about, thus answering my RQ3.
As I have pointed out during the analysis, sometimes the translation strategy
adopted in relation to wordplay may, to some extent, affect the perception of the six
main characters. 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). 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.) and (5.12) above). Choosing to omit an original wordplay
may also result in a diminished humorous potential of the text. Since both humour and
characterisation seem to be relevant to the success of the series, AVT certainly has to
take special care of those linguistic items that convey them. In other words, in my
opinion wordplay should be regarded as a high priority in TV comedy and should
therefore be retained in translation, as long as it does not impair the understanding of
the text itself. By and large, it looks like the Italian translators did this.
I have also used the GTVH for the analysis of wordplay in the ST and TT in order
to capture differences and similarities between the two datasets. This has helped me
highlight which SOs were retained and which changed as a result of the translation
strategy used. For instance, I have demonstrated that the contextual SOs in examples
(5.1) and (5.9) change whereas the concrete and abstract SOs remain. However, this
182
approach also has limitations. Firstly, it is not always easy to frame my data according
to the SO categories. Secondly, even if the SOs are retained, as postulated in Attardo
(2002a), the GTVH does not 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. In is also
worth pointing out here that the LA knowledge resource presents some limitations.
Although it can show how the ST (and its potential humour) is manipulated during the
translation process (e.g.: a paronymous pun that becomes a homophonous pun in
example (5.2), it does not seem able to capture the substitution of a humour trigger
with another as in the case of the idiom in example (5.9)). I will return to the use of
the GTVH in the study of AVT of humour at the end of this thesis, where I will also
provide a quantitative overview of the numbers and types of SOs in the ST and TT.
The difference in the use of canned laughter in the ST and TT deserve a final
comment. In the ST there are 37 recordings of canned laughter that support the 29
instances of wordplay. In contrast, in the TT there are only 9 recordings of canned
laughter that support 24 instances of wordplay, which amounts to one quarter of the
occurrences in the ST. This figure is partly related to the fact that some word plays
were omitted or neutralised in the TT. However, some recordings of canned laughter
have been deleted even where the wordplay was retained (e.g. examples (5.5), (5.9),
(5.11) above). As I mentioned earlier, my suggestion is that in Italy the insertion of
canned laughter in audiovisual texts is generally limited and TV audiences are not
used to hearing it. Therefore, the choice of omitting most instances may depend on
cultural factors. However, some other factors may also play a role in the sparse use of
canned laughter in the TT. For instance, the characters can be often heard laughing at
a pun, humorous rhyme, etc. and the translators and dubbing team may have
183
considered this type of humour support sufficient, and preferable to canned laughter.
Clearly, this is an extremely marked difference and it could benefit from further
research. The next chapter will be devoted to the investigation of humour based on
culture-specific allusion.
184
Chapter 6 Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
Chapter 6. Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
Differences between cultures cause many more severe

complications for the translator than do differences in
language structure.
(Nida 1969: 161)
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I concentrate on another recurrent mechanism of humour creation in
the first series of Friends, which poses translation problems almost by definition,
namely culture-specific allusions. Like other linguistic phenomena, culture-specific
allusions are not humorous per se. However, they seem to be exploited to convey
potential humour in my data. This intention is marked by the presence of canned
laughter that accompanies them. Unlike ‘transcultural’ allusions (whose source and
meaning can be recognised by both source and target culture) culture-specific
allusions challenge translation because their referent can only be understood by people
who are sufficiently familiar with the source culture in question (Leppihalme 1997:
66). Bearing this in mind, I investigate only those culture-specific allusions that are
preceded by canned laughter in the ST and I consider how they are transferred into
Italian.
Before doing so, it seems worth commenting briefly on the types of culture-specific
allusions in my data. As anticipated in Chapters 1 and 4, Friends is a TV comedy
series whose target audience is generally made up of teenagers and young adults with
an average education. Consequently, the types of culture-specific allusions used in the
ST reflect and refer mainly to the North-American culture within which the
programme is set. In particular, they are mostly based on the so called ‘material’ and
‘popular’ culture, thus matching the general tone of the series. In addition, most of
185
these instances of potentially humorous culture-specific allusions are bound to the
specific period (the 1990s) when the series was produced. Nonetheless, there are also
examples that are more deeply rooted in the above mentioned culture. Therefore, the
synchronic and/or diachronic aspects of this phenomenon will be taken into
consideration.
As I mentioned in Chapter 4, culture-specific allusions in Friends (like wordplays
and metaphors) not only contribute greatly to the humour of the series, but also
convey cues about the idiosyncrasies of the characters who utter them (e.g. Chandler
is witty, Joey is absent-minded, etc.). Therefore, they seem to be a key factor for the
programme’s success.
All the aspects I have just mentioned (humorous function, culture-specificity,
temporality and to some extent characterisation) pose relevant problems for the
transfer of culture-specific allusions into another language and culture. The translator
is the mediator between the source and target languages and cultures. S/he is supposed
to possess sufficient knowledge of the source culture to be able to recognise the
culture-specific allusions in the ST and, at the same time, s/he has to be sensitive to
the specific problems they pose.
Hence, before investigating the problems arising from the translation of potentially
humorous culture-specific allusions, I will discuss and define this phenomenon in
general terms. In order to do this, in Section 6.2 I will refer to scholars who have
analysed culture-specific allusions in general (Aixelá 1996; Leppihalme 1997; Davies
González and Scott-Tennent 2005) and humorous culture-specific allusions in
particular (Antonopoulou 2004). In Section 6.3 I will consider some of these scholars’
suggestions for the categorisation of culture-specific allusions in terms of type
(Leppihalme 1997) and source (Davies Gonzáles & Scott-Tennet 2005). In particular,
186
I will propose a possible combination of these taxonomies which may be more
applicable to my data.
In Section 6.4 I will move on to discuss the specific issues arising in the translation
of culture-specific allusions that carry potential humour. In particular, I will highlight
the fact that the scholars I mentioned above mainly focus on the translation of written
texts. I will therefore integrate my discussion with recent studies that focused
specifically on the AVT of cultural-specific allusions (Bovinelli and Gallini 1994,
Ramière 2006) and their humorous function (Bucaria 2007). In Section 6.5 I will
provide an overview of the strategies put forward in the literature to translate culture-
specific allusions. By doing so, I will attempt to demonstrate that some of these
strategies are inapplicable to audiovisual texts. Hence, I will conclude my discussion
by considering which techniques can be applied in AVT.
With these premises in mind, in Section 6.6 I will start my data analysis. Firstly, I
will seek to understand how the scriptwriters exploit culture-specific allusions within
the fictional world of Friends for humorous purposes. Secondly, I intend to examine
what translation strategies the Italian translators deployed in order to overcome the
problems such phenomena pose. Finally, I take into account the differences between
the ST and TT that result from the transfer of the original text into Italian, with
particular reference to its humorous potential. As with wordplay in Chapter 5, my
analysis is supported by Attardo’s (1994, 2001, 2002b) General Theory of Verbal
Humour (GTVH) model.
In Section 6.7, I will discuss my findings. In particular, I will consider the results
from the contrastive analysis of ST and TT, which seems to suggest that the Italian
translators were sensitive to the problems related to culture-specific allusions. More
importantly, it can be noted that, when retention was not possible, they mostly opted
187
for paraphrasing (neutralising) the meaning of the culture-specific allusion. As a result
of this, it is possible to detect interesting differences between the two datasets,
especially in terms of humour and characterisation potential.
6.2 Defining the Concept of Culture-Specific Allusion
Before carrying out an analysis of the translation of the phenomenon and the
difficulties it poses, I need to present a definition of what I mean by culture-specific
allusion. In doing so, I point out the difficulty of capturing and labelling this
phenomenon.
Firstly, it should be highlighted that in this thesis I do not intend to debate the
general notion of allusion, which has already received a large amount of scholarly
attention (cf. for example Perri 1978). In her book-length study Culture Bumps: An
Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions, Leppihalme (1997: 6) explains
that ‘allusion’ is often used as a synonym for ‘reference’. In addition, she shows that
there is little agreement among scholars regarding the definition of the notion of this
concept. Hence, Leppihalme uses ‘allusion’ as an umbrella term that includes: “a
variety of uses of preformed linguistic material in either its original or modified form,
and of proper names, to convey often implicit meaning” (ibid.3).
Other scholars and researchers in TS concentrate on the categorisation and
translation of what they name as ‘culture-specific items’ (Aixelá 1996) or ‘cultural
references’ (Bovinelli and Gallini 1994; Davies González and Scott-Tennent’s 2005;
Lorenzo et al. 2003). Since a fine distinction between ‘allusion’ and ‘reference’ is
beyond the scope of this study, I will use both terms interchangeably.
188
Given that I specifically concentrate on the AVT of this phenomenon, I use
Ramière’s (2006: 155) description of culture-specific references in AVT, which are
defined as:
verbal and non-verbal (visual and auditory) signs which constitute a

problem for cross-cultural transfer because they refer to objects or
concepts that are specific to the original sociocultural context of the film –
i.e. that, at the time of distribution, do not exist, or deviate significantly in
their connotational value from similar objects and concepts in the target
culture(s) considered.
Hence, culture-specific allusions can be described as above but their humorous
function has to be taken into account during the translation process. This point will be
discussed in more detail in Section 6.4 below.
In the next section I consider the possibility of categorising culture-specific
allusions according to a combined use of the frameworks of Leppihalme (1997) and
Davies González and Scott-Tennent (2005).
6.3 Categorisation of Culture-Specific Allusions
As mentioned above, some scholars in TS have investigated the phenomenon of
culture-specific allusion and its translation. Leppihalme (1997: 6) observes that
allusion is often described as a literary phenomenon, while, on the contrary, it can be
found in several types of text (non-fiction, films, painting etc.) and it can also rely on
several types of source. For this reason, she bases her analysis on English fictional and
non-fictional texts (e.g. political speeches, advertisements, newspaper articles, etc.)
and their translation into Finnish. Moreover, she carries out an empirical test on
recognition and understanding of allusions in English source-texts by Finnish
informants. Her findings demonstrate that, more often than not, students in TS find it
189
difficult to identify and understand the source and function of culture-specific
allusions in source language (SL) texts (ibid.6, 132-162). Hence, her book offers a
comprehensive analysis and categorisation of this phenomenon. Moreover, she
proposes various translation strategies to solve the problems allusion poses.
Davies González and Scott-Tennent’s (2005) study aims to train students in TS in
detecting and analysing culture-specific allusions. Drawing from Nida’s (1969, 1999)
work, Davies González and Scott-Tennent attempt to increase their translation
students’ awareness of cultural references (ibid.166). Unlike Leppihalme, Davies
González and Scott-Tennent stress the importance of recognising the source of
allusion in the text. In these scholars’ opinion, this part of the analytical process can
greatly help students tackle and solve the translation problems this phenomenon
causes (ibid.167).
Bearing this in mind, in Subsection 6.3.1 below I present Leppihalme’s proposed
categorisation of allusions based on their type. Moreover, in Subsection 6.3.2 I
summarise Davies González and Scott-Tennent’s taxonomy for culture-specific
references based on their source. This will be integrated with some references to
similar studies (e.g. Bovinelli and Gallini 1994). More importantly, I will consider the
benefits of applying a combination of both approaches to the analysis of my data.
6.3.1 Types of Culture-Specific Allusions
As already mentioned in Chapter 5, multifaceted phenomena like wordplay are
difficult to frame within a given set of categories. Scholars dealing with culture-
specific allusions face a similarly daunting task. Nonetheless, Leppihalme stresses the
validity of categorisation as an analytical tool. I tend to agree with Leppihalme on this
point and for this reason I summarise her framework in Table 6.1 below. This table
190
has been compiled on the basis of the instances of allusions in her data. In the left-
hand column I have reproduced Leppihalme’s four types of allusions. In the middle
column I have included their subcategories while in the right-hand column I provided
Leppihalme’s examples for the sake of clarity:
Type of Allusion Subcategory Example

Proper-name I think I’ve become a Raffles in
(an allusion that contains a my old age.
proper name)
Allusion proper Key-phrase Apparently taxis all turn into
(an allusion that does not pumpkins at midnight.
contain a proper name)
Stereotyped allusions Frequently used allusions that We were ships that pass in the
have lost freshness and whose night.
source can hardly be evoked
(e.g. clichés, proverbs)
Semi-allusive comparisons Superficial comparisons or Like the land of Oz, technology
(SCAs) looser associations has good and bad witches.
Eponymous adjectives Adjectives derived from names Orwellian images.

Table 6.1: Summary of Leppihalme’s (1997: 10-11) framework of types of allusions
In defining the ‘allusion proper’ category, Leppihalme distinguishes between those
that contain a proper-name (PN) from those that do not, which are grouped into the
key-phrase (KP) category (cf. Aixelá 1996: 59 for a similar approach). Leppihalme’s
‘stereotyped allusions’ instead clearly resemble the Fixed Expressions and Idioms
(FEIs) I have discussed in Chapter 5. Since a large part of that chapter has been
devoted to the analysis of this phenomenon and its humorous function, it will not be
discussed any further here. ‘Semi-allusive comparisons’ are defined as “superficial
comparisons and looser associations” (ibid.11; cf. example in Table 6.1). Eponymous
adjectives are described as derived from proper names and not forming “fixed
collocations with their current headwords” (ibid.; cf. example in Table 6.1).
In general, Leppihalme’s categories are not clear-cut, as the author herself
acknowledges (ibid.10). I find it difficult to distinguish between PNs and eponymous
191
adjectives. For instance, she suggests that in the sentence “their Anna [sic.] Frank
haircuts” (ibid.58), “Anna Frank” can be considered both a PN and eponymous
adjective for “haircuts”. More precisely, in this case Anna Frank is a pre-modifying
noun phrase which has an adjectival function. To avoid such confusion, I do not
distinguish between PNs and eponymous adjectives in my data and I treat them all as
instances of allusive PNs.
6.3.2 Sources of Culture-Specific Allusions
Leppihalme briefly analyses the sources (or referents) of allusions (ibid.66), but she
does not provide an exhaustive categorisation of their types of source. She limits her
discussion to noticing that in her corpus the category of proper-name (PN) allusions
mostly consists of names of people who exist or existed in the past (e.g. artists,
politicians, etc.), fictional characters (e.g. Shakespeare’s Macbeth), places, biblical
names (e.g. David and Goliath, etc.) and figures of myth. More rarely, she finds
references to more recent plays, films and television programmes like Willy Russell’s
Educating Rita and children’s classics like Alice in Wonderland (ibid. 66-68). This is
likely to arise from the type of texts Leppihalme investigates.
Nevertheless, Leppihalme seems to neglect other types of culture-specific allusions
like those derived from the so called ‘material culture’ (e.g. proper names of things or
brand names used metonymically to refer to food, drinks, toys, etc.). These types of
references can cause similar problems of recognition and transfer in translation (Baker
1992: 21-26), especially when they carry a potentially humorous function or when
they are used in conjunction with the visual text (cf. Bovinelli and Gallini 1994).
Similarly, key-phrase (KP) allusions in Leppihalme’s corpus seem to be mainly
drawn from biblical texts such as the New and the Old Testament, Shakespeare’s
192
works, 20th century literature, nursery rhymes and some popular or patriotic songs.
KPs whose sources derive from films or television programmes are only exceptional
in Leppihalme’s data (ibid.68-71).
Interestingly, in my data only culture-specific allusions based on nursery rhymes
appear as frequently as predicted by Leppihalme for her corpus (ibid.69). This may
depend on the fact that nursery rhymes are very popular in North-American (and
British) culture and are also central in its children’s upbringing. In contrast, PN and
KP allusions in my data usually derive from film, TV programmes, etc. Hence, I
consider Davies González and Scott-Tennent’s (2005) categorisation of culture-
specific references based on Nida’s (1969, 1999, quoted in ibid.166-167) five-group
taxonomy, which focuses on the sources of (PN and KP) allusions:
1. Material: sources related to everyday objects (e.g. food and drinks, games,
units of measure, etc.);
2. Ecological: sources related to places (e.g. geography, flora and fauna, etc.);
3. Social: sources related to social organization and its manifestations in the
arts, politics, history, leisure, etc. (e.g. Shakespeare, Tory, Machiavelli,
Cubism; my examples);
4. Religious: sources related to rituals and ideological manifestations (e.g.
Christening, Holy Communion; my examples);
5. Linguistic: understood as the means to express all the previous and which
refers to attitudinal and conversational clues1.
1
Nida (1969: 55) only provides a brief definition of cultural references. He lists five categories but does not exhaustively explain
them. Nida (1999) is based on a series of seminars that he gave at the Facultat De Ciències Humanes, Traducció i Documentació,
Universitat de Vic that do not seem to be available in another form.
193
Some important points should be made here. Firstly, due to the lack of examples
for points (3) and (4) in the original, I use these categories according to my
understanding of them. Secondly, it is not very clear what point (5) refers to. I would
suggest it may denote the language code used for communicating a message (e.g.
English, Italian, etc.) and/or the sociolect shared by a group of individuals (their
jargon). However, due to its vagueness, I prefer not to make use of it during my data
analysis. Finally, the ‘social’ category seems to contain a very large number of
subcategories, whose labelling is not always precise. For example, the term ‘leisure’
seems to refer to a vague subcategory. It does not specify if it should contain games,
sport, entertainment, TV and so on. Hence, I suggest a new distinction into two
categories: ‘high culture/institutions’ (containing allusions deriving from literature,
politics, art, history, etc.) and ‘popular culture’ (containing allusions deriving from
nursery rhymes, TV, cinema, sport, etc.).
Limiting Leppihalme’s framework to PNs and KPs and revising Davies González
and Scott-Tennent’s typology allows me to use them in combination to classify the
examples in my ST. The quantitative analysis according to this categorisation is
contained in Section 6.6 below. The next two sections will be devoted to discussing
the issues related to humorous culture-specific allusions and translation, and the
strategies available to overcome the problem they pose.
6.4 Function(s) of Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
Leppihalme (1997: 31-55) discusses the many functions of allusions and their effects.
These include humour, characterisation, expression of interpersonal relationships
between characters and so on. These functions can be analysed separately but they
also partly overlap (ibid.31). As she explains, humorous allusions can be found in
194
parody and satire. They can also be described as a type of wordplay whose intended
effect (laughter, surprise, shock, etc.) is achieved by creating incongruity between the
borrowed linguistic items (and the implicit meaning they entail) and the new context
within which they are embedded (ibid.40-42).
Leppihalme also suggests that characters who creatively exploit allusion within a
given fictional world may be perceived as educated, erudite, and quick-witted.
Moreover, this creative use of allusions can also reflect the character’s interests. In
contrast, naïve and poorly educated characters are likely to make use of trite allusions
(e.g. clichés) and often fail to grasp the implied meaning of allusions uttered by other
characters (ibid.40). Besides, Leppihalme claims that allusions can foster power play
between the characters. For example, if the ‘alluder’ (the person who utters an
allusion) makes a creative use of allusion, the alludee (the person who receives the
allusion) may respond to it in several ways. They may recognise the allusion, thus
becoming part of the group s/he has been invited to join by means of this device.
However, they may fail to understand the allusion and its meaning, explain its source,
and so on. In such cases, these allusions become a device to show the alludee’s naïvity
and lack of shared knowledge with the alluder (ibid.46-50). My data seems to offer
evidence of this, as I will demonstrate during my analysis.
Clearly, authors are likely to exploit this type of allusion because of their
multifunctionality. Hence, translators have to be particularly sensitive to their
presence and function within the text. On the basis of her empirical findings (based on
the questionnaires she administered to Finnish informants), Leppihalme concludes that
retaining culture-specific allusions in the TT cannot be considered a valuable
translation strategy because target text receivers are not likely to recognise the original
195
reference and implicit meaning (ibid.22 and passim). She therefore suggests other
alternatives, which I summarise later in Section 6.5 and its subsections.
Antonopoulou (2004) focuses on the use of allusive PNs in humorous discourse.
She claims that retaining PN allusions in the TT is fundamental because they convey a
potentially humorous effect. In her study, Antonopoulou analyses the allusive PNs in
two Greek translated versions of Raymond Chandler’s novels. She also discusses the
findings of the analysis of a questionnaire she administered to Greek informants. This
questionnaire contained some examples taken from the two translated texts and an
alternative translation suggested by Antonopoulou herself. Both the linguistic and
empirical investigation leads her to conclude that allusive PNs should be retained,
especially when they are contained in comparing constructions (similes, metaphors
and alike) because:
If an entity is referred to by name, then the producer of the message is

assumed to have reason to believe (a) that the entity in question is worth
naming and mentioning by name and/or (b) that the recipient of the
message is in the position to identify the referent (ibid.243).
In addition to this, Antonopoulou points out that PNs are brief and economical
ways to convey information, immediacy and simultaneity. Deciding to substitute them
could therefore jeopardise the text’s effect and appreciation (ibid.248-249). All in all,
Antonopoulou (ibid.250) argues that allusive PNs should be retained because they
provide:
 Ambience/credibility of the TT
 Participation of the target readership in problem-solving
 Membership of that readership (in-group)
 Brevity and simultaneously activated, image-like scenes.
196
It should be noticed that most examples in Antonopoulou’s data involve allusive
PNs in comparative constructions (e.g. “I need a guy who can act like a bar lizard and
can backchat like Fred Allen”, from Trouble Is My Business, by Raymond Chandler
1950, in ibid.225). Thus, the co-text and context play a fundamental role during the
interpretation of a humorous allusive PN. However, allusions are not always included
in such constructions. Hence, as Leppihalme suggests, other translation options should
be taken into consideration. The following section will therefore be devoted to the
translation strategies that can be applied to transfer them across cultures and
languages.
6.5 (AV)Translation of (Humorous) Culture-Specific Allusions
As we have seen so far, scholars in TS recognise the relevance of culture-specific
allusions within the text but they seem to disagree to some extent on the translation
process that should be applied to transfer them. This is further confirmed by the
literature produced in TS on this topic. For example, Baker (1992: 21-42) discusses
the most common problems of non-equivalence between source and target language at
word level and consequently suggests eight translation strategies to overcome the
problems related to culture-specific allusions. However, strategies like ‘substitution’
and ‘omission’ can be found across studies in TS to deal with several translation
problems (cf. Chapter 5 on wordplay and Chapter 7 on metaphor in this thesis). Baker
herself is fully aware of this and discusses advantages and disadvantages for each
translation strategy put forward in her book (ibid.). For his part, Aixelá (1996: 61-65)
suggests eleven different ways to tackle the problems arising in the translation of
culture-specific allusions (‘culture-specific items’ in his terminology), thus creating
further terminological confusion.
197
Interestingly, all the scholars I have mentioned so far focus mainly on written texts,
while translating audiovisual material means taking into account other kinds of
contextual factors. For example, Bovinelli and Gallini (1994) highlight the fact that
dubbing culture-specific references is very much dependent upon technical constraints
such as lip sync or the simultaneous use of visual and verbal text. According to
Bovinelli and Gallini’s data analysis, the Italian translators seem to favour a target-
oriented approach. In their opinion, this allows the audience a deeper immersion into
the movie experience (ibid.98).
Conversely, Bucaria’s (2007) study of the Italian subtitling of the Late Show with
David Letterman reveals a source-oriented approach in dealing with humour and
culture-specific references. Bucaria suggests that this approach fails to convey the
potential humour of the original ST. However, as she acknowledges, choosing such an
approach is likely to depend on the fact that the ST can still be heard by the target
audience. These two studies clearly show the relevance of the translation mode used in
dealing with audiovisual material.
Clearly, translation scholars and practitioners alike are often caught in the
domesticating or foreignising (educating) dilemma (Venuti 1992, 1995, 1998). For
example, Niemeier’s (1991) paper on the translation of culture-specific references in
the German dubbed version of A Streetcar Named Desire (1951, Elia Kazan,
Endstation Sehnsucht) demonstrates how scholars themselves are often at pains to
favour one or the other approach.
In the case of potentially humorous culture-specific allusions in comedy, we can
certainly say that, since they contribute to the entertainment function of the text, their
successful translation is highly desirable. Interestingly, Leppihalme (1997) offers a
useful and manageable set of strategies for translating allusive proper-names (PNs)
198
and one for the translation of allusive key-phrases (KPs). Hence, I refer again to her
work and I present and discuss these sets of strategies in the following two
subsections. In addition, Subsection 6.5.1 also includes Antonopoulou’s (2004)
discussion of the application of Leppihalme’s taxonomy for the translation of
humorous PNs. However, since both these scholars also deal with culture-specific
allusions in written texts, in Subsection 6.5.3 I will take into account Ramière’s (2006)
framework for the translation of culture-specific allusions in audiovisual texts. All
three scholars’ viewpoints will be finally brought together in my revision of Ramière’s
model.
6.5.1 Translation Strategies for allusive Proper-Names (PNs)
Leppihalme’s (1997: 79) set of suggested translation strategies for proper names
(PNs) comprises:
(1) Retention of name (either unchanged or in its conventional target language
(TL) form) with three subcategories:
(1a) use the name as such;
(1b) use the name, adding some guidance (this strategy is described as
“small additions or alterations intended to supply some of the implicit
background knowledge in the allusion unobtrusively” (ibi.91);
(1c) use the name, adding a detailed explanation, for example a footnote.
(2) Replacement of name by another (beyond the changes required by
convention); with two subcategories:
(2a) replace the name by another SL name;
(2b) replace the name by a TL name.
(3) Omission of name, with two subcategories:
199
(3a) omit the name but transfer the sense by other means, for example by a
common noun;
(3b) omit the name and the allusion altogether.
It is worth noticing that in Leppihalme’s own data, the translators opted for
retaining the allusive PNs in almost 70% of cases, even when the Finnish receivers
were unlikely to recognise and understand them. In light of the above, Leppihalme
suggests that (Finnish) translators should make use of her set of alternative strategies,
which are ordered hierarchically in a flow chart. Briefly, Leppihalme advises
translators to evaluate the potential familiarity of TT receivers with an allusive PN and
to retain it only when they are certain it can be recognised. If not, they should add
some guidance (1b). If this is also not possible, they should opt for some form of
replacement, as suggested by (2a) and (2b). Alternatively, they could use a common
noun (3a) or resort to overt explanation (1c) before deciding to omit the PN altogether
(3b) (see ibid.106).
In contrast to Leppihalme’s suggestions, Antonopoulou (2004) claims that
modifying potentially humorous allusive PNs can jeopardise the receivers’
interpretation of the TT. For example, she claims that humorous references should not
be translated by ‘explic[it]ation’ (strategies (1b) and (1c) in Leppihalme’s
terminology) because this is likely to cancel the humorous effect of the allusive PN
(ibid.223). Antonopoulou also discusses the option called the ‘cultural transplantation’
(Hervey and Higgins 2001: 132-135, quoted in Antonopoulou ibid.), which suggests
replacing the source target reference with a target culture one ((2b) above). In her
opinion, this strategy cannot be an adequate candidate, especially when a text is
clearly set in the source text environment. This is particularly true for audiovisual
texts because they combine verbal and visual text and the mismatch between the target
200
culture reference and the original visual image could be striking and more immediate
than in other types of text. However, it is interesting to notice that I have found
examples of this strategy in my data. This will be discussed in more detail later.
Antonopoulou’s suggestions are dependent on the fact that she analyses written
texts. Other considerations concerning Leppihalme’s taxonomy have to be taken into
account when dealing with audiovisual texts. Not all the strategies provided above are
applicable to such texts, and others should perhaps be included. For example, using
footnotes as suggested in (1c) is not possible. Also, Leppihalme does not include the
possibility of resorting to ‘compensation’ (Harvey 1995; cf. previous chapters for its
discussion and application). This strategy is also applicable to the translation of
culture-specific allusions, as my analysis will show later.
Although I could not find instances of this in my data, it seems important to point
out that translators may also choose to deploy a culture-specific allusion that shares
some similarity with the original one but proceeds from a culture other than the source
or target one. These references are considered as internationally known, thus likely to
be understood by the target culture as well. Lorenzo et al. (2003: 280) call this
strategy ‘internationalization’. For example, in one episode of the animated series The
Simpsons (1987- , Matt Groening) a manager refers to ‘Fred and Ethel’, the main
characters of an American soap opera called I Love Lucy (1951-1957, Dasi Arnaz).
Lorenzo et al. (ibid.282) show that the Spanish translator(s) replaced it with ‘Romeo
and Juliet’ in order to convey an effect similar to that intended by the original one.
6.5.2 Translation Strategies for allusive Key-Phrases (KPs)
Allusive key-phrases (KPs) are interesting sources of potential humour, especially in
conversation. Therefore, they can pose significant translation problems that deserve
201
attention and adequate solutions. Leppihalme (1997: 84) suggests the following list of
translation strategies for KPs:
A use of a standard or official translation;
B minimum change, that is, a word-for-word translation, without regard to
connotative or contextual meaning - there is thus no change that would aim
specifically at the transfer of connotations;
C extra-allusive guidance added to the text. The translator adds information to the TT
because s/he evaluates the needs of the TT receivers for extra explanatory material;
D use of footnotes, endnotes, translator’s prefaces and other explicit explanations
overtly given as extra information and not inserted in the text itself;
E simulated familiarity and internal marking, that is, the addition of marked wording
and syntax that depart from the style of the context, thus signalling the presence of
borrowed words;
F replacement by a preformed TL item;
G reduction of the allusion to sense by rephrasing it, which means omitting the
allusion and making its meaning overt;
H re-creation, fusion of techniques: creative construction of a passage which hits at
the connotations of the allusion or other special effects created by it;
I omission of the allusion.
Unfortunately, Leppihalme’s explanation of each strategy lacks examples.
However, the data analysis I provide later in this chapter will hopefully suffice.
Some common features of the strategies for PNs and KPs can be highlighted here.
For example, strategy (1) and its subcategories seem to match strategies (A) to (D)
while strategy (2) and its subcategories resemble (F). As in the case of strategy (1c)
for PNs, strategy (D) cannot be applied to audiovisual texts. While suggesting (F) as a
202
possible translation technique, Leppihalme has inserted an endnote in which she
claims that “[r]eplacement of the allusion by better-known source-culture specific
material (strategy (2a) on the PN list) is not noted on the KP list as it seems to be of no
practical value with KPs” (ibid.128). However, it seems important to point out that I
found examples of this strategy in my data. Some culture-specific KPs in the ST have
been replaced by a more famous allusion proceeding from the source culture in the
TT. In order to include such procedural possibilities, I will propose a revision of this
set of strategies in the next subsection.
Before concluding, I would also like to mention that in Leppihalme’s data, the
preferred strategy is (B)-minimum change and she suggests some possible reasons for
this choice (e.g. it is a low-effort strategy, the translator could not find a better
alternative, etc.; ibid.102-105). However, Leppihalme sees the limitations of this
strategy since it “does not always enable the TT reader to participate in the creative
process” (ibid.105) that the use of an allusion calls for. As with allusive PNs,
Leppihalme presents a hierarchically ordered flow-chart of the strategies above.
According to this, (A) is (not surprisingly) the favourite option while (B) and (D)
would be the least desirable ones (ibid.107).
6.5.3 The AVT of Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
As explained earlier, there is little agreement among scholars in TS about what
strategies should be applied in transferring culture-specific allusions. This is mainly
due to the fact that they consider different aspects and functions of this phenomenon.
For example, Leppihalme (1997) is oriented towards a target-culture (domesticating)
procedure while Antonopoulou (2004) affirms the importance of retaining the original
potentially humorous culture-specific allusions in the TT (foreignisation).
203
Translating culture-specific allusions (or references) in audiovisual texts is further
complicated by the specific constraints imposed by the medium (cf. Ch.3 in this thesis
for an extensive discussion). Ramière (2006) offers an interesting discussion on both
dubbing and subtitling culture-specific allusions. In Section 6.2 above I have accepted
her definition of this phenomenon because of its clarity and conciseness. More
importantly, drawing from Venuti’s (1995) distinction between the foreignisation and
domestication approaches, Ramière (2006: 156) presents a descriptive model for the
AVT of culture-specific allusions. In Figure 6.1 below I reproduce Ramière’s model (I
will explain my revision of it shortly).
She conceives the translation process as a continuum along which various options
can be found. At the two ends of this scale she places the foreignisation and
domestication poles respectively. She also includes other terms used in the literature
to describe these techniques (e.g. ‘exoticism’, ‘foreign’, ‘naturalisation’,
‘assimilation’, etc.). On this polarised scale, she inserts those techniques that are more
or less close to the two poles (e.g. transference/borrowing is closer to foreignisation;
cultural substitution is closer to domestication, etc). Finally, Ramière includes the
‘omission’ and ‘naturalization’ options off-scale and accompanies them by a question
mark. Although she does not explain the reason for this, I suppose it depends on the
fact that they cannot be evaluated according to the foreignisation or domestication
parameters.
Ramière’s model offers a clear visual representation of the various options at the
translators’ disposal while dealing with the AVT of culture-specific allusions. For the
sake of completeness, I have integrated it with some of Leppihalme’s strategies (e.g.
‘recreation’ for KPs). However, I have excluded those strategies in Leppihalme’s sets
which are inapplicable to audiovisual texts (i.e. (1c) and (D) suggest the use of
204
footnotes). Finally, I have included the ‘internationalisation’ and ‘compensation’
option. As mentioned earlier, Ramière’s general insight does not take into account the
specific characteristics of those culture-specific allusions that convey potential
humour (along with characterisation cues). Hence, this revision hopes to fill this gap:
205
Transference/ Literal translation/ Explanation/ Cultural substitution/

borrowing calque Replacement gloss Replacement
(PN (1a)/ (PN(1a)/ Re-creation (PN(2a)/ (PN(1b)/ (PN(2b)/
KP (E)) KP/(B)) Internationalization (KP(H)) KP(SL item) P(C)) compensation KP((F) –TL item)
omission? (PN(3b)/KP(I))
neutralisation? (PN(3a)/KP(G))
foreignisation domestication
exoticism/exoticisation naturalisation/assimilation
foreign/exotic familiar
Other Self
source-culture bias target-culture bias
Figure 6.1: Revision of Ramière’s (2006:156) model of procedures for the translation of source-culture allusions
206
Figure 6.1 gives a clearer and more schematic picture of the phenomenon under
investigation here. In particular, it shows which strategies suggested by Leppihalme can
be used for both PNs and KPs, or only for one of these devices. Furthermore, this visual
representation confirms and attempts to clarify some terminological confusion in TS. For
example, it shows that the ‘literary translation’ strategy can be assimilated to (1a) for PNs
and (B) for KPs. Therefore, I would like to advocate a more coherent and consistent way
of defining these strategies across the field of TS.
In the following section and subsection, I will examine how the production crew and
the scriptwriters in particular used culture-specific allusion for humorous (and
characterisation) purposes. Moreover, I will test the model in Figure 6.1 against my data
to verify which strategies were used in translating this mechanism into Italian. The
differences between the ST and TT will be highlighted and discussed thoroughly.
6.6 Data Analysis
Before moving on to the discussion of some of the instances of potentially humorous PNs
and KPs in my data, I will explain how I have selected and categorised them.
As with wordplay, I have considered those turns that precede canned laughter in the
ST. By doing so, I have detected 66 culture-specific allusions that pose potential
problems in translation. I have excluded 57 culture-specific allusions from this analysis
because they are not supported by canned laughter. In addition, I have left out 18
allusions (16 PNs and 2 KPs) that could be considered as ‘transcultural’ (recognisable by
the target culture) because they do not pose translation problems.
207
The next step of my analysis involves the categorisation of these 66 potentially
humorous culture-specific allusions on the basis of a combination of Leppihalme’s (1997)
categorisation of types of allusions and my revision of Davies Gonzáles & Scott-Tennet’s
(2005) typology for the sources of allusions. In Table 6.2 below I provide this
classification of my data:
Source of Allusion Number of Number of Total

instances instances
of Proper- of Key-phrases
Names (PNs) (KPs)
Material (drinks, food, measures,

various types of products available on
the market, etc.) 17 1 18
Ecological (places, flora and fauna,
etc.) 4 0 4
High culture/Institutions (literature,
institutions, politics, art, history, etc.) 6 3 9
Popular culture (nursery rhymes, sport,
show-business) 22 11 33
Religious (Catholicism, Judaism,
Islam, events related to religion etc.)
1 1 2
Total 50 16 66
Table 6.2: Combination and revision of Leppihalme’s (1997: 10-11) categorisation of allusive PNs and KPs and Davies Gonzáles &
Scott-Tennet’s (2005: 166-167) taxonomy.
As can be seen, most culture-specific allusions in the ST are PNs (50) while KPs are
much less frequent (16). The full list of examples is contained in Appendix III,
“Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions” at the end of this thesis. Classifying the examples
has not been straightforward since many of them can fall into more than one category. For
example, the reference to Mr. Potato Head (cf. example (6.4) below) could be included in
both the ‘material’ and ‘popular culture’ category. However, since it was first created as a
children’s toy, I have subsumed it under the former group. Besides, some exchanges
include more than one instance of potentially humorous culture-specific allusions and I
208
have considered them as such (cf. Mr Peanut and Mr Salty in example (6.1) below). In
contrast, some examples contain an allusion to two names that are usually referred to
together (e.g. Bullwinkle and Rocky in example (6.7) below). In such cases, they are
considered as one single instance.
Table 6.2 clearly shows that the PN and KP culture-specific allusions used in the ST
are mostly derived from the ‘material’ (food, drink, toys) and the ‘popular culture’
categories (films, television and people in showbusiness). As a matter of fact, the genre of
the texts under investigation plays an important role in the type(s) of allusions used. A TV
comedy series such as Friends is unlikely to include biblical or Shakespearean allusions
because of the type of audience it targets (people in their late teens up to those in their
mid-twenties) and the characters it portrays: young high-school graduates, with the
exception of Chandler and Ross who hold a university degree and PhD respectively.
The table above generally shows an effective way of categorising this multifaceted
phenomenon because it takes into account both the type of allusion and its source. Before
starting with my data analysis, I would like to describe the layout of the following
subsections. Due to space constraints, only some examples of the 66 instances of
potentially humorous culture-specific allusions in the ST are discussed here. Since the
vast majority of them are PNs (50 out of 66), the following subsections are mainly
devoted to their analysis and their translation. The strategies applied to the translation of
KPs will be discussed in one single subsection (6.6.7).
As in Chapter 5, each subsection is named after the translation strategy adopted in the
TT. For each example I first analyse the culture-specific allusion(s) in the ST. This
linguistic analysis is supported by Attardo’s (1994, 2001) GTVH metric. After discussing
the culture-specific allusions in the ST, I consider their translated counterparts. As in the
209
previous chapter, I will devote a subsection (Subsection 6.6.6) to the analysis of one
example of compensation accompanied by canned laughter that I found in the TT. I do
not consider this instance in my general contrastive analysis of the humour in the two
datasets. However, because of the relevance of compensation in translation, I will take it
into account during my discussion of the strategies used in the TT in the conclusive
Sections 6.7.
My investigation shows that, in contrast with Leppihalme’s findings, the Italian
translators have used a wide range of translation strategies (cf. Section 6.7 on the
statistical analysis of the data). For example, many PNs have been replaced by another SL
name (2a above) while in Leppihalme’s corpus this strategy is rarely used (ibid.92).
However, the Italian translators very often replaced the original culture-specific allusions
with a common noun (‘neutralisation’). I will provide a general overview on these
findings in Section 6.7 below.
6.6.1 Transference of SL Name
This foreignisation strategy has been used in my data for PNs in a small number of cases
(eight instances out of 50).
Example (6.1) has been discussed in the previous chapter (cf. Subsection 5.5.) in
reference to the pun it contains. I present it again here in order to discuss the two culture-
specific references used by the characters. As I anticipated in Chapter 4, there is some
overlapping between the three humour mechanisms I consider in this thesis. For instance
some FEI-based puns exploit the metaphoric expression in an idiom (cf. Subsection
5.8.2). Some examples in Chapter 7 will further confirm this (cf. Subsection 7.7.2). As
210
mentioned in Chapter 5, this extract is a part of the ‘teaser’ of Episode 20. All six friends
are in Monica and Rachel’s flat. They are having breakfast (or lunch) and their
conversations proceeds as follows:
[6.1]Chandler: I can’t believe Chandler: Non posso credere Chandler: I can’t believe you
you would actually say that. I che tu dica sul serio. Io are talking seriously. I’d rather
would much rather be preferirei essere Mr. Peanut che be Mr Peanut than
Mr Peanut than Mr Salty. Mr Salty.
Mr Salty.☺☺ Joey: Scherzi? Mr Salty è un Joey: Are you joking? Mr Salty
Joey: No way! Mr Salty is a marinaio, giusto? E quindi deve is a sailor, right? So he’s got to
sailor, all right, he’s got to be, essere lo snack più da duri che be the toughest snack there is.
like, the toughest snack there ci sia! Ross: I don’t know. I wouldn’t
is.☺☺ Ross: Non lo so. Comunque, io snob peanuts. They’re
Ross: I don’t know, you don’t non snobberei le noccioline. appetising.
wanna mess with corn nuts.☺ Sono appetitose.
They’re craaazy.☺☺
In the ST Chandler introduces two culture-specific references. Mr Peanut is the
advertising mascot of an American snack-food company called Planters. It is represented
as a peanut in its shell, dressed in dandy-like style (a top hat, monocle, white gloves,
spats, and a cane). He has also become a cartoon character and videogame. Mr Salty is
the drawing of a pretzel that dresses like a sailor (hat and bandanna around his neck) and
represents the Nabisco snack-food company. They are included into the ‘material’
category.
As I mentioned above, the group of friends are having a meal and this may be the
reason why their conversation revolves around these two snacks. Chandler and Joey’s
turns introduce the topic of the conversation and are supported by canned laughter. They
then give way to Ross’s turn. At the character-character level, Chandler is implicitly
attacking Joey because he would rather be a sailor than a classy dandy-like character. In
contrast, Joey highlights the positive features of Mr Salty, who is a sailor and therefore
211
likely to fulfil male stereotypes such as strength and power. At the author-audience level
the humour seems to derive from the incongruity created by the scene in which the three
adults discuss their degree of identification with cartoon-like characters. According to the
GTVH metric, this incongruity can be expressed by the contextual SOs Chandler/Mr
Peanut and Joey/Mr Salty. They also seem to evoke a concrete human/non-human SO and
an abstract possible/impossible SO, since Chandler is not Mr Peanut and Joey is not Mr
Salty. Joey and Chandler (and Ross at the audience-character level) can be the TAs1.
In the TT, the Italian translators retained the original PNs. It may be argued that the
Italian audience is not likely to grasp the implied meaning of the two culture-specific
allusions. However, it should be noticed that the immediate co-text offers extra
information about at least Mr Salty. Moreover, the use of the original PNs seems to retain
the potential funniness of the exchange at author-audience level and its ambience2. As can
be noticed, the two recordings of canned laughter for the culture-specific allusions were
omitted in the TT.
Example (6.2) below is another example where a PN is retained even if the target
audience may not recognise it. As in the previous example, this choice is most probably
due to the fact that the context of the exchange gives sufficient clues to understand what
the PN refers to. In this scene, from Episode 22, Chandler is talking to Phoebe about the
party they attended the night before at one of their colleagues’ place. Chandler has
recently been promoted and his co-workers are now his subordinates. Although he tries to
recreate the in-group complicity he has lost, his former colleagues have distanced him:
1
LM: Exaggeration, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
2
LM: Exaggeration, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
212
[6.2]Chandler: I think last Chandler: È stato fantastico Chandler: It was great last
night was great. You know, the l’altra sera. Quella storia del night. That Karaoke thing.
Karaoke thing. Tracy and I Karaoke. Tracy e io facevamo Tracy and I doing Ebony and
doing Ebony and Ivory.☺☺ Ebony and Ivory. Ivory.
Phoebe: You were great. But Phoebe: Eri magnifico! Ma ti Phoebe: You were great! But
they still made fun of you. prendono ancora in giro. they still made fun of you.
In the ST the culture-specific PN belongs to the ‘popular culture’ category and refers
to Paul McCartney’s number-one single Ebony and Ivory launched in 1982. Paul
McCartney performed it with the world famous African-American singer Stevie Wonder.
The lyrics of this song talk about how the black and white keys of a piano keyboard can
live side by side in harmony. At a deeper level this song deals with racial integration
suggesting that white and black people should be able to live together and respect each
other. In accordance with this, Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder seem to embody the
white (Ivory) and black (Ebony) keys on the piano respectively. The allusion seems to
carry potential humour because it can be related to Chandler’s attempt to regain his ex co-
workers’ friendship. Nonetheless, Chandler’s efforts do not seem to have had a positive
outcome, as Phoebe’s turn points out. Hence, the potential humour of this reference is
also dependent on the context within which it is embedded. The conceptual clash that the
use of culture-specific allusion attempts to convey can be explained in GTVH terms by
means of a contextual SO such as Ebony and Ivory/back people and white people. At a
concrete level it may evoke the human/non-human SO while at a more abstract level it
seems to create a possible/impossible SO. Finally, the TA is Chandler3.
Although a number-one single in 1982, Paul McCartney’s Ebony and Ivory is unlikely
to be recognised by most of the target audience of the ‘90s. However, the Italian
translators may have considered that the contextual and co-textual clues (e.g. Karaoke)
3
LM: Inferring consequences; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
213
could help the target audience interpret this correctly (Ebony and Ivory is a song). This
could happen despite the audience’s inability to grasp the nuances conveyed by the PN,
which I have outlined above. However, it could be argued that the same could also
happen with that part of the source audience who are not familiar with McCartney’s song.
Retaining the original allusion does seem to affect the contextual humour of the
exchange. At the author-audience level, Chandler can still be perceived as the TA in the
TT4. Finally, the recording of canned laughter in the ST was deleted in the TT.
6.6.2 Explanation (or Retention and Guidance)
Scholars in TS have named this strategy in different ways. For example, Veisbergs (1997:
164-171) names it ‘extension’ while Katan (1999: 131) calls it ‘explic(it)ation’ (both
quoted in Antonopoulou 2004: 223). However, I use Leppihalme’s and Ramière’s
terminology here for the sake of coherence. This type of strategy is situated almost half
way between the foreignisation and domestication ends (cf. Figure 6.1 above) but has
rarely been used in my corpus (two instances out of 50). This may be due to the
constraints imposed by the translation medium (i.e. lip sync). Nevertheless, it is worth
commenting on one example as proof of the variety of strategies in my data. In Episode 3,
Monica is dating a man called Alan. Usually, all her friends criticise and make fun of her
boyfriends. However, this time everybody is extremely fond of Alan. In example (6.3)
below Chandler comments:
4
LM: Inferring consequences; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
214
[6.3]Chandler: Oh, yeah. I’d Chanlder: Io lo sposerei Chandler: I’d marry him just
marry him just for his David solamente per la sua imitazione for his impression of David
Hasselhoff impression di David Hasselhoff, quello di Hasselhoff, the guy from
alone.☺☺ You know I’m Baywatch. La farò anch’io alla Baywatch. I'll do it as well at the
gonna be doing that at parties, prossima festa.☺ next party.
right? [Does the
impression]☺☺
In (6.3) Chandler’s reference is again drawn from North-American popular culture. He
mentions David Hasselhoff, a very well known actor of TV series in America, especially
Baywatch (1989-1991, Gregory J. Bonann). This TV series is based on the lives of
lifeguards who work in California and are physically very well trained and sexually
appealing. Chandler accompanies the second part of his turn with an impression of David
Hasselhoff, thus enhancing the potential humour of his allusion. However, Alan is not as
physically fit or sexually appealing as David Hasselhoff. What seems to contribute more
to the potential humour of the exchange is Chandler’s (and all the other characters’)
exaggerated fondness for Alan, which is perceived at the author-audience level. Hence,
according to the GTVH metric, the potential humour of Chandler’s turn could be
explained by the contextual SO: Chandler/David Hasselhoff, which also evokes a
sex/non-sex SO. At an abstract level it can also activate the normal/abnormal SO since
David Hasselhoff is generally considered as exceptionally fit and handsome. Chandler is
the TA of his own humour since he recognises he is not like David Hasselhoff 5.
In the TT, the culture-specific PN was retained but some guidance has been added,
probably because the translator felt that the Italian audience may not be familiar with the
actor’s name. The name of the TV series Baywatch is instead easily recognisable. Adding
it to the text facilitates the inference process because it links David Hasselhoff’s name to
the TV series. In this way, the audience is more likely to recognise the reference to a
5
LM: Role exchange, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
215
well-built, good-looking man. Moreover, the addition is brief and unobtrusive, which
makes this example a good candidate to show how this strategy can be applied to
audiovisual material. Finally, the original SOs and TA are retained along with the other
KRs6. In the ST there are two recordings of canned laughter but only the one at the end of
Chandler’s turn was retained in the TT.
6.6.3 Replacement by SL Name
This strategy is fairly frequent in my data (11 instances out of 50). This approach lies
almost half way between the foreignisation and domestication ends. It seeks to preserve
elements of the original culture and, at the same time, it (mainly) aims to convey the
implied meaning of the reference. Examples (6.4) and (6.5) below show that in the TT the
original culture-specific allusions have been replaced by other references that are taken
from North-American culture but that are likely to be more familiar to the Italian
audience. In example (6.4), from Episode 1, Rachel explains why she decided to run away
the day of her wedding and expresses her feelings for her not-to-be husband Barry:
[6.4]Rachel: … And then I got Rachel: … E allora mi sono Rachel: … And then I got really
really freaked out, and that’s davvero spaventata e mi sono scared and I also realised how
when it hit me: how much Barry anche accorta di come Barry much Barry looks like E.T., You
looks like Mr Potato Head.☺ assomiglia E.T. ☺Cioè capite, know what I mean, it always
Y’know, I mean, I always knew mi era sempre sembrato un viso looked a familiar face to me,
he looked familiar, but...☺☺☺ familiare ma...☺ but…
In the ST, Rachel refers to Mr Potato Head, a children’s potato-shaped toy wearing
moustache, glasses and a hat, which it is very popular in the United States. Therefore, it
can be subsumed under the ‘material’ category. Rachel compares Barry to Mr Potato
6
LM: Role exchange, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name plus explanation.
216
Head, which conveys an implied disparaging comment on the former. Mr Potato Head
appeals to children because of his exaggerated features (e.g. big eyes and nose, thin, long
arms, etc.) and his cheerful smile. However, these exaggerated features are ridiculous
when applied to a human being. The GTVH metric can be used to explain the potential
humour of this exchange by means of the contextual SO Barry/Mr Potato. At a more
concrete level it evokes the human/non-human SO and at an abstract level it can activate
the normal/abnormal SO (cf. explanation above). Finally, the TA is Barry7.
Rachel’s culture-specific allusion to Mr Potato Head is likely to be unfamiliar to the
Italian audience. Therefore, in the TT the translators replaced it with E.T., the famous
Extra Terrestrial character from Steven Spielberg’s film (1982, E.T.: The Extra
Terrestrial). This salvaged the potential humour of this part of Rachel’s utterance8. Like
Mr Potato Head, E.T. is perceived to be sweet but he is also known for his rather unusual
features (e.g. big head, long, thin arms, etc.); thus a man with similar features would be
regarded as unattractive. Interestingly, both recordings of canned laughter have been
retained in the Italian TT. This may suggest the dubbing team’s confidence in choosing
this option.
In example (6.5), another culture-specific allusion underwent the same type of
manipulation. In this scene, from Episode 12, Ross visits his lesbian ex-wife who lives
with her new partner:
[6.5]Ross: Oh, that’s great, that Ross: Fantastico! Grazie al Ross: Oh, that’s great, that is
is great! [Hugs and kisses Carol. cielo!.. Ehi, quand’è che tu e great!.. Hey, when did you and
Then picks up a picture frame] Susan avete conosciuto Tyson? Susan meet Tyson?
Hey, when did you and Susan Carol: Quella è la nostra amica Carol: That’s our friend Tanya.
meet Huey Lewis? Tanya.☺☺☺
Carol: Uh, that’s our friend
Tanya.☺☺☺
7
LM: Potency mapping, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
8
LM: Potency mapping, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
217
In the ST, Ross’ refers to Huey Lewis, an American musician and actor who is fairly
well-built and plays in a band which is rather famous in America (Huey Lewis and The
News). As such this allusion belongs to the ‘popular culture’ category. Ross looks at a
picture that cannot be seen by the audience and he mistakenly assumes that the person in
it is Huey Lewis. Ross’s assumption is defeated by Carol’s turn that informs him that he
is looking at the picture of a woman (Tanya) and not a man’s. Carol’s turn reveals the
incongruity, thus conveying the potential humour of the conversational exchange. This
exchange can be seen as a prejudiced joke which exploits the stereotyped (and
homophobic) idea that lesbian women look like men (Tanya looks like a man to Ross).
The audience may therefore laugh at Ross and his mistaken interpretation. According to
the GTVH, the conceptual clash in the exchange can be described by means of the
contextual SO: Tanya/Huey Lewis. At a more concrete level is can also evoke the sex/no-
sex SO. At a more abstract level it seems to activate the actual/non-actual SO since Tanya
is not Huey Lewis. Finally, the TAs seems to be Tanya, lesbian women and Ross9.
The Italian translators replaced the original PN with another PN that is drawn from the
same source culture. Mike Tyson is an American boxer who is now retired. His
appearance is extremely masculine but his facial features have been affected by years of
boxing (scars, deep-set eyes, etc). He is known world-wide, including in Italy. He is
equally famous for his boxing skills and violent attitude to others. In my opinion, not only
does the Italian TT retain the entertaining features of the exchange and its KRs 10 but it
also maximises its biased potential humour. The use of Mike Tyson as allusive PN creates
9
LM: Potency mapping, implicit parallelism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
10
LM: Potency mapping, implicit parallelism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
218
a more disparaging effect against Tanya and lesbian women in general. Not surprisingly,
the recording of canned laughter has been retained in the TT with equal length.
Before concluding this section, I would like to comment briefly on the strategy
involving the replacement of a SL name by a TL name. As I argued earlier, this strategy
is usually avoided because using a TL allusion is likely to clash with the visual element
on the screen. My data analysis seems to confirm this since I could find only one instance
of such a strategy. Due to space limitations, I do not discuss it here, but it is included in
Appendix III, “Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions” (example 43) at the end of this
thesis.
6.6.4 Neutralisation or Omission and Use of Common Noun
Aixelá (1996: 64) notices that the ‘total omission’ strategy is used quite often in
translation. In contrast, the analysis of my data shows that in the Italian dubbed version of
the first series of Friends, the translators often opted for substituting culture-specific
allusions with a common noun (22 instances out of 50). This strategy was applied mainly
to allusive PNs that belong to the ‘material’ and ‘high culture/institutions’ categories.
Leppihalme explains that this strategy preserves some denotative effect, although it
deprives the TT of the nuances conveyed by the allusion (ibid.93). Antonopoulou’s
(2004: 250) opposing view is that omitting the PN endangers the humorous effect of the
text and suggests ruling out this option. I have detected two subcategories of this strategy
in my data: a) when the common noun is related to the allusive PN it replaces; and b)
when the common noun is not related to the allusive PN it replaces. Three examples are
discussed below.
219
Example (6.6) below, from Episode 5, shows the use of two allusive PNs as modifiers.
Chandler has asked his girl-friend Janice to meet him because he wants to end their
relationship but she arrives with a present:
[6.6]Janice: I got you...these. Janice: Ho comprato per te Janice: I bought you these.
[pulls out a pair of socks] questi. Chandler: Oh, socks with a
Chandler: Bullwinkle socks.☺ Chandler: Oh, calzini con moose. Wonderful!
That’s so sweet. l’alce. Splendidi! Janice: I knew you had those
Janice: Well, I knew you had Janice: Sapevo che li avevi con with the squirrel and so I
the Rocky’s, and so I figured, lo scoiattolo e così ho pensato thought you could also have
you know, you can wear che potevi avere anche quelli those with the moose. You
Bullwinkle and Bullwinkle, or con l’alce. Potresti metterli could wear them coupled or you
you can wear Rocky and Rocky, appaiati o magari fare un bel can mix and match, moose and
or, you can mix and match, miscuglio, alce e scoiattolo, squirrel, whatever you like the
moose and squirrel.☺☺ come ti piace di più. most.
Whatever you want.
In the ST Janice refers to Rocky and Bullwinkle, the main characters of two American
TV animated programmes that enjoyed great success in the 1960s (Rocky and His Friends
and The Bullwinkle Show respectively). They are therefore part of the ‘popular culture’
category I described earlier on. The potential humour of the exchange is based on the
situation. Chandler would like to end their relationship but Janice is unaware of it and
brings a present. In addition, Janice’s reference to the Rocky and Bullwinkle socks and
the way she explains to Chandler their multiple combinations contribute to portray her as
childish and irritating. In GTVH terms, the contextual SO can be end of the
relationship/exchange of presents (Rocky and Bullwinkle socks). At a concrete level the
exchange seems to activate the childish/adult behaviour SO and consequently the more
abstract normal/abnormal SO. Finally, the TA is Janice11.
The Italian translators simply replaced Rocky and Bullwinkle with the common name
of the animals they refer to, namely a squirrel and a moose. Replacing the original PNs
11
LM: Self-undermining, exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
220
with other SL names (e.g. Hanna and Barbera’s ‘Tom and Jerry’) or using the
‘internationalization’ strategy (PNs deriving from any culture but internationally known)
is not possible in this case because the socks with the moose are visible on the screen.
Although the specificity of the exchange seems to be minimised 12 , the concrete and
abstract SOs are preserved. In my opinion the original culture-specific allusion could
have been preserved. The immediate co-text could have given sufficient clues for
understanding the allusion, even if the target audience was not familiar with it. An
alternative solution could be to retain the proper names when they are mentioned for the
first time and use the common nouns subsequently (cf. Baker 1992: 40). Finally, the two
recordings of canned laughter in the ST were omitted in the TT.
As anticipated before, replacement can be made using an unrelated common noun,
which however can convey the implied meaning of the original allusive PN (and its
potential humour). Example (6.7) is taken from Episode 15 during which Ross dates a girl
called Celia. On their first date, Ross and Celia are kissing on his sofa and Celia asks
Ross to use some dirty words to arouse her. Ross is not able to do this and the day after
goes to Joey for advice. Joey suggests that Ross should practise before meeting Celia
again. In this scene Ross tells Joey what happened during their second date:
[6.7]Ross: I was the James Ross: Ti assicuro: una specie di Ross: I can assure you: a kind
Michener of dirty talk.☺☺ It mago della parolaccia. Ho usato of wizard of dirty word. I used
was the most elaborate filth you le volgarità più elaborate mai the most elaborated vulgarities
have ever heard. I mean, there sentite. C’era di tutto: ever heard. There was a bit of
were characters, plot lines☺☺, personaggi, complotti, trame, everything: characters, plot
themes, a motif... at one point tranelli... A un certo punto c’ho lines, conspiracies, traps... at
there were villagers.☺☺☺ messo anche i pirati. one point I also added pirates.
12
LM: Self-undermining, exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Common noun.
221
In the ST Ross refers to James Albert Michener, a bestselling American author who
was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. His novels usually tell stories about war (e.g.
Tales of the South Pacific and Hawaii). Unlike the previous examples, this allusive PN
belongs to the ‘high culture/institutions’ category (which includes allusions from
literature). It is not surprising that such a reference is uttered by Ross who is the only one
who is highly educated (University degree and PhD) among his friends. However, his
personal interests in fiction have demonstrated to be unsuccessful in a courting situation.
The ST presents a humorous and incongruous scenario where what was supposed to be a
sexually arousing tale almost becomes a complex one with many characters. Hence,
according to the GTVH metric, the clash between these two scenarios can be seen as the
following SO: James Michener’s tale/dirty talk in sex. This can also evoke the sex/non-
sex SO and the normal/abnormal SO. The TA is Ross himself13.
The Italian translators replaced the allusive PN with an unrelated common noun. The
word ‘mago’ (magician) is idiomatically used in Italian to refer to someone who is really
good at doing something (e.g. computing; like the English ‘computer wizard’). The
general potential humour of the exchange seems preserved since the concrete and abstract
SO are preserved along with the other KR 14 . However, this general fixed expression
seems to retain only part of the specific implied humour conveyed by the original allusive
PN. This seems to be confirmed by the omission of all three recordings of canned
laughter present in the ST. Interestingly, the Italian translators substituted the “villagers”
in the ST with “pirati” (‘pirates’) in the TT, which seems to activate a potentially
humorous opposition between sex and a battle (cf. also Goatly 2007: 83-85 on the use of
13
LM: Self-undermining, exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
14
LM: Self-undermining, exaggeration; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Common noun.
222
sex and battle as, respectively, target and source domain of metaphor). Hence, it may be
seen as an attempt at compensation. To conclude, an alternative solution could have been
to replace James Michener with another source culture or an internationally known writer
who can evoke similar implied meaning (e.g. Ernest Hemingway).
Example (6.8), from Episode 5, is another example in which the PN (used as part of a
simile) in the ST is replaced by an unrelated noun in the TT. In this scene, Monica and
Joey are out for dinner with Joey’s former girlfriend, Angela, and her new boyfriend, Bob.
Joey is trying to make Angela jealous by taking Monica out for dinner as his new
girlfriend. Joey has told Monica that Angela and Bob are siblings. However, during the
dinner Angela has her hand inside Bob’s shirt. Monica calls Joey aside and comments:
[6.8]Monica: Hello! Were we at Monica: Ma guardali! Noi Monica: But look at them! We
the same table? It’s like... siamo allo stesso tavolo e loro are at the same table and they do
cocktails in Appalachia.☺☺☺ fanno come topo e like mouse and cheese.
formaggio.☺☺
In (6.8), Monica’s culture-specific PN belongs to the ‘ecological’ category since it
refers to the Appalachia region in the eastern United States. Prior to the 20th century, the
people of Appalachia were geographically isolated from the rest of the country. A
politically incorrect but very popular running joke in the U.S. is that the inhabitants of
this region have a tendency for inbreeding. The culture-specific PN in Monica’s turn
implicitly evokes this prejudiced view. The humour is situational and based on the fact
that Monica believes Angela and Bob to be siblings. In GTVH terms, the conceptual clash
conveyed by Monica’s turn can be explained according to the following SO: incest in
Appalachia/Angela and Bob’s incest. At a concrete level it may evoke the sex/no-sex SO
and at the abstract level the normal/abnormal SO. At the character-character level the TA
223
are Appalachians and marginally Angela and Bob but at the author-audience level Monica
is a TA as well, due to her prejudiced views15.
In the TT, the allusive PN was omitted and replaced by a more general simile,
according to which Angela and Bob are behaving like ‘a mouse with cheese’. The
translators’ decision to omit this allusive PN may be explained as follows. Either they
could not find an adequate alternative or they preferred to avoid the use of any solution
that could be considered offensive to part of the target audience. In general the potential
humour is retained because the concrete and abstract SOs (sex/no-sex and
normal/abnormal) are preserved, along with the other KRs16. However, it can be argued
that TT can only partly retain the implied meaning of the original. In the context, the
‘mouse and cheese’ expression can still suggest incest but this notion is not part of its
scenario. Hence, it may also tone down the potential humour of Monica’s turn. The
recording of canned laughter was retained although it is shorter in length.
6.6.5 Omission of Name
As anticipated earlier, this strategy has been occasionally used in my corpus (four
instances out of 50). Two examples are presented below.
Example (6.9) is taken from Episode 13. Joey has found out that his father has an
extramarital relationship. He is very upset and tells his father that he has to end the
relationship and confess his betrayal to his mother. Once Mr Tribbiani has done so, Joey’s
mother tells Joey she already knew but she was happy about it because, since his
relationship with the other woman started, Joey’s father has become a much more caring
15
LM: Analogy, reas. on false premises; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name
16
LM: Analogy; reas. on false premises; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: common noun.
224
husband. Mrs Tribbiani therefore asks Joey to tell his father not to end his affair.
Chandler comments upon it:
[6.9]Chandler: Things sure Chandler: Certo che cose ne Chandler: Many things sure
have changed here on Waltons sono cambiate parecchie. have changed.
mountain.☺☺
In example (6.9) Chandler refers to Waltons Mountain, a fictional town in Virginia
which was the setting for the American television series, The Waltons (1972-1981, Earl
Hamner Jr.). The series tells the struggles of the Walton family, who live a difficult and
traditional life during the period of the Great Depression and World War II. At the
character-character and author-audience level, Chandler’s turn stresses the contrast
between Joey’s father’s sexual life style (and his mother’s acceptance of adultery) and the
Waltons’ traditional values. In GTVH terms, the contextual SO can be the Tribbianis’ life
style/the Waltons’ life style. This can also evoke the sex/no-sex SO and at a more abstract
level the normal/abnormal SO. The TAs are Joey and his family17.
The TV series Chandler mentions in his turn was broadcast in Italy for some time but
it was not as successful as in the United States. Furthermore, its Italian title Una famiglia
americana (‘An American family’) or any reference to it would hardly fit the context of
the exchange. Probably, the Italian translators decided to omit this culture-specific
allusion because only a part of the Italian audience would recognise it. The PN in the
Italian TT is omitted and replaced with a comment that attempts to convey the intended
meaning of the original. It can be said that to some extent it retains the opposition
between the past (and its values) and the present (Joey’s family’s values). However, it can
17
LM: Potency mapping, inferring consequences; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
225
be argued that the potentially humorous effect is highly minimised and the elegance of the
reference is entirely lost. Moreover, Chandler’s turn in the TT might not to be perceived
as disparaging towards Joey’s family as such. A possible alternative could have been to
use a more famous SL cultural reference. For instance, the translators could have referred
to the Ingalls family from the TV series Little House on the Prairie (1974-1983) based on
the homonymous children’s book by Laura Ingalls Wilder, which is still very popular in
Italy. A sentence like “certo che di cose ne sono cambiate in casa Ingalls” (“things sure
have changed in Ingalls’ house/family”) could have conveyed a similar implied meaning.
Not surprisingly, the recoding of canned laughter after Chandler’s turn was omitted in the
TT.
In example (6.10), from Episode 4, Rachel, Monica and Phoebe have been delivered
George Stephanopoulous’s pizza by mistake. Monica and Phoebe are rather excited
because they seem to fancy this Mediterranean man who lives across the street. Rachel
does not know him and asks:
[6.10]Rachel: Uh, Pheebs? Rachel: Phoebe, chi è George Rachel: Phoebe, Who’s George
Who’s George Snuffalopagus? Stephanopoulous? Stephanopoulous?
☺☺ Phoebe: È un incallito Phoebe: A hardened
Phoebe: Big Bird’s friend. sciupafemmine. womaniser.
☺☺☺
In the ST, Rachel mispronounces George’s surname, which is paronymous with
Snuffalopagus, a fictional character and Big Bird’s best friend in Sesame Street, a popular
children’s TV programme in the United States. Therefore, I have subsumed it under the
‘popular culture’ category. Phoebe should be able to understand that Rachel
mispronounced George Stephanopoulous’s name, especially because of the presence of
226
“George” in Rachel’s turn. However, she (apparently) ignores it and responds referring to
Snuffalopagus. However, it could also be argued that Phoebe is aware of the mistake and
intentionally misinterprets it so as to make an indirect sexual reference when she refers to
“Big Bird”. Hence, the potential humour of this exchange can be explained in GTVH
terms with the contextual SO: George Stephanopoulous/Snuffalopagus. Interestingly, in
my opinion it can evoke both the human/non-human and sex/non-sex. However, I will
consider only the sex/no-sex SO here since it seems more relevant for the potential
humour of this exchange and the context of the scene as a whole. At a more abstract level,
this exchange seems to activate the normal/abnormal SO since George Stephanopoulous
is mistaken for a fictional character. Rachel seems to be the TA of Phoebe’s comment18.
In the Italian TT, the translators omitted the reference to Snuffalopagus either because
they failed to recognise the paronymous wordplay or because they thought the target
audience would not recognise it. They replaced this culture-specific allusion with the
correct pronunciation of George Stephanopoulous’s surname and they changed Phoebe’s
turn into an answer to the main topic of the conversation. In the TT, George
Stephanopoulous is still the TA of the humour but for a different reason: He is portrayed
as a womaniser. Also, Phoebe utters her turn in such a way that the Italian audience is led
to infer that she and Monica are attracted by men who use women like objects, thus
fulfilling a common stereotype in some Western societies. As a consequence of this, they
also potentially become indirect targets of Phoebe’s turn while Rachel is not. Interestingly,
both recordings of canned laughter in the ST were omitted in the TT.
18
LM: Role exchange, reas. from false premises, analogy; SI: Context; NS: Conv.; LA: Proper name.
227
6.6.6 Compensation
As I observed earlier on, Leppihalme’s framework does not include the compensation
option. Nevertheless, as with wordplay, I consider this phenomenon relevant to
translation. Hence, I discuss an example of compensation I have found in my data for the
sake of completeness. As in example (6.10) above, this strategy is used in conjunction
with another translation strategy. It overlaps with Leppihalme’s ‘replacement by TL
name’ technique (2b) or Ramière’s ‘cultural substitution’ (cf. Figure 6.1 above).
In example (6.11), from Episode 9, everybody is in Rachel and Monica’s for a
Thanksgiving dinner. In the North-American tradition, people celebrate this festivity with
a dinner whose main course is roast turkey, with side dishes such as mashed potatoes,
vegetables etc. Unfortunately, the six friends’ dinner burnt because they locked
themselves out. Nonetheless, they decide to have dinner by eating cheese sandwiches.
Chandler is cutting and serving them:
[6.11] Chandler: Shall I carve? Chandler: Allora, taglio? Chandler: Shall I cut, then?
Rachel: By all means. ☺☺ Rachel: Sì, grazie. Rachel: Yes, please.
Chandler: Ok, who wants light Chandler: Formaggio chiaro o Chandler: Light cheese or dark
cheese, and who wants dark abbrustolito? Ordinare signori! cheese? Please order ladies and
cheese?☺☺ Ross: Potrei avere solo il pane gentlemen!
Ross: I don’t even wanna know in cassetta?☺ Ross: Could I have only loaf
about the dark cheese. ☺☺☺ bread?
In the ST, in his second turn, Chandler refers to the distinction between light meat (i.e.
breast) and dark meat (i.e. legs) for turkey and poultry. Therefore, this culture-specific PN
in the ST can be included into the ‘material’ group. Chandler transfers this distinction
onto the types of cheese in their sandwiches. By doing so, Chandler is poking fun at the
unusual situation he and his friends are experiencing. Ross also contributes to the
potential humour of the exchange by playing with the word “dark”. He implicitly refers to
228
the turkey that went burnt earlier. Hence, the potential humour of this exchange can be
seen in GTVH according to the contextual SO: conventional
Thanksgiving/unconventional Thanksgiving. At a concrete level it may evoke the
food/no-food SO (cf. Attardo 2001: 141-142) and at the abstract level it seems to activate
the normal/abnormal SO. The TA of the exchange could be all six friends19.
The TT reveals interesting differences from the ST most probably due to the
translation problems that Chandler’s culture-specific allusion poses. In Italian people do
not usually make a distinction between light or dark meat in poultry. The general
distinction is between light types of meat (e.g. turkey, chicken) and ‘red’ meat (e.g. pork,
beef). This may be the reason why translators transformed Chandler’s culture-specific
allusion into a literal reference to the sandwiches that contain either plain (“chiaro”) or
grilled (“abbrustolito” to replace “dark”) cheese. In order to compensate for this loss, in
Ross’s turn a reference to a slightly Italian old-fashioned term for sliced loaf bread was
added (“pane in cassetta”). Nowadays, Italian people are more likely to refer to this kind
of bread using the word ‘pancarrè’. According to Harvey’s (1995: 82-84) categories, this
is an example of contiguous compensation because it is placed within a short distance
from the culture-specific allusion that was omitted and compensated for. In my opinion,
the humour may derive from the fact that Ross refuses the cheese because the word
“abbrustolito” potentially evokes the burnt turkey. Moreover, the fact that Ross uses this
old-fashioned term matches his idiosyncratic features (educated but pompous at times).
This may also explain why the recording of canned laughter after Ross’s turn was
19
LM: Potency mapping, cratylism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Definition ?.
229
retained. In my opinion this attempt at compensation only partly salvages the humour of
the text20 but it still confirms the validity of this strategy in general terms.
In the next subsection I will look at some examples of KPs and the translation
strategies the translator has adopted while dealing with them.
6.6.7 Translated Key-Phrases (KPs)
The translation of key-phrases (KPs) shows more interesting manipulations of the ST.
This is likely due to the fact that KPs are longer stretches of text, rather than one or two
words as in the case of PNs. The manipulation of two or more items in each KP seems to
pose potential translation problems. As mentioned earlier, I consider 16 instances of
potentially humorous KPs in the ST that are accompanied by canned laughter. They differ
from allusive wordplays discussed in the previous chapter for the following reason.
Allusive wordplays involve the creative exploitation and manipulation of entrenched
fixed expressions or idioms. In contrast, allusive KPs are intertextual references in the
narrowest sense, i.e. quotations from well-known sources as such. For example, they may
be based on nursery rhymes, books, political speeches, religious expressions, etc.
Not all the strategies included in Figure 6.1 above could be detected in the corpus
under investigation. For instance, explanation/gloss and compensation could only be
found in conjunction with another strategy (cf. example and (6.19) below). The most
interesting finding is that the replacement with another source language KP that
Leppihalme considers of “no practical value with KPs” (ibid.128) was used in my corpus
20
LM: ?; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Proper name.
230
(cf. example (6.14) below). Further considerations on the translation process are
contained in the quantitative analysis reported in Section 6.7.
The literal translation strategy-(B) has been used both when the broader referent could
be considered internationally known (e.g. some lyrics from a song about Pinocchio) and
when the context can facilitate the comprehension of the allusion (three instances out of
16). In example (6.12), from Episode 3, Ross’s monkey, Marcel, has defecated into one of
Monica’s shoes while she was away. Rachel is trying to explain to Monica which shoe
has been ruined. Phoebe contributes to the conversation by alluding to two nursery
rhymes and mixing them together in a dubious way:
[6.12]Phoebe: Yes, yes! Like Phoebe: Sì! Come l’uomo della Phoebe: Yes! Like the man of
the man in the shoe! scarpa! the shoe!
Ross: ...What shoe?☺☺ Ross: Che scarpa? Ross: ...What shoe?
Phoebe: From the nursery Phoebe: La poesia per bambini: Phoebe: The poem for children:
rhyme. “There was a crooked “C’era un uomo storto, che “There was a crooked man, who
man, Who had a crooked smile, aveva un sorriso storto, che had a crooked smile, who lived
Who lived in a shoe, For a... visse in una scarpa storta per un in a crooked shoe, For a
while...” [Dubious pause.]☺☺ po’ di tempo…”☺ while…”
In the ST, Phoebe mixes two nursery rhymes that are commonly known in the United
States (There was a Crooked Man and There was an Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe).
They can therefore be subsumed under the ‘popular culture’ category. The inappropriate
use of the rhymes and contribution result in a potential incongruity. At the author-
audience level, it seems that the scriptwriters creatively exploited the two nursery rhymes
in order to reinforce the idiosyncratic features of Phoebe’s character (twisted logic,
distorted vision of reality, childish behaviour, etc.). This is also underlined by her friends’
dubious pauses and looks and by canned laughter. Hence, the potential humour of
Phoebe’s turn can be explained in GTVH terms as a contextual SO: correct use of nursery
231
rhymes/incorrect use of nursery rhymes. At a concrete level, Phoebe’s turn seems to
evoke the child/adult behaviour SO and at a more abstract level, the normal/abnormal SO.
She can also be perceived as the TA of her own turn21.
Despite the fact that the original nursery rhymes can be considered as unfamiliar to the
target audience, the Italian translators literally translated the ST. This may be due to the
fact that the immediate co-text (“la poesia per bambini”, which means ‘the poem for
children’) offers sufficient clues about the sources of the culture-specific KPs. However,
it could be argued that in the TT the mixing is unlikely to be perceived. As a consequence
of this, the Italian audience may miss some of the inferences about Phoebe’s character.
Despite this partial loss, they may still be amused by Phoebe’s inappropriate contribution
to her friends’ conversation22. At both the character-character and author-audience level
Phoebe is likely to be perceived as incapable to “exhibit contextually sensitive behaviour”
(Culpeper 2001: 88-89; cf. Section 2.6 above). Finally, only one of the two recordings of
canned laughter was retained in the TT and it is also shorter.
The replacement of the culture-specific KP with a TL one occurs only once in my data,
probably for the same reasons discussed above for culture-specific PNs (e.g. mismatch
between verbal and visual text, ambience, etc.). However, it seems worth discussing this
example because it displays some creativity on the translators’ part. In example (6.13),
from Episode 20, the group of friends are in Monica and Rachel’s flat and hiding from
someone who spies on them from across the street. Joey crouches on his knees and tells
Rachel and Chandler to do the same:
21
LM: Faulty reasoning, self-undermining; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrases.
22
LM: Faulty reasoning, self-undermining; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrases.
232
[6.13]Joey: [entering] He’s Joey: È tornato! Il guardone è Joey: He’s back! The peeper’s
back! The peeper’s back! tornato. Tutti giù! back! Everybody down!
[Rachel enters from her room, Rachel: Tutti giù? Rachel: Everybody down?
ducking] Get down! Chandler: … Giù per Chandler: ...Down on the
Rachel: Get down? terra!☺☺ ground!
Chandler: ...And
boogie!☺☺☺
In the ST, Chandler quotes from the song from 1970s, ‘Boogie Oogie Oogie’ by a
band called A Taste of Honey. I therefore subsumed this example under the ‘popular
culture’ category. This song is still very well-known in the United States and belongs to
the disco music genre. Its lyrics talk about dancing and enjoying a night out in clubs.
Chandler exploits Joey’s and Rachel’s turns so as to deliver his humorous turn. This is
based on an opposition between Joey’s suggestion (meaning ‘crouching to hide’) and the
idiomatic expression in the song (“get down on the dance floor and dance”). At the
author-audience level, the characters’ behaviour may be perceived as childish because
they prefer hiding rather than dealing with the situation (i.e. asking the person to stop
spying on them). In GVTH terms, the opposition can be described as a contextual
hiding/dancing SO. Moreover, the exchange seems to evoke the concrete child/adult
behaviour SO and therefore a more abstract and normal/abnormal SO. The TA of
Chandler’s turn seem to be Joey and Rachel23.
In the TT, the translators made use of a famous Italian nursery rhyme that children
usually sing together, holding hands and forming a circle. When they sing the last line of
the lyrics, they are supposed to crouch on their knees. Hence, the translators’ choice
adequately matches the visual text. Moreover, they exploited the structure of the original
exchange in a similar way. By doing so, in my opinion they effectively retained the
potential humour of the original utterance. They retained the concrete and more abstract
23
LM: Reasoning on false premises; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
233
SOs, along with all other KRs 24 . The recording of canned laughter in the TT was
preserved, although shortened.
The following extract, from Episode 1, shows the use of a different source language
KP in the TT to replace the original KP. The use of this strategy in my corpus (two
instances out of 16) shows its feasible application in AVT. In example (6.14), from
Episode 1, Joey encourages Ross to have new interpersonal and sexual relationships after
he has been left by his lesbian ex-wife. Joey uses a metaphorical expression (‘grab a
spoon’) and Ross replies:
[6.14]Ross: [scornful] Grab a Ross: “Prendi un cucchiaino!” Ross: [scornful] “Grab a

spoon. Do you know how long Lo sapete da quanto tempo è che spoon!” Do you know how long
it’s been since I’ve grabbed a non prendo un cucchiaino? Da it’s been since I’ve grabbed a
spoon? Do the words “Billy, quando si diceva “Fate l’amore, spoon? Since they used to say
don’t be a hero” mean anything non fate la guerra”. “Make love, don’t make war”.
to you?☺☺☺
In (6.14), Ross refers to a popular song from 1974 by Paper Lace, “Billy Don’t Be a
Hero”. It tells of a woman who sings hoping for her fiancé’s return from the war. Since it
was released in the 1970s, it was considered an anti-Vietnam War song. Ross’s allusion
implicitly means that he has not had a sexual relationship with other women for a very
long time. The exaggeration in Ross’s turn carries potential humour that can be explained
in GVTH terms as the concrete SO: not having a relationship for some time/not having a
relationship for decades. At a more concrete level it can also activate the sex/non-sex SO.
At a more abstract level, it seems to evoke the normal/abnormal SO. Finally, Ross is the
TA of this own turn25.
24
LM: Reasoning on false premises; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrases.
25
LM: Parallelism, exaggeration, self-under.; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
234
The Italian translators opted for replacing the KP probably because they (rightly, in my
opinion) considered the target audience to be unfamiliar with it. Conversely, the Hippies’
motto (‘make love, don‘t make war’) is well known in Italy and world-wide, and
congruous to the topic of the conversation. Moreover, it was coined during the 1960s and
1970s in the United States when this youth movement publicly demonstrated its
opposition to the Vietnam War. It therefore refers to the same period of time suggested in
the original. It should be also noted that the words “da quando si diceva” (‘since they
used to say’) spell out that it is a reference to the time in which the expression was used.
This insertion can be seen as an instance of guidance, although the original reference was
replaced. For all these reasons, the Italian translation may be considered as successful in
conveying the original potential humour and its KRs 26 . The fact that no recording of
canned laughter is present in the TT seems therefore debatable.
The following example (6.15) shows the application of the recreation strategy (one
instance out of 16), which involves the creative fusion of two or more translation
strategies (‘neutralisation’ and ‘explanation’). This exchange is taken from Episode 15
and in this scene Chandler tells his friends the reason why he resigned from his previous
job and is now looking for another:
[6.15]Chandler: Hey, you guys Chandler: Sì. Voi sapete tutti Chandler: Yes. You all know
all know what you want to do. cosa volete fare. what you want to do.
Rachel: I don’t! Rachel: Io no. Rachel: I don’t!
Chandler: Hey, you guys in the Chandler: Dunque, voi che Chandler: OK, you guys sitting
living room all know what you siete sul divano sapete cosa on the sofa know what you
want to do.☺☺ You know, you volete. Avete tutti delle mete, want. You have goals. You have
have goals. You have dreams. I avete dei sogni. Io non ce l'ho dreams. I don’t have a dream.
don’t have a dream. un sogno. Ross: Hey, it sounds almost like
Ross: Ah, the lesser-known “I Ross: Ehi, sembra quasi il Martin Luther King’s speech.
don’t have a dream” discorso di Martin Luther King.
speech.☺☺
26
LM: Parallelism, exaggeration, self-under.; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
235
In the ST, after Chandler’s turn about having or not having a dream, Ross makes a
reference to Martin Luther King’s famous speech that has been popularly known as “I
have a dream”. This example can therefore be included in the ‘high-culture/institutions’
category. The main topic of Martin Luther King’s speech was his hope to live in a
country with equal rights for white and black people. Ross wittingly plays with the title in
order to poke fun at Chandler’s previous turn. Hence, the clash between any potential
humour of Ross’s turn can be seen as deriving from the contextual SO: Chandler’s
speech/ Martin Luther King’s speech. At a concrete level it also seems to evoke
equality/inequality. At a more abstract level the SO can be normal/abnormal because
Ross compares the problems that Chandler has at work with a major racial issue. Finally,
Chandler can be seen as the TA of the potential humour in the exchange27.
Despite the fact that the allusion is fairly famous and therefore recognisable by the
Italian audience, the translators opted to omit it. They replaced it with an overt reference
to the fact that Chandler’s wording is reminiscent of a famous speech (“discorso”).
Moreover, they added Martin Luther King’s so as to clarify that that speech belongs to
him (‘neutralisation’ and ‘explanation’ strategies respectively). As can be seen, this
choice salvages the intended meaning of Ross’s turn but not his playful use of the KP.
Consequently, the potential humour of Ross’s punch line is dramatically minimised28. It is
therefore not surprising that the recording of canned laughter that supports it in the ST
was omitted in the TT.
27
LM: Referential ambiguity; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
28
LM: ?; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Common noun and Proper name.
236
The total omission strategy is used in a quarter of cases in my data (four instances out
of 16). This may be due to the fact that using allusive KPs for humorous purposes
requires the exploitation of various items in the KP, thus posing a greater number of
translation problems. In example (6.16), from Episode 2, Rachel is looking for her
engagement ring because she wants to return it to Barry, her ex-fiancé:
[6.16]Rachel: I know I had it Rachel: So che ce l’avevo Rachel: I know I had it this
this morning, and I know I had questa mattina. E so che ce morning, and I know I had it
it when I was in the kitchen l’avevo in cucina, quando… when I was in the kitchen
with... Chandler: Quando?☺☺ when...
Chandler: Dinah?☺☺☺ Chandler: When?
In the ST, Chandler utters the name “Dinah” which could therefore be considered as an
allusive PN. However, Chandler’s turn can be seen as an exploitation of a culture-specific
KP because it refers directly to the American folk song I’ve Been Working On the
Railroad. This song was first published in the 1890s but became popular in the United
States with a later version in the 1920s. Therefore this allusive KP can be subsumed under
the ‘popular’ category. ‘Someone is in the kitchen with Dinah’ is its most famous line,
which is followed by a line that says someone makes love to Dinah in the kitchen. Hence,
Chandler exploits Rachel’s turn to evoke the various associations this song conveys,
namely a man who gets up early to work and another who has sex with this woman called
Dinah. The potential humour of this exchange can be explained in GTVH terms as a
contextual SO: being in the kitchen/being in the kitchen with Dinah. At a concrete level it
can therefore evoke the sex/non-sex SO while at the abstract level is may activate the
237
actual/non-actual SO since Rachel was in the kitchen but not with Dinah. Rachel is the
TA of Chandler’s turn29, which seems to contain some lesbian innuendo as well.
It goes without saying the North-American folk song mentioned above is probably
unknown to most Italians. Therefore the translators replaced the word “with” in Rache’s
turn with the word “quando” (when) in the TT. Subsequently, they substituted Chandler’s
reference to “Dinah” with a repetition of the word “quando”, which is expressed in a
questioning tone. This may be due to the fact that Rachel moves towards the kitchen
while she tries to remember where she lost her ring. She soon realises that she may have
left it in the lasagne that she prepared for Monica’s parents. Everybody knows this is
likely to upset Monica, and Chandler’s turn underlines this. However, the omission of the
KP in the TT arguably cancels the potential humour of the exchange altogether. A
possible alternative could have been to replace the original with a TL allusion. For
example, “dimmi quando” is a famous line of the Italian song “Quando, quando, quando”
from the 1960s by Tony Renis. This song talks about the love of a man for a woman.
Although it may cause a mismatch between verbal and visual text, this solution could (at
least partly) preserve the original intended effect. Interestingly, the recording of canned
laughter in the TT after Chandler’s turn seems to underline the fact that Monica is going
to be upset with Rachel.
Finally, example (6.17) is based on a complex exploitation of two culture-specific
KPs, which are omitted in the TT. In Episode 9 Joey has accepted to model for an
advertisement without knowing what it is for. He soon finds out that his face has been
associated with a campaign against sexually-transmitted diseases and that the posters can
29
LM: Referential ambiguity; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
238
be seen everywhere in New York. His family think he is ill and do not let him go home
for Thanksgiving:
[6.17]Joey: Set another place Joey: Aggiungi un posto a Joey: Set another place at the
for Thanksgiving. My entire tavola. Anche la mia famiglia table. My family thinks I have
family thinks I have VD.☺☺ pensa che abbia la sifilide.☺ VD too.
Chandler: Tonight…on a very Chandler: Va bene, d’accordo, Chandler: OK, I agree, but
special Blossom.☺☺ ma ti sei fatto visitare?☺☺ have you been for a check-up?
In the ST, Chandler pokes fun at Joey by using an expression that has recently entered
the North-American colloquial language, which therefore belongs to the ‘popular’
category above. It derives from the fusion of the advertising expression “Very special
episode” and the NBC show Blossom, which was broadcast in the 1990s and told the life
of an American teenager name Blossom. The former was originally used in American
television commercials in the 1980s and 1990s to introduce an episode of a situation
comedy or television drama that dealt with a serious and/or controversial social issue
(often in a forced and/or awkward manner). The phrase “very special Blossom” has since
been used pejoratively to refer to television shows with heavy-handed moralizing.
Moreover, in the TV series, Blossom’s ‘simple-minded’ brother is called Joey. This factor
creates an implicit parallelism between this character and Joey in Friends who is also
characterised as simple-minded. In GTVH terms, the potential humour of this exchange
can be seen as a contextual SO such as venereal disease/TV show. At the concrete level it
evokes the sex/no-sex SO while the abstract level the actual/non-actual SO since Joey
does not suffer from venereal disease. Finally the TA is Joey30.
In the TT, the KP was omitted altogether but the Italian translators attempted to
compensate for this loss by making Chandler’s sarcastic comment on Joey’s health more
30
LM: Implicit parallelism; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Key-phrase.
239
explicit. Despite the fact the he know that Joey is not sick, Chandler suggests he should
have gone for a check-up. Chandler’s turn carries potential humour because it more
openly suggests that Joey may indeed have the illness. Since they live together he seems
to fear he can get sick as well. Hence, it can be said that the concrete and abstract SOs
and the TA are retained, along with the structure of the exchange 31 . Nonetheless, the
translation seems to lack the original creativity of the ST. Interestingly, the PN in the
passage (Thanksgiving) was omitted, probably because it has already been used by other
characters throughout the episode (see Baker 1992: 21-42). As a final note, the recording
of canned laughter that supports Chandler’s turn in the ST was retained in the TT with
equal length.
As I anticipated at the beginning of the previous section, categorising the instances of
culture-specific allusions that carry potential humour according to their type and source in
my data is not always clear-cut. Despite these difficulties I have managed to isolate 66
culture-specific allusions in the ST and analyse how they were dealt with by the Italian
translators. My investigation leads to some conclusions that are relevant to my research
questions.
In order to answer my RQ1, I have examined how culture-specific allusions are
exploited in Friends for humorous purposes. During my analysis I have found that
culture-specific allusions are based on mostly proper names (PNs) and in a smaller
quantity on key phrases (KPs). Their referents usually derive from the ‘material’ and
31
LM: ?; SI: Context; NS: Conversation; LA: Comment ?.
240
‘popular’ culture (consumption goods, mass media, etc.), which are directly linked to the
sociocultural context within which the ST is set (North-American society). As with
wordplay, the use of the GTVH metric has revealed that the use of culture-specific
allusions often revolves around the five main SOs, especially sex/no-sex. Interestingly,
many instances of culture specific allusion also evoke the human/non-human and
child/adult behaviour SOs. This seems mainly due to the fact that the six main characters
talk about themselves and others in terms of non-human items, which are usually related
to their upbringing (e.g. toys, nursery rhymes). As suggested in Chapter 4 and pointed out
in Chapter 5, the five SOs considered here can be seen as the ST’s humorous strands (cf.
Subsections 2.4.2 and 4.4.3 above) and are directly linked to the topics developed in the
series, i.e. sex, work, interpersonal relationships, friendship.
Furthermore, I have also detected some interesting patterns regarding the functions
that these culture-specific allusions have within the series. For instance, the six main
characters make use of these mechanisms during their conversations so as to express their
opinion on something or somebody (cf. example (6.1) and (6.4) above), to refer indirectly
to taboo topics (cf. example (6.7)) as well as to poke fun at others (e.g. example (6.9)). As
with wordplay, the TA KR fruitfully highlights the disparaging function of culture-
specific allusions. This KR has helped me show that some culture-specific allusions can
be perceived as potentially humorous at different levels. For instance, in example (6.1)
Barry is the target of Rachel’s comment at the author-audience level but not at the
character-character one. In contrast, in (6.8) Monica targets Angela and Bob (and the
Appalachians) and her comment is perceived as such at both levels (cf. Ch.8 for a detailed
account of SOs and TAs in culture-specific allusion). Consequently, culture-specific
allusions also seem to communicate some of the six main characters’ idiosyncrasies. For
241
example, Chandler wittingly uses humorous culture-specific allusions to disparage his
friends (cf. example (6.19). Moreover, he may be perceived as particularly creative (and
witty) when he combines the referents of two key phrases (cf. example (6.18)). In contrast,
Phoebe uses culture-specific allusions that characterise her as childish, irrational and
peculiar (cf. example (6.12) above).
All in all, it can be said that culture-specific allusions play a relevant role in the
potential funniness of Friends. Hence, in order to answer my RQ2, I have investigated
what strategies the Italian translators used so as to overcome the problems culture-specific
allusions pose. Despite the fact that classifying the translation strategy applied was not
always straightforward, I have managed to subsume them under the categories in Table
6.3 below. The first column on the left provides the name of the translation strategies
used. The second column from the left relates to the culture-specific proper names (PNs)
and the following one relates to key-phrases (KPs). The column on the right shows the
total number of instances translated according to a given strategy for both PNs and KPs:
Translation Strategy PNs KPs Total

Transference 8 3 11
Explanation 2 0 2
Replacement by other SL item 12 2 14
Replacement by a TL item 1 1 2
Neutralisation 23 5 28
Omission 4 4 8
Re-creation 0 1 1
Compensation 1 0 1
Total 51 16 67
Table 6.3: Contrastive analysis of the use of translation strategies for PNs and KPs
Some interesting observations can be drawn from this table regarding the use of
translation strategies for PNs and KPs in the dubbing of Friends:
242
 In general, it seems that the translators were sensitive to the use and function of
culture-specific allusions in the ST. Interestingly, the range of translation
techniques they applied to the TT is broader than that suggested in Leppihalme
(1997).
 As Antonopoulou (2004) advocates, the translators attempted to retain the
original culture-specific allusions. As suggested in the discussion above, it
seems that they opted for this strategy when the context and co-text could offer
sufficient cues about the referent (e.g. a snack in example (6.2) above). In
addition, it seems that they used it when the original allusion would not impair
the potential humour of the exchange (cf. Chandler’s situation with his
colleague in example (6.2)). However, they managed to transfer a relatively
small part of them (approximately one sixth of the total number).
 With almost similar frequency, the Italian translators strived to retain the
original device. They replaced the culture-specific allusion in the ST with
another one that derives from the source culture but which they considered
more familiar to the target audience. In doing so, the translators showed they
could be particularly creative (cf. example (6.4) above). Moreover, this
technique seems to convey similar potential humour and characterisation cues
as the original allusion. As anticipated earlier, TL items are rarely deployed,
probably because they can cause a mismatch with the visual text.
 However, the Italian translators very often opted for replacing the original
allusion with a common noun (‘neutralization’). This option sacrifices the
culture specific allusion so as to transfer the meaning it seems to imply (cf.
243
examples (6.6.) and (6.7) above). The frequent use of this strategy also seems
to confirm the difficulties related to the translation of culture-specific allusions.
However, it also seems to preserve the functions and the potential humour of
the original allusion.
Regarding my RQ3, my analysis has revealed some differences between the ST and
TT. As I hope I have shown, choosing to retain the original culture-specific allusion may
result in a loss of meaning and potential humour that the reference aims to convey.
However, paraphrasing the culture-specific allusion by means of a common noun
(‘neutralisation’) seems to retain only in part the original humour potential.
Comparatively speaking, it seems that the culture-specific allusions convey potential
humour in a concise and elegant way while explicit references to their sources do not
seem to achieve this. Consequently, replacing the original culture-specific allusion with a
similar one that derives from the source (or another) culture seems to salvage both the
elegance and conciseness of text and its potential humour. It can be argued that such
alternatives are not always easy to find. In addition, one has to take into account the
difficulties and constraints translators face when dealing with audiovisual material.
Nonetheless, it seems important to point out the potential effectiveness of this approach,
especially when considering that dubbing allows a certain degree of procedural freedom
and creativity.
The linguistic contrastive analysis of the ST and TT by means of the GTVH model
shows interesting results. For example, my analysis shows that the GVTH can help to
highlight the similarities and differences in the potential humour of the ST and TT. As
with wordplay, the analysis of some instances above has demonstrated that the contextual
SOs may change during the translation process but the concrete and abstract SOs can still
244
be retained (e.g. examples (6.7), (6.10), (6.13) above). More interestingly, it shows that
sometimes the use of a translation strategy can change the target of the potential humour
of the text (e.g. examples (6.8) and (6.10) above). However, as with wordplay, the GTVH
does not seem to account for the loss of nuance that various strategies can produce. For
instance, the analysis of examples of neutralisation according to the GTVH metric shows
that the concrete and abstract SOs (e.g. sex/non-sex, normal/abnormal) and the other KRs
can be retained. Therefore, the potential humour of the text is also salvaged (Attardo
2002a). However, as I argued above the loss of the contextual SO may produce
differences in terms of humour potential in the TT. As with wordplay, the LA knowledge
resource seems to have some advantages but also some limitations. On the one hand, it
can demonstrate that a proper name is replaced by a common noun, as the analysis in
Subsection 6.6.4 shows. However, it does not seem to capture the substitution of a proper
name with another that proceeds from the source (or target) culture in the TT, as in
example (6.5). I will further comment on this point in Chapter 8, where I will also
provide a detail comparison of the SOs and TAs for culture-specific allusions in both
datasets.
Finally, the discussion above has pointed out the striking difference in canned laughter
between the ST and TT. The total number of the recordings of canned laughter supporting
67 instances of culture-specific allusions in the ST is 100. In contrast, there are only 26
instances of canned laughter supporting 58 culture-specific allusions in the TT. As I
suggested in Chapter 2, the reasons for this difference may be cultural but more research
is certainly needed in this area. I will return to the points above in Chapter 8. In the next
chapter I will examine how the scriptwriters exploited metaphor for humorous purposes
in Friends and how it was translated into Italian.

245
Chapter 7 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
246
are supported by canned laughter. This means that not all the metaphoric expressions in
my data are included in this study. More details on the selection process can be found in
Section 7.7.
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.
247
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
250
are cases in which two cultures make use of two different source domains for the same
target domain and vice versa. In other cases two different cultures deploy a very similar
set of conceptual metaphors for the same target domain. However, one of these cultures
may show a certain preference for some of the conceptual metaphors in that set. Finally,
some conceptual metaphors may be found only in a given culture (ibid.67-69).
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
252
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, structured 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
253
incompetence of the surgeon results from merging together elements, or structures, of the
two domains. Unlike CMT, the BT model can account for the inferential process created
by this metaphor. In the following description of the BT model, I will use this example
for ease of exposition. I have reproduced Grady et al.’s visual representation of this
metaphor in Figure 7.1 below:
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
254
input spaces (1 and 2) whose composing elements derive from the domains activated by
the relevant linguistic expressions. In the example above, the two input spaces draw their
structure, or elements, respectively from the source domain (BUTCHERY) and the target
domain (SURGERY). These two domains are relevant to the local situation presented in
this metaphor (i.e. ‘surgeon’, ‘butcher’, ‘scalpel’, etc.). It is also possible to establish a set
of correspondences between the counterparts in each space (i.e. ‘operating room’
correspond to ‘abattoir’, ‘surgery’ corresponds to ‘butchery’).
In addition, there 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; this process is called ‘running the
blend’). Fauconnier and Turner stress that the blend never detaches itself from the other
255
spaces (ibid.42-44; cf. also Coulson 2001: 178-196 on retrospective projection). In their
discussion of the ‘surgeon is a butcher’ metaphor, Grady et al. (ibid.106) convincingly
show how the notion of incompetence is the result of the composition process that
combines the butcher’s means and the surgeon’s goals.
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
like to focus on Grady et al.’s attempt to reconcile CMT and BT. Despite the fact that
they share salient aspects in the analysis of conceptual metaphors, CMT and BT reveal
some important differences. As Grady et al. explain, the former is concerned with the way
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
257
how BT can be employed to describe the online production and comprehension of
particular metaphorical expressions.
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
conceptual 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 source and target concepts. Hence, Tsur’s work reconnects the
258
funniness of some metaphor to the concept of incongruity, as developed in HS (cf.
Chapter 2 above).
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.
259
opposed to linguistic theories of humour such as GTVH. In response to these suggestions,
Attardo (2006: 356-357) reaffirms the applicability of the GTVH to such phenomena. He
claims that metaphors and metonymies may be considered as complex LMs. In particular,
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 conceptual 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
260
create novel metaphors based on conventional cross-domain mappings in North-
American culture. In contrast, BT can offer a better account of the inferential process at
work in interpreting highly creative metaphors (cf. Kyratzis 2003 on humorous metaphors
whose blends create an incongruous, absurd or ridiculous scenario). Finally, the use the
GTVH metric reveals the semantic and pragmatic oppositions in potentially humorous
metaphors. In particular, the definition of the TAs confirms the relevance of
disparagement in appreciating the potential of such metaphors (Mio and Graesser 1991).
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.
261
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 Polish 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
262
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
263
underlying conceptual metaphor (ibid.1267). Due to their relevance to this topic, I will
bear Schäffner’s suggestions in mind during my analysis, which will follow shortly.
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
264
alternative is a target-oriented approach that adds an explicit reference to the ANIMAL
domain in the TT. She suggests adding the adjective “lobunos” (“wolfish”) to the world
“camillos” (ibid.58-60).
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
paraphrase it;
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
makes 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
material 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
266
subsumed under a single strategy (‘transference’) whereas (c) aims to preserve the
original device (‘substitution’) but is more target-oriented. Similarly, the transfer of the
meaning of the metaphor can be considered as an example of ‘neutralisation’, while
omission is self-explanatory (cf. also Sections 5.9 and 6.7 in Ch. 5 and 6 respectively).
Finally, as with wordplay or culture-specific allusions, it may be possible to combine two
or more strategies (cf. Delabastita 1996:134 for puns and Leppihalme 1997: 84 for the re-
creation of KPs in the TT).
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
267
expressions following the Pragglejaz Group’s (2007) procedure but I have also
considered similes alongside metaphorical expressions (as also suggested in CMT).
According to this procedure, I have isolated 17 instances of potentially humorous
metaphors in the ST. That said, it should be noted that the ST contains other examples of
metaphor. However, they are excluded from this analysis because they are not supported
by canned laughter.
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 Appendix 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
268
the script opposition (SO) and target (TA) Knowledge Resources in particular (the other
four KRs are reported in footnotes).
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 Newmark’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.
269
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 like 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: Avanti papà, devi Rachel: Come on Dad, you
listen to me! It's like, it's like, ascoltarmi! Il fatto è che per must listen to me! The fact is
it's like all my life, everyone has tutta la vita gli altri mi hanno that all my life, the others told
270
always told me ‘You're a shoe! detto: ‘Sei una ciabatta! Una me: ‘You are a slipper! A
You're a shoe! You're a shoe! ciabatta! Una scarpaccia!’ Così slipper! A bad/ugly shoe!’ So
You're a shoe!’ And today I just oggi mi sono bloccata e ho today I stopped and I said: A
stopped and I said, ‘What if I detto: ‘E se non volessi essere what if I didn’t want to be a
don’t wanna be a shoe? What if una ciabatta? E se volessi essere slipper? What if I wanted to be a
I wanna be a- a purse☺☺, una borsa? O magari un handbag? O maybe a hat?’ No,
y'know? Or a- or a hat!’ ☺☺ cappello?’ No, non mi devi you don’t have to buy me a hat,
No, I'm not saying I want you to comprare un cappello, sto I’m saying I’m a hat… It’s a
buy me a hat I'm saying I am a dicendo che sono un cappello... metaphor Dad!!
ha- ☺ It's a metaphor, Daddy! È una metafora papà!! ☺ Ross: Here is the origin of your
☺☺☺ 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.
271
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 society2.
In the TT, the metaphorical expressions were transferred but it is possible to notice
some variation. In the original version, Rachel repeats “you are a shoe” four times. In the
TT, rather 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
272
meaning “bad or ugly shoe”). As a matter of fact, the term “shoe” has a wider, general
sense because it can include several types of footwear (leather shoes or boots, trainers,
etc). Moreover, shoes may be of good or bad quality. Conversely, the word “ciabatta”
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 whether 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 Italians’
perception of expensive accessories. In general, both the original SOs and TAs and the
other KRs seem to be successfully retained3. 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
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 in 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:
[7.2] Joey: What are you talking Joey: Ma di che diavolo stai Joey: But what the hell are you
about? ‘One woman’? ☺☺☺ parlando? ‘Una sola donna’? talking about? ‘Only one
That's like saying there's only one Sarebbe come dire:‘Hai woman’? It’s like saying: ‘You
flavour of ice cream for you. solamente un unico gusto di only have one ice-cream flavour
Lemme tell you something, Ross. gelato da scegliere’. Lascia che ti to choose from’. Let me tell you
There's [sic.] lots of flavours out dica una cosa. Ci sono un sacco di something. There are lots of
there. There's Rocky Road, and gusti da scegliere. C'è il gusto flavours to choose from. There's
Cookie Dough, and Bing! Cherry Rocky, il gusto Gianduia, e Rocky flavour, Gianduia flavour,
Vanilla ☺☺☺. You could get Bingo! Ciliegia vanigliata. Li and Bingo! Vanilla Cherry. You
'em with Jimmies or nuts, or puoi mangiare con le cialde o con can eat them with wafers, or with
whipped cream! This is the best le noci o con la panna montata! nuts, or with whipped cream!
thing that ever happened to you! Questa è la cosa migliore che ti This is the best thing that has ever
You got married, you were, like sia mai successa! Ti sei sposato happened to you! You got
what, eight? ☺☺ Welcome back che, quanti anni avevi? Otto? married you were what? Eight?
to the world! Grab a spoon! Bentornato alla vita. Prendi un Welcome back to life. Take a
Ross: I honestly don't know if I'm cucchiaino di gelato! teaspoon of ice-cream!
hungry or horny! ☺ Ross: Francamente non so se Ross: Frankly I don't know if I’m
Chandler: You stay out of my sono affamato o nauseato. hungry or sick.
freezer. ☺☺☺ Chandler: Sta’ lontano dal mio Chandler: Stay away from my
freezer ☺ freezer.
274
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 infer from Joey’s hyperbole “You got
married, you were like what eight?”) 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 society4.
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
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
Italians. “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 translating “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 opted 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
277
address and disparage only Ross. Although retaining the original SOs, TA and other KRs5,
the translation strategies applied to the Italian version seem to produce a partial loss in
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 Ross: Sto come se mi avessero Ross: I feel as if someone put
someone reached down my messo una mano in gola, preso their hand in my throat, grabbed
throat, grabbed my small l'intestino, l'avessero strappato my intestine, pull it out of my
intestine, pulled it out off my dalla bocca e me l'avessero mouth and tied around my neck.
mouth and tied it around my 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
278
called EMOTIONAL HARM IS PHYSICAL DAMAGE. The only way Ross can communicate to
others the painful emotional state he is in is by describing an upsetting but, at the same
time, clear and tangible scenario.
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 request 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 conveyed by Ross’s metaphor, which
279
foregrounds his impossibility of eating with the small intestine wrapped around his neck.
In GTVH terms the semantic and cognitive clash of this metaphor can be expressed
according to the contextual food/no-food SO. At a concrete level is seems to evoke a
life/death SO while at the abstract level it seems to activate the possible/impossible since
the scenario depicted by the metaphor is physically impossible. Finally, the TA is Ross6.
In the TT, Ross’s simile contains two relevant differences. Firstly, the specific
reference to 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 to 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 turn7.
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
7
280
occurred in eight instances out of 17. However, the contrastive analysis of the metaphors
in the ST and TT also shows that this procedure results in conveying different images.
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, sta a te. Phoebe: Joey, it’s your turn.
Joey: Ahhh, I fold like a cheap Joey: Ahh, mi sento come un 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 un giorno di neve e di pioggia... rainy day… Well, I pass!
face. ☺☺☺ [the girls look at 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
281
is in. At the character-character level, this is confirmed by his female friends’ confused
and surprised looks. I do not have space for commenting in full on the gender-related
issues that this metaphor can raise but the simile potentially trivialises the conditions in
which some prostitutes find themselves. As a consequence of the other characters’
reactions, Joey utters a more explicit explanation involving a different metaphor (“Oh,
I’m out”). It is consistent with his character that Joey chooses a sex-related domain as a
source for his comparison.
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 above8. 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
282
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: Non è solo il fatto che Chandler: It’s not just the fact
she’s cute, okay. It’s just that... è carina, ok?... È che lei è that she is cute, ok?... She is
she’s really really cute. ☺☺ davvero carina. really cute.
Ross: It doesn’t matter. You Ross: Non ha importanza. Non si Ross: I doesn’t matter. You don’t
don’t dip your pen in the mangia nel piatto della eat from the company’s plate.
company ink. ☺☺ compagnia. ☺☺
9
283
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 research 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 ink” 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 Chandler’s penis
and the ink pot to his colleague’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 colleague11.
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
284
(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 targets12. 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 analysed according to Attardo’s (1998, 2001)
distinction between jab and punch lines. In the scene, the six main characters are at
12
285
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:
[7.6] Monica: What you guys Monica: Quello che voi ragazzi Monica: What you guys don't
don’t understand is, for us, non capite è che, per noi, il bacio understand is, for us, kissing is as
kissing is as important as any part è importante quanto tutto il resto. important as all the rest.
of it. Joey: Sì, certo!... Veramente? ☺ Joey: Yeah, of course!... Really?
Joey: Yeah, right! Phoebe: Certo! Phoebe: Of course!
☺☺☺...Y'serious? ☺☺ Rachel: Il segreto di una persona Rachel: A person’s secret is all in
Phoebe: Oh, yeah! è tutto nel primo bacio. that first kiss.
Rachel: Everything you need to Monica: Assolutamente. Monica: Absolutely.
know is in that first kiss. Chandler: Sì, credo che per noi il Chandler: Yeah, I think for us,
Monica: Absolutely. bacio sia come il primo atto di kissing is like the first act of a
Chandler: Yeah, I think for us, una commedia. Capito? Cioè comedy. Do you understand?
kissing is pretty much like an come il comico che ti devi sorbire That is like stand-up comedian
opening act, y’know? I mean it’s prima… che escano fuori i Pink you have to put up with before…
like the stand-up comedian you Floyd. ☺☺ Pink Floyd comes out.
have to sit through before Pink Ross: Sì, e non è che non ci Ross: Yeah, and it's not that we
Floyd comes out. ☺☺☺ piaccia l’attore comico. È solo don't like the comedian. It's only
Ross: Yeah, and-and it’s not that che non è per lui che avevamo that it’s not him we bought the
we don't like the comedian, it's comprato il biglietto. ticket for.
that-that... that's not why we Chandler: Vedi, il problema è Chandler: See, the problem is
bought the ticket. ☺☺☺ che dopo che è finito il concerto, that, after the concert's over, no
Chandler: The problem is, comunque sia andato lo show, le matter how the show went, girls
though, after the concert’s over, ragazze continuano a cercare are always looking for that
no matter how great the show sempre quei preliminari e, sai, foreplay and, you know, when
was, you girls are always looking quando si è in macchina, in one is in the car, one tries… just
for the comedian again☺☺, mezzo al traffico, si cerca... si tries to stay awake.
y’know? I mean, we're in the car, cerca solo di stare svegli. Ross: That’s true!
we're fighting traffic... basically Ross: È vero! Rachel: Yeah, well, I give you a
just trying to stay awake. ☺☺☺ Rachel: Beh, allora vi do un piece of advice: take care of that
Rachel: Yeah, well, word of consiglio: teneteci a quei foreplay. Otherwise next time
advice: Bring back the comedian. preliminari. Altrimenti un’altra you’ll stay home, listening to a
Otherwise next time you’re gonna volta ve ne starete a casa ad good album alone.
find yourself sitting at home, ascoltare un bell’album da soli. Joey: Are we still talking about
listening to that album alone.☺ Joey: Stiamo ancora parlando di sex?
[Rachel and Monica give each sesso? Ross: Yes.
other a five as a sign of 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,
286
Monica makes no explicit reference to sex, which 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
who 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.
287
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 the ‘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
that 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 encounter (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.):
288
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.
289
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
290
as incongruous per se. However, Chandler’s use of a metaphor aims to demonstrate that
in his (and generally men’s) point of view, kissing after sex is as illogical as expecting
another comedian’s performance after Pink Floyd have played. Running the blend from
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 general13.
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
291
of the broader MUSIC INDUSTRY domain, which includes elements such as ‘band’s (Pink
Floyd’s) album’, ‘agents purchasing and listening to the album at home’, alongside
‘band’s (Pink Floyd’s) live performance’ (and all the other elements it may include). This
allows Rachel to subvert the initial metaphor. She says that if men overlook the role of
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 general14.
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.
292
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 Chandler’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 force of Joey’s punch line
at the end of the exchange. In addition 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
293
A more appropriate solution could be to retain the original reference to Chandler’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.
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.
294
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) above). 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
295
some stereotyped ideas that are part of the culture and society within which the series in
embedded.
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:
296
Translation Strategy Metaphor

Applied in the TT
Transference 7
Substitution 8
Neutralisation 1
Omission 1
Total 17
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.
297
 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 addition, 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 substitution 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.
299
Chapter 8 Conclusions
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.
300
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.
301
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
302
wordplay in the ST and 24 in the TT. For culture-specific allusions, they are based on 66
instances in the ST and 58 in the TT. Finally, there are 17 metaphors in the ST and 16 in
the TT:
Concrete Script Wordplay Culture-Specific Metaphor

Oppositions (SO) Allusions
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 2 (6.8) 2 (8.3) 7 (10.6) 11(18.8) 1 (5.8) 0
Other 7 (24.3) 7 (29.2) 15(22.5) 12 (20.5) 1 (5.8) 0
Total 29 (100) 24 (100) 66 (100) 58 (100) 17 (100) 16 (100)
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 12 (10.7) 14 (14.2)
Money/no-money 10 (8.9) 13 (13.2)
Other 23 (20.6) 19 (19.4)
Total 112 (100) 98 (100)
Table 8.2: Concrete SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (general)
As I have explained earlier, 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.
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
303
often rely on linguistic ambiguities that can be exploited to refer to sex (and other taboo
topics) in an indirect way. In general, the fact that a large amount of script oppositions
belong to the sex/no-sex dichotomy seems to be consistent with one of the main themes
of the series, i.e. the main characters’ preoccupation with romantic and sexual
relationships, and with sexuality more generally. It also seems to confirm a general
assumption that much humour in Friends hinges on sexual innuendos. It should be noted
that sexuality is dealt with in a trivial and superficial manner (e.g. Joey’s metaphor in
example (7.2) above), as is characteristic of comedies in general. As I have argued earlier,
the exploitation of this topic for humorous purposes also seems to reinforce prejudices
and stereotypes in relation to issues of gender and sexual orientation.
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
304
of ‘non-human’ comparisons and behave in a childish way seems to convey specific cues
about them and is likely to elicit the audience’s amused response (cf. Phoebe’s naivety
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 Wordplay Culture-Specific Metaphor

(SO) Allusions
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 7 (24.2) 4 (16.7) 11 (16.6) 9 (15.5) 7 (41.2) 5 (31.3)
Total 29 (100) 24 (100) 66 (100) 58 (100) 17 (100) 16 (100)
Table 8.3: Abstract SOs in Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (detailed)
305
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 25 (22.3) 18 (18.4)
Total 112 (100) 98 (100)
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
306
text and some of its SOs even when the original mechanism is absent. However, the
translation process can also change the type of SO, as seen for example with the
translation of some metaphors (cf. examples (7.4) and (7.5) and Table 8.3 above). I will
discuss these points in more detail in Subsection 8.3.1 below.
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) Wordplay Culture-Specific Metaphor

Allusions
ST TT ST TT ST TT
(29ex) (24ex) (66 ex) (58 ex) (17 ex) (16 ex)
Chandler 5 2 11 10 3 3
Joey 9 6 11 10 5 5
Monica 2 2 7 9 2 2
Phoebe 2 2 7 5 2 2
Rachel 3 2 12 12 5 5
Ross 4 4 9 10 6 6
Other 7 3 15 6 8 6
Total 32 21 74 53 31 29
Table 8.5: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (detailed)
Targets (TA) ST TT
(112 ex) (98 ex)
Chandler 19 15
Joey 25 21
Monica 11 13
Phoebe 11 9
Rachel 20 19
Ross 19 20
Other 30 15
Total 135 112
Table 8.6: TAs of Wordplay, Culture-Specific Allusions and Metaphor in the ST and the TT (general)
307
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
308
decreases significantly. I will comment on these points in more detail in Subsection 8.2.3
below where I discuss the differences between the two datasets.
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
309
humorous or characterisation function of wordplay). Hence, sometimes the analysis and
categorisation of some of the instances in the ST and the contrastive analysis of the ST
and TT has been made difficult by the lack of a unified framework.
Consequently, I have attempted to revise and adapt these scholars’ 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 10 (8.7)
Neutralisation 35 (30.7)
Omission 14 (12.4)
Compensation 2 (1.7)
Re-creation 1 (0.8)
Total 114 (100)
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.
310
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.
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
311
neutralisation and omission seems to result in a diminished humorous potential of the text
(e.g. examples (5.7) and (5.10), (6.9) above).
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.
312
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.
313
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
314
predominately revolve around these topics, thus suggesting idiosyncratic clues about
them. Similarly, the analysis of the TAs offers interesting suggestions regarding the way
the scriptwriters of the series conceived the six characters and how they may be perceived
by the audience (e.g. Chandler is witty, Monica is competitive, and so on). Finally, the
GTVH can be used during the contrastive analysis of ST and TT to detect the difference
in KRs between the two datasets.
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. Interestingly, 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.
316
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

317
investigation has underlined the possibility of finding alternative solutions to those
strategies that seem to impoverish the TT. Although the analysis in this thesis cannot be
representative of AVT in Italy and in general, it provides an interesting and fairly
substantial case study.
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
319
explained in Chapter 2. However, this procedure presents an important drawback. It may
exclude parts of the text that are not accompanied by canned laughter but that can still be
defined as humorous according to detection models such as SSTH or GTVH. Nonetheless,
the advantages offered by this approach exceed this shortcoming. Canned laughter can in
fact help to narrow down the field of research, which would otherwise be too vast and
unmanageable. Moreover, it helps selecting the data before any theoretical model is
applied to it, thus providing a sound approach to it.
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 ST TT

(112 ex) (98 ex)
Wordplay 37 9
Culture-Specific Allusions 100 26
Metaphor 32 13
Total 169 48
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
320
above, i.e. canned laughter in the TT amounts to a quarter of the figure in the ST. It can
therefore be said that the omission of canned laughter throughout the TT is not directly
related to any specific translational issues that wordplay, culture-specific allusion and
metaphor pose. As I have argued earlier, the reasons for this difference may be cultural
but further research is needed in order to be able to make more general claims. I will now
consider possible avenues of further research in HS and in the AVT of humour in
particular.
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.
321
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?
322
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 and 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.
323
Appendix I Summary of Episodes
Appendix I – Summary of Episodes
This appendix provides information about the 24 episodes of the first series of Friends.
For each episode I have provided the original English title in bold. I have added the
number of spoken words and the date and tile it was first broadcast in the U.S.A. in
brackets. In addition, I have included the Italian title and its back translation into English,
along with the date every episode was first broadcast in Italy. A brief summary of the plot
of each episode follows these details.
Each episode is usually divided into three main sections. There is an introduction, also
called ‘teaser’, i.e. a humorous part usually not connected with the rest of the action in the
episode (Attardo 1998: 241). This is followed by the episode itself, which is also the
longer part. Each episode concludes with a brief sketch I have named ‘coda’, which
comes before the closing credits. The length of each section in minutes and seconds is
given in squared brackets after the summary of every episode.
The six actors starring as main characters are:
Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green

Courteney Cox as Monica Geller
Lisa Kudrow as Phoebe Buffay
Matt LeBlanc as Joey Tribbiani
Mathew Perry as Chandler Bing
David Schwimmer as Ross Geller
Friends 1.01 “The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate”

(words spoken: 1895; NBC, Thursday 22 September 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “Matrimonio
mancato”, gloss: “Missed wedding”; words spoken: 2446; RAITRE, Monday 23 June
1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Rachel runs away from her wedding with Barry. She finds Monica, and old high
school friend, in the coffee house called Central Perk where Monica regularly meets her
friends Phoebe, Joey and Chandler, and her bother Ross. Eventually, Rachel decides to go
and live with Monica. In the meantime, Ross is depressed about his divorce, especially
because his wife told him she is a lesbian. Monica goes out for dinner with Paul and
learns that he is impotent since his wife left him. Monica sleeps with him but the day after
she finds out that Paul lied in order to have sex with her. At the end of the episode,
Rachel accepts a job as waitress at Central Perk.
Teaser [1:00]; Episode [19:28]; Coda [0:27].
Friends 1.02“The One With the Sonogram at the End”

(words spoken: 2346; NBC, Thursday 29 September, 8.30 p.m.; “Una moglie differente”,
gloss: “A different wife”; words spoken: 2496 ; Wednesday 25 June 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Ross’s ex wife Carol tells him that they are going to become parents. Ross is invited
by Carol to go to the sonogram with her and her new partner, Susan. Monica is very
anxious because she invited her parents to dine at her place. She particularly dislikes the
324
fact that they always compare her to Ross, pointing out the latter’s achievements. Rachel
decides to give her engagement ring back to Barry. When she arrives at his clinic, she
sees that he changed his looks for the better, and eventually discovers that Barry is going
out with Rachel’s friend and maid of honour Mindy. When Ross goes to the hospital for
the sonogram, he has a discussion with Susan about the baby’s name and surname. Ross
suggests he should give up fathering his child but as soon as he sees the sonogram, he
changes his mind. In the final part Phoebe tells everybody she has a twin sister. Ross tells
his male friends he has feelings for Rachel.
Friends 1.03 “The One With the Thumb”

(words spoken: 2357; NBC, Thursday, 6 October 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “Per 500 dollari in
più”; gloss: “For 500 dollars more”; words spoken: 2268; Tuesday 24 June 1997, 8.25
p.m.)
Plot: Monica starts dating a man named Alan. After introducing him to her friends,
everybody starts to enjoy Alan’s company much more than she does. Chandler was a
smoker in the past, and he starts smoking again after helping Joey to perform a scene with
a cigarette. Everybody is upset with Chandler and tries to convince him to stop but he is
not willing to do so. However, after talking with Anan about it, Chandler stops smoking.
In the meantime, Phoebe receives 500 dollars from her back by mistake. After pointing
this out, they give her 500 dollars more as a reward for her honesty. She feels she does
not deserve this money because she did not earn it. Therefore, she gives all the money to
a homeless woman she knows. Monica decides to break up with Alan, despite the fact
that this makes her friends depressed. Alan is not happy either but he confesses to Monica
that he is relived because he does not like her friends. Finally, on her way back home
Phoebe finds a thumb in her soda and the soda company gives her 7,000 dollars to avoid a
lawsuit.
Friends 1.04 “The One with George Stephanopoulos”

(words spoken: 2379; NBC, Thursday 13 October 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “La prima volta di
Ross”; gloss: “Ross’s first time”; words spoken: 2234; RAITRE, Tuesday 1 July 1997,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Ross is very upset because it is his and Carol’s anniversary. Ross had his first
sexual intercourse with Carol on this date. During the entire episode Ross keeps
remembering their anniversary, so Chandler and Joey decide to take him to a hockey
game to cheer him up. Rachel receives her first paycheque, and for her disappointment, it
is much less than what she imagined it would be. She feels even more frustrated after
seeing her rich friends, who have interesting news about their lives and jobs. Monica and
Phoebe try to cheer Rachel up suggesting they all meet in Monica and Rachel’s flat and
have dinner together. They get George Stephanopoulos’s pizza by mistake. He is a
handsome man who lives across the street. The girls decide to spy on him from the
balcony while talking about their personal lives. During the hockey match Ross gets hurt
because of a hockey disc. The three guys go to the hospital and while waiting to be visited,
Ross confesses to his friends that he lost his virginity with Carol. Chandler and Joey are
in shock because they realize that Ross only had sex with one woman in his life.
325
Friends 1.05 “The One With the East German Laundry Detergent”
(words spoken: 2451; NBC, Thursday 20 October 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “Incontro in
lavanderia”; gloss: “Meeting in the launderette”; words spoken: 2332; RAITRE,
Thursday 26 June 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Chandler wants to break up with his annoying girlfriend Janice, who also has a
bizarre laugh. However, Chandler doesn't know how to tell her. Therefore, Phoebe
proposes him to end their current relationships at the same time. Joey wants his ex
girlfriend Angela back, so he invites Monica to go with him on a double date with Angela
and her current boyfriend Bob. In order to convince Monica to go, he tells her that Bob
and Angela are siblings. However, at the restaurant, Bob and Angela behave like
boyfriend and girlfriend and Monica feels uncomfortable. Finally, Joey confesses to her
that he lied and proposes to make Bob and Angel brake up so Monica can go out with
Bob. Ross and Rachel go together to a laundry room, where Rachel admits that she has
never done laundry before. As a result of this, Rachel’s clothes become all pink after
washing. However, Ross encourages Rachel to be more confident and she kisses him as a
sign of gratitude. Chandler and Phoebe meet their partners at Central Perk. Phoebe ends
her relationship very well while Chandler struggles and makes Janice very upset. Phoebe
comes in Chandler’s rescue and Chandler and Janice part in peaceful terms.
Friends 1.06 “The One With the Butt”

(words spoken: 2445; NBC, Thursday, 27 October 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “Il sedere di… Al
Pacino”; gloss: “Al Pacino’s… butt”; words spoken: 2349; RAITRE, Monday 30 June,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Ross, Chandler, Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are at a theatre to watch Joey
performing in a play. After the show ends, everyone applauds but they think it was very
boring. Joey is given a card by a talent agent and he hopes he will be signed up for a
movie. Chandler meets a woman named Aurora at the theatre. The day after, Chandler tell
his friends that Aurora is married and has another lover but she still wants to date
Chandler. Monica complains about Rachel moving some furniture while tiding up their
flat. Everybody makes fun of Monica’s obsessive behaviour, so she tries to demonstrate
them she can be more flexible. Joey enters the flat and excitedly tells his friends his agent
got him a role in the latest Al Pacino’s movie. When everybody asks him what his part
will be, Joey confesses he will be Al Pacino’s bottom double in a shower scene. After a
few dates with Aurora, Chandler decides to stop seeing her because he finds out she has a
new lover. In the meantime, Joey tells everybody he was fired as Al Pacino’s double
because he acted too much. Monica goes to bed leaving her shoes in the living room but
while in bed she fights her impulse to go and put the shoes away.
Friends 1.07 “The One With the Blackout”

(words spoken: 2044; NBC, Thursday, 3 November 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “A lume di candela”;
gloss: “By candlelight”; words spoken: 2055; RAITRE, Friday 27 June 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: New York City suddenly has a blackout. As a consequence of this, Chandler is
trapped in an ATM vestibule with a Victoria’s Secrets’ beautiful model named Jill
Goodacre. He would like to talk to her but he has difficulties in starting a conversation
326
and Jill seems puzzled. Ross tries to get some opportunity in the black out to invite
Rachel to go out with him. However, he is not confident enough to do so. When he finally
gets the courage to talk with her, Rachel is distracted by a lost cat. She and Phoebe decide
to go around the block of flats to look for its owner. Rachel meets Paolo, the charming
Italian neighbour, who is also the owner of the lost cat. In the dark Rachel and Paolo kiss
and when the blackout ends, Ross sees his opportunity to go out with her lost. In the
meantime, Chandler chews a gum and accidentally swallows it. He is choking and Jill
helps him breath properly. After this incident, Chandler and Jill have a nice conversation
till the back out is over.
Friends 1.08 “The One Where Nana Dies Twice”

(words spoken: 1997; NBC, Thursday, 10 November 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “La cara estinta”;
gloss: “The loved/deceased one”; words spoken: 2058; RAITRE, Wednesday 2 July 1997,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Chandler finds out that many colleagues at work think he is gay. After telling his
friends, Rachel and Phoebe confess they thought the same the first time they met him.
Paolo is back to Rome but he stays in contact with Rachel, giving her presents and calling
from Italy. Ross and Monica are told that their grandmother is dying and go to the
hospital, where they meet their parents. Once there, their grandmother is declared dead,
but when they are going to see her, she resurrects for some seconds, scaring everybody.
She dies again and all six friends go to the funeral. While at the cemetery, Ross falls
down in an open grave. Family and friends meet after the funeral in Ross and Monica’s
grandmother’s house. Ross’s mother gives him some painkiller but he takes more than he
should and starts behaving in a strange way telling everybody he loves them. Monica’s
mother tells she hated the way her mother treated her and for the first time she is nice to
Monica.
Friends 1.09 “The One Where Underdog Gets Away”

(words spoken: 2388; NBC, Thursday 17 November 1994, 8.30 p.m.; “La cena di
Ringraziamento”; gloss: “Thanksgiving dinner”; words spoken: 2283; RAITRE,
Thursday 3 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: With their parents away Monica and Ross propose their friends to have
Thanksgiving dinner together at Monica’s. At first, Rachel refuses because she would like
to join her family in Vail. She tries to earn more money in order to afford the flight ticket
to go. Joey says that he will have Thanksgiving dinner with his family. However, after he
appeared in an advertising campaign against sexually transmitted diseases, his family
think that he has Venereal Disease (V.D.). So he finally accepts Monica and Ross’s
invitation. Chandler recalls his story of how he does not eat Thanksgiving food because
his parents told him they would separate over this festivity. Phoebe is staying with her
grandmother but she accepts the invitation because they celebrate Thanksgiving in
December. While the Macy’s parade passes by the Underdog balloon gets loose. The
friends rush onto the terrace for a better view and get locked out, so the dinner burns.
After a major discussion about who left the keys home, all six friends have grilled cheese
sandwiches for Thanksgiving dinner.
327
Friends 1.10 “The One With the Monkey”

(words spoken: 2563; NBC, Thursday, 15 December 1994 8.30 p.m.; “Qualcuno mi
baci… È mezzanotte”; gloss: “Somebody must kiss me… It’s midnight”; words spoken:
2635; RAITRE, Monday 7 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Ross is tired of living alone but does not want a flat mate at his age either. He
adopts a monkey called Marcel. Everybody loves Marcel, except Monica because she
thinks animals are cute but dirty. Chandler proposes to his friends to celebrate New
Year’s Eve alone at Monica’s. However, Rachel learns that Paolo is coming for New
Year’s Eve and Monica asks her ex-boyfriend Fun Bobby to join their party. Out of
desperation, Chandler invites his ex-girlfriend Janice. Joey meets a single mother called
Sandy and invites her to the party. Ross fears to be the only single left after Phoebe meets
a scientist David at Central Perk. They spend their days together and start to date but
David and his friend Max are invited to stay 3 years in Minsk for research. David does
not want to leave Phoebe but she tells him that going to Minsk is very important for him.
They spend New Year’ Eve together and the day after David leaves. Just before midnight,
Rachel comes back from the airport alone because Paolo missed his flight. Everybody is
upset and Chandler is desperately looking for someone to kiss him. Joey kisses him
Chandler.
Friends 1.11 “The One With Mrs. Bing”

(words spoken: 2589; NBC, Thursday, 3 January 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Non baciare mia
madre”; gloss: “Don’t kiss my mother”; words spoken: 2490; RAITRE, Friday 4 July
1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Chandler’s popular, best-selling mother, Nora Tyler Bing announces on Jay
Lennon’s show that her book-tour’s next stop is New York. Rachel loves Mrs. Bing’s
romance novel and is very excited about meeting her. Meanwhile, Phoebe instigated
Monica to whistle to a handsome man they saw walking on the street, which causes him
to be hit by an ambulance and get into a coma. They take him to the hospital and fantasize
about him being the perfect boyfriend. Phoebe and Monica rival to take care of him,
hoping he will wake up. While in New York, Mrs. Bing takes all six friends (and Paolo)
to a restaurant. She also encourages Rachel to try and write ‘romantic-formula’ novels.
She also observes Ross’s frustration about Rachel and assures him Paolo is not the man
Rachel is really looking for. While this conversation takes place, Mrs. Bing and Ross kiss.
Joey accidentally sees them and tells Ross he has to confess to Chandler what happened.
Once Chandler learns this, he is irate but mostly blames his mother for her behaviour. He
decides to tell her what he thinks. This helps them have a better mother-son relationship.
Friends 1.12 “The One With the Dozen Lasagnas”

(words spoken: 2246; NBC, Thursday 12 January 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Massaggi e lasagne”;
gloss: “Massages and Lasagne” ; words spoken: 2346; RAITRE, Tuesday 8 July 1997,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Paolo and Rachel prepare for a weekend away together. Ross feels increasingly
frustrated by their relationship. Monica makes a large amount of lasagne that ended up
being of no use, since her aunt (who ordered them) is vegetarian. She tries to get rid of
328
these lasagne by giving them to everybody. Ross’s ex wife finds out about their baby’s
sex but Ross tells her he prefers to wait for the baby to be born to know. Before Rachel
and Paolo leave for the weekend, Paolo books a massage at Phoebe’s centre. While
Phoebe gives him a massage, Paolo makes a move on her. Phoebe tells Rachel about it
and Rachel becomes very upset. Meanwhile, Joey and Chandler need to buy a new table,
since their table is broken. After some consultation they decide to buy a football table.
The episode ends with Rachel breaking up with Paolo and Ross finding out that he is
going to have a son.
Friends 1.13 “The One With the Boobies”

(words spoken: 2468; NBC, Thursday 19 January 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Non fissarmi così”;
gloss: “Don’t stare at me like that”; words spoken: 2535; RAITRE, Thursday 10 July,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Chandler enters Monica’s flat without knocking and inadvertently sees Rachel’s
breasts. She gets very angry at Chandler and this will become one of the main topics of
this episode. Phoebe is dating a psychologist called Roger. Very soon, everybody starts to
dislike him because he takes every chance to analyse all Phoebe’s friends’ behaviour.
Meanwhile, Joey is very disappointed because he has discovered that his father is having
an affair with a woman called Ronni, who works as a pet mortician. Joey tries to convince
his father to break up with her, since he thinks he is not respecting his mother. Rachel
tries to see Chandler naked to compensate the fact that he saw her breast. She makes a
mistake and sees Joey naked. This starts a chain of one friend trying to peek at another
one. Joey’s mother visits Joey to tell him that she knows about her husband’s affair.
However, she also tells Joey that since he started having an affair, Mrs Tribbiani has
become a very caring husband. Therefore, she asks Joey not to force his father to break up
with her lover. Eventually, Phoebe realises she dislikes Paul as well and breaks up with
him.
Friends 1.14 “The One With Candy Hearts”

(words spoken: 2090; NBC, Thursday, 9 February 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Un rito per San
Valentino”; gloss: “The St. Valentine’s ritual”; words spoken: 2280; RAITRE, Tuesday
15 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: it is Valentine’s Day. Ross goes on a date with a beautiful neighbour to a Sushi
restaurant. Joey wants to go out for dinner on a date with a very attractive woman called
Lorraine. Joey convinces Chandler to go out with them because Lorraine wants to take
one of her friends as well. They go to on a double date, but Lorraine’s friend turns out to
be Janice, Chandler’s annoying ex-girlfriend. Phoebe, Monica and Rachel decide to do a
ritual and to burn all the objects that are connected to the men they dated in the past.
While Ross is at the restaurant with his neighbour, he sees Carol with Susan and he gives
Carol more attention than to his neighbour. Joey and Lorraine decide to go home thus
leaving Chandler and Janice alone. They are not very happy about the arrangement and
decide to buy expensive champagne on Joey’s credit card. Janice and Chandler get drunk
and end up sleeping together. During their ritual Phoebe, Monica and Rachel almost burn
the flat down. Fortunately, the firemen arrive on time and put the fire out.
Teaser [1:10]; Episode [18.55]; Coda [0:53].
329
Friends 1.15 “The One With the Stoned Guy”

(words spoken: 2354; NBC, Thursday 16 February 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Uno strano ospite”;
gloss: “A strange guest”; words spoken: 2452; RAITRE, Monday 14 July 1997, 8.25
p.m.)
Plot: Chandler is offered a permanent position at work. However, he decides to resign
because he is discouraged about what he is doing and sad that he does not have any big
dream. Phoebe tells Monica that his friend Steve is looking for a chef for his new
restaurant. Monica suggests she can have an audition with Steve. She can cook for him
and he can decide if offering her the job. Meanwhile, Ross goes out with Celia, the insect
curator who works at the museum. On their first date, Celia asks Ross to use some dirty
words that can arouse her but Ross doesn’t know how to do so and they end up cuddling.
Chandler’s boss calls him and offers him a good promotion and pay raise. Phoebe brings
Steve to Monica’s flat hoping he will be impressed by Monica’s culinary skills.
Unfortunately, Steve has smoked some marijuana on his way to Monica’s place. He is
very hungry and impatience and he ends up ruining the dinner. After asking Joey to
advice him, Ross meets Celia again. His dirty talking becomes so long and complex that
they give up having sex.
Friends 1.16 “The One With Two Parts (pt.1)”

(words spoken: 2532; NBC, Thursday 23 February 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Vivere intensamente
(pt.1)”; gloss: “Living intensely (pt.1)”; words spoken: 2563; RAITRE, Wednesday 16
July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Chandler and Joey are in a restaurant and meet Phoebe’s twin sister, Ursula. Ursula
is the exact opposite of considerate and peace-loving Phoebe. Joey starts to date Ursula,
which annoys Phoebe because she does not get along with her sister. Meanwhile, Ross
attends Lamaze class with Susan and Carol. As Carol voices her anxiety about going
through with the pregnancy, Ross also begins to come to terms with his role as a father.
During one of the Lamaze classes, Ross has to play the mother role in the class exercises.
In the meantime, Chandler’s boss orders him to fire a beautiful junior colleague named
Nina. Since he cannot bring himself to do that, Chandler starts dating Nina and tells the
other office workers that she is insane and too imbalanced to let go. When Nina asks why
her colleagues are avoiding her, Chandler says that perhaps they are jealous of their
relationship. However, she finally finds out the truth and breaks up with him. Rachel
hurts herself and goes to the hospital with Monica.
Friends 1.17 “The One With Two Parts (pt.2)”

(words spoken: 2480; NBC, Thursday, 23 February 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Vivere
intensamente (pt.2)”; gloss: “Living intensely”; words spoken: 2543; RAITRE, Thursday
17 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Rachel and Monica are at the hospital. Since Rachel does not have any insurance,
she and Monica decide to exchange their identities. They invite two doctors to dine at
their place. In the meantime, Joey and Phoebe are not getting along because Joey is still
dating Phoebe’s twin sister, Ursula. He prefers to go out with Ursula for her birthday
rather than attending Phoebe’s birthday party. Phoebe is very upset, especially because
330
she knows Ursula will end up hurting Joey’s feelings. Finally, Ross is still afraid of being
a father until Marcel the Monkey swallows some Scrabble tiles and Ross rushes him to
the hospital. His ability to take care of Marcel convinces him that he can handle
fatherhood. During their dinner with the doctors, Monica and Rachel begin to fight and
list each other’s worst attributes. By doing so, they scare the doctors away. As Phoebe
predicted, Ursula breaks up with Joey without an explanation. Therefore, Phoebe pretends
to be Ursula and meets Joey to help him coping with the break-up. Joeys realizes it is
Phoebe and thanks her for being so kind.
Friends 1.18 “The One With All the Poker”

(words spoken: 2357; NBC, Thursday, 2 March 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Lezioni di poker”;
gloss: “Poker lessons”; words spoken: 2459; RAITRE, Wednesday 9 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are jealous about the fact that the guys regularly meet
to play poker and they ask to participate. The guys accept but they first have to teach the
girls how to play. Their poker games soon become very competitive. The girls usually
lose and Rachel complains about Ross’s nasty attitude towards the girls. Monica asks her
aunt Iris to teach them how to play poker. In the meantime, Rachel is trying to find a new
job and sends out her Curriculum Vitae to several companies. She is invited to interview
for job as assistant buyer at Saks Fifth Avenue. After improving their playing skills, the
girls decide to have a poker rematch but they still lose. It is revealed that Monica, now
outwardly wanting to win, may have gotten violent once in a game of Pictionary. During
their final poker game, Rachel receives some bad news about the job at Saks Fifth
Avenue and takes her anger out in the poker game. She bluffs Ross into a hand with a
large amount of money on the table. Not wanting to hurt her feelings, Ross lets her win.
Friends 1.19 “The One Where the Monkey Gets Away”

(words spoken: 2547; NBC, Thursday 9 March 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Pensaci prima di
parlare”; gloss: “Think before speaking”; words spoken: 2678; RAITRE, Monday 21 July
1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Rachel finds out that her friend and maid of honour Mindy is going to marry her ex
fiancé Barry. Rachel is very upset about it so Ross asks her to take care of Marcel for a
night. Rachel is happy about it but she ends up losing Marcel while watching a soap-
opera on the TV. In an act of despair, Rachel calls Animal Control to help her find Marcel.
However, Rachel does not know that Marcel is an exotic and illegal animal and the
person who owns it may be arrested by the police. Each one of the friends starts searching
for Marcel, and Ross is very angry with Rachel. In the meantime, Rachel and Monica
discover that the lady of the Animal Control, Luisa, studied with them at school but she
hates Rachel for being very popular with boys at that time. Phoebe is shot with a
tranquilizing dart by Luisa while helping to save Marcel for being taken away. Finally,
Ross and Rachel find Marcel at one of their neighbour’s flat and rescue him.
331
Friends 1.20 “The One With The one with the evil orthodontist”
(words spoken: 2600; NBC, Thursday 6 April 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Amore tra i denti”;
gloss: “Love among teeth”; words spoken: 2680; RAITRE, Tuesday 22 July 1997, 8.25
p.m.)
Plot: Mindy asks Rachel to be maid of honour at her wedding with Rachel’s ex fiancé
Barry. Chandler goes out with Danielle and they exchange telephone numbers. He is very
enthusiastic about Danielle but he does not know if he should be the first to call. He does
not want to appear desperate for a date. A person with a telescope watches the group of
friends in Monica’s flat, thus making them feel awkward. Joey decides to call the person
and ask to stop spying on them. He finds out that the person is a woman and stops being
angry with her when she pays compliments to all six friends. Rachel and Mindy meet at
Central Perk and have a heart to heart talk. They find out that Barry is having a
relationship with both and decide to go and see him. Once there Rachel tells Barry she
hates him and does not want to see him ever again but Mindy decides to marry him
anyway.
Friends 1.21 “The one with the fake Monica”

(words spoken: 2275; NBC, Thursday 27 April 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Addio scimmietta”;
gloss: “Goodbye little monkey”; words spoken: 2180; RAITRE, Wednesday 23 July
1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Someone has stolen Monica’s credit card and her identity with it. She feels that the
thief is living the life she ought to have. She tracks her down to a tap-dance class and
ends up liking her and spending lots of time with her. Joey needs a new stage name and
accepts Chandler’s suggestion of using Joseph Stalin. Meanwhile, the veterinary tells
Ross that Marcel is reaching sexual maturity so he has to look for a zoo that will take the
monkey. Monica’s alter-ego is caught by the police and Monica is desperate because she
cannot go out with her anymore. Eventually, Joey finds out that Joseph Stalin already
existed and that he was a dictator. Ross is told that Marcel has been accepted by a very
good zoo in San Diego and takes him to the airport. Everybody is very upset to see
Marcel leaving but Ross realizes that this is the only solution because he is becoming
increasingly wild.
Friends 1.22 “The One With the Ick Factor”

(words spoken: 2326; NBC, Thursday, 4 May 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Sto per avere un
bambino”; gloss: “I’m about to have a baby”; words spoken: 2093; RAITRE, Thursday
24 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Monica starts dating a man named Ethan. Meanwhile, Ross is both appalled and let
down when he hears about Rachel’s sexual fantasies. She tells her friends she dreamt of
having sex with Chandler. Phoebe fills in for Chandler’s secretary and tells Chandler that
nobody likes him at work. Chandler is very upset about it and tries to be nice and friendly
with his junior colleagues. However, he finds out that they still make fun of him so he
decides to give up trying to be their friend. Rachel discovers that Ethan is only a high
school senior but she has already had sex with him and fears the consequences of it. She
immediately breaks up with him but Ethan ties to persuade her to go back together. When
he realises that this is not possible, Ethan leaves. Rachel and Ross are in Monica’s flat
332
and Rachel is asleep. She is having a dream about Ross and yells out his name. They
share an almost intimate moment when Carol beeps Ross to tell him she is in labour.
Everybody leaves for the hospital.
Friends 1.23 “The One With the Birth”

(words spoken: 2553; NBC, Thursday 11 May 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Non gridare, siamo in
clinica”; gloss: “Don’t scream, we are in a clinic”; words spoken: 2351; RAITRE,
Monday 28 July 1997, 8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Ross and his friends rush to the hospital to meet Carol who is in labour. They arrive
before her and Ross becomes increasingly anxious. Finally, Carol arrives and assures
Ross she is fine and everything will be alright. In the meantime, Rachel finds out that the
handsome obstetrician who assists Carol in not married. Chandler and Monica worry
about the fact that time is passing by for them and they do not seem to find partners and
become parents. After having a sports argument with a single pregnant woman, Joey
becomes her birth coach. He helps the single mother deliver her child but eventually the
real father arrives and Joey leaves. Ross and Susan (Carol’s lesbian life-partner) are
fighting over who should help Carol during her labour. Carol is very upset by their
behaviour and tells them to leave the room. Phoebe takes Ross and Susan into a janitorial
closet to calm them down but they soon find they are locked inside. After some
discomforting moments, they manage to set themselves free and reach the delivery room
just in time to see baby Ben being born.
Friends 1.24 “The One Where Rachel Finds Out”

(words spoken: 2572; NBC, Thursday 18 May 1995, 8.30 p.m.; “Una sorpresa dalla Cina”;
gloss: “A surprise from China”; words spoken: 2237; RAITRE, Tuesday 29 July 1997,
8.25 p.m.)
Plot: Joey cannot have sex his new girlfriend Melanie for a week because he is taking
part in a fertility study. The group of friends are having a barbecue for Rachel’s birthday
but Ross cannot be there because he has to go to China for the museum. Rachel opens the
gift Ross left for her and realises that it is an antique brooch exactly like the one her
grandmother used to have. Chandler lets it slip that Ross is in love with Rachel. Rachel
goes to the airport to speak to Ross but he’s already gone. Monica is delighted that her
brother and Rachel may become an item but Rachel has not made up her mind about Ross
yet. Joey manages to keep his relationship with Melanie going despite the fact that he
cannot have an orgasm. Finally, Rachel decides to give her and Ross a chance and goes to
the airport to pick him up. Unfortunately, Ross has met an Asian woman named Julie and
they are now dating. The series ends with the opening theme.
333
Appendix II HumorousWordplay
Appendix II – Humorous Wordplay
Appendices II, III and IV contain the instances of humorous wordplay, culture-specific
allusions and metaphor I have detected in my data and their Italian dubbed versions. They
are presented in tables on parallel columns for ease of comparison. The right-hand
column contains the English original whereas the left-hand column contains the Italian
text. Each instance is numbered and each turn is identified by the name of the character
who utters it. The smiley faces are used here to indicate where the canned laughter occurs.
However, they do not signal the length of the instance of canned laughter.
Puns
1. [Episode 4] [Joey enters Central Perk] All: Hey Tutti: Ciao Joey
Joey. Hi. Hey, buddy. Monica: Joey, che faresti se fossi onnipotente?
Monica: Hey, Joey, what would you do if you were Joey: Mi ucciderei, io penso.
omnipotent? Monica: Perché scusa?
Joey: Probably kill myself! ☺ Joey: Senza il Piccolo Joey, non avrei ragione di
Monica: Excuse me? vivere.
Joey: Hey, if Little Joey's dead, then I got no reason Ross: Joey, ONnipotente.
to live! ☺ Joey: Tu lo sei? Ross, scusami.
Ross: Joey, uh- OMnipotent.
Joey: You are? Ross, I'm sorry.☺
2. [Episode 11] Ross: You're kidding. Ross: Scherzi?

Joey: No, no. He said “When are you gonna grow Joey: Per niente. Ha detto: ”Quando maturerai e
up and start being a mom?” inizierai a fare la mamma?”
Ross: Wow! Ross: Caspita!
Joey: Then she came back with “The question is, Joey: Sai cosa ha replicato lei: “Il problema è:
when are you gonna grow up and realise I have a quando maturerai tu e capirai che io sono una
bomb?”☺ manna?”☺
Ross: Okay, wait a minute, are you sure she didn't Ross: Aspetta un attimo, sei sicuro che lei non abbia
say “When are you gonna grow up and realise I am detto: “Quando maturerai e capirai che sono la tua
your mom?” mamma?”
Joey: That makes more sense. ☺ Joey: Certo, così ha senso.☺
3. [Episode 11] Rachel: Okay. Now this is just the Rachel: Ecco qua. Ora, questo è solo il primo
first chapter, and I want your absolute honest capitolo. Io voglio la vostra assoluta, onesta
opinion. Oh, oh, and on page two, he’s not opinione, d’accordo? Oh, e a pagina due, lui non
“reaching for her heaving beasts”.☺ riesce a baciarla per via delle tette enormi.
Monica: What’s a “niffle”? Monica: Cos'è un “corbezzolo”?
Joey: You usually find them on the “heaving Joey: Di solito lo trovi sulle “enormi tette”.
beasts”.☺ Rachel: E va bene, non sono una dattilografa
Rachel: Alright, alright, so I’m not a great typist. perfetta.
4. [Episode 13] Monica: [brings a plate of tiny Monica: Ecco qui. Per tirarti un po' su.
appetizers over] Here you go, maybe this'll cheer Chandler: Ah, sai, ho mangiato un chicco d'uva
you up. cinque ore fa. Non vorrei esagerare con questo...
Chandler: Ooh, you know, I had a grape about five Monica: È fatto apposta così piccolo: è un pre-
hours ago, so I'd better split this with you.☺ antipasto, insomma quello che si chiama
Monica: It's supposed to be that small. It's a pre- “stuzzichino”.
appetizer. The French call it an amouz-bouche. Chandler: Ah, beh, è più una pillola.☺
Chandler: [tastes it] Well.... it is amouz-ing. ☺
334
5. [Episode 15] Chandler: It doesn't matter. I just Chandler: Non importa. Non voglio essere uno di
don't want to be one of those guys that's in his office quelli che se ne sta seduto in ufficio fino a
until twelve o’clock at night worrying about the mezzanotte a preoccuparsi del PENE.☺☺
WENUS.☺[Everyone looks at him, confused] Rachel: ... Il PENE?
Rachel: ... the WENUS? Chandler: Percentuale Espansione Numeri
Chandler: Weekly Estimated Net Usage Systems. Elaborati: PENE. È un termine che usiamo.
A processing term.☺ Rachel: Ah, in quel senso.
Rachel: [sarcastic] Oh. That WENUS.☺
6. [Episode 15] Chandler: Well? Chandler: Ehh?

Phoebe: Wow! It's huge! It's so much bigger than Phoebe: Oh, accidenti! È grande! È molto più
the cubicle. ☺ Oh, this is a cube. ☺ grande di quel’altro cubicolo. Questo è un
cubicolone!
7. [Episode 16] Chandler: Mr. D., how’s it going, Chandler: Signor Douglas, come va?
sir? Mr. Douglas: Potrebbe andare meglio. Sono
Mr. Douglas: Ohh, it’s been better. The Annual Net arrivate le statistiche annuali dell'uso della rete.
Usage Statistics are in. Chandler: E allora?
Chandler: And? Mr. Douglas: Non vanno bene. Non eravamo a
Mr. Douglas: It’s pretty ugly. We haven’t seen an questi livelli di crisi dagli anni Settanta.
ANUS this bad since the Seventies. ☺
8. & 9. [Episode 18] Phoebe: You guys, you know Phoebe: Sapete a che cosa stavo pensando? ‘Coker’
what I just realized? ‘Joker’ is ‘poker’ with a ‘J’. è ‘poker’.
Coincidence? ☺ Chandler: È una poincidenza con la ‘C’.☺
Chandler: Hey, that’s... that's ‘joincidence’ with a
‘C’! ☺
10. [Episode 20] Chandler: I can’t believe you Chandler: Non posso credere che tu dica sul serio.
would actually say that. I would much rather be Mr Io preferirei essere Mr. Peanut che Mr Salty.
Peanut than Mr Salty. ☺ Joey: Scherzi? Mr Salty è un marinaio, giusto? E
Joey: No way! Mr Salty is a sailor, all right, he’s quindi deve essere lo snack più da duri che ci sia!
got to be, like, the toughest snack there is.☺ Ross: Non lo so. Comunque, io non snobberei le
Ross: I don’t know, you don’t wanna mess with noccioline. Sono appetitose.
corn nuts.☺ They’re craaazy.☺
FEI-Based Puns
11. [Episode 4] Ross: So, I’m guessing you had an Ross: Penso che avete un biglietto in più... E solo
extra ticket and couldn't decide which one of you uno di voi poteva portare una ragazza?
got to bring a date? Chandler: Beh, non si può avere la botte piena e la
Chandler: Well, aren't we Mr. “The glass is half moglie ubriaca.
empty.”☺
12. [Episode 5] Chandler: No, I know, but it's just Chandler: Sei seduto con lei che non ha idea di
so hard, you know? I mean, you're sitting there with quello che avverrà. Voglio dire, Alla fine trovi il
her, she has no idea what's happening, and then you coraggio di farlo e quell'orrendo goffo momento in
finally get up the courage to do it, and there's the cui le dai il ben servito, vorresti sprofondare... ecco!
horrible awkward moment when you've handed her
the note. ☺
13. & 14. [Episode 6] Joey: C’mon, you guys. This Joey: Andiamo, ragazzi! In fondo si tratta sempre di
is a real movie, and Al Pacino’s in it, and that's big! una produzione da parecchi milioni di dollari.
Chandler: Oh no, it's terrific, it’s... it’s... y’know, Chandler: Ma sì, è fantastico. In fondo te lo sei
you deserve this, after all your years of struggling, meritato. Dopo tanti anni di gavetta, finalmente
you’ve finally been able to crack your way into potrai far vedere il meglio di te!☺
showbusiness.☺ Joey: D'accordo, prendetemi pure in giro. Non
335
Joey: Okay, okay, fine! Make jokes, I don’t care! m'interessa. Comunque, si tratta di un’occasione
This is a big break for me! d'oro.
Ross: You’re right, you’re right, it is...So you gonna Ross: Sì, in fondo ha ragione lui.
invite us all to the big opening?☺ Rachel: Già!
Ross: Allora, ci inviterai alla prima?
15. [Episode 11] Ross: Well, see? So, maybe it Ross: Bene, vedi? Forse non è stata poi un'idea così
wasn't such a bad idea, y’know, me kissing your malvagia baciare tua madre. Ma è meglio non
mom, uh? Huh? [Wags his finger at Chandler, then toccare più questo tasto forse... già. ☺
puts it down] But.. we don't have to go down that
road. ☺
16. [Episode 13] Ross: Alright, alright. We’re all Ross: D’accordo, siamo tutti adulti. C'è solo un
adults here, there's only one way to resolve this. modo per risolvere la cosa. Visto che tu hai guardato
Since you saw her boobies, I think, uh, you're gonna le sue tette, credo che tu dovresti farle vedere il tuo
have to show her your peepee.☺ pisellino.☺
Chandler: Y’know, I don’t see that happening?☺ Chandler: Sai, non credo sia possibile.
Rachel: C’mon, he’s right. Tit for tat.☺ Ross: Eh sì!
Chandler: Well I’m not showing you my ‘tat’.☺ Rachel: Andiamo, ha ragione. È un mio diritto.
Chandler: Beh, non ti faccio vedere un bel niente,
chiaro?
17. [Episode 15] Rachel: What’s up? Rachel: Che c’è? Cosa è successo?
Phoebe: [whispers] In the cab, on the way over, Phoebe: Nel taxi mentre venivamo qui, Steve si è
Steve blazed up a doobie.☺ acceso uno spinello.
Rachel: What? Rachel: Cosa?
Phoebe: Smoked a joint? You know, lit a bone? Phoebe: Ha acceso uno spinello, erba, una canna...
Weed? Hemp? Ganja?☺ uno spinello!
Rachel: OK, OK. I'm with you, Cheech. OK. Rachel: D’accordo, sì. Lo vedevo un po' carico.
18. [Episode15] Steve: Well, smack my ass and call Steve: Sculacciami e giuro che non lo faro più!
me Judy! ☺ These are fantastic! Questa roba è fantastica!
19. [Episode 17] Joey: Well, if she’s my friend, Joey: Beh, se è mia amica come spero, dovrà
hopefully she’ll understand. I mean, wouldn’t you capirlo; cioè scusa, voi non capireste?
guys? Chandler: Se tu mi facessi una cosa del genere al
Chandler: Man, if you tried something like that on compleanno, giuro che ti farei fare una brutta fine.
my birthday, you’d be starin’ at the business end of
a hissy fit.☺
20. [Episode 18] Phoebe: Oh, hello, kettle? This is Phoebe: La sai questa: "Il bue che dice cornuto
Monica. You’re black.☺ all’asino."
Monica: Please! I am not as bad as Ross. Monica: Ti prego! Non sono così polemica come
Ross.
21. [Episode 18] Ross: [to Joey]: Joey, I’m a little Ross: Joey, sono un po' a secco.
shy. Joey: Va bene, Ross. Dimmi che vuoi bere?☺
Joey: That's OK, Ross, you can ask me. What?☺ Chandler: Di che hai bisogno? Che ti serve?
[Ross looks at Joey, dumbfounded at his stupidity].
Chandler: (to Ross): What do you need, what do
you need?
22. [episode 19] Chandler: Yes, but these women Chandler: Sì ma queste donne hanno caldo e hanno
are very hot, and they need our help! ☺ And they're bisogno di aiuto.
very hot. ☺
23. [episode 24] Joey: Alright, come on you guys, Joey: Andiamo ragazzi. Non è una tragedia,
336
it's not that big a deal. Really... I mean, I just go credetemi. Io devo solo andare la un giorno sì e uno
down there every other day and... make my no e mettere qualcosa di mio nel progetto…☺ Ehi
contribution to the project. ☺ Hey, hey, but at the Ehi, ma ogni due settimane guadagno 700 dollari!
end of two weeks, I get seven hundred dollars. Chander: Però!
Ross: Hey. Phoebe: Wow. Fai la tua fortuna con le tue mani. ☺
Phoebe: Wow, ooh, you're gonna be making money
hand over fist! ☺
Visual and Verbal Puns

24. [Episode 10] Chandler: Hey, that monkey's got Chandler: Ehi, ma ha una macchia Rossa sul
a Ross on its ass! ☺ culetto!
25. [Episode 12] Phoebe: Woo-hoo, first weekend Phoebe: il primo weekend fuori città.
away together! Monica: È un grosso passo!
Monica: Yeah, that’s a big step. Rachel: Non lo so.
Rachel: I know... Chandler: È solo un weekend. E allora?
Chandler: [to Ross] Ah, it's just a weekend, big Ross: Non doveva essere solo un'avventura? A me
deal! sembra già un'Odissea!
Ross: Wasn’t this supposed to be just a fling, huh?
Shouldn't it be...[makes flinging motions with
hands] flung by now?☺
26. [Episode 13] Chandler: Y'know, I don't know Chandler: Non capisco perché tu sia così
why you're so embarrassed, they were very nice imbarazzata? Hai delle tetta molto carine.
boobies. Rachel: “Carine”? Ho le tette “carine”? Cioè tutto
Rachel: Nice? They were nice. I mean, that's it? I qui? Come due belle colline.
mean, mittens are nice. Chandler: Okay, Everest, Himalaya... arrivo!
Chandler: Okaaay, [Gestures] rock, hard place, me.
☺
27. [Episode 18] [Monica sits, Rachel gets up.] Rachel: OK, ora tocca a me.
Rachel: OK, OK, it’s my turn. [reads the answer] Chandler: Via!
Chandler: Go. Ross: Uhm… Un feto! Un Essere!
[Rachel starts drawing what looks like a bean] Joey: L’insostenibile leggerezza dell’essere!
Ross: Uh.... bean! Bean!☺ Rachel: Sì!
[Rachel begins tapping the picture of the bean Monica: Questo l'avete capito? Questo l'avete
frantically] capito?☺
Joey: [triumphantly] The Unbearable Lightness of
Being!☺
Rachel: Yes!
Monica: That, you get? That, you get?☺
Rhymes
28. [Episode 13] Rachel: Chandler Bing? It’s time Ross: Ora resta solo la "grande regina dei campioni
to see your thing.☺ che deve quindici bigliettoni".
29. [Episode 18] Ross: Well, that just leaves the big Rachel: Chandlerino... È ora di vedere il tuo cosino!
Green poker machine, who owes fifteen... ☺
337
Appendix III Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
Appendix III – Humorous Culture-Specific Allusions
Proper-names (PNs)
1. [Episode 1] Rachel: … And then I got really Rachel:… E allora mi sono davvero spaventata e mi
freaked out, and that’s when it hit me: how much sono anche accorta di come Barry assomiglia E.T.
Barry looks like Mr Potato Head.☺ Y’know, I ☺ Cioè capite, mi era sempre sembrato un viso
mean, I always knew he looked familiar, but...☺ familiare ma...☺
2. [Episode 1] Rachel: Guess what? Rachel: Indovinate?

Ross: You got a job? Ross: Hai trovato un lavoro?
Rachel: are you kidding? I’m trained for nothing! I Rachel: Stai scherzando? Io non so fare niente. Mi
was laughed out of twelve interviews today. hanno riso in faccia in 12 colloqui oggi.
Chandler: and yet you are surprisingly upbeat. Chandler: Eppure sei incredibilmente gasata.
Rachel: You would be too if you found John and Rachel: Beh, lo saresti anche tu se avessi trovato
David boots on sale, fifty percent off! ☺ questi stivali in saldo del 50%.
3. [Episode 3] Chandler: Oh, yeah. I’d marry him Chanlder: Io lo sposerei solamente per la sua
just for his David Hasselhoff impression alone.☺ imitazione di David Hasselhoff, quello di Baywatch.
You know I’m gonna be doing that at parties, right? La farò anch’io alla prossima festa.☺
[Does the impression]☺
4. [Episode 3] Chandler: I personally could have a Chandler: Penso che non mi stancherei mai di
gallon of Alan.☺ Alan.
5. [Episode 3] Chandler: Ooh, Lambchop. How old Chandler: Ancora questo programma? Ma quanti
is that sock? ☺ If I had a sock on my hand for thirty anni avrà quel calzino? Se avessi un calzino in mano
years it’d be talking too. ☺ per 30 anni, parlerebbe anche lui.☺
6. [Episode 4] Phoebe: I remember the day I got my Phoebe: Non dimenticherò il giorno in cui arrivò la
first pay check. There was a cave in one of the mia (prima paga). Otto minatori furono uccisi nella
mines, and eight people were killed. rivolta in miniera.
Monica: Wow, you worked in a mine? Monica: Hai lavorato in miniera?
Phoebe: I worked in a Dairy Queen, why?☺ Phoebe: Lavoravo come commessa. Perché? ☺
7. [Episode 4] Rachel: God, isn't this exciting? I Rachel: Non è stupendo Evviva! Ce l’ho fatta! Ho
earned this. I wiped tables for it, I steamed milk for pulito i tavoli, ho scaldato il latte, ho… Un bel
it, and it was totally—[opens envelope]—not worth niente. ☺ Chi è il fisco e perché mi prende tutti
it. ☺ Who's FICA? Why's he getting all my money? soldi? Io non capisco. Chandler, guarda un po’ tu.
☺ I mean, what- Chandler, look at that.
8. [Episode 4] Monica: (to Phoebe) I swear I've Monica: Ho sentito degli uccelli stridere così allo
seen birds do this on Wild Kingdom. ☺ zoo!
9. [Episode] Monica: You should feel great about Monica: Dovresti sentirti fiera di te. Sei riuscita a
yourself! You're doing this amazing independence diventare indipendente.
thing! Rachel: Monica, che c'è di così straordinario? Ho
Rachel: Monica, what is so amazing? I gave up, detto addio al lusso e per che cosa?
like, everything. And for what? Phoebe: Hai agito come Gianni.
Phoebe: You are just like Jack. Rachel: Un tuo amico Italiano?
Rachel: ...Jack from downstairs? Phoebe: No, Gianni dei fagioli magici.
Phoebe: No, Jack and the Beanstalk.☺ Monica: Ah, Gianni della favola.
Monica: Ah, the other Jack. ☺
338
10. [Episode 4] Rachel: Uh, Pheebs? Who’s George Rachel: Phoebe, chi è George Stephanopolous?
Snuffalopagus? ☺ Phoebe: È un incallito sciupafemmine.
Phoebe: Big Bird’s friend. ☺
11. [Episode 5] Ross: Ok, ok, now what is wrong Ross: Un momento, scusa , che c’è che non va nel
with my Snuggles? ☺ What, it says I'm a sensitive, mio ammorbidente? Io, io... Dice: “Adatto per la
warm kinda guy, you know, like a warm, fuzzy pelle sensibile, vellutata, come il pelo di un orsetto”.
bear. ☺ Ok, I can pick something else up on the ☺ D’accordo, ne compro un altro lungo la strada.
way. ☺ Chandler: È meglio.
Chandler: There you go.
12. [Episode 5] Janice: I got you...these. [pulls out a Janice: Ho comprato per te questi.
pair of socks] Chandler: Oh, calzini con l’alce. Splendidi!
Chandler: Bullwinkle socks.☺ That’s so sweet. Janice: Sapevo che li avevi con lo scoiattolo e così
Janice: Well, I knew you had the Rocky’s, and so I ho pensato che potevi avere anche quelli con l’alce.
figured, you know, you can wear Bullwinkle and Potresti metterli appaiati o magari fare un bel
Bullwinkle, or you can wear Rocky and Rocky, or, miscuglio, alce e scoiattolo, come ti piace di più.
you can mix and match, moose and squirrel.☺
Whatever you want.
13. [Episode 5] Monica: Hello! Were we at the Monica: Ma guardali, noi siamo allo stesso tavolo e
same table? It's like... cocktails in Appalachia. ☺ loro fanno come topo e formaggio. ☺
14. [Episode 5] Monica: I'm so sorry, I can’t Monica: Mi dispiace molto. È incredibile. Ma come
believe I did this, but I couldn't stop laughing at ho fatto? Non riuscivo a smettere do ridere alla tua
your Norman Mailer story. ☺ barzelletta.☺
15 [Episode 6] Ross: Oh c'mon! When we were Ross: Da piccoli la tua bambola di pezza era l’unica
kids, yours was the only Raggedy Ann doll that ad avere i vestiti sempre stirati.☺
wasn't raggedy! ☺
16. [Episode] Ross: Disneyland (no), 1989, ‘It’s a Ross: A Disneyland, in una stupenda ricostruzione
Small World After All.’ de “Il mondo in miniatura”. Il nostro trenino si era
All: No way! bloccato a ‘Parigi di notte’... Così Carol ed io ci
Ross: The ride broke down. So, Carol and I went siamo nascosti dietro all'ultimo vagoncino e quando
behind a couple of those mechanical Dutch il trenino è ripartito ci hanno detto di non farci più
children☺… then they fixed the ride, and we were vedere li intorno.
asked never to return to the Magic Kingdom. ☺
17. [Episode 8] Chandler: Nothing, just your Chandler: Niente, è solo che il tuo cappotto sta
overcoat sounds remarkably like Brent Musberger. facendo una bellissima telecronaca.
☺
18. [Episode 8] Chandler: So how's it going there Chandler: Allora come vanno le cose giù ai Servizi
in Financial Services? finanziari?
Lowell: It’s like Mardi Gras without the paper Lowell: Non sarebbe male se non avessimo bisogno
mache heads. ☺ di guadagnare!
19. [Episode 9] Monica: (hands Chandler a bag) Monica: Chandler, ecco. Il tuo tradizionale pasto
Chandler, here you go, got your traditional controcorrente: crema di pomodoro, patatine al
Thanksgiving feast, you got your tomato soup, your formaggio e un hamburger da riscaldare.
grilled cheese fixin’s, and your family size bag of
Funyuns. ☺
20. [Episode 9] Chandler: The most unbelievable Chandler: È appena successa una cosa incredibile.
thing has happened. Underdog has just gotten away. Topolino è scappato.
339
Joey: The balloon? Joey: Il pallone?

Chandler: No, no, the actual cartoon character.☺ Chandler: No, proprio il cartone animato. Ma certo
Of course the balloon. It's all over the news. Right il pallone! L'hanno detto al telegiornale. Poco prima
before he reached Macy's, he broke free and was che arrivasse su Central Park si è rotto il cavo e
spotted flying over Washington Square Park. I'm adesso è già su Washington Square.
going to the roof, who's with me?
21. [Episode 10] Fun Bobby: It's gonna be an open Bobby il buffo: Sarà messo in una bara di vetro,
casket, ☺ y'know, so at least I'll- I get to see him Sapete? Così almeno potrò rivederlo.
again. ☺
22. [Episode 10] Phoebe: Hi, Max! Phoebe: Ciao Max.

Max: Yoko. ☺ Max: Buona sera.
23. [Episode 11] Chandler: Y'know, we don't have Chandler: Ma non è obbligatorio guardarla. Danno
to watch this. Weekend At Bernie's is on Showtime, Weekend con il morto su parecchi canali.
HBO, and Cinemax. ☺
24. [Episode 11] Mrs. Bing: (on TV) ...I just get Mrs Bing: Io avevo solo soddisfatto la mia brama
this craving for Kung Pow Chicken. ☺ per uno stallone.
Chandler: THAT'S TOO MUCH Chandler: Spero che vorrai risparmiarci i dettagli!
INFORMATION!! ☺ ☺
25. [Episode 11] Ross: Okay, uh, about last night, Ross: Senti, circa l’altra sera… sai.. a Chandler non
um, Chandler.. you didn't tell... (Joey shakes his giel’hai detto … Perfetto, perché non credo che ci
head) Okay, 'cause I'm thinking- we don't need to sia bisogno di dirglielo. Era solo un bacio… Un
tell Chandler, I mean, it was just a kiss, right? One bacio, niente di grave, giusto?
kiss? No big deal? Right? Joey: Giusto. Niente di grave. Ma andiamo. È
Joey: Right. No big deal. mostruoso!☺ Hai infranto il nostro codice.
Ross: Okay.
Joey: In Bizarro World!! ☺ You broke the code!
26. [Episode 12] Ross: Oh, that’s great, that is Ross: Fantastico! Grazie al cielo!.. Ehi, quand’è che
great! [Hugs and kisses Carol. Then picks up a tu e Susan avete conosciuto Tyson?
picture frame] Hey, when did you and Susan meet Carol: Quella è la nostra amica Tanya.☺
Huey Lewis?
Carol: Uh, that’s our friend Tanya.☺
27. [Episode 13] Rachel: You're right! I mean Rachel: Hai ragione. Sì, hai ragione! I miei genitori
you're right! It wasn't just the Weebles, but it was mi tolsero la Barbie, e anche tutta la casetta di
the Weeble Play Palace,☺ and and the Weebles' Barbie, e c'era anche il mercatino di Barbie... ah ah e
Cruise Ship. Oh, which had this little lifeboat for the quella pedana dove Barbie poteva fare ginnastica.
Weebles to wobble in. ☺
28. [Episode 13] Chandler: Things sure have Chandler: Certo che cose ne sono cambiate
changed here on Waltons mountain.☺ parecchie!
29. [Episode 15] Monica: Oh, I love my life, I love Monica: Ah, adoro la mia vita! Come sono felice!
my life! Phoebe: È una canzone Ippy? ☺
Phoebe: Ooh! Brian's Song! ☺
30. [Episode 15] Rachel: What's up? Rachel: Che c'è? Cosa è successo?
Phoebe: [whispers] In the cab, on the way over, Phoebe: Nel taxi mentre venivamo qui, Steve si è
Steve blazed up a doobie. acceso uno spinello.
Rachel: What? Rachel: Cosa?
Phoebe: Smoked a joint? You know, lit a bone? Phoebe: Ha acceso uno spinello, erba, una canna...
340
Weed? Hemp? Ganja? ☺ uno spinello!

Rachel: OK, OK. I'm with you, Cheech. OK. Rachel: D'accordo, sì. Lo vedevo un po' carico.
31. [Episode 15] Ross: I was the James Michener of Ross: Ti assicuro: una specie di mago della
dirty talk.☺ It was the most elaborate filth you have parolaccia. Ho usato le volgarità più elaborate mai
ever heard. I mean, there were characters, plot sentite. C’era di tutto: personaggi, complotti, trame,
lines☺, themes, a motif... at one point there were tranelli... A un certo punto c’ho messo anche i pirati.
villagers.☺
32. & 33. [Episode 16] Joey: Hey Pheebs, guess Joey: Ah, Phoebe. Indovina chi abbiamo visto oggi?
who we saw today. Phoebe: Oh, aspetta, aspetta! Michael Jackson?
Phoebe: Ooh, ooh, fun! OK... um, Liam Neeson. ☺ Joey: No.
Joey: Nope. Phoebe: Robbie Williams?
Phoebe: Morly Safer. ☺ Joey: No.
Joey: Nope. Phoebe: Quella che mi taglia i capelli?
Phoebe: The woman who cuts my hair! Monica: Basta! Mi pare il caso di finirla, ok?
Monica: Okay, look, this could be a really long
game.
Chandler: Your sister Ursula.
34. [Episode 16] Rachel: Are you seein’ her again Rachel: Ci esci di nuovo stasera?
tonight? Joey: Andiamo a Holiday on Ice.
Joey: Yep. Ice Capades. ☺ Chandler: Deve essere una cosa seria. Non ti ho
Chandler: Wow, this is serious. I’ve never known mai visto scucire un dollaro per uno spettacolo.
you to pay money for any kind of capade. ☺
35. [Episode 17] Mr. Geller: 'Cause there's time to Mr. Geller: Perché abbiamo tanto tempo per
make up for that. We can do stuff together. You rimediare. Potremmo fare delle cose insieme. Tu hai
always wanted to go to that Colonial Williamsburg. sempre voluto andare a visitare Disneyland. Ti
How 'bout we do that? ☺ piacerebbe ancora andarci?
36. [Episode 17] Dr. Rosen: Ah here, we brought Dr. Rosen: Vi abbiamo portato il vino.
wine. Dr. Mitchell: Sì, questo è della cantina di un
Dr. Mitchell: Look at this, it's from the cellars of vecchio attore del passato, quindi... come
Ernest and Tova Borgnine, so how could we resistergli?
resist?☺
37. [Episode 18] Chandler: Could you want her Chandler: Non muori dalla voglia di lei?
more? Ross: Chi?
Ross: Who? Chandler: Chi? Una ragazza pelosa e con gli occhi
Chandler: [sarcastically] Dee, the sarcastic sister strabici!☺
from What’s Happening.☺
38. [Episode 18] Chandler: Rach, Rach, we gotta Chendler: Rachel, dobbiamo sistemare.
settle. Rachel: Che cosa?
Rachel: Settle what? Chandler: La colonia Jamestown in Virginia. Vedi,
Chandler: The... Jamestown colony of Virginia.☺ il re Girorgio ci ha dato la terra, perciò…
You see, King George is giving us the land, so... ☺ Ross: Oh, andiamo Rachel, il gioco, Rachel. Ci devi
Ross: The game, Rachel, the game. You owe us dei soldi per il gioco.
money for the game.
Rachel: Oh. Right.
39. [Episode 18] Chandler: Oh, come on. What Chandler: Andiamo! Ma cos’era tutto quel discorso
was with that whole Black Bart speech? che hai fatto “Quando io gioco a poker, non guardo
[mimicking]: “When I play poker, I'm not a nice in faccia a nessuno!”
guy!”☺
341
40. [Episode 18] Aunt Iris: Is Tony Randall Zia Iris: Sai se Tony Randall è morto?
dead?☺ Rachel: No. Perché?
Rachel: No. Ziao Iris: Io penso di sì. L’ho appena investito con
Monica: I don't think so. la mia auto.
Rachel: Why?
Aunt Iris: Well, he may be now, because I think I
hit him with my car. ☺
41. [Episode 18] Chandler: Airplane! Airport! Chandler: È un aeroplano, aeroporto, costa aerea,
Airport '75! Airport '77! Airport '79! [Timer goes Airport 75! Airport 77! Airport 79!
off.] Rachel: Tempo scaduto.
Rachel: Oh, time’s up. Monica: Bye bye Passerotto!
Monica: (pointing at the drawing, upset) Bye...
bye... BIRDIE. ☺
Joey: Oh!
42. & 43. [Episode 19] Mr. Heckles: What do you Mr. Heckles: Che cosa volete?
want? Monica: Scusi, una nostra amica ha perso una
Monica: Mr. Heckles, our friend lost a monkey. scimmia. L'ha vista?
Have you seen it? Mr. Heckles: Avevo lasciato un dolce qua fuori.
Mr. Heckles: I left a Belgian waffle out here, did Lavete preso voi?
you take it? ☺ Monica: No!
Monica: No! Phoebe: Perché ha lasciato un dolce nel corridoio?
Phoebe: Why would you leave your Belgian waffle Mr. Heckles: Non era ancora pronto.
in the hall? Monica: Allora l'ha vista la scimmia?
Mr. Heckles: I wasn't ready for it. Mr. Heckles: Ho visto Betty Curtis una volta.
Monica: A monkey. Have you seen a monkey?
Mr. Heckles: Saw Regis Philbin once... ☺
44. & 45. [Episode 20] Chandler: I can’t believe Chandler: Non posso credere che tu dica sul serio.
you would actually say that. I would much rather be Io preferirei essere Mr. Peanut che Mr Salty.
Mr Peanut than Mr Salty.☺ Joey: Scherzi? Mr Salty è un marinaio, giusto? E
Joey: No way! Mr Salty is a sailor, all right, he’s quindi deve essere lo snack più da duri che ci sia!
got to be, like, the toughest snack there is.☺ Ross: Non lo so. Comunque, io non snobberei le
Ross: I don’t know, you don’t wanna mess with noccioline. Sono appetitose.
corn nuts.☺ They’re craaazy.☺
46. [Episode 21] Chandler: Wow, what a geek. Chandler: Guarda che idioti! Hanno speso 69.95
They spent 69.95 dollars on a Wonder Mop. ☺ dollari per una Scopa Magica.
Monica: That's me. ☺ Monica: L’ho comprata io.☺
47. [Episode 21] Rachel: [Out of shot] Stop it! Rachel: Marcel, smettila… Brutta scimmia!
Marcel! Bad monkey! Ross: Che c’è?
Ross: What? Rachel: C’è che il mio candico pupazzo Geroge ora
Rachel: Let's just say my Curious George doll is no non è più candido! ☺
longer curious. ☺
48. [Episode 21] Joey: Hi, uh, I'll be reading for the Joey: Salve! Io avrei preparato il monologo di
role of Mercutio. Mercuzio.
Casting Director No. 2: Name? Direttore Casting No.2: Nome?
Joey: Holden McGroin. ☺ Joey: Al Pacino Bis! ☺
49. [Episode 22] Chandler: I think last night was Chandler: È stato fantastico l’altra sera. Quella
great. You know, the Karaoke thing. Tracy and I storia del Karaoke. Tracy e io facevamo Ebony and
doing Ebony and Ivory.☺ Ivory.
Phoebe: You were great. But they still made fun of Phoebe: Eri magnifico! Ma ti prendono ancora in
342
you. giro.
50. [Episode] Rachel: This one's from Joey... feels Rachel: Qesto è di Joey. Sembra tipo un libro. Sarà
like a book. Thinks it's a book... feels like a book. certo un libro. Ed è un… libro!
And...[opens it]...it's a book! Phebe: Oh, è il Dottor Seuss!
Phoebe: Oh, it's Dr. Seuss! ☺ Joye: Quel libro mi ha fatto superare momenti assai
Joey: [to Rachel]: That book got me through some duri.
tough times. ☺
Key-phrases (KPs)
51. [Episode 1] Phoebe: [sings] Raindrops on roses Phoebe: Can-camin, spazzacamini Can-camin,
and rabbits and kittens, ☺ [Rachel and Monica turn spazzacamini Felice e gioioso Probelmi non ha La la
to look at her] bluebells and sleighbells and- la Spazzacamini
something with mittens... ☺ La la la la...
52. [Episode 1] Ross: [scornful] Grab a spoon. Do Ross: “Prendi un cucchiaino!” Lo sapete da quanto
you know how long it’s been since I’ve grabbed a tempo è che non prendo un cucchiaino? Da quando
spoon? Do the words “Billy, don’t be a hero” mean si diceva “Fate l’amore non, fate la guerra”.
anything to you?☺
53. [Episode 2] Rachel: I know I had it this Rachel: So che ce l’avevo questa mattina. E so che
morning, and I know I had it when I was in the ce l’avevo in cucina, quando…
kitchen with... Chandler: Quando?☺
Chandler: Dinah?☺
54. [Episode 3] Lizzie: Hey, Weird Girl. Lizzie: Ciao, pazzoide.

Phoebe: I brought you alphabet soup. Phoebe: Ti ho portato la zuppa di fagioli.
Lizzie: Did you pick out the vowels? Lizzie: Li hai tolti i fagioli?
Phoebe: Yes. But I left in the Ys.☺ 'Cause, you Phoebe: Sì, ma ne ho lasciato qualcuno, Sai, magari
know, “sometimes y”.☺ Uh, I also have something cambi idea. Ah, e ti ho portato anche un'altra cosa.
else for you.
55. & 56. [Episode 3] Phoebe: Yes, yes! Like the Phoebe: Sì! Come l’uomo della scarpa!
man in the shoe! Ross: Che scarpa?
Ross: ...What shoe?☺ Phoebe: La poesia per bambini: “C’era un uomo
Phoebe: From the nursery rhyme. “There was a storto, che aveva un sorriso storto, che visse in una
crooked man, Who had a crooked smile, Who lived scarpa storta per un po’ di tempo…”☺
in a shoe, For a... while...” [Dubious pause.]☺
57. [Episode 9] Monica: And I assume, Chandler, Monica: E Chandler continuerà a girare alla larga
you are still boycotting all the pilgrim holidays. ☺ dal tacchino, giusto?
Chandler: Yes, every single one.☺ Chandler: Sì, e da tutti gli altri pennuti.☺
58. [Episode 9] Chandler: And this from the cry- Chandler: So che potrei pentirmi per averlo chiesto
for-help department. Are you wearing make-up? ☺ ma... sei truccato?
59. [Episode 9] Joey: Set another place for Joey: Aggiungi un posto a tavola. Anche la mia
Thanksgiving. My entire family thinks I have famiglia pensa che abbia la sifilide.☺
VD.☺ Chandler: Va bene, d’accordo, ma ti sei fatto
Chandler: Tonight…on a very special Blossom.☺ visitare?☺
60. [Episode 15] Chandler: Hey you guys all know Chandler: Sì. Voi sapete tutti cosa volete fare.
what you want to do. Rachel: Io no.
Rachel: I don’t! Chandler: Dunque, voi che siete sul divano sapete
Chandler: Hey, you guys in the living room all cosa volete. Avete tutti delle mete, avete dei sogni.
343
know what you want to do.☺ You know, you have Io non ce l'ho un sogno.
goals. You have dreams. I don’t have a dream. Ross: Ehi, sembra quasi il discorso di Martin Luther
Ross: Ah, the lesser-known “I don’t have a dream” King.
speech.☺
61. [Episode 15] Monica: So great! He showed me Monica: Benissimo! Mi ha fatto vedere dove sarà il
where the restaurant's going to be. It's this, it's this ristorante. È un bel posticino sulla Decima Strada.
cute little place on 10th Street. Not too big, not too Né troppo grande né troppo piccolo. La misura
small. Just right. ideale.
Chandler: Was it formerly owned by a blonde Chandler: Avevi il centimetro per misurare tutto
woman and some bears? ☺ così bene?
62. [Episode 18] Rachel: Guys! Guess what, guess Rachel: Ciao! Forza ragazzi, Provate a indovinare?
what, guess what, guess what! Chandler: Vediamo. Hai deciso di comprare cento
Chandler: Um, ok... the... the fifth dentist caved abiti senza essere stata ancora assunta.☺
and now they're all recommending Trident?
63. [Episode 20] Joey: [entering] He’s back! The Joey: È tornato! Il guardone è tornato. Tutti giù!
peeper’s back! [Rachel enters from her room, Rachel: Tutti giù?
ducking] Get down! Chandler: … Giù per terra!☺
Rachel: Get down?
Chandler: ...And boogie!☺
64. [Episode 22] Chandler: I don't sound like that. Chandler: Io non uso mai questo tono.
Ross: Oh, oh Chandler... Joey: Ah, no eh?
Joey: Oh... Yeah, you do. Ross: Certo che lo usi. "Le colline si risvegliano al
Ross: “The hills were alive with the sound of suono della musica."
music”.☺
65. [Episode 23] Chandler: Where have you been? Chandler: Dove eri finito?
Joey: Oh, just had a baby.☺ Joey: Ho appena avuto un bambino.☺
Chandler: Mazel tov!☺ Chandler: Bel colpo!
66. [Episode 23] Chandler: And sometimes, I'll Chandler: E qualche volta ti apparirò
want you to steal third and I'll go like this [does a all’improvviso e ti faro così. ☺
baseball sign] ☺.
344
Appendix IV Humorous Metaphors
Appendix IV – Humorous Metaphors
1. [Episode 1] Rachel: I can see that. You look like Rachel: Me ne accorgo. Sembra che hai dormito
you slept with a hanger in your mouth. ☺ con una patata in bocca. ☺
2. [Episode 1] Rachel: C'mon Daddy, listen to me! Rachel: Avanti papà, devi ascoltarmi! Il fatto è che
It's like, it's like, it's like all my life, everyone has per tutta la vita gli altri mi hanno detto: ‘Sei una
always told me ‘You're a shoe! You're a shoe! ciabatta! Una ciabatta! Una scarpaccia!’ Così oggi
You're a shoe! You're a shoe!’ And today I just mi sono bloccata e ho detto: ‘E se non volessi essere
stopped and I said, ‘What if I don't wanna be a una ciabatta? E se volessi essere una borsa? O
shoe? What if I wanna be a- a purse, y'know? ☺ Or magari un cappello?’ No, non mi devi comprare un
a- or a hat!’☺ No, I'm not saying I want you to buy cappello, sto dicendo che sono un cappello... È una
me a hat☺, I'm saying I am a ha- It's a metaphor, metafora papà!! ☺
Daddy! ☺ Ross: Ecco l’origine dei tuoi problemi. ☺
Ross: You can see where he'd have trouble. ☺
3. [Episode 1] Rachel: They're my new ‘I don’t Rachel: Alla faccia di tutti! Non mi serve un lavoro,
need a job, I don’t need my parents, I’ve got great non mi servono i miei genitori. Ho dei magnifici
boots’ boots! ☺ stivali.
4. [Episode 1] Joey: What are you talking about? Joey: Ma di che diavolo stai parlando? ‘Una sola
‘One woman’? ☺ That's like saying there's only one donna’? Sarebbe come dire:‘Hai solamente un unico
flavour of ice cream for you. Lemme tell you gusto di gelato da scegliere’. Lascia che ti dica una
something, Ross. There's [sic.] lots of flavours out cosa. Ci sono un sacco di gusti da scegliere. C'è il
there. There's Rocky Road, and Cookie Dough, and gusto Rocky, il gusto Gianduia, e Bingo! Ciliegia
Bing! Cherry Vanilla ☺. You could get 'em with vanigliata. Li puoi mangiare con le cialde o con le
Jimmies or nuts, or whipped cream! This is the best noci o con la panna montata! Questa è la cosa
thing that ever happened to you! You got married, migliore che ti sia mai successa! Ti sei sposato che,
you were, like what, eight? ☺ Welcome back to the quanti anni avevi? Otto? Bentornato alla vita. Prendi
world! Grab a spoon! un cucchiaino di gelato!
Ross: I honestly don't know if I'm hungry or horny! Ross: Francamente non so se sono affamato o
☺ nauseato.
Chandler: You stay out of my freezer. ☺ Chandler: Sta’ lontano dal mio freezer ☺
5. [Episode 1] Ross: I just feel like someone reached Ross: Sto come se mi avessero messo una mano in
down my throat, grabbed my small intestine, pulled gola, preso l'intestino, l'avessero strappato dalla
it out off my mouth and tied it around my neck.. bocca e me l'avessero avvolto intorno al collo.
Chandler: Cookie? ☺ Chandler: Dolcetto? ☺
6. [Episode 2] Monica: What you guys don't Monica: Quello che voi ragazzi non capite è che,
understand is, for us, kissing is as important as any per noi, il bacio è importante quanto tutto il resto.
part of it. Joey: Sì, certo!... Veramente? ☺
Joey: Yeah, right! ☺...Y’serious? ☺ Phoebe: Certo!
Phoebe: Oh, yeah! Rachel: Il segreto di una persona è tutto nel primo
Rachel: Everything you need to know is in that first bacio.
kiss. Monica: assolutamente.
Monica: Absolutely. Chandler: Sì, credo che per noi il bacio sia come il
Chandler: Yeah, I think for us, kissing is pretty primo atto di una commedia. Capito? Cioè come il
much like an opening act, y’know? I mean it's like comico che ti devi sorbire prima… che escano fuori
the stand-up comedian you have to sit through i Pink Floyd. ☺
before Pink Floyd comes out. ☺ Ross: Sì, e non è che non ci piaccia l’attore comico.
Ross: Yeah, and-and it's not that we don't like the È solo che non è per lui che avevamo comprato il
comedian, it's that-that... that's not why we bought biglietto.
the ticket. ☺ Chandler: Vedi, il problema è che dopo che è finito
345
Chandler: The problem is, though, after the il concerto, comunque sia andato lo show, le ragazze
concert's over, no matter how great the show was, continuano a cercare sempre quei preliminari e, sai,
you girls are always looking for the comedian quando si è in macchina, in mezzo al traffico, si
again☺, y'know? I mean, we're in the car, we're cerca... si cerca solo di stare svegli.
fighting traffic... basically just trying to stay awake. Ross: È vero!
☺ Rachel: Beh, allora vi do un consiglio: teneteci a
Rachel: Yeah, well, word of advice: Bring back the quei preliminari. Altrimenti un’altra volta ve ne
comedian. Otherwise next time you're gonna find starete a casa ad ascoltare un bell’album da soli.
yourself sitting at home, listening to that album Joey: Stiamo ancora parlando di sesso?
alone.☺ [Rachel and Monica give each other a five Ross: Sì.
as a sign of agreement] ☺
Joey: [pause, to Ross] Are we still talking about
sex? [Ross rises his thumb as to confirm they are
still talking about sex]. ☺
7. [Episode 3] Monica: I mean, why should I let Monica: Perché dovrei presentarglielo? Porto un
them meet him? I mean, I bring a guy home, and ragazzo a casa e in cinque minuti lo hanno già
within five minutes they're all over him. I mean, distrutto. Sono come dei coyote. Attaccano il più
they're like- coyotes, picking off the weak members debole della mandria.
of the herd. ☺ Paula: Ascolta, dal momento che sono una che ne
Paula: Listen. As someone who's seen more than ha viste di bestie e di coyote: ti dirò: non è poi una
her fair share of bad beef☺, I'll tell you: that is not cosa così spaventosa. Andiamo, sono amici tuoi, si
such a terrible thing. I mean, they're your friends, preoccupano di te.
they're just looking out after you. [...] Monica: Io invece esco con un tizio che piace a
[…] Monica: Okay… Well, I’m going out with a tutti i miei amici.
guy my friends all really like Paula: Ma stiamo parlando sempre di quei coyote?
Paula: Wait wait… we talking about the coyotes
here? All right, a cow got through! ☺
8. [Episode 8] Joey: Now, see, I don't believe any of Joey: Sono tutte storie. Secondo me una volta morti
that. I think once you're dead, you're dead! You're quello che resta è solo fertilizzante. ☺ Così
gone! You're worm food! ☺ [realises his Chandler sembra gay, eh?
tactlessness] ...So Chandler looks gay, huh?
9. [Episode 12] Phoebe: Oh yeah, I'm sure. Phoebe: E a un certo punto, il problema non erano
[Flashback resumes with Phoebe doing a più le sue mani...
voiceover.] And all of a sudden his hands weren't Monica: E cos’era?
the problem anymore. [Flashback continues: Paolo Phoebe: Un tendone da circo in miniatura. ☺
rolls over, Phoebe looks down, then quickly looks
up, bites lip, shakes her head].
Monica: Was it...?
Phoebe: Oh, boy scouts could have camped under
there. ☺
10. [Episode 13] Chandler: Hey, Kicky. What're Chandler: Ehi, “Calcetto”!... Che stai facendo?
you doing? Joey: Cerco di trovare una posizione. Non dormo
Joey: Just trying to get comfortable. I can't sleep in mai con gli slip.
my underwear. Chandler: Ci dormirai.
Chandler: Well, you're gonna. Joye: Stavo pensando a questo fatto che io cambio
Joey: I've been thinking. Y'know, about how I'm continuamente ragazze...
always seeing girls on top of girls... ☺ Chandler: Hai una crisi di rigetto? Me ne vuoi dare
Chandler: Are they end to end, or tall like qualcuna?
pancakes? ☺
11. [Episode 13] Joey: Clear the tracks for the Joey: Fate largo al vostro re della vendetta, signori.
boobie payback express☺. Next stop: Rachel Prossima vittima, Rachel Green.
346
Green.
12. [Episode 16] Chandler: It’s not just that she’s Chandler: Non è solo il fatto che è carina, ok?... È
cute, okay. It’s just that... she’s really really cute. che lei è davvero carina.
Ross: It doesn’t matter. You don’t dip your pen in Ross: Non ha importanza. Non si mangia nel piatto
the company ink. ☺ della compagnia. ☺
13. [Episode 18] Rachel: Oooooh. [reads letter; Rachel Ho un colloquio!

surprised]: Oh! I got an interview! I got an Monica: Stai scherzando! Dove?
interview! Rachel: Saks Fifth Avenue!
Monica: You're kidding! Where? Where? Phoebe: È come se ti stesse chiamando la nave
Rachel: [in disbelief]: Sak's... Fifth... Avenue. madre! ☺
Monica: Oh, Rachel!
Phoebe: Oh, it's like the mother ship is calling you
home. ☺
14. [Episode 18] Phoebe: OK Joey, your bet. Phoebe: Joey, sta a te.
Joey: Ahhh, I fold like a cheap hooker who got hit Joey: Ahh, mi sento come un povero cane randagio
in the stomach by a fat guy with sores on his face. bastonato in un giorno di neve e di pioggia… Beh,
☺ [the girls look at him, confused] Oh, I'm out. ☺ passo!
15. [Episode 23] Dr. Franzblau: I try not to let my Dr. Franzblau: Cerco di fare in modo che il lavoro
work affect my personal life, but it's hard, when non influenza la vita privata. Ma è dure, quando si
you... do what I do. It's like uh...☺ Well, for fa quello che faccio. Per esempio, tu cosa fai?
instance, what do you do? Rachel: La cameriera.
Rachel: I'm a waitress.☺ Dr. Franzblau: Perfertto. No ti capita, alle volte,
Dr. Franzblau: Ok, all right, well aren't there times quando torni a casa distrutta dal lavor di pensare
when you come home at the end of the day, and non so: “Se vedo un’altra tazza di caffè io…”☺
you're just like, 'if I see one more cup of coffee'…☺ Rachel: Già… Capisco…
Rachel: [getting the point] Yeah. Gotcha. ☺
16. [Episode 24] Joey: Well, it's like, last night, I Joey: Ascolta, stanotte non ho potuto fare quello in
couldn't do the thing that usually makes me great. cui in genere sono grande. Così ho dovuto fare
So I had to do all this other stuff. And the response I molte altre cose. E il risultato ottenuto... Oh, amico
got... man, oh man, it was like a ticker tape parade! mio! Mi vedeva come l'eroe della parata!
☺ Chandler: Lo so. La mia stanza affaccia sul
Chandler: Yes, I know, as it happens my room is percorso della parata. ☺
very very close to the parade route. ☺
17. [Episode 24] Chandler: Forget about her! Chandler: Devi dimenticarla, Ross!
Joey: He’s right, man. Please. Move on. Go to Joey: Ha ragione lui. Viaggia! Muoviti! Vai in
China. Eat Chinese food. Cina. Mangia cibo cinese.
Chandler: Of course there, they just call it food. ☺ Chandler: Solo là lo possono chiamare ‘cibo’. ☺
347
CD-Rom Content
CD-Rom Content
Dore, Margherita (2008) The Audiovisual Translation of Humour: Dubbing The First
Series of The TV Comedy Programme Friends into Italian, Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Lancaster University, Lancaster.
Images in .jpg
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure .7.1
Video clips in .avi

SEX IS A ROCK CONCERT
Appendix V – “Complete Transcription of the Data”
348
Bibliography
Bibliography
Agorni, M. (2000) ‘Quale teoria per la pratica della traduzione multimediale?’, in
Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M., Heiss, C., Soffritti, M. and Bernardini, S. (eds.) La traduzione
multimediale: Quale traduzione per quale testo?, Bologna: CLUEB, 395-406.
Aixelá, J. F. (1996) ‘Culture-specific Items in Translation’, in Álvarez, R. and Vidal,
M.C.Á. (eds.) Translation, Power, Subversion, Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide:
Multilingual Matters, 52-78.
Alexieva, B. (1997) ‘There Must Be Some System in this Madness: Metaphor, Polysemy,
and Wordplay in a Cognitive Linguistics Framework’, in Delabastita, D. (ed.) Traductio:
Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing, 137-154.
Antonini, R. (2005) ‘The perception of subtitled humor in Italy’, Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 18(2): 209–225.
Antonopoulou, E. (2002) ‘A Cognitive Approach to Literary Humour Devices:
Translating Raymond Chandler’, The Translator 8 (2): 195-220.
____ (2004) ‘Humor theory and translation research: Proper names in humorous
discourse’, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17(3): 219-255.
349
Bibliography
Antonopoulou, E. and Sifianou, M. (2003) ‘Conversational dynamics of humour: the
telephone game in Greek’, Journal of Pragmatics 35: 741-769.
Archakis, A. and Tsakona, V. (2005) ‘Analysing conversational data in GTVH terms: A
new approach to the issue of identity construction via humour’, Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 18(1): 41-68.
Attardo, S. (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humour, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
____ (1998) ‘The analysis of humorous narratives’, Humour: International Journal of
Humor Research 11(3): 231-260.
____ (2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis, Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
____ (2002a) ‘Translation and Humour: An Approach Based on the General Theory of
Verbal Humour’, The Translator 8(2): 173-194.
____ (2002b) ‘Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts’ in Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. (eds.)
Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 231-250.
____ (2006) ‘Cognitive linguistics and humour’, Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research 19(3): 339-360.

350
Bibliography
____ (2007) ‘On the GVTH and SSTH: Comments on Raskin’s Interview’, in Popa, D.
and Attardo, S. (eds.) New Approaches to the Linguistic of Humour, Galati: Editura
Academina, 226-229.
____ (forthcoming) ‘Humorous Metaphors’ in Brône, G., Feyaerts K. and Vaele, T. (eds.)
Cognitive Linguistics Meets Humor Research. Current Trends and New Developments
(working title), Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., Hempelman, C. and Di Maio, S. (2002) ‘Script oppositions and logical
mechanisms. Modeling incongruities and their resolutions’, Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research 15 (1): 3–46.
Attardo, S. and Raskin, V. (1991) ‘Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke
representation model’; Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 4(3-4): 293-347.
Aymone, A. (2007) ‘Interview with Victor Raskin’, in Popa, D. and Attardo, S. (eds.)
New Approaches to the Linguistic of Humour, Galati: Editura Academina, 217-225.
Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London: Routledge.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
351
Bibliography
Billig, M. (2005) Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour, London:
Sage.
Boase-Beier, J. (2006) Stylistic Approaches to Translation, Manchester: St Jerome.
Bolettieri Bosinelli, R. M. (2000) ‘Quale traduzione per quale testo?’ in Bollettieri
Bosinelli, R. M., Heiss, C., Soffritti, M. and Bernardini, S. (eds.) La traduzione
Bovinelli, B. and Gallini, S. (1994) ‘La traduzione dei riferimenti culturali contestuali nel
doppiaggio cinematografico’, in Baccoli, R., Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. and Davoli, L.
(eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB, 89-98.
Brock, A. (2004) ‘Analyzing scripts in humorous communication’, Humor: International
Journal of Humor Research 17(4): 353-360.
Brône, G., and Feyaerts K. (2004) ‘Assessing the SSHT and GTVH: A view from
Cognitive Linguistics’, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17(4), 361-373.
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T. (2006) ‘Introduction: Cognitive linguistic
approaches to humor’, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 19(3), 203-228.
352
Bibliography
Bubel, C. M. and Spitz, A. (2006) ‘“One of the last vestiges of gender bias”: The
characterization of women through the telling of dirty jokes in Ally McBeal’, Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research 19 (1): 71-104.
Bucaria, C. (2007) ‘Top 10 signs your humor has been subtitled: The case of the Late
Show with David Letterman’, in Popa, D. and Attardo, S. (eds.) New Approaches to the
Linguistic of Humour, Galati: Editura Academina, 72-87.
Camuzio, E. (1993) ‘Voce/Volto. Problemi della vocalità nel doppiaggio
cinematografico’, il verri marzo-giugno(1-2): 192-217.
Carroll, L. (1966) Through the Looking-Glass, Moscow: Raduga Pulishers.
Cary, E. (1960) ‘La Traduction Totale’, Babel 6(3): 110-115.
Chapman, A. J. (1973) ‘Funniness of jokes, canned laughter and recall performance’,
Sociometry 36: 569-578.
Chaume Varela, F. (1998) ‘Textual Constraints and the Translator's Creativity in
Dubbing’, in Boase-Beier, J. and Holman, M. (eds.) The Practice of Literary Translation:
Constraints and Creativity, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 15-22.
____ (2004) ‘Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two Disciplines at Stake in
Audiovisual Translation’, Meta 49(1): 12-24.

353
Bibliography
Chiaro, D. (1992) The Language of Jokes. Analysing Verbal Play, London and New York:
Routledge.
____ (2000) ‘"Servizio completo"? On the (un)translatability of puns on screen’, in
Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M., Heiss, C., Soffritti, M. and Bernardini, S. (eds.) La traduzione
____ (2004) ‘Investigating the perception of translated Verbally Expressed Humour on
Italian TV’, ESP Across Cultures, 1: 35-52.
____ (2005) ‘Foreword: Verbally Expressed Humour and translation: An overview of a
neglected field’, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 18 (2): 135-145.
____ (2006) ‘Verbally Expressed Humour on Screen: Reflections on Translation and
Reception’, The Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 198-208.
Clark, H. H. (1996) Using Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1992) ‘Dealing with overhearers’, in Clark, H. H. (ed.)
Arenas of Language Use, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 248-273.
354
Bibliography
Cłopicki, W. (2003) Book Review of Attardo (2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and
Pragmatic Analysis, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, Journal of Pragmatics 35:
155–159.
Coulson, S. (2001) Semantic Leaps. Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning
Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
____ (2003) ‘What’s so funny?: Conceptual integration in humorous examples’, available
at: http://cogsci.uscd.edu/~coulson/funstuff/funny.html
(last visit: 02/08/2008)
Critchley, S. (2002) On Humour, London: Routledge.
Culpeper, J. (2001) Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts,
Harlow England and New York: Longman.
Danan, M. (1991) ‘Dubbing as an Expression of Nationalism’, Meta 36(4): 606-614.
Davies González, M. and Scott-Tennent, C. (2005) ‘A Problem-Solving and Student-
Centred Approach to the Translation of Cultural References’, Meta 50(1): 160-179.
Deignan, A. (2003) ' Metaphorical Expressions and Culture: An Indirect Link', Metaphor
and Symbol 18(4): 255-271.
355
Bibliography
Delabastita, D. (1989) ‘Translation and mass-communication: film and T.V. translation as
evidence of cultural dynamics’, Babel 35(4): 193-218.
____ (1990) ‘Translation and the Mass Media’, in Bassnett, S. and Lefereve, A. (eds.)
Translation, History and Culture, London and New York: Printer Publishers, 97-109.
____ (1993) There’s a Double Tongue: An Investigation into the Translation of
Shakespeare’s Wordplay, with Special Reference to Hamlet, Amsterdam and Atlanta:
Rodopi.
____ (1994) 'Focus on the Pun: Wordplay as a Special Problem in Translation Studies',
Target, 6(2): 223-243.
____(1996) ‘Introduction’, The Translator 2(2): 127-139.
____ (1997) ‘Introduction’, in Dirk Delabastita (ed.) Traductio: Essays on Punning and
Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1-22.
Di Maio, S. (2000) A Structured Resource for Computational Humour, Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis, Siena, Italy: University of Siena.
Díaz Cintas, J. (2003) ‘Audiovisual Translation in the Third Millennium’, in Anderson, G.
and Rogers, M. (eds.) Translation Today. Trends and Perspectives, Clevedon,

356
Bibliography
Dobrzyńska, T. (1995) ‘Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning’, Journal of
Pragmatics 25: 595-604.
Donoghue, E. E., McCarrey, M. W. and Clément, R. (1983) ‘Humour appreciation as a
function of canned laughter, a mirthful companion, and field dependence: Facilitation and
inhibitory effects’, Canada Journal of Behavioural Science 15: 150-162.
Dore, M. (2002) ‘The Feasibility of Dubbing the Verbal Function of Humour: A
Contrastive Analysis of the English Original and the Italian Dubbed Version of The
Simpsons, First Season’, Unpublished MSc Dissertation: UMIST.
Dries, J. (1995) Dubbing and Subtitling. Guidelines for production and distribution,
Düsseldorf: The European Institute for the Media.
Eco, U. (1984) Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998): ‘Brands as symbolic resources for the
construction of identity’, International Journal of Advertising 17(2): 131-45.
Esar, E. (1952) The Humor of Humor, New York: Horizon.
Fasold, R. (1983) The Sociolinguistics of Society, London: Blackwell.

357
Bibliography
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1996) ‘Blending As A Central Process of Grammar’, in
Goldberg, A. (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Stanford: Center for
The Study of Language and Information (CSLI): Cambridge University Press: 113-129
(expanded online version at :
http://markturner.org/centralprocess.WWW/centralprocess.html
(last visit:08/08/2008)
____ (1998) ‘Conceptual Integration Network’, Cognitive Science 22(2): 133-187.
____ (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
Complexities, New York: Basic Books.
Ferrari, C. (2006) ‘Translating Stereotypes: Local and Global in Italian Television
Dubbing’, in Armstrong, N. and Fedrici, F. M. (eds.) Tranlsating Voices, Translating
Regions, Rome: ARACNE, pp. 123-142.
Fawcett, P. (1997) Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester:
St. Jerome Publishing.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988) ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in
Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone’, Language 60(3): 501-538.
358
Bibliography
Fouts, G. and Burggraf, K. (2000) ‘Television Situation Comedies: Female Weight, Male
Negative Comments, and Audience Reactions”, Sex Roles 42(9-10): 925-932.
Fowler, E. (1986) Linguistic Criticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
____ (1996) Linguistic Criticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2nd edition).
Fuentes Luque, A. (2003) ‘An Empirical Approach to the Reception of AV Translated
Humour’, The Translator 9(2): 293-306.
Gaiba, F. (1994) ‘La traduzione di alcuni aspetti umoristici nel doppiaggio
cinematografico’, in Bolletteri Bosinelli, R. M., Gavioli, L. and Baccolini, R. (eds.) Il
doppiaggio.Transposizioni Linguistiche e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB, 105-111.
Galassi, G. G. (1994) ‘La norma traviata’, in Baccoli, R., Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. and
Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB,
61-69.
Gambier, Y. (2003) ‘Introduction. Screen Transadaptation: Perception and Reception’,
The Translator, 9(2): 171-189.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2000) 'Making good psychology out of the blending theory', Cognitive
Linguistics 11 (3/4): 347-458.
359
Bibliography
Giora, R. (1991) ‘On the cognitive aspects of jokes’, Journal of Pragmatics 16: 465-485.
____ (2003) On our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language, New York:
University Press.
Goatly, A. (1997) The Language of Metaphors, London & New York: Routledge.
____ (2007): Washing the Brain: metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
____ (1976) ‘Replies and responses’, Language in Society 5: 257-313.
____ (1979) ‘Footing’, Semiotica 25(1/2): 1-29.
Goris, O. (1993) ‘The Question of French Dubbing: Towards a Frame for Systematic
Investigation’, Target 5(2): 169-90.
Gottlieb, H. (1997) ‘You Got the Picture? On the Polysemiotics of Subtitling Wordplays’,
in Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing,
207-232.
360
Bibliography
Grady J., Oakley, T. and Coulson, S. (1999) ‘Blending and metaphor’, in R. W. Gibb, Jr.
and G. J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
101-24.
Greimas, A. J. (1983[1966]) Sémantique structurale: Recherche de méthode, Paris
Larousse. Engl. tran.: Structural Semantics, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic in conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and
Semantics, Vol.3 Speech Acts, New York: Academic, 41-59.
Groupe µ (1976) ‘Isotopie et allotopie’, Versus 16: 41-65.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997) The Translator as Communicator, London and New York:
Routledge.
Harvey, K. (1995) ‘A Descriptive Framework for Compensation’, The Translator 1(1):
65-86.
Hay, J. (2001) ‘The pragmatics of humor support’, Humour: International Journal of
Humour Research 14(1): 55-82.
Heiss, C. (1996) ‘Il testo in un contesto multimediale’, in Heiss, C. and Bollettieri
Bosinelli, R. M. (eds.) Traduzione multimediale per il cinema la televisione e la scena,
Bologna: CLUEB, 13-25.

361
Bibliography
Hempelmann, C. F. (2004) ‘Script opposition and logical mechanism in punning’, Humor:
International Journal of Humor Research 17 (4): 381–392.
Herbst, T. (1996) ‘Why dubbing is impossible’, in Heiss, C. and Bollettieri Bosinelli, R.
M. (eds.) Traduzione multimediale per il cinema la televisione e la scena, Bologna:
CLUEB, 97-115.
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I. (1992) Thinking Translation. A Course in Translation Method:
French-English, London and New York: Routledge.
Hickey, L. (1998) ‘Perlocutionary Equivalence: Marking, Exegesis and
Recontextualization’, in Hickey, L. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation, Clevedon:
____ (1999) ‘Aproximación pragmalingüistica a la traducción del humor’, in Gil de
Carrasco, A. and Hickey, L (eds.) Aproximaciones a la traducción [Approaching
Translation], Madrid: Instituto Cervantes, available at:
http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/aproximaciones/hickey.htm (last visit: 06/06/2008).
Holmes, J. (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies
Rodopi: Amsterdam.
362
Bibliography
Holzer, D. (1999) Die deutsche Sitcom. Format-Konzeption-Drehbuch-Umsetzung,
Bergisch Gladbach: Bastei-Verlag Gustav H: Lübbe GmbH and Co.
Howell, T. (2007) ‘The cognitive approach to humorous narratives’, in Popa, D. and
Attardo, S. (eds.) New Approaches to the Linguistic of Humour, Galati: Editura
Academina, 55-71.
Katan, D. (1999) Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and
Mediators, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Kenny, D. (1998a) ‘Equivalence’, in Mona Baker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies, London: Routledge, 77-80.
____ (1998b) ‘Corpora in translation studies’, in Mona Baker (ed.) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London: Routledge, 50-53.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1976) ‘Problematique de l’isotopie’, Linguistique et Semiologie
1(11): 11-33.
____ (1981) ‘Les usages comiques de l’analogie’, Folia Linguistica 15: 1-2.
Knight, M. (1989) ‘The Happy Adventure of Translating German Humorous Texts’, Meta
34(1): 105-107.
363
Bibliography
Koestler, A. (1964) The act of creation, New York: Dell.
Kovačič, I. (1996) “Subtitling strategies: A flexible hierarchy of priorities”, in Heiss, C.
and Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. (eds.) Traduzione multimediale per il cinema la
televisione e la scena, Bologna: CLUEB, 297-305.
Kövecses, Z. (2000) Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture and Body in Human
Feeling, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
____ (2002) Metaphor: a practical introduction, Oxford: University Press.
____ (2005) Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kyratzis, S. (2003) ‘Laughing Metaphorically: Metaphor and Humour in Discourse’,
unpublished paper, presented at the Conference on ‘Cognitive Linguistics Approaches to
Humour’, available online at: http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/iclc/Participants.htm
(last visited: 08/08/2008).
La Polla, F. (1994) ‘Quel che si fa dopo mangiato: doppiaggio e contesto culturale’, in
Baccoli, R., Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. and Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni
linguistiche e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB, 51-60.
364
Bibliography
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, J. and Delabastita, D. (1996) ‘La Traduction de textes audiovisuels: Modes et
enjeux culturels’, in Gambier, Y. (ed.) Les transferts linguistiques et l’audiovisuel,
Villeneuve d’Ascq.: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, pp. 33-58
Lebtahi, Y. (2004) ‘Télévision: Les artefacts de la traduction-adaptation. Le cas de la
sitcom’, Meta 49(2): 4-1-409.
Leibold, A. (1989) ‘The Translation of Humour. Who Says it Can’t be Done’, Meta 34(1):
109-111.
Lendvai, E. (1996) ‘Types of Untranslatable Jokes’, in Klaudy, K, Lambert, J. and Sohár,
A. (eds.) Translation Studies in Hungary, Budapest: Scholastica, 89-98.
Leppihalme, R. (1996) ‘Caught in the Frame: A Target-Culture Viewpoint on Allusive
Wordplay’, The Translator 2(2): 199-218.
____ (1997) Culture Bumps. An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
365
Bibliography
Lionello, O. (1994) ‘Il falso in doppiaggio’, in in Baccoli, R., Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M.
and Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche e culturali, Bologna:
CLUEB, 41-50.
Lorenzo, L., Pereira, A. and Xoubanova, M. (2003) ‘The Simpsons/Los Simpson.
Analysis of an Audiovisual Translation’, The Translator 9(2): 269-291.
Luyken, G. M., Herbst, T., Langham-Brown, J., Reid, H. and Spinhof, H. (1991)
Overcoming language barriers in television, Manchester: The European Institute for the
Media.
Manetti, G. (1976) ‘Per una semiotica del comico’, Il verri 3: 130-152.
Marleau, L. (1982) ‘Les sous-titres...un mal nécessaire’, Meta 27(3): 271-285.
Martin, G. N. and Gray, C. D. (1996) ‘The eVects of audience laughter on men’s and
women’s responses to humor’, Journal of Social Psychology 136: 221–231.
Minsky, M. (1975) ‘A Framework for Representing Knowledge’, in The Psychology of
Computer Vision, ed. Patrick H. Winston. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mio, J. S. and Graesser, A. (1991) ‘Humour, Language and Metaphor’, Metaphor and
Symbolic Activity, 6(2): 87-102.
366
Bibliography
Moon, R. (1998) Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based Approach,
New York: Clarendon Press Oxford.
Morin, V. (1966) ‘L’historie drôle’, Communications 8: 102-119.
Morreall, J. (1983) Taking Laughter Seriously, Albany: State University of New York.
Mulkay, M. (1988) On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Murphy, G. L. (1996) ‘On metaphoric representation’, Cognition 60: 173:204
Müller, R. (2007) ‘The interplay of metaphor and humour in Oscar Wilde’s “Lord Arthur
Savile’s Crime”’, in Popa, D. and Attardo, S. (eds.) New Approaches to the Linguistic of
Humour, Galati: Editura Academina, 44-54.
Myers, L. (1973) ‘The Art of Dubbing’, Filmmakers Newsletter 6(6): 56-58.
Nash, W. (1985) The Language of Humour. Style and Technique in Comic Discourse,
London and New York: Longman.
Newmark, P. (1995) A Textbook of Translation, London: Phoenix.
367
Bibliography
Nida, E. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles
and Procedure Involved, Leiden: J. Brill.
____ (1999): ‘Language and Culture”, Seminar at the Facultat de Ciències Humanes,
Traducció i Documentació, University of Vic (Spain).
Nida, E. and Taber, C. R. (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translations, Leiden: J Brill.
Nilsen, D. L. F. (1989) ‘Better than The Original: Humorous Translations that Succeed’,
Meta 34(1): 112-124.
Nord, C. (1991) Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Niemeier, S. (1991) ‘Intercultural dimensions of pragmatics in film synchronisation’, in
Blommauert, J. and Verschueren, J. (eds.) The Pragmatics of International and
Intercultural Communication, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145-162.
Norrick, N. R. (1993), Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1974) Le comique du dscours, Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université
de Bruxelles.
Oring, E. (2003) Engaging Humour, Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
368
Bibliography
Palmer, J. (1994) Taking Humour Seriously, London and New York: Routledge.
Paolinelli, M. (1994) ‘Doppiaggio: la traduzione odiata’ in Baccoli, R., Bollettieri
Bosinelli, R. M. and Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche e culturali,
____ (2004) ‘Nodes and Boundaries of Global Communications: Notes on the Translation
and Dubbing of Audiovisuals’, Meta, 49(1): 172-181.
Patou-Patucchi, S. (2006) ‘Quando un italiano diventa greco, o spagnolo’ in Armstrong,
N. and Fedrici, F. M. (eds.) Tranlsating Voices, Translating Regions, Rome: ARACNE,
109-122.
Pavesi, M. (1994) ‘Osservazioni sulla (socio)linguistica del doppiaggio’, in Baccoli, R.,
Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. and Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche
e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB, 129-142.
Pavesi, M. and Perego, E. (2006) ‘Profiling Film Translators in Italy: A Preliminary
Analysis’, The Journal of Specialised Translation, 6: 99-114.
Pelsmaekers K. and Van Besien, F. (2003) ‘Subtitling Irony: Blackadder in Dutch’, The
Translator 8(2): 241-266.
369
Bibliography
Perlmutter, D. D. (2000) ‘On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humour: The
delicate balance’, Humour: International Journal of Humour Research 15(2): 155-168.
Perri, C. (1978) ‘On alluding’ Poetics 7: 289-307.
Petit, Z. (2004) ‘The Audio-Visual Text: Subtitling and Dubbing Different Genres’, Meta
49(1): 25-38.
Pisek, G. (1997) ‘Wordplays and the Dubber/Subtitler’, AAA - Arbeiten Aus Anglistik und
Amerikanistik, 22(1): 37-52.
Pistole, D. D., & Shor, R. E. (1979) ‘A multivariate study of the effect of repetition on
humor appreciation as qualified by two social influence factors’ The Journal of General
Psychology 100: 433–451.
Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Both, A., Chew, I., Cuddon, M., Goharpey, N., Maurer, J.,
Rosini, S., Tsekouras, A., and Grace, D. M. (2005) ‘“It’s not funny when they’re
laughing”: A self-categorization social-influence analysis of canned laughter’, The
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41: 542-550.
Popa, D. (2005) ‘Jokes and Translation’, Perspective: Studies in Translatology 13(1): 48-
57.
Provine, R. R. (1996) ‘Laughter’, American Scientist 84(1): 38-47.

370
Bibliography
Pragglejaz Group (2007) ‘MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in
Discourse’, Metaphor and Symbol 22(1): 1-39.
Purandare, A. and Litman, D (2006) ‘Humor: Prosody Analysis and Automatic
Recognition for F*R*I*E*N*D*S*’, in the Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), July 2006, Sydney, Australia: 208-
215.
Raffaelli, S. (1994) ‘Il parlato cinematografico e televisivo’ in Serianni, L. and Trifone, P.
(eds.) Storia della lingua italiana, II scritto e parlato, Torino: Einaudi, 271-290.
Ramière, N. (2006) ‘Reaching a Foreign Audience: Cultural Transfers in Audiovisual
Translation’, The Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 152-166.
Ranzato, I. (2006) ‘Tradurre dialetti e socioletti nel cinema e nella televisione’ in
Armstrong, N. and Federici, F. M. (eds.) Translating Voices, Translating Regions, Rome:
ARACNE: 143-162.
Raskin, V. (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humour, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Ritchie, G. (2000) ‘ Describing Verbally Expressed Humour’, in Proceedings of AISB
Symposium on Creative and Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI and Cognitive
Science, April 2000, Birmingham: 71-78.

371
Bibliography
Romero Fresco (2006) ‘The Spanish Dubbese: A Case of (Un)idiomatic Friends’, The
Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 134-151
Rojo Lopez, A. M. (2002) 'Frame Semantics and the Translation of Humour', Babel 48(1):
43-77.
Ross, A. (1998) The Language of Humour, London: Routledge.
Rossi, F. (1999) ‘Realismo dialettale, ibridismo italiano-dialetto, espressionismo
regionalizzato: tre modelli linguistici del cinema italiano’ in Atti del Convegno annuale
SILFI, October 1998, Catania, available at: http://lablita.dit.unifi.it/preprint/preprint-
99coll02.pdf (last visit 02/09/08)
Roventa-Frumaşani, D. (1986) ‘Context şi convenţie in producerea/receptarea glumei’,
Studii şi cerceţari lingvistice 37(6): 509-516.
Rowe, T.L. (1960) ‘The English Dubbing Text’, Babel 6: 116-120.
Ruch, W., Attardo, S. and Raskin, V. (1993) ‘Towards an empirical verification of the
General Theory of Verbal Humour’, Humour: International Journal of Humour Research
12(1): 71-93.
372
Bibliography
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980) ‘Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition’, in Spiro, R. J.,
Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F. (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension,.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 38-58.
Sacks, H. (1972) ‘On some puns: with some intimations’, in Shuy, R.W. (ed.),
Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects (Monograph Series on Language and
Linguistics 25; 23rd Annual Round Table), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press, 135-144.
____ (1974) ‘An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation’, in Bauman, R.
and Scherzer, J.F. (eds.) Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 337-353.
Schäffner, C. (2004) ‘Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive
approach’, Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1253-1269.
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. (1977) Script, Plans, Goals and Understanding, New
York: Wiley.
Semino, E. (2002) ‘A cognitive stylistic approach to mind style in narrative fiction’, in
Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. (eds.), Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text
Analysis, Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 95-122.
____ (2008), Metaphor in Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

373
Bibliography
Semino, E. and Swindlehurst, K. (1996) ‘Metaphor and Mind Style in Ken Kesey’s One
Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, Style 30(1): 143-166.
Short, M. H. (1981) ‘Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama’, Applied Linguistics
2(2): 180-201.
Sherzer, J. (1978) ‘Oh! That’s a pun and I didn’t mean it’, Semiotica 22(3-4): 335-350.
Smyth, M. M. and Fuller, R. G. C. (1972) ‘EVects of group laughter on responses to
humorous material’, Psychological Reports 30: 132–134.
Snell, J. (2006) ‘Schema Theory and the Humour of Little Britain’, English Today 85,
22(1): 59-64.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Spalding, H. D. (1976) A Treasure-Trove of American Jewish Humor, Middle Village,
N.Y.: Jonathan David.
Tagliamonte, S. and Roberts, C. (2005) ‘So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of
intensifiers in the television series Friends’, American Speech 80(3): 280-300.
374
Bibliography
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends, Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Taylor, C. (2000) ‘In defence of the word: Subtitles as conveyors of meaning and
guardians of culture’, in Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M., Heiss, C., Soffritti, M. and
Bernardini, S. (eds.) La traduzione multimediale: Quale traduzione per quale testo?,
____ (2006) ‘The Translation of Regional Variety in the Films of Ken Loach’ in
Armstrong, N. and Fedrici, F. M. (eds.), Translating Voices, Translating Regions, Rome:
ARACNE, 37-52.
Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, John Benjamins:
Amsterdam.
Tsakona, V. (2003) ‘Jab lines in narrative jokes’, Humour: International Journal of
Humour Research 16(3): 315-329.
____ (2007) ‘Towards a revised typology of humorous text and humorous line’, in Popa,
D. and Attardo, S. (eds.) New Approaches to the Linguistic of Humour, Galati: Editura
Academina, 35-43.
Tsur, R. (1992) Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics, Amsterdam: Elsevier (North
Holland) Science Publishers.

375
Bibliography
Ulrych, M. (1994) ‘Film dubbing and the translatability of modes of address. Power
relations and social distance in The French Lieutenant’s Woman’, in Baccoli, R.,
Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M. and Davoli, L. (eds.) Il doppiaggio. Trasposizioni linguistiche
e culturali, Bologna: CLUEB, 139-160.
____(2000) ‘Locating universal features of translation behaviour through multimedia
translation studies’, in Bollettieri Bosinelli, R. M., Heiss, C., Soffritti, M. and Bernardini,
S. (eds.) La traduzione multimediale: Quale traduzione per quale testo?, Bologna:
CLUEB, 407-427.
van Leuven-Zwart, K. (1990) ‘Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities,
2’, Target 1(2): 69-95.
Vandeale, J. (2002a) ‘Humor Mechanisms in Film Comedy: Incongruity and Superiority’,
Poetics Today 23(2): 221-249.
____ (2002b) ‘Introduction. (Re-)Constructing Humour: Meaning and Means’, The
Translator 8(2): 149-172.
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. and Brône, G. (2006) ‘The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial
humour’, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 19(3): 305-339.
376
Bibliography
Veisbergs, A. (1997) ‘The Contextual Use of Idioms, Wordplays, and Translation’, in
Delabastita, D. (ed.) Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, Manchester: St.
Jerome Publishing, 155-176.
Venuti, L. (1992) (ed.) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London
and New York: Routledge.
____ (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation, London and New
York: Routledge.
____ (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, London and
New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1996) A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some Arguments For and
Against), TEXTconTEXT: Heidelberg.
Vöge, H. (1977) ‘The Translation of Films: Sub-Titling Versus Dubbing’, Babel 23(5):
120-125.
Walte, I. (2007) The American Way of Comedy. A Comprehensive Analysis of Humor on
the Basis of the US Sitcom Friends, Munich: GRIN Verlag.
Yvane, J. (1995) ‘Babel: un soutien actif aux transferts linguistiques’, Nouvelles de la FIT
– FIT Newsletter 14(3-4): 451-460.

377
Bibliography
Zabalbeascoa, P. (1996) ‘Translating Jokes for the Dubbed Television Situation
Comedies’, The Translator 2(2): 235-257.
____ (1997) ‘Dubbing and the nonverbal dimension of translation’, in Poyatos, F. (ed)
Non Verbal Communication and Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 327-342.
____ (2005) ‘Humour and translation – an interdiscipline’, Humor: International Journal
of Humor Research 18 (2): 185-207.
Primary Online Resources
Friends, official website: http://www2.warnerbros.com/friendstv/index.html (last visited:
09/08/2008)
Friends, original scripts available at: http://livesinabox.com/friends/scripts.shtml (last
visited: 09/08/2008)
Secondary Online Resources
Cambridge Dictionaries Online, available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org.
Internet Movies Database (IMDb), Friends, profile at:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/ (last visited: 09/08/2008).
378
Bibliography
NBC’s Program Test Report on the pilot episode of Friends available at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0510041friends1.html (last visited: 09/08/2008).
Unban Dictionary, available at: http://www.urbandictionary.com (last visited:
08/09/2008).
Wikipedia, Friends, profile in English at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends (last visited:
02/09/2008).
Wikipedia, Friends, profile in Italian at: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends (last visited:
02/09/2008).
379

The Audiovisual Translation of Humour Dubbing The First Series of The TV Comedy Programme Friends Into Italian-with-cover-page-V2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Audiovisual Translation of Humour Dubbing The First Series of The TV Comedy Programme Friends Into Italian-with-cover-page-V2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

MD_PHD THESIS_The Audiovisual

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he audiovisual t ranslat ion of Fixed Expressions and Idiom-based puns

Manipulat ion of Humorous Cult ure- Speciﬁc Allusions in AVT

Humour in Audiovisual Translat ion. T heories and Applicat ions

Thesis submitted for a degree of Doctor in Philosophy

award of higher degree elsewhere.

Margherita Dore, September 2008

beyond the academic involvement a student could normally expect. Secondly, I am

I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues Yufang Ho and Dimitra

Papadopoulos, Cleopatra Kouveli, Daniela Ponzio and George Kollias, Ramin

years at the Department of European Languages and Culture at this University.

& Back” programme, which financially supported most of my Doctoral research.

Humour is a relative, idiosyncratic and generally complex phenomenon, which also

provide a unified definition of humour. However, they attempt to unveil the

which it occurs. In Translation Studies, some scholars (e.g. Delabastita, Zabalbeascoa,

audiovisual translation (henceforth AVT) of humour, concentrating in particular on

those language and culture-specific features (punning, wordplay, allusive wordplay,

time pressure and expertise.

time in U.S.A. in 1994, in Italy in 1997). My investigation is obviously based on the

Attardo and Raskin 1991, Attardo 1994, 2001).

scriptwriters of Friends exploited wordplay, culture-specific allusions and creative

level of manipulation of the ST. More importantly, my research demonstrates that

AVT: Audiovisual Translation

Figure 2.1: Reproduction of the hierarchical organisation of Knowledge Resources 36

Table 2.1: Reproduction of Attardo’s (1994) categorisation of Theories of Humour 23

Analyzing or judging the translation of humour should

(TT). In particular, I concentrate on three general mechanisms of humour creation that

are often regarded as sources of translation problems: wordplay, culture-specific

allusions and metaphor.

scholars in Film Studies, Corpus Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Stylistics.

Furthermore, it takes into accounts suggestions provided by professionals in AVT.

research that Friends has inspired in many fields.

The world-wide popularity of this TV comedy series motivates my research. As a

an overview of the thesis.

1.2 The Scope of this Study: Humour and its Translation

considered one of the most complex. Humour can be described as a linguistic,

disparagement, correction of socially improper behaviour (cf. Superiority Theory,

scholars from different disciplines (e.g. Linguistics, Psychology, Philosophy,

Humour Studies (HS).

some light on three mechanisms (wordplay, culture-specific allusion, metaphor) used

of texts). In addition, I am also interested in testing the applicability of the Semantic

in the concluding chapter of this thesis.

As mentioned above, my main concern is the translation of humour in the

audiovisual setting, with specific reference to dubbing. Wordplay, culture-specific

allusions and metaphor appear to be intriguing mechanisms for the production of

summarises the issue when she points out that:

[H]umour discourse, which is naturally impeded by linguistic and social

‘Equivalence’ is a controversial term in TS. A concise but comprehensive overview

described above has subsequently been developed in terms of ‘dynamic, or functional,

As can be seen, humour translation (and translation in general) poses a range of

“objective problems” (pragmatic, linguistic and textual) that can be further

complicated by “subjective difficulties” (e.g. translators’ expertise, time pressures)

Zabalbeascoa 2005 at the beginning of this chapter).

framework of Descriptive Translation Studies which investigate translations “as they

source- or target-oriented approach is favoured. In discussing literary translation,

‘domestication’. In a foreignising or source-oriented approach, translators attempt to

that the former is a translated version of the latter. In a domesticating or target-culture

translate text, including TV comedy.

1.3 A Preliminary Introduction to Friends

Friends is a North American TV comedy programme created by Marta Kauffman and

In Chapter 4 I offer an exhaustive description of the programme, explaining in