ICOSAL-6 January 6th-8th, 2005

Session: Translation Studies

Evaluation of translated jokes: Some observations

Dr. Radhika Mamidi email: radhika_m@iiit.net

Language Technologies Research Centre
International Institute of Information Technology
Gachibowli, Hyderabad. India.

Abstract

Translating jokes is a challenge in the field of translation studies. Compared to other

kinds of texts, jokes pose a problem as the structure of the joke itself is very different.
Generally, translation among languages that are culturally and structurally different pose
a challenge and different techniques are adopted to achieve the 'equivalent effect'. In case
of jokes, the equivalent effect is in producing humour just like the original text did. The
translation of jokes involves transposing the unique structure of the joke into another
language.

This paper focuses on how the evaluation of translated jokes varies with the evaluation of
other translated texts. It was found out that when it comes to evaluating jokes, more than
the techniques of translation, the amount of humour present in the translated joke played
an important role. In other words, if a well translated joke was dry in terms of level of
humour present, it was evaluated as bad, while a badly translated joke, with high content
of humour was translated as excellent. The paper concludes that the content, more than
the method or techniques of translation, influences the evaluation in case of translation of
jokes. A different method is required to test the translation of jokes.

1. What is a joke?

A joke is the most popular form of humour. Jokes have a major role to play in our lives.
Jokes result in varying degrees of laughter and laughter leaves a pleasant feeling in us.
Laughter is called a ‘luxury reflex’ since it has no other specific biological function other
than to provide one with ‘relief from tension’. It is a part of natural human behaviour.
One can go a little ahead and say that the development of humour follows the same
pattern as physical, emotional and intellectual development in man. The scope of humour
broadens as man moves from primitive and cruel forms of humour to a gentle and refined
form of humour. [Mamidi,1993: 23]

Jokes are used to express one’s resistance as well as control with respect to social and
political changes in a society. According to Levine, humour promotes ‘solidarity, freeing
individuals to disparage others, reducing felt anxiety and acting as a safety valve for
divisive tension’ [1972:6]. In fact, the changes in a society depends on what one group

1
thinks of itself and what it supposes others think of it [esoteric], or what one group thinks
of another and what it thinks that other group thinks it thinks [exoteric]. This is reflected
in the studies of Linstead [1988:123] and Holdaway [1988:106] who found that humour
is employed to control the tensions in their social relationships in the industrial and police
force situations, respectively. Even Benton [1988:33] and Oldani [1988:67] found that
people show their resistance to the norms put forward by the society in the form of
humour. They concluded this on the basis of the studies they conducted in political and
religious fields, respectively.

Sometimes, jokes, especially political jokes, are criticized for making the horrors of
dictatorial regimes look trivial. As these jokes can be revolutionary only metaphorically,
and since they cannot change anything, they cannot be equated with active resistance. But
humour has the virtue of freeing the lives of millions from tensions and frustrations. The
social changes are reflected in the subject of jokes. A diachronic as well as a synchronic
study of jokes helps us in understanding our society [Mamidi, 1993: 31]

Though jokes are culture and language bound, yet they can be transferred. The same joke
can be retold in a different society with the equivalent stereotypes of that society. For
instance, the Auswitz jokes during Hitler’s times became Emergency jokes in India.
Similarly, the Jewish jokes find equivalents in ‘baniya/komaTi’ the business community
in India [the baniyas/komaTis are associated with ‘stinginess’ just like the jews], the
blonde jokes to Sardarji jokes (associated with stupidity or over-smartness) etc. Again the
stereotypes are creation of the society itself (esoteric or exoteric). In our study, it has
been observed that translators had the tendency to replace SL stereotypes by equivalent
TL stereotypes, most of the times.

The naïve queries like why the jokes are made or how they come into existence or why
does one laugh, can be answered by prevalent theories of humour which fall into either
of the three kinds - incongruity, superiority and release theories [Mindess, 1971; Raskin,
1985; Monro, 1972; Freud, 1905, Mamidi, 1994]. Incongruity theories involve “the
importing into one situation what belongs to another” [Raskin, 1985:31]. Mindess [1971]
opines that “in jokes we are lead along one line of thought and then booted out of it”.
Superiority theories are based on “hostility, superiority, malice, aggression, decision or
disparagement”. It also includes ugliness, deformity, failure, shortcomings of another
individual or community becoming the target. The third theory, the release theory, is
based on the fact that laughter provides relief from mental, physical, nervous and social
tensions. It is generally accepted that impulses like sexual, aggressive, rational, political
suppression etc. is liberated through humour.

2. Structure of a joke

The structure of a joke is what makes a joke different from a normal literary text.
According to Joel Sherzer [1992:220-222], a “joke” is “a form of discourse consisting of
two parts, the set-up and the punch line”. The two parts are linked by a ‘surprise element’
which manifests in itself certain assumptions and the association of the punch line to

2
these assumptions causes laughter. Raskin [1985] proposes a ‘script-based semantic
theory’ which provides necessary and sufficient conditions for a text to be funny.
According to him, the following five factors make a joke funny:
(i) a switch from the bonafide mode of communication to the non-bonafide mode
of joke-telling
(ii) the text of an intended joke
(iii) two [partially] overlapping scripts compatible with the text
(iv) an oppositeness relation between the two scripts
(v) a trigger, obvious or implied, realizing the oppositeness relation

Let us look at the following joke to understand its structure.

He: Say something soft and sweet

She: Custard pudding

For a joke to be successfully narrated, the joke has to be told in an artful manner. Also,
the listener should be in a receptive mood to enjoy the humour. The factors given above
can be seen in this joke. For instance, when one is about to tell this joke, the person will
first prepare a ground making others sensitized towards another mode of communication
different from the ongoing mode of communication. For instance, one generally uses
phrases like ‘That reminds me about a joke I read…’, ‘Listen to this joke…’ A good
joke-teller may even begin the above joke with ‘On a romantic evening, a handsome boy
asks a beautiful girl softly, looking into her eyes “Say something soft and sweet” and then
the girl says (the joke-teller dramatically pauses here) “custard pudding”. Here the two
scripts are two possible responses from the girl – one which could have been an
appropriate or expected and the other which is opposite – unexpected and inappropriate
yet compatible with the first part. It is this opposite relation which is unexpected that
triggers laughter. To exemplify with another instance:

Surveyor: When did you last have a drink?

Army Officer: 1945
Surveyor: So you are a teetotaler now?
Army Officer: I wouldn’t call myself so. You see it is only 2015 now.

3. Translation of jokes: Some problems

Of all the texts, jokes seem to be the toughest to translate. But looking at the different
techniques adopted by translators in translating different types of jokes, we can conclude
that only some types of jokes, especially the ones that are based on puns in SL pose
difficulty. Of the two types of untranslatability – linguistic and cultural – discussed by
Catford [1969], only the first one i.e. linguistic untranslatability which occurs due to lack
of formal correspondences between SL and TL is found in the case of jokes. By adopting
different techniques, this also can be coped, but when the joke depends on the ambiguity
of a particular word or phrase then the joke is really untranslatable. In other words,
‘untranslatability’ arises when the joke depends on puns involving metaphors, idioms,
etc. Some of the times, even these have been translated with the help of paraphrasing,

3
assuming that the TL reader knows the SL word as well. In communities where code-
switching and code-mixing is prevalent, this is applicable. Look at the following jokes,
for example:

A Sardarji went to the doctor to get some medicines. He was not feeling well as
he had a mild heartache. “This is pretty strong stuff,” said the doctor, “So take
some first day, then skip a day, take some again and then skip another day and so
on.”
A few months after, the doctor met Sardarji’s wife and asked how he was.
“Oh, he is dead,” she told him.
“Did not the medicine I prescribed do him any good?” asked the doctor.
“Oh the medicine was all right,” she replied. “It was all that skipping that killed
him”

Here, finding an equivalent for the ambiguous word ‘skip’ poses a problem. If the TL
reader is familiar with English word ‘skip’, then the words ‘skip’ as verb (“skip cesi”)
and ‘skipping’ as noun (“skipping”) can be borrowed and paraphrased. Similarly, the
idiomatic sense of ‘class’ has to be translated by borrowing the word ‘class’ while
translating the joke below.

“You remind me of a vacation from school.”

“How is that?”
“No class”.

If the TL reader doesn’t know the SL word ‘class’, then translating is impossible unless
there is an equivalent in TL which is ambiguous enough to create the two platforms
necessary to produce humour. The following joke illustrates how language specific jokes
are impossible to translate.

“Now, Junior, be good while I’m away.”

“Okay, Pop, I’ll be good for a dollar.”
“Why, son, when I was your age, I was good for nothing.”

As stated earlier, if the joke doesn’t depend on the two senses – literal and figurative –
then finding a TL equivalent for the SL metaphor or idiom doesn’t pose a problem. For
example, in the joke below, the phrase ‘open up’ in ‘we have to open you up again’ has
been translated as ‘mEmu maLLi Apareshan cEyAli ’ as ‘we have to do operation
again’. But if the pun was on ‘open up’ it would have been difficult.

Surgeon to patient: I’m very sorry, but we have to open you up again. I’ve left a
rubber glove in your stomach.”
Patient: “Why go to all that trouble, doctor? Here’s 20 francs – buy yourself a
new glove”.

The following are some of the lexico-semantic and structural adjustments adopted by our
translators.

4
A. Lexico-Semantic Adjustments: Additions, Deletions and Replacements:

We find that in the body of the text of jokes, SL words have been deleted or replaced or
new words in TL have been added. For example, the word entry permits in entry permits
and visas has been dropped, the word scissors replaced glove and a new word bahumati
‘gift’ has been added in the TL in the SL phrase “What (gift) will you give me on my
birthday?”

Similarly, certain socio-cultural specific items and proper names have been replaced. For
example, Junior by chinnoda, William by rAmu, marvari by komaTivADu, IRA by
neksalAiTs, francs by rUpAilu, surgeon by dAkTaru etc. Some terms were retained or
naturalized as in fridji for fridge, saspens for suspense, cimpaanji for chimpanzee etc.

B. Structural Adjustments

Certain adjustments at syntactic and discourse levels has been made, while at the same
time attempting to be faithful to the original text. It was found that the dialogue-form
would be changed to reported speech, sometimes for better comprehension. For the same
reasons, long and complex SL sentences were broken down into smaller TL sentences to
avoid irrelevant ambiguity.

These adjustments fit into Nida’s scheme [1964:226] of three techniques of modifications
(viz. additions, subtractions and alterations) as well. From the translations, we also find
that most of the procedures that Newmark [1981:30] enlisted for various kinds of
translation strategies have also been followed – transcription, lexical synonymy,
transposition, paraphrasing etc.

4. Evaluation of the translations

a. Methodology

In an earlier study dealing with the problems of translation of jokes [Mamidi, 1993], it
was noticed that the level of humour present influenced the evaluation of translation of
that joke. Based on that observation, a small study was conducted to test if the
methodology adopted to test the evaluation of translations normally is applicable in case
of jokes or not.

Three groups, each consisting of nine persons, evaluated the jokes. All the members were
in the age group of 20-25, shared a similar background - they were from urban places,
spoke English, Hindi and Telugu, and were University students doing postgraduate
courses. Since some of the jokes were bilingual and some were based on puns, it was
necessary that they knew these languages to evaluate the texts fairly.
A total of twenty English jokes were taken. These were translated by people proficient in
English, Telugu and Hindi with experience in translation work. While one group
evaluated the English original jokes, the other two groups evaluated the translated Telugu

5
jokes. Of the two groups that were asked to evaluate the Telugu jokes, one group was
asked to concentrate on the translation techniques employed [with access to original
English jokes] and evaluate the translations, the other group were given the translations
as originals. They were asked to evaluate the jokes based on the level of humour present.

b. Scoring scheme

The groups were asked to evaluate on a 5 point scale ranging from bad to excellent i.e. 10
was bad, 20 average, 30 good, 40 very good and 50 excellent. While two groups were to
evaluate focusing on the level of humour present in the jokes, one group had to evaluate
focusing on the techniques adopted for translation. The scale used is as shown below:

10 20 30 40 50

Bad Average Good Very good Excellent

c. Results

The individual scores given by a group for each of the 20 jokes was taken and the
average was taken as the score for that evaluated original or translated joke. The
following table compare the ratings C1, C2 and C3 where C1 = Original English jokes,
C2 = Telugu jokes given as originals and C3 = Telugu jokes given as translations.

S.No. C1 C2 C3
Joke 1 40 40 30
Joke 2 50 40 40
Joke 3 20 10 10
Joke 4 40 50 40
Joke 5 30 30 30
Joke 6 50 40 40
Joke 7 10 20 20
Joke 8 40 50 50
Joke 9 20 10 10
Joke 10 50 40 40
Joke 11 50 40 50
Joke 12 40 40 50
Joke 13 30 30 30
Joke 14 30 30 20
Joke 15 10 20 20
Joke 16 20 10 10
Joke 17 40 30 30
Joke 18 50 40 50
Joke 19 30 30 20
Joke 20 10 10 10
Table 1: Evaluation scores

6
 Score for evaluation
60
40 C1
C2
20
C3
0

11

13

15

17

19
1

9
Jokes evaluated

Figure 1: Comparison of evaluations

The scores in table 1 show the evaluations by all the three groups. It is obvious how close
the scores are for each joke.. Of the three kinds of evaluations for each joke, at least two
were given the same score. The results are plotted on a graph (figure 1) which shows how
close the three evaluations are.

From this we can conclude that the evaluations of translations of jokes are influenced by
the level of humour present in the joke. This point is further illustrated in the appendix.

5. Conclusion

The present study deals with evaluations of English to Telugu translations of jokes. In the
process, we have discussed the place of joke in humour, its structure and its
translatability. Then we have discussed how the evaluations of translations of jokes vary
from the evaluations of other translated texts.

The evaluations were done manually on a 5 point scale - from bad to excellent, by three
groups having similar backgrounds with respect to age, education and known languages.
The translated jokes were evaluated twice - one group of respondents evaluated focusing
on the techniques of translation and the other group evaluated them as if they were
originals. The original English jokes were also evaluated by another group. All the three
sets of evaluations were compared and the results were interesting. It was found that the
evaluation of translation of jokes was based more on the humorous content rather than the
techniques of translation. In other words, instead of the aptness in translation, the
funniness in the text coloured the evaluation of translation. We have presented a few
examples to illustrate this fact.

Based on this we can propose that a different kind of methodology is needed when it
comes to evaluation of special purpose translation viz. translation of jokes. The method

7
used for evaluating literary or scientific translations cannot be useful to judge the
translation of jokes, fairly.

Acknowledgment

I thank Prof. K. V. Tirumalesh and Prof. B. Lakshmi Bai for their useful comments on an
earlier and present work, respectively. Prof. Tirumalesh had pointed out the significance
of a ‘casual’ observation made by me with respect to evaluation of translation of jokes in
a previous work. This study is a follow-up of his feedback. Prof. Lakshmi Bai is my
source of inspiration when it comes to writing.

Appendix

1. Joke 2. Evaluation of translation: 40

Evaluation of humour in SL joke: 50
Evaluation of humour in TL joke: 40

Original
Two men met in heaven. “What did you die of?” asked one.
“I died of extreme cold. And what about you?”
“I came home from work and heard my wife talking to a stranger. On entering the
house, I searched every nook and corner of the house but could not find anyone. I
felt so guilty of my behaviour that my heart failed.”
On this the other one said, “Had you cared to open the fridge, neither of us would
have died.”

Translation
iddaru manushulu svargamlO kalusukunnAru.
“nuvvu elA canipOyAvu?” aDigADu modaTivADu.
“nEnu viparItamaina cali valana canipOyAnu. nI sangatEmiTi?” aDigADu
renDavavADu.
“nEnu pani nunci inTiki vaccAnu. nA bhArya evaritOnO mATlADaTam
vinpincindi. inTilO aDugu peTTAka nalumUlalu vetikAnu. kAni ekkaDa evarU
kanabaDalEdu. appuDu nEnu enta fIlayyAnanTE nA gunDe Agi pOyindi,”
annADu modaTivADu.
appuDu renDavavADu, “nuvvE ganaka friDji teracivunDivunTE evaramu
canipOyevALLamu kAdu kadA” annADu.

The translation was given the highest score though we find lapses in the method of
translation as pointed out by some participants. For instance, it was suggested that a
better equivalent for ‘extreme cold’ would have been ‘cali ekkuvai’ or ‘viparItamaina
calitO’ instead of ‘viparItamaina cali valana’. Also, ‘I felt so guilty of my behaviour…’
was considered as not properly translated. A better translation would have been – ‘nA
pravRuttiki siggutO enta kRungipOyAnanTE…’ or ‘nA pravartanapai enta paScAttApam
paDDAnanTe…’ This shows that the humour influenced the evaluation of translation.

8
2. Joke 16. Evaluation of translation: 10
Evaluation of humour in SL joke: 20
Evaluation of humour in TL joke: 10

Original
A gentleman traveled all the way from Islamabad to Karachi to have an aching
tooth taken out. The Karachi dentist asked him, “Surely you have dentists in
Islamabad! You did not have to come all this way to have your teeth attended to.”
“We have no choice. In Islamabad, we are not allowed to open our mouths,”
replied the man.

Translation
oka peddamanishi tana pippi pannu pIkincukonaDAniki islAmAbAdu nunci
karAcIki vaccADu. karAci vaidyuDu atanitO, “islAmAbAdulO dantavaidyulu
tappaka unDe unTAru kadA! pannu pIkincukunEnduku inta dUram rAvalasina
avasaram lEdE,” annADu.
“mAku vErE mArgam lEdanDi. islAmAbAdulO mammalni nOru teravanivvaru,”
ani baduliccADAyana.

The techniques adopted in translation are good and care has been taken to be close to SL
in terms of grammar and culture. Yet since the respondents did not find the joke very
humorous the translation was evaluated with 10 points.

References

Benton, Gregor. 1988. The Origins of the Political Joke in Powell and Paton. pp:33-35.

Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University

Press.

Freud, Sigmund. 1905. Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious in A.A. Brill (tr. and ed.)
The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Modern Library, 1938.

Holdaway, Simon. 1988. Blue Jokes: Humour in Police Work in Powell and Paton. pp:
106-122.

Levine, Jacob. 1972. ‘Humor’ in David L. Sills (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers. Vol. 7. pp: 1-7.

Linstead, Steve. 1988. ‘Jokers Wild’: Humour in Organisational Culture in Powell and
Paton. pp: 123-148.

9
Mamidi, Radhika. 1993. Translation of Jokes from English to Telugu: Some
Problems. M.Phil Dissertation. Submitted to University of Hyderabad.

Mamidi, Radhika and Udaya Narayana Singh. 1994. Translation of Jokes from English to
Telugu. Critical Practice.

Mindess, Harvey. 1971. Laughter and Liberation. Los Angeles: Nash.

Monro, D. H. 1972. ‘Humor’ in Paul Edwards (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers. Vol. 3, pp: 90-93.

Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Nida, E.A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.

Oldani, J. L. 1988. Is the Pope Catholic? A Content Analysis of American Jokelore about
the Catholic Clergy in Powell and Paton. pp:206-233.

Powell, Chris and George E.C. Paton (eds.). 1988. Humour in Society: Resistance and
Control. London: Macmillan Press.

Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Sherzer, Joel. 1992. ‘Verbal Play’ in William Bright (ed.). International Encyclopedia
of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Vol. 4. pp: 220-222.

10