As discussed in Chapter 1.2, the translation of humorous devices presents particular challenges to a translator in terms of linguistic equivalence. Translation equivalence has been one of the most controversial issues in translation theory. As discussed in Chapter 1.2.1, the translation of literary devices and wordplay borders on linguistic relativity. Similarly, as discussed in Chapter 1.2.2, cultural differences also add to the intranslatability of humour. Venuti (2004:68) defines translatability as “the impossibility of reproducing a foreign literary text in another language which is sedimented with different literary styles, genres and traditions”. Venuti
(2004:69) states that the field of linguistics approaches the problem of translatability by trying to solve translation problems and describing methods created by translators to solve them. Nida (1964) investigated the problem of translating between realities and argues that solutions for translating need to be ethnologically based on the translator’s attainment of sufficient cultural knowledge. Catford (1965) regards finding translation equivalents as one of the most challenging problems of translation practice. Baker (1992) states that it is almost impossible to determine fixed guidelines for the problem of non-equivalence and suggests strategies that can be applied only within certain contexts.
The issue of translatability provokes a discussion on the Sapir-Whorf Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis first formulated in the 19th century by the American linguist, Edward Sapir. In Whorf’s reformulation of Sapir’s hypothesis in 1940, the influence of language on thought and perception is emphasised. The hypothesis emphasises how different speakers experience reality in different ways and that each language has its own worldview. Sapir (1929b:207) concludes that there is a close relationship between language and culture and that the one cannot be understood without the other:
It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group…
On the other hand, Chomsky rejected the Whorf-style relativist views in favour of a universalist approach which embraces the general principles of language. In Chomsky’s generative-transformational model, the sentences are sorted according to corresponding levels determined by a set of rules referred to as phrase structure rules and transformational rules which “relates the one underlying structure to the other and a final surface structure which is subject to phonological and morphemic rules” (Munday 2016:63).
The challenge of non-equivalence has led to the development of theories and paradigms by translation scholars such as Jakobson, Pym, Nida, Newmark and Koller. Venuti (2004:69) believes that Jacobson’s key achievement is the introduction of “a semiotic reflection on translatability”. Jacobson (2004:114) presents three ways of interpreting a verbal sign:
intralingual translation or rewording by means of other signs of the same language; interlingual translation or translation proper by means of another language; and intersemiotic translation by means of signs or nonverbal sign systems. Jacobson’s concept of the signifier (the spoken and written signal) and the signified (the concept signified) is derived from a relation set out by
Saussure which comprises a signifier and signified forming the arbitrary linguistic sign (Saussure 1916/83:67). Jacobson (2004:114) says that “there is no signatum without the signum” and that a whole arrangement of linguistic signs is required to present an unknown word. He points out that even synonymy does not ensure complete equivalence. Jacobson (2004:114) states that on the level of interlingual translation, “there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or messages”. Jacobson’s key contribution regarding the problem of equivalence is therefore his focus on the differences in the structure and terminology of languages rather than on the impossibility of a language rendering a message written in another language (Munday 2016:37).
Nida’s (1964) contribution to translatability stems from his work on the translation of the Bible.
Nida (2004:127) explains that differences in translations can be accounted for by the nature of the message, the purpose of the author and the type of audience. He believes that messages differ according to the priority of form and content and that there can be no absolute correspondence between two languages (Nida 2004:153). Nida (2004:160) believes that it is no easy task to produce what he calls a “natural translation”. He explains that especially in cases where the original writing is of a very high standard, uses creative idiomatic expressions and ingenious language, the translation proves even more challenging. He also emphasises the importance of the audience’s capacity to decode the message as well as their potential interest in the content. He concedes that since there is no identical equivalence between two languages, one must attempt to find the closest one. Nida believes there are essentially two types of equivalence, namely dynamic and formal equivalence. Formal equivalence is defined by Nida (1964:159) as “focus[ing] attention on the message itself in both form and content”, where one is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. According to Nida (1964:159), dynamic equivalence exists where “the relationship between the receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message”.
Nida applies features of Chomsky’s model into his method of translation and regards it as a tool for decoding the ST and encoding the TT (Nida 1964). Nida categorises meaning according to linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning. Nida’s strategies for the determination of referential and emotive meaning include the analysis of the structure of words and differentiating similar words in related lexical fields. Nida’s (1964:107) techniques are called the hierarchical structuring (according to superordinates and hyponyms), componential
analysis (identifying the features of a range of related words) and semantic structure analysis (separating different meanings according to their characteristics). A key issue emphasised in Nida’s work is the importance of the context for communication, especially where metaphorical language is concerned.
Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) state that translation should be viewed as a discipline rather than an art which relates to the skill of writing that guides the production of the original text. Hence, for these scholars, it only becomes an art once the basic skills of translation have been mastered.
Important work on equivalence was also done by Koller (1979) who believed that research into the science of translation investigates the notion of equivalence and correspondence. By correspondence, Koller refers to the field of contrastive linguistics which provides the differences and similarities of two language systems and the term equivalence, to the items that occur in specific ST-TT pairs and contexts. Pym (1997:2) posits that since equivalence is the common ground of many theorists, equivalence must be what is most specific to translation.
Baker (1992) also provides important guidelines regarding different kinds of equivalence at and above word level; however, she emphasises that linguistic and cultural factors play an important role in equivalence and therefore it is always relative.
Oittinen (2000) explains older, more traditional approaches to translating children’s books focussed on abstract structures of equivalence, matches or fidelities between texts (in words), and that the translator-centred approach is relatively recent. However, Vandaele (2010:147) perceives the challenge of translating humour as “a paradigm of ‘untranslatability’”, i.e. that issues of linguistic and cultural equivalence still present the greatest challenge.
Scholtes (2016) finds that audio-visual translation of humour in subtitles tends to be literal, with resulting loss of both the original word-play and the humour, and that dubbing is more successful in retaining and adding wordplay and humour when the dubbed versions deviate more from linguistic equivalence towards functional models, which are discussed in the next section.
The notion that linguistic equivalence still presents a major aspect of translating humour is also confirmed in Kianbakht’s (2015) study which investigates subtitling translation strategies applied in the Persian translation of Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. Kianbakht (2015:28) identified the following strategies applied to translate humour: “transfer, dislocation, resignation, imitation, condensation, paraphrase, expansion, transcription, deletion and decimation”. His
results reveal that the most frequently used strategy was transfer, but that translators also attempted to provide the closest natural equivalent, similar to Nida’s approach.
Despite the challenges, Low (2011) believes that almost all verbally expressed humour is translatable if the proper strategies are applied. Vandaele (2002:150) supports this notion and states that despite these problems, translators can work towards constructing “an elicit basis for the comparison, justification or evaluation of target texts” when they analyse the structures that are found in humorous effects. Translators therefore essentially embrace a universalist approach even when faced with the untranslatability of humour.