The process of subtitling humour is different from the translation of any other forms of a text. This is because, in contrast with other types of translation, subtitling involves certain technical rules and conventions, such as timing, spatial constraints, synchronisation and visual elements, which make the task of rendering humour in films or sitcoms more difficult. Kostovčík (2009: 175) states that subtitling is limited by the medium it is functioning in, and it does not allow the creation of a complete translation of the written version of speech due to its temporal and spatial constraints. She argues that a humourless joke within a book can be replaced by another one that
is humorous. However, in audiovisual productions, the translator’s task is more complex, especially “if the verbal joke is bound to a visual stimulus”. This section will discuss some major studies that deal with humour subtitling, in particular those that are relevant to the current study.
Díaz Cintas and Remael (2007), following on from on Zabalbeascoa’s study (1996), present seven types of humour that are regularly used in audiovisual materials: International or bi- national jokes; jokes referring to a national culture or institution; jokes reflecting a community’s sense of humour; language-dependent jokes; visual jokes; aural jokes; and complex jokes. The discussion also includes some strategies used in Spanish subtitling to render these types and make them comprehensible for the audience. As Díaz Cintas and Remael argue, the strategies used in Spanish subtitling are similar to those used to impart cultural references, such as addition, substitution, and explicitation (2007: 216). All these strategies aim to retain humour in the target subtitles, and thereby achieve the humorous effect.
The importance of producing a subtitle that provokes laughter has been the centre of discussion in many studies. For example, Veiga (2009) discusses the illocutionary act of humour in the source text, i.e. the film Forrest Gump and the perlocutionary effect of humour on both the film’s characters and the intended audience. She stresses that a translator/subtitler has to consider not only the linguistic mechanisms of humour, but also the universe of paralinguistic elements in order to convey the humour. Therefore, the subtitler must have a thorough understanding of humour dynamics in the source text. According to Veiga, a translator should develop “humorous complicity” in order to achieve “an audiovisual humour translation competence” (2009: 10).
This suggests that the process of subtitling humour does not only involve substituting language in TL (Target Language) for Language in SL (Source Language), as stated by Attardo (2002: 174). Veiga stresses that Attardo’s statement sounds tempting but needs to be revised when applied to AVT. This is due to the special features of audiovisual texts that pertain to words, images and sounds that require “deeper analysis” (2009: 4). Veiga presents certain examples taken from Forrest Gump, which constitute an outstanding illustration of Attardo and Raskin’s six Knowledge Resources (KR). She suggests that if we apply Attardo’s GTVH to AVT it would be read as follows:
LA corresponds to all oral (actor’s utterances, songs, etc.) or written (inserts, subtitles, and so on) linguistic material in a film that needs to be translated; NS comprises the way audiovisual narrative is organized so that it will produce humor; TA implies that any translation of humorous exchanges is submitted to constraints, such as the audience profile, thus, demands on relevance and adequacy of linguistic and cultural transfer are a reality; SI refers to the verbal, psychological, social and cultural context in which humour is originally produced and to the cultural and linguistic context of reception;
LM consists in the resolution of incongruity that instigates rupture of preconceived knowledge we acquire of the world; SO denotes the existence of a combination of more than one piece of information, which somehow (partially or totally) collides, overlaps or opposes our perception of reality as we know it (2009: 8).
In her analysis, Veiga argues that the subtitler plays an essential role in both the reception and production of humour and that this role and the target audience’s ability to understand humour are critical to the translation of humorous exchanges. She concluded her paper with great emphasis on the importance of Humorous Complicity (humour sensitivity- humour awareness) as a dynamic process that involves, in addition to the recognition of humour in the SL, the translator’s ability to “(re)create the same perlocutionary effect as conveyed by the original (audiovisual) text” (ibid: 11).
Veiga (2009) and Kostovčík (2009) have the same opinion of the simple definitions of translation (see Attardo 2002). They both stress that translating humour is not limited to the process of conveying the semantic and lexical features of the humorous text; however, the translator’s task is “to capture the mood and evoke in the target text audience the same or similar feelings to those experienced by the source text audience” (Kostovčík 2009: 176). The two authors also emphasise that a translator should be creative and has a good sense of humour.
Asimakoulas (2004) shares the same conviction of Kostovčík (2009) and Veiga (2009), as to the crucial role of a subtitler’s creativity when dealing with the translation of humour in audiovisual productions. According to Asimakoulas (2004: 840), the subtitling of humour requires a translator to be creative and have humorous sensitivity that enables him to overcome the problems posed by different types of humour such as wordplay and parody. In relating to the role of subtitler in the process of rendering humour, Asimakoulas (2004: 839-840) stresses that a translator has to ask certain questions that can make his/her task easier. These questions may include: does the humour break a social convention? What type of logical mechanism is adopted (e.g. figure-ground reversal)? Who is criticised or attacked - individuals or a group? In what situation? What narrative strategy is employed? What type of language is used to describe the humour? What is the best way to compensate for losses? (ibid).
Based on Attardo’s knowledge resources and Vandaele’s assumption that any attempt to analyse humour should be based on both incongruity and superiority, Asimakoulas’s (2004) model of subtitling humour suggests that verbal humour involves “norm acceptance” and/or “norm opposition”. “Norm acceptance” refers to something that is known as funny in a society (e.g., national stereotypes). This means that a joke can be humorous without “exclusively involving a clash or incongruity” (ibid: 824). “Norm opposition” is when, for instance, something funny clashes with the social conventions. The concepts of norm acceptance/opposition in
audiovisual productions (e.g. films, sitcoms) play an important role in establishing “humorous communication” between the audience and the director/screenplay writer (ibid: 826). The “norm acceptance” introduced by Asimakoulas (2004) does not only exist among an audience in a society or culture, but can also exist in any language or culture.
Possenti (1998, cited in Chile 1999: 168) supports this claim and states that some themes are considered fertile sources of humour in any part of the world. These themes include sex, marriage, death, madness, stupidity, politics, and misfortune. Similarly, Kostovčík states that some universal topics constitute what she calls “low-brow” humour which is normally comprehensible to the audiences and does not require prior knowledge (2009: 178).
Chile (1999) discusses the audiovisual aspects of humour in polysemiotic texts and stresses that many studies in the literature of humour translating have focused on the linguistic and cultural issues and ignore other important aspects. In other words, humour can be presented in different ways. For example, some AV productions use visual jokes such as characters’s gestures and appearances, and sometimes their body movements or facial expressions. Moreover, Chile (1999: 180) agrees with Asimakoulas (2004), Kostovčík (2009) and Veiga (2009) concerning the need for creativity in the process of rendering humour; however, she argues that this creativity is restricted as the subtitler works within certain norms of subtitling (e.g. temporal and spatial constraints), which regulate subtitling. She claims that according to the findings of her analysis, the negative results and the inadequacy of the target text subtitles are caused by three main factors: the nature of subtitling, the nature of audiovisual text (e.g., visual jokes) and cultural references.
In sum, many scholars have discussed different issues concerning the subtitling of humour, including technical, linguistic and cultural problems. They share the same convictions about the need for creative solutions to these issues, especially extralinguistic culture-bound references (ECRs) and language-based humour, which are problematic in audiovisual texts. The following section will present some common difficulties in subtitling culture in humour and discuss various subtitling strategies offered by different scholars (e.g., Pedersen 2005) to solve these problems.