?

JOKES AND TRANSLATION

Urer:-Ll.: raPopa,DundreacieJosUniversitvof Galafi,Romania
'
helenanaid@hotmail.coft[
A +stract
Theorrland ChristianeNord'sf,mctionalistapp.roach,
ti'ii ituav appliestheSkopos
hlghligh"ts
hifhligh-ts
ntgnttgn-ts
lne anatvsts
ana,lysis
ana.lysis
translation.The
to .humour
humourtranslatnn.
humour
me'th.odotogv'.to
methodolo{V
,, ,iI as
Ahttiaayanme
Hallidsvan
r,:il
ili'eHhllidqvan
the
ii tlib
as r.t;p,tl
in.joke tralislation. The.th.eories
in, -,tltirql
for
'--;--':'- tcmpondnt
-''ir-"
.appea,r,to,bbexcglleryF
to be tenderedih a
that'ieed
uistit and cultural coordinates
1 ,t
f | 1,,- 41,- _1,.),.

a n q n a lysls.o J tn e fin g

^--_---:--^^
jokgs.lhe study examt
translationol j*::
trll'lyt:yry,:f
successful
qii9,ii"lmql'4
, siigespfui
tdmakefy
targett6xt in'order
io)r;:;;";rrr-.,,
for a
^Tryf.:t^,l"lt^'t!!y::
o
oP.en
looks
at
the
the
strateSrcs
strateStes
pa.rran.d.looKs
pa.tr
an.d
la4guggg
la4guggg
theEnglish-Ilomanian
English-Romanian
coicrete
coicrete iokes
iokesin the
cultural
cultural
informqt
informatton
linguistic
Iinguistic
and
and
tne
b"oth"thi
oorn
transferring
trqnslerrtnR
successrullv
succes\fully
succes\fully.transferring,b"othlhi
to
tu t7'{;ftslators
t;
snslhtors
snslh-tors
fot'
fot
l;
fot
the'targe{Ian7uage.
{exti to the'targe{Ianguage.
ilte source
source{exti
in ilte
embedded
embedded

Kev-words: Romanian and British English; humour; translation of jokes; culturil..components; functionalist appro"ach;Skopos; linguistic incompatibilitv;
lunctronal constancv
Irrr--rduction
Lxistence, identity, consciousness, and humour are all axiomatic concepts
of the human condition. Yet humour seems to be one of the least understocd,
though thoroughly studied, phenomena because its hermetic structure refirses
to open up to the researcher.
a pre-theoretical definitiory humour is here defined according to the
-acking
.)L:rpos
frr which it is used. Therefore, I use an operative definition of humour:
"Elwm.out is the abil.ityto appreciatethe situations zuhenznordplayis funny or anlttsing." (Popa 2003:54)
:his definition may be vague and over-simplified, but it has the advantage
of not reducing hurnour to a purely linguistic definition. It merely presupposes
that all speakers are competent enough to generate humorous text by virtue
of rts linguistic elements and also to recognise a text as humorous by means of
these ver'; comi-:+nents"
This definition also comprises the ability to recognise humorous text. But
thr dcfinition prirnarily focuses on the speaker's ability to iio so bv means of
situational, social, and cultural parameters, not merely linguistic mechanisms.
Moreover, ability ta.kes pride of place over competence,since humour appreciaiion ceases to be uni-dimensional. Viewea as a multi-dimensional process, it
reiies on mufually independent elements such as the text, the speaker and
listener(s), and the context, and which all fall under the systemic common denomination of system-incorporating network. The definition does not purport
to explain why some texts are funny while some others are not. The definition
also abstains from any exclusivist quest of the linguistic conditions necessary
for a text to be funny.
The keywords in the definition are ability, situations, and wordplay. By foregrounding ability, I wish to emphasise cultural differences that determine
whether one is able or not to perceive a situation to tre funny. The word situations refers to the fact that humour is socially dependent and depends on interaction in a process between people. Wordplay refers to the language content in
i biad $20"00
0907-676Xtfi5l0Ustartside-sider
r)er:..pectives:
il ucles,r Translatology

O 2005D.-E.Popa
V:tr"13,No.01,2005

Popa:
lokesandTranslation

49

humour. (Popa2003:54)
fmaly, I wish to stressthat my approachis not meant to provide a formal definition of h.r*otrt for canonising notions of an idealised speakeror listener(s)'
competencefor recognising or creating humour. My concernis with discussing
the linguistic mechanismsin texts and the external factors that contribute to the
recognition of a text as humorous'
Corpus
T-his study focuses on verbal humour, specifically iokes, becausethey are
self-containedlinguistic units that usually follow normal grammatical pattern'
My corpus consists of 150 English and 150 Romanian jokes selectedfrom
my colleciion of more than 1,000written jokes'l The jokes come from printed
(collections,newspapers,magazines,e-mails, and web sites),as well as
"olr"u,
dialogues or narration that I have heard and subsequentlywritten down. As far
as jokes are concerned,it is impossible to make a clear-cut distinction between
thesetwo sources.
accordingto seaeralcriteria:
Thejokesusedin thgpresentstudy znereselected
1. the jokes must have the discourseorganisation of short narratives or questions and answersi
2. the jokes must be s;mtacticallycorrect; and
3. they should contain socio-cultural referencesto either a British or a Romanian framework.
Purposeof study
m tnis contrastive study between English and Romaniary I analyse the connection between linguistic choicesand the immediate situational and cultural
contexts in jokes with specific referenceto translation. Approaching the issue
from a functionalist perspective, I regard translation as a communicative act.
As products of social interactiory jokes therefore foreground the cultural and
social contexts in which they are negotiated. Unlike Anne Leibold (1989:109),
who believesthat joke translation primarily poseslinguistic challenges,I posit
that jokesbelong to the sametype of texts that people negotiatein order to make
meaning.
Agreeingwith, for example,susan Bassnett(1,980:80), salaatoreAttardo (2002:
qndAnne-Msrie Laurian(1.989:
5), it is my basicassumption- or hypothesis
173-1.94),
a translqtor
Yet,for a translationproductto beadequate,
- that jokescanbetranslated.
mustbearin mindthat:
1) joke translation is a complex phenomenon that has to take into accountthe
transfer of the situational, cultural, and linguistic content of the sourcelanguage joke to the target-culture and, at the same time, must not lose
sight of the Skoposof the translation;
2) a successfultransfer of all the situational, cultural, and linguistic features
to the target joke does not necessarilymean that the translation is success-

tu1.

50

13:1Volume
in kanslatology"
Studies
2005.Perspectioes:

A systemicfunctionalist approachto joke translation

My analysis borrows points from Hans Vermeer' SkoposTheoryand Christiane Nord;s functionalist approach to translations. For my work at the discourse-semanticaland 1"*iso-grammatical levels, I incorporate Halliday and
Martint co-tangential circles model (1993:25),as it relies on the lexical choices
- language - in a social context. In such a social context, I addressthe communicat-ivelevels of genre (cultural context) and register (situational context).The
latter is analysedin terms of field, tenor, and mode'
Hans J. Vermeer'sSkoposTheory views translation as a processin which it is
of prime importance to determine the purpose of a translation. Consequently,
the main focus is the function a translation has for the target audience,which,
in tum, determines the methods and strategies for attaining this PuIPose.
Skopos-orientedtranslation procedures are highly relevant for humorous texts,
in pirticular jokes: clients, senders,and translatorshave to be fully aware of the
function of jokes in the target-languagesocio-cultural framework.
For the sake of clarity, it is worth distinguishing between two levels of
translation. The first level is the pragmatic function of translations of humorous
texts. This involves the genre-relatedfunction of humour in general, namely,
to produce amusementand even causelaughter. The secondlevel concernsthe
interpersonal functions involved at the moment joke translation goes further
than to amuse. This works in the target-language socio-cultural context. As
a functiory it may illustrate how laughter builds consensus(the ingratiation
function), asin the following first example (1), or repairs by dissolving awkward
situations or teasesby introducing criticism (asin the following secondexample
(2)),just to mention a few interpersonal representations.Usually, the two levels
co-existin jokes.
(1)Onedav an Englishman,a Scotsman,and an Irishman walked into a pub together.
' 'Thev
edchbousflt a pint of Guinness.Justas they were about to enjoy their creamy
bev6rase,thredflies'landedin eachof their pint6,and were stuckin the thick head.
pushedhis beer away in disgust.The Scotsmanfished the fly out
The En"elishman
and cbntinueddrinking it, as if nothing had happened.The lrishman,
of his b"eer,
too, picked the flv out of his drinli, held it out ov6r the bebi and startedyelling,
"SPITIT OUT, SP'ITIT OUT YOU BAS**RD!!!!"
(2)A Scotsboy camehome from schooland told his mother he had been given a part
' 'in
the schoolplav. "Wonderful," saysthe mother,"\tVhatpart is it?" The boy says,
"I plav the pdrt 6f the Scottishhusband!" The mother scowlsand says:"Go back
unl tdtt yotir teacheryou want a speakingpart."
In order to establish the adequacy (which would involve procedures and
strategies in translation), we need to know exactly what purpose the translated
joke should serve. This is also the case with the following Romanian joke (3):
(3) "Care este diferenta dintre Ceausescugi Iliescu?Unul era cizmar qi altul giret."
' 'l\Alhat'sthe differericebetweenCe-ausescu
and Tliescu?One was a cobblerand the
ilther one is cunning.]
It is obaious that asfar as theseexamples((1), (2) and (3)) are concerned,we cannot
speakof any functionql constancy. Thefunction in the target language and-culture is
dffirent from thut in the sourcelanguage and culture'
rNe find
joke (4). A Romanian translafunctional constancy in the following

PoPa:lokesandTranslation

51

tionwouldPleselvethegeneral-functionofamusing,aswellasitsteasingcharEnglish and Romanian'

acter. Its criticism works-perfectly in both
(4)IfPresidentsdon'tdoittotheirwives'theydoittothecountry'(MelBrooks)
Functionalconstancyisimportantforatleastonereason:iftranslations(here
in the source culture, this is arguturg;i1;L"11 fuIfil the Jame function they had
since the Skopos of any
translatiory
tle
ably closer to attaining-ih" Skopo, of
translation is a successful translation'

methodologicallyspeakThere is no such thfu as a perfect translation' Yet,

"to geianywhere nar.agood_translationunlesswe take into
irrg, iii"i*possible
between translation ptoblems
account Christiane No"rd.'sciear-cut distinction
to ChristianeNord, translaAccording
andtrsnslation dfficiiiles (Nord 1991).
between communicative'
differences
to
tio., proUf"*s are objectiveand pertain
translation diffiwhereas
systems'
and textual
fr"g;;",i., cultural, ii"i"ittit,
cultranslators'pragmatic,
individual
to
culties are subjectivearid relate more
study
to
is
used
distinction
this
Below,
tural, linguistii and textual competence.
'equivalence'between the
methodoiogical difficulties when there is no obvious
sourceandlarget languagesand cultures'
for translation,
Example 1+labovJ at?rst glanceseemsto be unproblematic
into the
rendered
easily
not
(3)
is
President
while the joke'aboutihe Rominian
targetlar,grrageandtargetculture-Joke(3)challengesuswithseveraltranslaand target communicatioi probiemJ due to dlfferencesbetween the source
differencesoI, better,
cultural
are
There
tive situations at the pragmatic levels.
who was
background:
socio-cultural
culture-specificeleme'ntJin the Romanian
and
linguistic
are
There
('boots')?
cizme
Ceaugescu,who is Iliescu, what are
the
of
use
the
case
in
this
difficult
t"J-spe"ifi" issuesthat make a translation
(meaning'cunning')'
giret
and
homophones qiret (meaning shoelace)
of translationthat "transcendculturql
WolframWiIIs positsthatlhereare aspects
translation
and are,in somesense,unioersal"(1992:38).In othetutords,
boundaries
'is
,,aspecimenof socio-culturatlydeterminedlinguisticbehaaiourcontainingbothcul90)
components"
' (1-996:
ani culture-universal
t:ure-specific
( 5) Pr inc eChar les was out ear l y t h e o t h e r d 'a y w a l k i n g t h e d o g . Wh e n a p a s s e r - b y s a i d ,
' '"Morning," Charles said, "No,
iust walklng tne oog'

elements
A translation of this joke requiresbalancing between culture-bound
in the
early
dog
the
(Prince Charles), culture-universal components (walking
and
'Morning!'
greeting
morning, greeting somebody) and a wbrd-play: the
'mourning; for somebody who has died'to be observed
Hans Vermeer perceivesculture as "the total of conventions
Consequently,
side.
its
so-cial
in a society,,(Vermeer 1992:9),thus emphasising
translators
texttypes,
V"r*"". urgr", that when they translate culture-specific
,,introduce into a society and its literary traditioru new aspects;ilher
must also
of the world, thus
of form or of content or of meaning and thereby new aspects
joke (5)-thereabove
the
enriching the target culture" (lgg'_ 1gl. a translator of
the informafore implicitly must introduce into the target language,RomaniarL
of the royal
member
is
a
tion that Britain has a royal farnily,that Prince Charles
accident,
car
pri.r."ss
controversial
Diana, died in a
family, that his former *if",

i2

Volume13:L
Studiesin Translatology'
2005.Perspectiaes:

that it is public kno'ivledge that Charles did not really love Prince Diana, etc'
Let us have a look at a Romanian joke (6):
(6) - Cum vorbegteIliescu engleza?
- Ca qi ch.ineza.
- Daide cenu mai vorbeqteacum engleza?
- PentrucAl-au rugat chineziisdnu-i mai injure'
[- How doesIliescusPeakEnglish?I In the samewav tha'the speSksChinese.
- \AIhvdoesn'th6 speakEnilish anymore?
- Bei6usethe ChinbseaskeI him t<5stop calling them names'l
In this case (6), the information that must be introduced into English culture
in a translation relates to the name 'Iliescu'. Ion Iliescu was formerly the president of Romania. His English was poor and he did not speak Chinese. 'Chinese'
niakes its appearance because of the Romanian idiom that when somebody
,,speaks Chiln-ese", the listener does not understand it, roughly corresponding
to the English idiom "It is Greek to me." The joke goes further in saying that
Presidentlhescu cannot even speak but only swear in Chinese'
\Alhat happens if people project their own cultural frame of reference on a foreign cultureit Gudrun Witte terms this a culture shock. In her view, this obliges
trinslators to "anticipate the possible effects different translation alternatives
may leave upon the target receptor." (Witte 1994:74)
in joke translation, such a culture shock generally annuls all laughaspects, hence preventing the joke from achieving.its translation
ptorrolitg
-Skopor
(plovided this is to cause amusement). At least, the translation does not
t"r,d"r the goal and function it had in the source culture. In order to illustrate
this, we may tu* to one of the jokes that used to travel in Romania during the
Communist GoldenEra:
(7)"in Otopeni se afla o pancartd: ULTIMUL CARE PLEACA, SA STINGA LUMINA!"
IAt the Otopeni International Airport, in Bucharest,there is this huge poster that
iavs: ,,THELAST ONE TO LEAVE,TURN OFFTHE LIGHTS!"]
Example (8) belongs to the same category:
(8)-Ce-imai receca apa rece?
- Aoa caldd.
I- "What's colder than cold water?"
- "Hot water."]3
Translations of jokes like (7) and (8) may lead to witte's "culture shocks"
and run counter to the jokes'function as humour, because they would then be
presented outside their situational and cultural contexts.a I posit that normally
ihese contexts are within the texts, as they comprise the determinative factors
and circumstances that make it possible for the audience to recognise them as
jokes by means of a process of deduction. This process of deduction cannot be
applied to situational and cultural items.s Translations of such jokes become
eiperientially ambiguous, as we cannot be sure to what dimensions of reality
the translations refer.
In order to determine the contextual coordinates, I use Halliday and Martin's

Popa:lokesandTranslation

5r

in the larger circle of

co-iangential circles that describe language as included
even wider circle,
context of situation (register), whichls integrated into an
sub-divided
namely that of the contJxt of culture (genre) 7lggg, ZS).Register.is
as:
described
be
(8)
can
(7)
and
So
*od"'
and
held,tenor,
of
into the sections
Field: poiitical joke
Mode: interactive face-to-face
Tenor: friend to friend
cultural
The two jokes are meant to make listeners aware of factors in the
The genre
background that do not usually surface_or-are not discussed openly.
jokes. Since genres are
in (Zfand (8) is represented in the act of telling political
different lexdifierent ways of using language, it follows that the speakersmake
want to attain.
ico-grammaiical choic-esuJ"ordi.tg to the specific pnrpose they
lqxico-grammatical
different
up
to
opgn
will
genres
different
that
it ir"i-pti",
choicesl different words and grammatical structures'o
lexicoFiowever, genres are not the only contextual elements that determine
imgrammatical"choices. Register (mode, tenor, and field) also has a significant
achieved
used. Because the translation Skopos is
iact on the type of langiage
choices and because all lexico-grammatical
i"*ico-gtimmatical
of
Ly *"ur,,
canbe prediJted from the situational and cultural context, the Hallidyan
"toices
functional contextual elements are highly pertinent to a translation analysis,
in point.
and particularly, to humour translation. The next example (9) is a case
f shajl discuss features about translating this joke into Romanian:
i9) - "\Ahv are familieslike fudge?"
' '- "Th"v are mostly sweetwiih a few nuts in it"'
An analysis of the situation proaides us with releoant information about language
usein the iourri and target texts. A confguration that deriaesfiom the actual layout
of thejoke could be:
Field: family joke
Mode: interactive face-to-face
Tenor: friend to friend
In determining the mode, we look at (a) the interpersonal or spatial distance,
and (b) the expeiiential distance. In order to translate the joke, we must determine whether, at the interpersonal distance, we have to deal with a face-to-face
encounter or are reading (writing) a collection of jokes'
The experiential distance level ranks situations according to the distance
between iurrgrrug" and the social process it refers to. Thus, the experiential
distance determines whether language is an action (in which it'is outside', or
'accompanies'the social process) or a reflection (in which language constitutes
the social process). It coriesponds to the difference between playing games and
hovers between being a means for achieving
writing fictlon. However, fiot"
in the functions of humour) and being a
illustrated
is
o.r-goiltlg action (which
most political and family jokes).
(e.g.,
experience
,rr"i.r, f6r reflecting on
dimensions of mode, we can now
two
the
between
Using this distinction

13:1'
Volume
in Tianslatology'
Studies
2005.Perspectioes:
and written language
characterisea basic differencebetween situational spoken
of.a joke'
rendition
target
use, which is a prerequisite for an adequate
language for the
spoken
the
chooie
must
In the following example (9), we
typically organis
it
structure;
dynamic
a
target text. The sp"okentu"gnug" has
features
spontaneity
includes
also
it
ised according to turn-by-titni"q.tencing;
this is
that
presuppose
I
level,
thJtenor
such as hesitation and iepetitiotr. et
roles
interlocutors'social
the
interactions,
friend-to-friend interaction. tn such
normally
will
interaction
friend-to-friend
will influence their language use. A
affective involvement'
pr"rrrppor" equal powJr, flquent contact,and a highly
is 'informal'' This
setting
situational
the
tn"ru f"utures point to the fact that
that we are
Knowing
well.
as
informal
is
th"r"for" implies that the vocabulary
slang' abuse
necessary'
if
also'
may
w;
a"utirrg *ith u. informal talget text,
particular
this
to
apply
not
thiswould
brevi#d forms, and vocativi, although
joke (9).
' piti definesthe
in and asriesfrombeinghighly
engaged
focusof theactiaity we arl
andonly requiresa
is
down-to-earth
hand
at
ioke
technicalio beingiown+i-earth.'The
superficialknowledgeoffamiliesasa pheno-menon'
'Hattiday urgrr"i t(ai the three variablesof tenor, field, and mode are the three
situational varikinds of meu.llng, that languageis structured to prodrrce.Each
patlexico-grammatical
with
relationship
ubt" nu, a prediitabl" unJryJu*ic
terns.
In the family joke (9), an analysis reveals the following lexico-grammatical
choices.
that uses the
The clause structure illustrates that it is an informal situation
selse of "Let
i1
the
imperati,v_e
is
an
('why?")
interrogative. This interrogative
,,LeI
fudge."
like
are
families
why
you
tell
me
me tell"you a jofe!,, or
But there
There is no problem in translating this interrogative into_Romanian'
families
compares
joke
playfully
English
The
is a difficulty at the lexical level.
,,fudge,i.Thu English word ,,fudge,,,meaning'a soft,creamylight brown
and
system
sweet ma?e of sugar, milk, butter', is encoded in the English semiotic
Two
in
Romanian'
realised
be
cannot
feature
and belongs to Briiish culture. This
translation:
Romanian
a
for
elbow-room
lexical
other lexicialitems also limit the
,,sweet" and "nuts", which define the semanticcontent of "htdge" .
they are
is
A possible choice in Romanian would be cozonac('pound cake'), which
in
element
is
a
key
nuts
not
adequate:
is
this
Yet
it.
quite sweet and has nuts in
to a
irre nnghsh joke, which plays on the ambiguity between nuts iltat belongs
state.
mental
a
represents
that
nuts
cookin"gframe of reference and
In order to transfer the joke's functiory it seems to me that there are two
in
possible solutions: (a) to tiansfer the_semantic content of the wotd nuts
of
structure
grammatical
the
re-arrange
and
itomaniarUbut use iiin the singular
metaphor
is
a
(nucd)
nut
that
order
word
the
the sentenceso that it follows fiom
for lunaticlike in:

54

(9a)
In generaldulcedar mai aresi cAteo nuc6'
'- - fVto3tty sweetbut it also has somenut(ty characters))
the two
This translation into Romanian uses the co-ordinating'but', because
In
other
other'
each
exclude
clauses, which are contrasting in meaning, do not
the
of
the
use
and
level)
lexical
words, the use of nuci in the singular (at the

Papa:
lokesandTranslation

53

Romanian are
coordinating conjunction dar (but) (at the syntactical level) in.
equivalent of
semantic
and
iexical
a
of
non-existence
meant to mike up for the
nut.
the polysemous English wotd
and
,,i.roin", possibility is to render only the communicative meaning
joke
altogether'
source
the
of
iontent
syntactical
disregard thl ,",,'uniic and
at the
In thit case,$re would have to find something that wolks naturally both
(being
level
cultural
at
the
and
system)
lexical
the
in
language lwel (embedded
rp"cific and playing on a well-knoum idiom). A possiblesolution might
"rrlirrruT
then be:
(9b) Care e asemanarea dintre o familie qi o turmd de oi: majoritatea sunt albe dar mai
'
scapi Ei cAte una neagrd.

itifi; I; r-r"-trv iit!?no.t

onesl.

of sheep?It's mostly white sprinkled with a fewblack

is
It should be mentioned that, like in English, to be the black sheepof thefamily
it
to
criticism:
is
open
solution
second
this
However,
a set phrase in Romanian.
the
source-language
of
sparkle
and
spontaneity,
originality,
does not render the
text.
So, although the skopos of a translation may be attained in joke translation,
known solutions cannot convey the source text's ability to
*uny
"orn*"only
(9b), in
causl laughter, is was just illustrated in the "flock of sheep" translation
comparison
the
because
funny
is
not
family
in
a
sheep"
which the"idea of "blact
has been overused.
This leads on to another important point: good translators of humour must
aiso be aware of the genre potential of a particular culture. This comprises all
linguistically achieved activity types recognised as meaningful and appropriate
"a
given culture.T Genre poiential could be described as the possible
in
configirrations of registet ,ratiubles that are allowed in specific cultures at a
given time. Thus the register configuration:
Field: family joke
Mode: interactive face-to-f ace
Tenor: friend to friend
is culturally recognised. in British culture. Before rendering it into other languages and tirget .ttltnt"t (in this case Romanian), it is wise to see whether the
iegiiter configriration also works in the target culture. In the case at hand, it
does: it is culturally appropriate to joke about families in Romanian.
Conclusion
As hypothesised, the analysis of humour translation shows that jokes can
be transLted, provided it is accepted that often translations cannot be as
effective as the iource texts. The above analysis has provided some indications
of the factors that should be taken into account in the translation of jokes. The
following can be cautiously posited: it is important to determine the function of
joke will
the joke in the target socio-cultural framework. As shown, a translated
have to work at two main levels. We must consider the pragmatic function of a
joke, namely to amuse and cause laughter. Next, there is a higher, interpersonal

56

Volume13:1"
Studiesin Translatology'
2005.Perspectiaes:

levelthatplaysonthefunctionsofhumour(e.g.,tobuildconsensus,todissolve
These latter functions are
awkward situations, and discourse management)'
oftensituationand..,lto,udependentandmaydifferfromonejoketoanother
As the two levels usually co-exist,
as well as from or,e loke category to another.
must strive to convey both of them in translation'
translators
-relevant to joke translation'
ih" concept of functional constancy is also
guri.ully, it implies that the original function of a joke_is transferred to target
c u l tu re s .F u n c ti o n a l c o n s ta n c yw i l l normal l ymeanthatthe.skoposofthe
incompatibility between the
translation is attained, unless there is linguistic
and the target language'
source
-of the Skopos of a
ir, p*"ti"ut t.ur",ifutiot'tlth&e are obstacles to the attainment
translation problems
ioke translation: these concern Nord's distinctionbetween

jokes
iifficulties, which I discussedabove. I posit that when
ffi il;i;,i""
,objective,
becauseof
seem impossible to translate, it is not primarily
'the
that
difficulties
translation
'subjective'
of
because
but
translation problems
Laurian
Marie
by Anne
relate to the translator's competence'As pointed out
for the translation
required
ireativity
and
imagination,
effort,
tisgg, ol,it is the
are confronted with
of humour (including jokesithat make translators feel they
an untranslatable text.
relevant for the
My study has identified some factors that aPPear to-.be
text-types needed
pru"ii"" of iranslation. \.A/henthey generateculture-specific
translators enrich
for introducing new form, conteni, ind elementsof meaning,
agreementsor shared
target cultureslHumour and jokes are-basedon'secret'
culture' If this
information between the speaicerand the audiencein the source
target-language
the
in{ormation is not introduced (or does not already exist) in
between the
agreements
'secret'
no
be
can
theie
world,
and socio_cultural
laughter.
cause
parties. This eventually anmrls a joke's ability to amuse_and
project the source
simply
and
elements
new
tire
introduce
to
fail
trftranslators
translations
text,s cultural frame of referenceto the target environment, their
shock"
"culture
a
will have a negative impact on the target andi"ttcu, and cause
culture'
in Witte's ,".rrl". This also annuls a joke as humorous in the target
translation is
I hope that this analysis has succeededin showing tha! ioke
neither exclusively humour-type dependent, as Debra s. Raphaelson-west
the issue
(1989:130) argues, nor simply linguistically bound' Bv approaching
in
the way
from a functionalist perspective,isubmit that all jokes are unique
they encompasssituitional, cultural, and linguistic features'.
fact that
it shoutd also be noted that my aim was to draw attention to the
features
the
of
joke translation is a complex phenomenon that requires transfer
skopos
translation
discussedto a target text in a way that is in keeping with the
are no
There
and the overall prtpor" of achieving a successfultranslationof all
transfer
ready-made soluiior,s and there is no guaranteethat a successful
successful
is
a
this
the flatures of a joke in the target language alsoimplies that
joke and itstranslation. Aftei all, there is ul-uyt going to be a source-language
in terms of
jokes
co-exist
translation in the target language. Although the two
time, they do so in different spatial frames of reference'
Notes
Romanianshortnarrative
i. T;ir collectionincludesmorethan1,000writtenEnglishandmy
MA thesis(Popa2003)'
jokesand qrrestio.r-ani-T.,;;;;i;G.it wasusedasEatafor

Popa:lokesandTranslation

r/

article have been done"bythe author'

All translations in this
,1,.;i.;ti"rf ;;"-. to be forind inmost cases.of joke translation.
2. In mv experience,
in Popa(2002:

5:ti-ilii"',tEl.ilil;f"r"i"dii';".-"rtu'ii

arediscirssed
fap in translation

13).
event)' the two'jokes
i]ir] tf.t"6liginal tcxrual contexts(as part of a.completeIinguistic
out ofThesecontexts,theseSkopoi
.i"iirr ira n'uu",-stopor.Ev;iiiiit\g the iran-slatioris
t(" lok"sthu-our becomesunavailable'
,"a
;;;;#;;"d"
"r
iUltity-to-deduce context from text' It is just as
to;.-ilfiiii""
-"Jt
refers
S. Deduction
ability to predict l,alsuase from context'
hishtdevelopbd
;r orr
i;;;;l;;f
relaflonsnlP' .
"quutiv,
provide
evidenie of the language-context
abilities
Boih
"6:d;;;r't;;;r'"'ur"a i" ih;-;;;;i;;;i-;.Es"or
textsmarkedby a iarticular style,form,
or subject.'
the linguistically;. E;i;1;here used as in a Hallidayan framework, namely that of.all
in a given culture"
aln-i""ea activity types iecognised ds meaningful and appiopriate
Works cited
2002.Translation and Humour. TheTranslator8. L73-194'
Ad;;;;S;l"atore.
Susan"L980.Translation Studies'London: Methuen'
b;;;;ii-M.Cuire,
power'Ptttsu"riia"", Iv,r.A.K.& I. n. rrrru.ti". rsiz. writing science:Literacyand discursiae
Press.
Pittsburgh
of
University
bursh:
META xXX'
L";;;"".'A';;;-ivr;;i". i9d9. fit?ioui "ittud"ction au contactdes cultures'
IV"5-t4"
Done. META
i_"iroti,-errr,e. 1ggg.The Translation of Humour; \nvhosays It Can',tBe

xxxv.109-111.

& Atlanta:-Rodopi'
Amsterdam
inTranslation
N..a, cn.iJutr". tsst. TextAnalysis
StJerome..
Actiztity'Manchester:
iie.1997.ianslatirigasa Purposefu.I
irr;;A;
RomanianJokeTranslation.
in
pb"i.
li"fer"r,ce
cif
200i.'fi"-a'Uiln."
oii"u-Elena.
(Galati,Romania).1-3Trvrane
-ii;i;iis B,v 107-08-0912002
of Humour- An Almostl.mpossible.Se.popu,ijiu"ift""u.
no"Aiting theLnnguage
ZOOJ.
'"'ii,riii'i]riirliii.lu"i;bli;h;8
dunareade JosUniversityof Galati,
MA Th?sisi.
Romania]
Humour and the SocialContexhEnglishvs'
popu,'biunilElena.
2003.The Language_of
^"
0e
M,
vrl
n
cs
lura
a
ltloelcalati, Romania)' 53-50'
h;;;;l;.
R""h;;G;;-W"st, Debra.i989. On rhe Feasibilityand Strategiesof TranslatingHumour'
META XXXry. 109-111.
TranslationToday: Old and New Problems'In: Snell-HombV
Veirneer,Han s.1992.
prichha.k;
& KL;;k;ilal
Qis.). kanslation Studies:An Interdisciplin'e.
Marv & Franz
Phil;delphia& New York:JohnBenjamins.3-16'
Activity: Context,Culture and
i knowledge-Based
isb). i.""riiiio"
Wtiil;'diii;'".
-b,jg"iti.".
in the
"i de_(e.{.);Ldnguage,
and_Translation
Discourbe
ln, n"a"gia"de, Ren6
philadelptria:
35-43.
Benlamins.
C
Amsterdam
Easi
Jbhn
ttiadk
WEi iia
Amsterdam & Philast ittt in rrhnstationBehaoiour.
Wiil;;-W;1G1r.. tsse. K;;;lrii;;;;
delphia:JohnBenjamins.
for a BetterUnderstandinS,9SJ*99i
Wiii;;'A;id;"
--e.itiui"i. n .1,gga.--Translationas a Means
and
In: Dollerup, Cay & Annette Lindergaard (eds.).TeachingTranslatt.on
visions.Amsterdani& Phiiadeiphia:JohhBenjamins.69tit*piittri it tnsightsi'eimil,
78.