Translating Humor for Subtitling

by Katia Spanakaki
 

umor is an essential part of everyday communication and an

important component of innumerable literary works and films and of
art in general. It is rooted in a specific cultural and linguistic context,
but it is also an indispensable part of intercultural communication
and mass entertainment. When trying to translate humor, culturally
opaque elements and language-specific devices are expected to
make the translator's work difficult, while some elements are
ultimately not transferred at all.

Humor, in its many Humor, in its many manifestations, appears

manifestations, to be one of the most defining aspects of
appears to be one of humanity. Repeated attempts have been
the most defining made to define the essence of humor from
aspects of humanity. sociological and psychological, as well as
from linguistic perspectives. Although
humor has been approached from several angles, it has rarely been
systematically studied as a specific translation problem. Humor has
various levels of applicability that are partly universal, cultural and
linguistic, or individual. It is the level of applicability, which often
makes it a tangible problem for a translator. However, for the
purpose of maintaining intelligibility, the problem needs to be
resolved in one way or another.

Additionally, humor, as an everyday phenomenon, is increasingly a

part of the context of intercultural communication. It is also a
vehicle for mass entertainment, as television nowadays offers a wide
variety of entertaining programs, both feature films and TV series,
which are mostly of Anglo-American origin, with humor as the
primary or secondary element. Translators often face the task of
having to translate seemingly untranslatable humor, while not
reducing the meaning effect, which invariably tests their capability
for finding creative solutions.

Definitions and theories of humor

No matter how ordinary or commonplace humor seems to be in

everyday life, it is found to be much more problematic and
indefinable as a theoretical concept. This has not, however,
prevented scholars of various disciplines such as psychology,
sociology, pedagogy and linguistics, from exploring the issue of
humor, which has, more often than not, resulted in "epistemological
hairsplitting" (Attardo, 1994:1). The problems involved when it
comes on defining humor, are that some scholars have doubted that
an all-embracing definition of humor could be formulated (see
Attardo, 1994:3). Additionally, we could say that one of the
difficulties in defining humor derives from the fact that the
terminology used to describe it is not explicit. A number of scholars
such as Schmidt-Hidding (1963, see Attardo 1994:6-7), have
attempted to clarify the issue by proposing semantic maps of
humor, but certainly various other, significantly different definitions
could be formulated.

It goes without saying that the definition of humor ultimately

depends on the purpose for which it is used. As Attardo points out
(1994:4), in the field of literary criticism for instance, there is a
need for a fine-grained categorization, whereas linguists have often
accepted broader definitions, arguing that whatever evokes laughter
or is felt to be funny is humor, e.g. that humor can be deduced from
its effect. Nevertheless, laughter as such is not necessarily a
condition for humor, and with this in mind, Attardo (1994:13)
considers Kerbrat-Orecchioni's (1981) pragmatic definition of humor
as a text whose perlocutionary, e.g. intended, effect is laughter, to
be a more fruitful approach. More specifically, humor is whatever is
intended to be funny, even if it might not always be perceived or
interpreted as such. This definition seems to be quite problematic,
since measuring intention is not easy. However, it is useful because
it accounts for humor as a fundamentally social phenomenon as well
as one whose manifestations can vary greatly in different cultures.

One could agree that there are three general categories of

humor/jokes: a) universal humor/jokes, b) culture-specific
humor/jokes, and c) language-specific humor/jokes. Indeed,
Raphaelson-West (1989:130) has also divided jokes into three main
categories:

linguistic jokes (e.g. puns)

cultural jokes (e.g. the ethnic jokes), and

universal jokes (the unexpected)

She states that by going from top to bottom, following the above
order, "the jokes are progressively easier to translate" (ibid.). She
demonstrates each by examples and draws conclusions respectively.
As regards the translation of linguistic jokes, she uses the
expression "punny as hell," by replacing the idiom "funny as hell" to
show that the word 'punny' rhymes with the word 'funny,' and
further states: "In order to translate the joke it would be necessary
to have an idiomatic expression about humor which contained a
word which rhymed with a word which means something about puns
or language. This word which means something linguistic would
have to be semotactically similar to the word it rhymes with, and its
presence would have to add a little meaning to the sentence" (ibid.).
Moving on to the next category, the cultural jokes are seen to be
"more widely translatable" (ibid.). Considering the following example
where we have nations x, y, z, for instance, and both nations x and
y have relations with nation z, it is possible for nation x to make
jokes about nation z, which would be translated into the language of
nation y, but translating a joke of nation x into the language of
nation z might be impossible for the reason that, "even if the
listener is good-natured and can laugh at himself, he might not
understand the stereotype" (ibid., original emphasis). To make it
more explicit, Raphaelson-West (1989:132) points out that: "There
are many jokes which may mean the same thing semantically, but in
terms of pragmatics and culture, there is something sorely missing
which makes the joke untranslatable." Yet, universal jokes are
perhaps bicultural jokes, since not being aware of every culture,
there is no way for understanding all jokes in the world.

The equivalence of humorous effect

Following Vandaele: "humor translation is qualitatively different from

'other types' of translation and, consequently, one cannot write
about humor translation in the same way one writes about other
types of translation" (Vandaele, 2002:150). Similarly, when it comes
on translating humor, the translator has to deal with the intended
effect of humor and its possible unsuccessful reproduction.
According to Vandaele (2002:150), there are four elements to be
pointed out: a) humor, as a intended effect, has an exteriorized
manifestation (laughter), which is quite difficult to render, whereas
the meaning of other texts is 'less compelling' in terms of
perception. b) the comprehension and appreciation of humor and
humor production are two distinct skills; although "translators may
experience its compelling effect on themselves and others
(laughter), but feel unable to reproduce it" (ibid.). Therefore, humor
can be considered as a talent-related skill, since it is neither
learnable nor teachable, unlike the skill of writing academic papers
and business letters for instance. c) "The appreciation of humor
varies individually" (ibid.); it is very much depended on the
translator's sense of humor; that is the translator's recognition of a
comic instance, and d) "the rhetorical effect of humor on translators
may be so overwhelming that it blurs the specifics of its creation;
strong emotions may hinder analytic rationalization' (ibid.).

It goes without saying that humor is also confronted with the

personal translator's dilemma of whether to translate a bad joke or
just produce a funny effect.

The tools available for the translation of humor

a) Wordplay

Wordplay or punning, is defined by Delabastita as follows:

"Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena in
which structural features of the language(s) are 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" (Delabastita,
1996: 128, original emphasis; see also Delabastita, 1993:57).
Further, "the pun contrasts linguistic structures with different
meanings on the basis of their formal similarity" (Delabastita,
1996:128, original emphasis).

According to the type and degree of similarity, puns can be further

divided into the following categories (Delabastita, 1996:128):

homonymy (identical sounds and spelling)

homophony (identical sounds but different spellings)

homography (different sounds but identical spelling) and

paronymy (there are slight differences in both spelling and sound).

Further, a pun may be either vertical or horizontal. The formal

similarity of two linguistic structures may clash by being co-present
in the same portion of text (in this case it is vertical wordplay), or by
being in a relation of contiguity by occurring one after another in the
text (the horizontal wordplay) (see Delabastita, 1996:128). The
translation methods of puns available for the translator's disposal
are presented in Table 1. below:

PUN ⇒ PUN (pun rendered as pun): the ST pun is translated by

a TL pun

PUN ⇒ NON PUN (pun rendered as non-pun): a non-punning

phrase which may retain all the initial senses (non-selective non-
pun), or a non-punning phrase which renders only one of the
pertinent senses (selective non-pun), or diffuse paraphrase or a
combination of the above

PUN ⇒ RELATED RHETORICAL DEVICE [pun rendered with

another rhetorical device, or punoid (repetition, alliteration,
rhyme, referential vagueness, irony, paradox etc), which aims to
recapture the effect of the ST pun]

PUN ⇒ ZERO (pun rendered with zero pun): the pun is simply

omitted

PUN ST = PUN TT (ST pun copied as TT pun, without being

translated)

NON PUN à PUN (a new pun introduced): a compensatory pun

is inserted, where there was none in the ST, possibly making up
for ST puns lost elsewhere (strategy 4 where no other solution
was found), or for any other reason

ZERO ⇒ PUN (addition of a new pun): totally new textual

material is added, containing a wordplay as a compensatory
device

EDITORIAL TECHIQUES: explanatory footnotes or endnotes,

comments in translator's forewords, 'anthological' presentation of
different, complementary solutions etc.
Table 1. Translation Methods of Puns 
(Delabastita, 1993:192-226; Delabastita, 1996:134)

Although, techniques 2 and 4, as well as techniques 6 and 7 are

found overlapping with each other at some point, they can be
combined in a variety of ways. For instance, in the case of technique
2 (PUN ⇒ NON PUN), where the pun is suppressed, it can be
followed by a footnote explaining what was left out and why
(technique 8, EDITORIAL TECHNIQUES), as same combination can
apply with technique 6 (NON-PUN ⇒ PUN). As in subtitling, the case
of footnotes is out of a question, the combination of these
techniques and especially technique 8 (editorial techniques) are
inadequate and completely irrelevant for the purpose of this study.

b) Allusions

Allusions are also quite hard to define. For this reason, they will be
discussed in detail in this subchapter. Starting from the
terminological problem, in the broad sense of the concept, an
allusion is defined in 'The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and
Literary Theory' (Cuddon, 1991:29), as "an implicit reference,
perhaps to another work of literature or art, to a person or an
event." However, a variety of other definitions have been proposed,
while most of them seem to be in accord with the indirectness of
allusions as a rhetorical device.

Nevertheless, Ritva Leppihalme defined allusions as elements, which

involve "some modification of a frame" (Leppihalme, 1996:200
original emphasis), where a frame is defined as "a combination of
words that is accepted in the language community as an example of
preformed linguistic material" (Leppihalme, 1997:41). Such frames
include: "idioms, proverbs, catchphrases and allusions to various
sources" (1996:200) and they can be modified either linguistically or
situationally, for the purposes of humor (ibid.).

Moreover, Leppihalme's study of allusions (1997) is important for

two reasons: firstly, as a guideline for defining allusions, as
mentioned above, and secondly, as a source of potential strategies
for translating allusions. More specifically, the functions of allusions
can be broadly divided into three categories: a) creating humor, b)
delineating characters, and c) carrying themes (modified from
Leppihalme 1997:37). The first of these categories, humor, tends to
function on a more local level than the other two, which are
essentially cumulative.

As allusions are culture-bound, the degree to which they are

intelligible across cultural and language barriers varies to a great
extent. The sources of allusions, such as: history, literature, cinema
and television, to name the most important ones, are only relatively
rarely familiar beyond their cultures of origin, since popular culture
seems to travel more widely than high culture. American television
serials and films may be an exception to this phenomenon, but they
will serve to emphasize the fact that cultural products seems to be
crossing borders in one direction only. To illustrate the extent to
which allusions are transcultural, it may perhaps assumed that
nearly everybody who has received a Western education will have
some idea of who Hamlet is and what his dilemma is, and will react
in some way to the words "To be or not to be." However, this is very
much the limit of universal allusions even among people who
assumedly share the same cultural heritage. Yet, it cannot be
emphasized strongly enough that there are great differences
between individuals and subgroups within each community.

On the other hand, translating allusive texts is complicated for two

reasons: First, it is probable that the readers of the translation
cannot make much of a number of allusions, even if the source is
given, because the connotations of those allusions are not activated
in the reading process. Second, readers of translations are not a
homogenous group, and some of them will probably spot and enjoy
allusions if they are given a chance to do so, but will resent being
looked down on in the form of additional explanations (for an
extreme example, not even a translation, see Leppihalme
1997:110).

c) Verbal irony

As mentioned above, various problems arising when it comes on

defining humor. The same problem of finding an accurate definition
is also raised in the case of irony. Bearing in mind the conventional
meaning of irony, which would typically be as "saying one thing and
meaning something else" does not seem to be an accurate
description for the complex meaning of irony. However, irony and
especially verbal irony cannot be identified in specific sets of
linguistic and stylistic traits, since there is neither an ironic tone, nor
an ironic style to be recognized. As Mateo (1995:172) states: "irony
depends on context, since it springs from the relationships of a
word, expression or action with the whole text or situation." Irony
can be also discussed in pragmatic terms, as it produces a series of
different interpretations varying individually. Therefore, the twofold
interpretation of verbal irony differs from that of wordplay, which is
"the product of a linguistic structure and it is a question of
different meanings rather than interpretations" (Mateo, 1995:172
emphasis on text).

Many scholars in this field have approached the concept of verbal

irony from different angles: Muecke (1969, 1982), Tanaka (1973),
Nash (1985), Espasa Borrás (1995) and Mateo (1995), to name but
a few. Muecke (1969:42) identifies irony as "Situational
Irony and Verbal Irony," while Nash (1985:31) classifies the
complex structure of humor as "superstructure" and "substructure,"
where superstructure is "the formulaic structure of the joke," and
substructure is "the underlying context that the reader / listener
needs to have in his grasp." Following Tanaka: "the main focus of
irony is the relationship between the two interpretations intended,
rather than the content itself" (Tanaka, 1973:46 quoted in Mateo,
1995:172). Additionally, what distinguishes irony from sarcasm is
the sense of some contradiction between the two stages of
interpretation; the fact that irony "mal-codes," that is, "it
misrepresents the real content of the message so that the
contradiction must be assumed as normal, whereas a sarcastic
statement is ostensibly sincere and provokes no feeling of
contradiction at all" (Nash, 1985:152-153 quoted in Mateo, 1995:
172).

However, as a point of reference for the findings in this project, not

all of these approaches are helpful since the study focuses attention
on the specific medium of subtitling. Although these approaches do
not take into account the constraints of subtitling, they are worth
investigating in terms of studying irony in translation.

Mateo (1995), drawing on Muecke's (1969) classification of irony

types, proposed a list of possible strategies, after studying a corpus
of three English comedies translated into Spanish. Although the
strategies do raise some problems, when it comes on engaging them
in the specific medium of subtitling (e.g. 10. 'ST irony is explained in
footnote in the TT' is not possible in any case, since in subtitling, a
footnote or a translator's note is out of the question), we will discuss
this issue in detail on the next chapter, after the subtitling
constraints and limitations are established. However, these
strategies clearly presented in Table 2.below, have as follows:

ST irony becomes TT irony with literal translation

ST irony becomes TT irony with 'equivalent effect' translation

ST irony becomes TT irony by means of different effects from

those used in ST (including the replacement of paralinguistic
elements by other ironic cues)

ST irony is enhanced in TT with some word / expression

ST ironic innuendo becomes more restricted and explicit in TT

ST irony becomes TT sarcasm (i.e. more overt criticism)

The hidden meaning of ST irony comes to the surface in TT (no

irony in TT)

ST ironic ambiguity has only one of the two meanings translated

in TT (there is no double-entendre or ambiguity in TT therefore)

ST irony is replaced by a 'synonym' in TT with no two possible

interpretations

ST irony is explained in footnote in TT

ST irony has literal translation with no irony in TT

Ironic ST is completely deleted in TT

No irony in ST becomes irony in TT

Table 2. The Translation of Irony

(Mateo, 1995:175-177; see also Pelsmaekers and Van Besien,

2002:251)

Humor in subtitling

Firstl, we have looked at how humor can be translated. We will now

move on to examine how humor can be translated in subtitling,
where various other parameters such as the soundtrack and visuals
to name but a few, are to be taken into account.

Subtitling

To begin with, subtitles are the textual versions of the dialogue in a

film and in television programs, and are usually displayed at the
bottom of the screen. They appear in two different forms: a) in a
form of written translation of a dialogue in a foreign language, or b)
in a form of a written rendering of the dialogue in the same
language to help viewers with hearing disabilities to follow the
dialogue.

Defining subtitling

The concept of subtitling is defined in Shuttleworth and Cowie's

Dictionary of Translation Studies (1997:161) as "the process of
providing synchronized captions for film and television dialogue." It
would be misleading not to mention that 'captions' is also a term
used to refer to subtitles. However, Karamitroglou (2000), based on
Gottlieb (1994a:107), points out that "subtitles are different from
'displays' or 'captions'" (Karamitroglou, 2000:5). He states that:
"'Captions' (or 'toptitles') are pieces of 'textual information usually
inserted by the program maker to identify names, places or dates
relevant to the story line' " (ibid.).

Gottlieb (1992:162) defines subtitling as a 1) written, 2) additive

(e.g. new verbal material is added in the form of subtitles), 3)
immediate, 4) synchronous, and 5) polymedial (e.g. at least two
channels are employed) form of translation. He follows Jakobson
(1966) in distinguishing between different forms of subtitling: from a
linguistic viewpoint, there is intralingual (within one language)
and interlingual (between two languages) translation; whereas
technically speaking, subtitles can be either open (not optional, e.g.
shown with the film) or closed (optional, e.g. shown via teletext)
(Gottlieb, 1992:163; see also Baker, 1998). Gottlieb, states that:
"Subtitling can be both 'intralingual' (or 'vertical'), when the target
language is the same as the source language, and 'interlingual' (or
'diagonal'), when the target language is different from the source
language" (Gottlieb, 1994a; Gottlieb, 1998:247, quoted in
Karamitroglou, 2000:5).

Film subtitling is therefore interlingual and open, which means that

SL linguistic material (speech, other linguistic material) is
transformed into TL subtitles, and that subtitles are broadcast
simultaneously with the program. According to Shochat and Stam
(1985:41), "the interlingual film experience is perceptually
bifurcated: we hear another's language while we read our own."

It is worth to be mentioned at this point that subtitling is the

dominant form of AV translation in Greece and other small European
countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Rumania,
Israel, Finland and other Nordic countries (Gottlieb, 1992:169; see
also Dries,1995:26), which are most commonly defined as subtitling
countries. I will not enter into the particulars of what motivates the
choice of a particular subtitling technique in the first place (see
Kilborn 1989 and O'Connell 1998), but it is at least partly due to the
fact that subtitling is about fifteen times less expensive than
dubbing (Luyken et al. 1991:105; see also Dries 1995:28-30).

Constraints and limitations of subtitling

AV translation's visibility is probably one reason as to why AV

translation also lends itself to easy and occasionally sharp criticism
among the viewers. According to Shochat and Stam: "subtitles offer
the pretext for a linguistic game of 'spot the error' " (1985:46),
especially for those viewers who have a command of both the source
language and the target language. To highlight the above-mentioned
'sharp criticism,' I should mention the fact that there are, indeed,
whole Websites, as well as Internet forums and Chatrooms devoted
to subtitling gaffes, as for instance the
following:http://digitallyobsessed.com, http://dvd-subtitles.com etc.

Furthermore, the low prestige, which is generally attached to

manifestations of popular culture as well as the fact that in the case
of subtitling, the original soundtrack is present as a sort of
touchstone, often contribute to the perception that AV translation is
"a necessary evil" (Zabalbeascoa 1996:235), that is easily dismissed
and soon forgotten.

However, what is rarely appreciated is that AV translation is a form

of translation that is of vital, and growing, importance, and that it
imposes a variety of both technical and contextual constraints on the
part of the translator. As subtitles do miss details most of the times
and frequently have an overall neutral shade, which detracts from
their quality, it would be useful to discuss what subtitling involves in
actual practice.

Gottlieb (1992:164) discusses in different terminology, what he calls

the formal (quantitative) and textual (qualitative) constraints of
subtitling. Textualconstraints are those imposed on the subtitles by
the visual context of the film, whereas formal constraints are
the space factor (a maximum of two lines are allowed, with
approximately 35 characters per line) and the time factor. The time
factor in particular, plays a pivotal role in the decisions translators
have to make. Although traditionally five to six seconds have been
considered to be sufficient for reading a two-liner (Hanson 1974;
quoted in Gottlieb, 1992:164), Gottlieb (1992:164-165) brings up
interesting evidence from more recent studies (d'Ydewalle et al.
1985), according to which some viewers have been able to read
subtitles considerably faster.

As Delabastita (1989:200), also discusses the problem of film

subtitling, he suggests that one of the chief aspects to be considered
is the amount of reduction it presupposes. This is due to the fact
that the number of visual verbal signs on the screen is restricted, on
one hand, by the space available and, on the other hand, by the
time available. The constraints of space and time result in the
problem of selection, as the translator has to analyze the source text
material carefully to decide what should be transferred to the target
text and what can or must be left out. Kovai (1994:250) has applied
relevance theory to subtitling, arguing that "decisions about
deletions are context-dependent." Nevertheless, while zigzagging in
the crossfire of all these demands, a subtitler aims at producing a
subjectively maximal result.

Moreover, subtitling as a mode of linguistic transfer has a number of

synchronization constraints. Following Mailhac (2000:129-131),
these constraints are the following: a) the medium changes from
oral to written, that is "video and television subtitling normally
require larger fonts and therefore allow fewer characters (ibid:129),
b) the linguistic transfer is constrained by the length and structure
of utterances, c) link to visuals, d) frame changes "since they can
divert the attention of the viewer away from the subtitles" (ibid.),
and e) the viewers' reading speed, which varies according to their
degree of literacy and according to whether it is a cinema audience
or a television/video one, which carries implications in terms of the
age range (ibid:129-130).

There are also some other inevitable losses such as: quantitative
and qualitative changes (as discussed earlier, when referred to
Gottlieb 1992), to achieve legibility and readability. Such changes to
achieve legibility, in terms of appearance, are the following: the
position of line breaks, the number and length of lines, the use of
punctuation marks, the color and size of the font, typeface, and
timing. On the other hand, when it comes to achieving readability,
there are a number of quantitative and qualitative changes that
need to be taken into account. Quantitative changes include: a)
simplifying vocabulary, b) simplifying syntax, c) merging short
dialogues, and d) deletions. Qualitative changes include the
tendency to neutralize the marked language/speech to more clear
and standard language, which affects the characterization.

Consequently, the nature of the losses can only be identified and

fully appreciated by taking into account the aforementioned
parameters. As Mailhac (2000:130) states, "The simultaneous
availability of the source and target dialogues may encourage
viewers with a knowledge of the source language to start 'picking
holes in the translated text,' even though they are more often than
not ignorant of the constraints which characterize this form of
linguistic transfer and the strategies required to overcome them."

As a result, when it comes on translating humor in subtitling, the

subtitler needs to use the limited space and time in an optimal way,
in order to virtually retain the meaning effect in the subtitle
translation. But the constraints themselves clearly cannot predict
whether the meaning effect tends to be preserved or lost in
subtitles.

Another point is that, in the case of subtitling, the use of a footnote

or a translator's note is simply out of the question. That is also a
fact that makes the translator's task even harder, in terms of
conveying the appropriate meaning in TL, when there is not a direct
equivalent term and the translator is also forced to follow the 'rules'
and make things work in the TL environment. As we explained in
this chapter, subtitling is not an easy work and is performed under
considerable constraints. For this reason, effective subtitling requires
recognition of these constraints and understanding of the limitations,
as viewers simultaneously have to read one or two lines of text at
the bottom of the screen in the allotted time, which is generally
shorter than for the original dialog. Subtitled films thus require a
greater effort to harmonize a variety of cognitive activities and grasp
the underlying idea.

Finally, as Dollerup (1974:198) points out, translators "need a

complete knowledge of the subtler shades of meaning in foreign
words or phrases and should remember the pitfalls of failing to
recognize them."

Summary and conclusion

This study has attempted to establish the tools available for the
translation of humor. It provides a general theory of how humor can
be translated, in terms of wordplay or punning, allusions and verbal
irony. An attempt is also made to establish how humor can be
translated in subtitling by adopting the aforementioned models.

According to Vandaele (2002:150), the appreciation of humor may

vary individually and so does the appreciation of a well or poorly
translated text or subtitle. But following the study, we can clearly
conclude that if humor is separated into isolated compartments or
categories, namely wordplay (puns), allusions, and verbal irony, it
can be examined more constructively and analyzed more efficiently.
By using the suggested strategies for the analysis, which may be
seen as a practice potentially pointing to the appropriate translation
solutions, the subtitler can identify which translation methods to
employ more effectively. In other words, by breaking humor down
into components, certain problematic utterances or phrases
potentially causing a confusion of various possible translation
strategies when rendering an ST/ SL in TT / TL can be less confusing
and puzzling for the subtitler, when following the logical mechanism
of the proposed framework. Needless to say that, choosing a
translation strategy involves a decision-making process where
various factors mentioned throughout the study come into play and,
therefore, translating humor in a contextually bound medium such
as subtitling, does not necessarily work in the TL environment.

Finally, the choice of a translation strategy is manipulated by more

or less absolute rules to mere idiosyncrasies and knowledge. As
Dollerup (1974:198) states: "Long and careful study of both
languages is required and, more particularly, of the literature,
history, and culture of the country concerned."

Bibliography

Attardo, S. (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humor, Berlin and New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Baker, M. (ed.) (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies, London and New York: Routledge.

Collins English Dictionary (2000) 21st Century Edition, Glasgow:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Coupland, D. (1991) Generation X - Tales for an Accelerated

Culture, Great Britain: Abacus.

Cuddon, J.A. (1991) The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and

Literary Theory, London: Penguin Books.

Delabatista, D. (1989) "Translation and Mass Communication: Film

and TV Translation as Evidence of Cultural Dynamics."
In Babel,Volume 35, Number 4, pp. 193-218. 

Delabastita, D. (1993) There's a Double Tongue: An Investigation

into the Translation of Shakespeare's Wordplay, with Special
Reference to Hamlet, Amsterdam and Atlanda: Rodopi.

Delabastita, D. (ed.) (1996) Wordplay and Translation, Manchester:

St. Jerome Publishing.

Dollerup, C. (1974) "On Subtitles in Television Programmes."

In Babel, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 197-202.

Dries, J. (1995) Dubbing and Subtitling: Guidelines for Production

and Distribution, Manchester: The European Institute for the Media.

Espasa Borrás, E. (1995) "Humor in Translation. Joe Orton's The

Ruffian on the Stair and its Catalan and Valencian Versions." In
Peter Jansen (ed.), Translation and the Manipulation of Discourse.
Selected Papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation
Studies 1992-1993, Leuven: CETRA.

Gottlieb, H. (1992) "Subtitling. A new University Discipline." In

Dollerup & Loddegaard (eds.), Teaching Translation and
Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 161-170.

Gottlieb, H. (1994a) "Subtitling: Diagonal Translation."

In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, Volume 2, Number 1, pp.
101-121.

Gottlieb, H. (1994b) "Subtitling: People Translating People." In

Dollerup & Loddegaard (eds.), pp. 261-274.

Gottlieb, H. (1997) "You Got the Picture? On The Polysemiotics of

Subtitling Wordplay." In Delabastita (ed.), Traductio: Essays on
Punning and Translation, Manchester and Namur: St. Jerome
Publishing & Presses Universitaires de Namur.

Gottlieb, H. (1998) "Subtitling." In Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge

Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 244-248.

Hanson, G. (1974) Läsning av text i tv (Reading subtitles on TV),

Stockholm: SR/PUB 102/72.

Hirsch E.D. (2002) The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, (3rd ed.),

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ivarsson, J. (1992), Subtitling for the Media: A Handbook of an Art,

Stockholm: TransEdit.

Ivarsson, J. & Carroll, M. (1998) Subtitling, Simrishamn: TransEdit.

ivir, v. (1987) "Procedures and Strategies for the Translation of

Culture." In Toury, G. (ed.), Translation across Cultures, New Delhi:
Bahri Publications Ltd., pp. 35-46.

Jakobson, R. (1966) "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation." In

Brower, Reuben A. (ed.), On Translation, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 232-239.

Karamitroglou, F. (2000) Towards a Methodology for the

Investigation of Norms in Audiovisual Translation: The Choice
between Subtitling and Revoicing in Greece, Amsterdam and
Atlanta: Rodopi.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1981) "Les usages comiques de l'analogie."

In Folia Linguistica 15, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 163-183.

Kilborn, R. (1989) "They Don't Speak Proper English: A New Look at

the Dubbing and Subtitling Debate." In The Modern Language
Journal, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 421-434.

Kovai, I. (1994) "Relevance as a Factor in Subtitling Reductions." In:

Dollerup, Cay, and Annette Lindegaard (eds.). "Teaching Translation
and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions" Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 245-251.

Leppihalme, R. (1996) "Caught in the Frame: A Target-Culture

Viewpoint on Allusive Wordplay." In The Translator Volume 2,
Number 2, pp. 199-218.

Leppihalme, R. (1997) "Culture Bumps: an Empirical Approach to

the Translation of Allusions" (Topics in Translation 10), Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Luyken, Georg-Michael. et al. (1991) Overcoming Language Barriers

in Television: Dubbing and Subtitling for the European Audience,
Manchester: The European Institute for the Media.

Mailhac, J.-P., (1995) "The Formulation of Translation Strategies for

Cultural References." In Working Papers in Language and
Linguistics Number 9, European Studies Research Institute,
University of Salford, pp. 132-151.

Mailhac, J.-P., (1996) "Evaluation Criteria for the Translation of

Cultural References." In G.T.Harris (ed.), On Translating French
Literature and Film, Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 173-188.

Mailhac, J.-P., (2000) "Subtitling and dubbing, for better or worse?

The English video versions of Gazon maudit." In M. Salama-Carr
(ed.), On Translating French Literature and Film II, Rodopi
Perspectives in Modern Literature, Amsterdam and Atlanda: Rodopi,
pp. 129-154.

Mateo, M. (1995) "The Translation of Irony." In Meta, Volume 40,

Number 1, pp. 171-178.

Muecke, D.C. (1969) The Compass of Irony, London: Methuen.

Muecke, D.C. (1982) Irony and the Ironic (2nd ed.), London:

Methuen.

Nash, W. (1985) The Language of Humor: Style and Technique in

Comic Discourse, London and New York: Longman.

Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation, London: Prentice

Hall.

O'Connell, E. (1998) "Choices and Constraints in Film Translation."

In Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny & Jennifer Pearson
(eds.), Unity in Diversity: Current Trends in Translation
Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, pp. 61-67.

Pelsmaekers, K. and Van Besien, F. (2002) "Subtitling Irony." In The

Translator, Volume 8, Number 2, pp. 241-266.

Raphaelson-West, Debra S. (1989) "On the Feasibility and

Strategies of Translating Humor." In Meta, Volume 34, Number 1,
1989. Special Issue on Humor and Translation, pp. 128-141.

Schmidt-Hidding, W. (1963) "Wit and Humor." In Schmidt-Hidding,

W. (ed.), Humor und Witz, Munich: Hueber, pp. 37-160.

Shochat, E. and Stam, R. (1985) "The Cinema After Babel:

Language, Difference, Power." In Screen XXVI, pp. 35-58.

Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. (1997) Dictionary of Translation

Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Tanaka, R. (1973) "The Concept of Irony: Theory and Practice."
In Journal of Literary Semantics II, The Hague-Paris: Mouton, pp.
43-56.

Toury, G. (2000) "The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation." In

Venuti, L. (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London and New
York: Routledge, pp. 198-211.

Vandaele, J. (2002) "(Re-) Constructing Humor: Meanings and

Means." In The Translator, Volume 8, Number 2, pp. 149-172.

d'Ydewalle, G., van Rensbergen, J. and Pollet, J. (1985) "Reading a

message when the same message is available auditorily in another
language: the case of subtitling" (Psychological Reports of Leuven
University 54).

Zabalbeascoa, P. (1994) "Factors in Dubbing Television Comedy."

In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Volume 2, Number 1,
pp. 89-99.

Zabalbeascoa, P. (1996) "Translating Jokes for Dubbed Television

Situation Comedies." In The Translator Volume 2, Number 2,
pp.235-257.