The Translation Of Humour In Subtitling

9in essence can be understood as “the quality in something (which could be for instance a jokeor a situation) that makes one laugh”.2.1.2 Humour on a cognitive levelThe understanding of humour on a cognitive level that will be applied in this study is based onVeatch’ Theory of Humor (1998). He argues that it is virtually impossible to distil one theoryof humour, due to the vast amount of theories and approaches, each with their ownperspectives and useful insights. As a result, Veatch’ study is an attempt to include all validinsights in one theory. Additionally, he contrasts two other cognitive approaches, i.e. theincongruity (Martin, 2014) and superiority (Hobbes (1958 [1651]) theories with his own.In Veatch’ framework humour is defined as “a certain psychological state which tends toproduce laughter” (Veatch, 1998). The use of “tends to” allows for humour to exist withoutlaughter. As a result, humour perception can go unnoticed: should an individual not displayany sort of laughter (be it chuckling, grinning, smiling, laughing out loud, etc.), it would beimpossible to know whether he or she genuinely perceives the joke or situation as humorous.On the other hand, laughter without humour is also possible. Laughing without genuinelyperceiving a situation or joke as humorous indeed seems to be a common communicativestrategy; for instance, laughter is used in Chinese culture to mask embarrassment. Veatch usesthe term perception because it is an involuntary process, although he notes that interpretation,understanding or comprehension would have served equally well.Furthermore, it should be noted that within the theory, not funny equals either notunderstanding the point of the joke or being offended by it. Therefore, there is a differencebetween what is humorous and what one perceives as funny: it seems highly unlikely that ajoke exists which no one finds humorous. This involves the speaker as well: assuming thatone only jokes about something which one understands and by which one is not offended, anyjoke can be described as humorous. In other words, it is highly probable that at least oneindividual understands a certain joke and is not offended by it.Veatch’s theory of humor (1998) itself is based on three conditions, which are both necessaryand jointly sufficient. Therefore, humour perception requires the three conditions to bepresent, and the presence of all three conditions results in humour perception. He adds thatlabels such as “normal” are clearly subjective.According to Veatch (1998: 163), the first condition for humour perception to exist is that

10“the perceiver has in mind a view of the situation as constituting a violation of someaffective commitment of the perceiver to the way something in the situation ought tobe. That is, a ‘subjective moral principle’ of the perceiver is violated.”In other words, there is a principle about which the perceiver believes ‘this is the way thingsshould be’, which could be the organisation of society or proper behaviour. This is thenviolated, which triggers an emotional response in the perceiver, such as anger or fear. Forexample, if one comes home and finds that one’s mailbox has been vandalised (‘this is not theway things should be’), one will most likely be angry at the perpetrator. On the other hand,should the same person for any reason be okay with vandalism (‘this is the way things shouldbe’, or, in other words, ‘such practical jokes are certainly acceptable’), he or she might find itfunny (see the second condition below).Morality, according to Veatch (1998), refers to a set of principles that is responsible for anindividual’s behaviour and opinions on what happens in the world around them. This issubjective in two ways, as each perceiver has a set of subjective moral principles and differentperceivers have their own sets of principles (or, different views of the way things aresupposed to be). For instance, different cultures care about different things and considerdifferent things as good or bad. They also react differently to what one person might considera violation of his or her moral principles.Absence of this condition, which could be due to either the perceiver not finding fault withanything in a given situation or lacking emotional attachment to the elements in it, results inthe perceiver not perceiving the situation as funny. However, the perceiver might have astrong emotional attachment to one or more elements of a given situation as well. Considerthe following example: a feminist will not laugh at a sexist joke, because it violates moralprinciples to which they are strongly attached emotionally. Because of this strong attachment,the feminist is likely to consider the joke to be rather distasteful or offensive instead. Thefollowing example illustrates the varying degrees of emotional attachment: one person mayperceive another person burping loudly as funny, whereas another person might be offendedby it. The first individual was attached enough to the principle regarding manners to find ithumorous, but not enough to be offended by it, as is the second individual. A third and finalexample of the first condition: a person who laughs at puns has a certain attachment to thelinguistic principles that are violated with puns, which leads to V being present in thesituation. If someone does not care or know about linguistic principles being violated, V isabsent and the pun is not funny to that person.

11Furthermore, the object of emotional attachment also plays a role. People seem to care aboutthemselves much more than they do about other individuals (Veatch, 1998). Therefore, onemight find another person’s injuries or failures funny, while they are much less likely to laughat their own. In other words, if something happens to another person, the violationinterpretation of the situation is much weaker, therefore increasing the chances of humourperception.Lastly, emotional attachment itself may change overtime. For instance, at one point in time,one might disturbingly perceive a dead baby joke as humorous, but then proceed to become aparent him/herself. Since the individual now has a child, his or her emotional attachmenttowards babies has increased, causing the joke no longer to be perceived as humorous. This isbecause the odds of a violation occurring in real life have increased. However, the reverseeffect is also possible: one may have been emotionally attached to an aspect of a certainsituation in the past, but has now become unattached and is consequently unable to either beoffended by it or perceive it as humorous. In sum, it is the violation of a moral principle in aparticular instance at a particular point in time that determines whether a situation leads tohumour perception or causes offence to the perceiver.The second condition is that the perceiver has in mind a predominating view of the situationas being normal or acceptable. In other words, the perceiver must feel that the situation isacceptable, despite the violation. This is referred to as N(ormality), and implies that N V isnecessary for a situation to be perceived as humorous. Consider the example of the sexist jokediscussed earlier, which a misogynistic person would be likely to find funny. This is becauseof two reasons: the misogynist is emotionally attached to women (as he or she despises them),but considers sexist and other disrespectful behaviour towards them to be perfectlyacceptable.Absence of this condition (the moral violation is unambiguously present in the mind of theperceiver) results in the situation being perceived as not funny. Additionally, the normalityinterpretation of a situation can be canceled out by a strong moral violation, which occurswhen the perceiver has too high a degree of emotional commitment to a particular element inthe situation. This leads to the perceiver being offended or threathened by the situation ratherthan finding it funny. However, a strong moral violation can of course be evened out with astronger normality interpretation.

12Lastly, the third condition for humour perception to exist is simultaneity. This implies thatboth the N and V interpretations of a certain situation must be present in the mind of theperceiver at the same exact instant in time, as a sequence of feelings (“this is okay” followedby “this is not okay”) would not be humorous at all.The following table, offered by Veatch (1998), is clarifying: levels one to three indicate thedegree of emotional commitment to the situation, with a constant N interpretation. In levelone, the V interpretation is absent, which means that the individual does not see the point ofthe joke. In level two, both V and N are simultaneously present with N V, which allows theindividual to perceive the situation or joke as humorous. In level three, the individual is tooemotionally attached to the principle that is violated, therefore making him or her unable toperceive it as humorous.LevelLogicCommitmentPerceiverUnderstands Is offendedthe jokeLevel 1not-VnonenonoLevel 2V and NweakyesnoLevel 3V and not-NstrongyesyesTable 1: Degrees of emotional commitment in relation to humour perceptionSeeshumournoyesnoThe following is a practical example, in which the three conditions are highlighted:If person A experiences emotional pain, and person B interprets person A’s emotional pain asa moral violation (V is present), but considers it acceptable (N is present and predominatesover V) at the same time (V and N occurring simultaneously), then person B may producelaughter (because he or she perceives the situation as humorous). This may be considered asdisrespectful by person A (who is too emotionally attached to the situation to be able toperceive it as humorous, V N) and might cause damage to the relationship between bothindividuals.The theory could also be applied to the intense laughter that is produced in comedy clubs. Thecomedian on stage often causes severe violations of moral principles, but the setting (oneknows that it is a comedy club) results in an even stronger N interpretation. Therefore, theintensity of the perceived humour increases, which in turn intensifies the audience’s laughter.In other words, the knowledge that humour is intended is an important catalyst.

13The first theory that Veatch (1998) contrasts with his Theory of Humor is the Incongruitytheory. According to Martin (2014), incongruity is a mental process which occurs when twoconflicting images of the same situation or object are held in a person’s mind at the sameinstant in time. This causes the situation to be perceived as humorous. In that sense, an objectthat appears in an environment in which it does not usually appear would be considered funny(for instance, a frying pan appearing in a classical art exhibition). On the other hand, it couldalso be a situation that either does not unfold according to the expectations of the individualwitnessing it, or does not follow a logical pattern. An example might be that an individual isenjoying a walk in the park with his or her dog, when the latter suddenly makes a commentabout the weather.According to Martin’s definition (2014), Veatch’s N and V interpretations occurringsimultaneously are incongruous. However, he notes that incongruity does not automaticallylead to humour perception, as many instances of incongruity are not funny whatsoever. Forinstance, believing that two equals four is quite incongruous (one knows that two does notequal four, but simultaneously chooses to believe it is anyway), but not funny. In this case,there is a V interpretation, as that person violates the principle regarding correct use ofmathematical concepts, but the N interpretation is absent. As a result, two out of threeconditions are absent, which makes it impossible to perceive the situation as humorous. Itshould, however, be noted that one might laugh at the perceived stupidity of that person. Inthat case, other violations are in play.The second and final theory that Veatch (1998) contrasts with his theory is the Superioritytheory, as posited by Hobbes (1958 [1651]. Although it is quite old, I believe it offers somevalid insights with regard to humour on a cognitive level. Hobbes argues that laughter (andtherefore humour in general) is caused by feelings of superiority over another individual orgroup of individuals that are perceived to be inferior. In other words, deficiencies or failuresof another individual may make a person feel better about his or her own existence andgenerate laughter, sadistic as it may be. In that sense, the Superiority theory may be linked tothe Incongruity theory as well: suppose person A watches person B descend a flight of stairs.According to person A’s expectations, person B would safely reach the lower floor, butmanages to slip and fall (in essence referring to person B’s failure to descend properly). Thesituation therefore does not unfold according to expectations, which makes it potentiallyhumorous.

14In Veatch’ terms, this theory translates into the following: if in a situation person A isresponsible for a moral violation (V interpretation is present), and the perceiver (person B) isnot (from his or her viewpoint, the situation is acceptable (N interpretation is simultaneouslypresent and greater than the V interpretation), then the situation becomes humorous to personB. This is because person B feels superior to person A, as he or she did not for example slipon the icy sidewalk, whereas person A did.However, one may also laugh at him or herself. In order for the superiority theory to beapplied in this case, one must assume that two versions of the same individual exist, one ofwhich is perceived as inferior and the other as superior. If the inferior version is consideredresponsible for the violation, then the general superiority theory applies.Lastly, it is important to consider the factor of predictability, since a large part of jokes thatrely on the element of surprise may lose their initial humorous effect when told more thanonce to the same person. Applying his theory of humour, Veatch (1998) argues that mostjokes are set up to have only one affective interpretation, with a punch line that is able tosustain the existing interpretation while also introducing a second, opposite interpretation. Asa result, two conflicting interpretations of the same situation are held in one’s mind at thesame time, and humour may be perceived. However, if the joke is heard for a second time,both of these interpretations are already present in the mind of the listener, and the joke setupmight not be able to sustain both of them until the end. Therefore, the simultaneity conditionis not fulfilled and humour cannot be perceived. According to the Incongruity theory, whichpostulates that humour perception occurs when two conflicting interpretations of the samesituation or object are held in one’s mind at the same time (Martin, 2014), it would beirrelevant how many times one has heard a joke for it to be perceived as humorous. However,Martin (2014) argues that a situation either not unfolding according to the expectations of theindividual witnessing it, or not following a logical pattern may also lead to humourperception. In that sense, a repeated joke may unfold exactly according to expectations andcease to be funny to the perceiver. Finally, the Superiority theory (Hobbs, 1958 [1651]) mayoffer an explanation as to why certain forms of humour, such as slapstick humour, continuesto be perceived as humorous, regardless of how many times they are repeated. In this case, itis the deficiencies and failures of other individuals that cause the perceiver to feel better abouthis or her own existence, which in turn generates laughter. Therefore, it appears to beirrelevant how many times an individual slips and falls because of a banana peel; theperceiver is still likely to feel better and perceive the situation as humorous.

152.1.3 Translation Studies’ perspectiveA number of scholars in the field of translation studies have contributed to a theoreticalframework of the concept that is humour as well. In the next sub-section, a closer look will betaken at Chiaro (2014) and Spanakaki (2007).With regard to the concept of humour itself, Chiaro (2014) argues that humour is more thanwords alone, especially in audiovisual contexts. She considers it extremely hard to define, dueto the complex nature of the phenomenon. However, she distinguishes five aspects that makeup humour, namely a cognitive, emotional, social, expressive and physical aspect.According to Chiaro (2014), the cognitive aspect involves the perception of a non-seriousincongruity. In this regard, she subscribes to the definition of incongruity offered by Martin(2014), as discussed earlier. However, she adds an important aspect to the definition, namelythat the incongruity must occur in a non-serious environment. Therefore, an incongruoussituation can only be perceived as humorous if it is accompanied by a playful attitude, inwhich the perceiver views things as relatively unimportant (Chiaro, 2014). For instance,encountering a clown armed with a sharp knife in a corridor at night is quite incongruous (youdo not expect to see a clown, let alone armed, outside of a circus or party, but you encounterone in a dark corridor anyway), but it would not at all be perceived as humorous. This aspectis also found in Ruch (1998), who argues that the perception of humour is linked to theindividual’s personality and current state of mind. For instance, when a person is angry orworried, some situations that he or she would normally find humorous would not triggerlaughter.Secondly, the emotional aspect consists of the specific positive affective response that isactivated by the perception of humour (Chiaro, 2014). In other words, when a personperceives a situation as humorous, they will most likely enter a relaxed state of mind andtemporarily forget about his or her concerns; humour essentially makes one feel goodemotionally.Thirdly, the physical aspect is in the humour response, which McGhee (1971) uses as a labelfor laughter. Laughter, according to Chiaro (2014), is an evident sign that one has beenexposed to a situation of which he or she has appreciated the humour. She adds that it is atype of vocal, nonverbal communication, which is no more culture-specific than for instancesneezing. Therefore, she argues that laughter is a universal phenomenon.

16Fourthly, she argues that humour is an inherently social phenomenon, as it most frequentlyoccurs spontaneously during personal interactions (2014). Humour may also be employed as acommunicative strategy, as it is for instance much easier to capture the attention of anaudience by means of a well-placed joke.Lastly, Chiaro (2014) distinguishes an expressive aspect, namely the way in which a type ofhumour is rendered. In that sense humour can either be verbal or nonverbal, with the punbeing an example of verbally rendered humour.With regard to humour in audiovisual products, which is the object of analysis in this study,Chiaro (2014) notes that it is performative in nature. Any instance of humour in anaudiovisual product is again considered to be a mixture of the aspects discussed in theparagraphs above. However, the expressive aspect in this case is not restricted to either averbal or nonverbal rendering. Humour can also occur without a verbal code, as can bededucted from the success of Charlie Chaplin and Rowan Atkinson’s sketches. Their workwas largely nonverbal and made use of visual incongruities to trigger laughter in the audience.Their succes therefore seems partly due to the fact that nonverbal incongruities are languageindependent, which allows audiences of different cultures to enjoy the humour.According to Spanakaki (2007), linguists generally agree on the fact that humour can bededuced from the effect that it has on an audience. This effect is twofold: humour isconsidered to be what triggers laughter as well as what is felt to be funny. However,Spanakaki argues that laughter is not required for a situation or joke to be hum

includes humour as a concept, humour in translation as well as a general overview of the nature and limitations of subtitling as a translation practice. Section 3 presents the research questions and hypotheses, while section 4 contains a description of this study's corpus as well as a background of The Big Bang Theory and its main characters .