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 manifestations, appears to be one of the most defining
aspects of humanity. Repeated attempts have been made to define the essence of
humor from 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.
Humor, in its many manifestations, appears to be one of the most defining
aspects of humanity.
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
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'
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
The tools available for the translation of humor
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
NON PUN ą 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
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
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
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
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
Borrįs (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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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. Textual constraints 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
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
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
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
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.
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 Borrįs, 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.
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,
Ivarsson, J. & Carroll, M. (1998) Subtitling, Simrishamn:
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.
Leppihalme, R. (1996) "Caught in the Frame: A Target-Culture Viewpoint
on Allusive Wordplay." In The Translator Volume 2, Number 2, pp.
Leppihalme, R. (1997) "Culture Bumps: an Empirical Approach to the
Translation of Allusions" (Topics in Translation 10), Clevedon:
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.),
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.
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
Zabalbeascoa, P. (1994) "Factors in Dubbing Television Comedy."
In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Volume 2, Number 1, pp.
Zabalbeascoa, P. (1996) "Translating Jokes for Dubbed Television
Situation Comedies." In The Translator Volume 2, Number 2, pp. 235-257.