TRANSLATING HUMOR: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE TRANSLATIONS OF THREE MEN IN A BOAT HARİKA KARAVİN BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY 2015 TRANSLATING HUMOR: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE TRANSLATIONS OF THREE MEN IN A BOAT Thesis submitted to the Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Translation Studies by Harika Karavin B U 2015 ABSTRACT Translating Humor: A Comparative Analysis of Three Translations of Three Men in a Boat When academic studies on translating humor are examined in Turkey, there are not sufficient sources or data providing enough space for the discussion of the issue. It is also observed that most of the available studies focus on the linguistic and cultural problems observed in the transference of humorous elements in audio-visual texts and deal only with the translation of the specific humorous elements (e.g. wordplay) in terms of verbal humor. As a conclusion, it has been found out that there does not exist a comprehensive study in the target system that provides detailed information on the translation of verbal humor and the problems to be observed in the translation process. Since the translation strategies display differences in relation to the type of humorous device that texts include, studies focusing on the translation of different humorous devices are required. For this purpose, a descriptive comparison of the three l f J m K. J m ’ f m u l Three Men in a Boat including different humorous devices has been carried out. In the comparisons, the g x ’ lu c h u c x ’ hum u ff c h b analyzed in a descriptive manner and an objective translation criticism has been presented. The textual analysis has benefited from the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) (Raskin and Attardo 1991) in defining similarities and differences in the translations. iv ÖZET M h Ç : Three Men in a Boat Adlı R m ı Tü k ’ Y pıl Ü Ç K şıl ş ı m lı Çö üml m Tü k ’d m h ü pılmış k d m k lışm l c l d d , k u l lg l l k k lm dı ı ucu ul şılmış ı . Y pıl lışm l ı u lukl gö l- ş l m l d k m h ö l k ımı d gö l ml d l l kül ü l u l ü d du du u, ö lü m h u u l ı ı k ımı l lg l b l l m h u u l ı ı ( ö cük u l ı b.) l ldı ı gö ülm k d . S u l k, ö lü m h u u l ı ı ü c d k şıl şıl lukl , b m j l l lg l k ı d g d k p mlı lışm bulu m dı ı p mış ı . Y pıl lışm l d m h u u l b m d u gul c k j l , m d m h ü l gö d ş kl k gö c u gul dı ı d , f klı m h ü l l lg l lışm l h du ulm k dı . Bu m l , lışm d J m K. J m ’u f klı m h ü l Three Men in a Boat dlı ü lü m ı ı Tü k ’d k ü betims l k şıl ş ı m ı pılmış l b l ş u ulmuş u . K şıl ş ı m l d , k m l k k m d k “mizahi k ” d ı k b ş u dukl ı ö ml b m l l k c l m ş . Metinsel incelemede Attardo ve Rask fı d g l ş l GTVH (G l Th f V b l Hum ) d u ul p m l d f d l ıl k, l d k d lb l m l b l k f klılıkl ıml mış ı . v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my ad P f. D . Ö l m B k Albachten for her invaluable support and guidance. It is her critical evaluations and suggestions that have made this thesis present. Working on this study with her has been a great scholarly experience for me and I will always regard it as an honor to be her student. I l w h xp m p c l h k A c. P f. B ül P l k, A . P f. Arzu Akbatur, Assist. Prof. Martin Cyr Hicks, d A . P f. O u B k for kindly accepting to be the member of my thesis committee. I l w uld l k x d m h k m d f d Bu M lk , Ed Ab cı d İ m K l ş lu f lw m g d c u g g m c u m study. A special thanks to my colleagu U ku Tö l f h p c d h valuable contributions he has made to almost every page of the study. I would like to also thank my colleague Bu k Yılm f upp g m c d m c ud . The most special thanks to my parents and my brother Asaf Karavin, who have always been near me with their never-ending supports. Finally, I want to express my gratitud m p c l f d İ m l Yüc f m k g m lways feel good with his support. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................... 14 2.1 J m K. J m ’ biography ............................................................... 14 2.2 Jeromian humor ...................................................................................... 18 2.3 Three Men in a Boat ............................................................................... 20 2.4 Humorous devices in the novel ............................................................... 25 CHAPTER 3: TRANSLATING HUMOR IN THREE MEN IN A BOAT ....... 29 3.1 Notion of humor ..................................................................................... 29 3.2 Humor theories ....................................................................................... 33 3.3 Humor and translation ............................................................................ 44 CHAPTER 4: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION OF HUMOROUS DEVICES IN THE NOVEL .................................................... 53 4.1 General Theory of Verbal Humor (GVTH) ............................................ 53 4.2 Translation of irony ................................................................................ 55 4.3 Translation of metaphor .......................................................................... 87 4.4 Translation of wordplay .......................................................................... 106 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 130 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 138 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Depending on the specific cultural and linguistic context, humor has always been difficult to define because humor does not have a universal definition, which has, consequently, caused serious challenges for humor scholars. Starting from very early times, scholars have usually tried to find solutions both to define and understand the problem of humor using various theories, approaches and perspectives, but none of them have managed to produce a universal definition accounting for all aspects of the humor phenomenon. Since even defining the notion of humor has resulted in serious p bl m , hum ’ relationship with translation has proven to be even more problematic. When the relevant literature on humor and translation is examined, it can be seen that the existing studies on theory and practice of humor translation have mostly focused on the “u l b l ” f hum u l m , p c ll m k g reference to some cultural and linguistic issues. For a long time, the explanations have been limited to some prescriptive and subjective statements, including “jokes are untranslatabl ”, “ ’ f f m ”, or “these h g g l l ” etc. In addition, a number of cultural and linguistic analyses in Translation Studies have suggested, “humor translation is qualitatively different from other types of translations” (Vandaele, 2002, p. 150). Such perceptions on the nature of humor translation have put some pressure on translators, forcing them to accept the “u l b l ” f h hum u ff c h l gu g . H w , w h h appearance of Descriptive Translation Studies, humor has started to be seen not as a “h m g u c g ”, bu b ud d cc d c w h “its specific cognitive, emotional, social and interpersonal aspects” (Vandaele, 2002, p. 155). 1 Literature on humor and translation also reveals that insufficient attention has been given to produce academic studies problematizing the issue of humor translation. Some scholars of Translation Studies foreground the need for more theoretical and systematic research so that translators or scholars can have some relevant strategies to deal with both the analysis of humorous elements and their rendering into a foreign language. In this way, translators can become familiar with some of the most efficient solutions to the common problems encountered in the translation process of the humorous elements. Having been inspired by the research gap in the academic studies, my study aims to provide a systematic analysis of both humorous devices and their l . U l k h p c p c clu u d l g h “u l b l ” f the humorous effect, my study will try to specify whether, to what extent, why and under which circumstances humorous effect cannot be transferred into a foreign language. In order to provide an objective answer to this research question, my study will apply the General Theory of Verbal Humor and its hierarchically ordered “k wl dg u c ” (Attardo and Raskin, p. 1991) to the analysis of humorous devices both in the source and target texts to identify and define the degree of similarity and difference between them. My thesis will also show whether or to what extent the case study will support the hypothesis of the mini-theory of joke translation developed by Salvatore Attardo. According to his mini- h , “ w j k that differ in Language parameter are perceived to be very similar, whereas jokes that differ by Script Opposition are perceived as very diff ” (A d , 2002, p.