The translation of wordplay in

interlingual subtitling
Astudy of Bienvenue chez les Chtis and
its English subtitles
Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy
Heriot-Watt University

Introduction
Humor plays an important role in communication and cross-lingual exchanges are
no exception, yet it has become a truism that humor does not travel well. Asurvey
of professional translators ranked verbal humor as the biggest challenge in screen
translation (Beninc 1999), while 75% of respondents in a study of the perception
of verbal humor in translation stated that they did not understand the jokes (Chiaro 2004). Wordplay, which is inseparably linked to humor (Chiaro 1992: 4), poses particular problems for the translator, as it exploits linguistic features against a
background of culturally shared knowledge. Translators are therefore faced with
recreating complex phenomena and when this task is conducted in the context of
subtitling, the attendant constraints pose further challenges. Research on wordplay within translation studies has traditionally focused on literary texts, and very
few works considered audiovisual translation (AVT), or subtitling in particular.
This trend is changing (see e.g. Pisek 1997, Gottlieb 1997a, Schrter 2005) and it is
envisaged that the present study will contribute to a better understanding of this
topic.

Theoretical framework
Subtitling as constrained translation
Subtitling herein refers to interlingual or diagonal subtitles (Gottlieb 1997b:
111). It is acknowledged that, whilst genuine users of interlingually subtitled
texts rely fully on the subtitles for comprehension, the co-presence of subtitles
and soundtrack allows viewers with knowledge of both languages to compare the
Babel 60:2 (2014), 164192. Fdration des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
doi 10.1075/babel.60.2.03wil issn 05219744 e-issn 15699668

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 165

former to the verbal content of the latter and judge their quality. This is known as
the gossiping effect (Trnqvist 1995: 49), and explains why Daz-Cintas and Remael (2007: 57) call subtitling vulnerable translation.
Chaume (2004: 16) describes an audiovisual text as a semiotic construct comprising several signifying codes that operate simultaneously in the production of
meaning. This simultaneity imperative imposes constraints1 on subtitles (and
other forms of AVT).
Firstly, subtitling involves a change of mode, as it transposes spoken dialogue
into written text in the form of one or two lines at the bottom of the screen (Pettit
2004: 26). Hatim and Mason (1997: 430) point out that this shift in mode means
that certain features of speech will not automatically be detectable in the written form: the spoken language can express nuances through intonation, of which
the use of established orthography, such as italics, capitalization, and exclamation
marks, can only provide a faint echo (Smith 1998: 145). This shift in mode leads to
reduction in the target text (TT) (Delabastita 1989: 203) and subtitling entails systematic condensation, omission, and paraphrase (Smith 1998: 141). The language
of subtitles will be typically less sophisticated than that of a written translation intended to be read in printed form (Smith 1998: 140), in order to make the text as
easy as possible to process by the viewer (Hatim and Mason 1990: 2034). Gottlieb
(2005), however, attributes a major part of this reduction to features of oral text,
such as hedges or slips of the tongue, which become surplus to requirements in a
more concise written mode.
Secondly, there are spatial and temporal constraints imposed by the medium.
The spatial constraints relate to the physical space available on screen, while the
temporal refer to the pace of the soundtrack. There is a general lack of consensus and harmonization regarding the presentation of subtitles on screen (DazCintas and Remael 2007: 80), but there are some generally accepted conventions.2
In general, for European languages subtitles range from 33 to 40 characters per
line, over one or two lines centered on the bottom of the screen (Daz-Cintas and
Remael 2007; Karamitroglou 1998). Temporal constraints are linked to the audiences reading speed, generally regarded to be 15080 words per minute for the
average reader (Karamitroglou 1998). Subtitles stay on screen for a minimum of
one to a maximum of six seconds (Daz-Cintas and Remael 2007: 99), since subti1. Early articles by Titford (1982) and Mayoral et al. (1988) used the term constrained translation to describe AVT, and focused specifically on the non-verbal elements that marked out this
area of translation studies (Munday 2008: 183).
2. Authors have attempted to define general guidelines for subtitling in order to foster good
practice and quality, such as Ivarsson and Carroll in their Code of Good Subtitling Practice
(1998: 1579), Karamitroglou (1998) and Daz-Cintas (2003); however, these are merely recommendations.

166 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

tles that remain visible for longer than necessary will provoke instinctive re-reading, which causes distraction and leaves less time to process the information from
other channels (dYdewalle et al. 1987; Luyken 1991).
Finally, in order for them to be successfully accessed and processed, subtitles must cohere with the images (Perego 2003). Additionally, Daz-Cintas and
Remael (2007: 90) contend that temporal synchronization between subtitle and
soundtrack is the main factor affecting the viewers appreciation of quality. Therefore, accurate timing is crucial to reinforce the internal cohesion of the translated
multimodal text.
It is worth mentioning that the simultaneous presence of multiple codes can
also facilitate subtitling: Nedergaard-Larsen (1993: 214) notes that the co-presence
of the visual and the acoustic channels creates a feed-back effect which can compensate for losses in the subtitles and Gottlieb (2005: 19) observes that in a polysemiotic context, semantic voids are often intersemiotically filled.

Humor
Humor does not necessarily rely on verbal triggers3 and scholars across disciplines
not only disagree on humors various subdivisions, but also on a general definition (Attardo 1994: 3). Although this lack of consensus has led to epistemological
hair-splitting (ibid.), most theories of humor fall under one of three approaches:
functional, stimulus-based, and response-oriented. Functional theorists are concerned with the function of humor and approach it from a psychological, physiological, and sociological perspective (e.g., Spencer 1860; Freud 1905/1960, 1928;
Ruch 1993, 1998), whilst stimulus scholars examine its trigger (e.g., Schopenhauer
1818; Kant 1951; Bergson 1980; Raskin 1985; Attardo and Raskin 1991), and response theoreticians investigate why we find something funny (e.g., Hobbes 1840;
Latta 1998).
Personality research has revealed that, while laughter and smiling are innate
expressions, sense of humor is affected by nature and culture (Ruch 1998). Chiaro
(1992: 45) notes that humors stimuli are contingent on linguistic, geographical,
diachronic, sociocultural, and personal boundaries. In many cases, it is based on
qualities conventionally ascribed to a particular ethnic group (Davies 2005) or the
inhabitants of a specific locale.4

3. Chiaro (1992: 57) distinguishes between non-verbal and verbal humor, pointing out that it
is possible to stimulate laughter without words. However, it is the verbalization of humor that is
of interest to this study.
4. This is the case in the film under study here.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 167

General theory of verbal humor

Verbal humor has many different manifestations and can broadly be described as
the use of language with intent to amuse (Chiaro 1992: 5). Attardo and Raskins
(1991) General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH), an incongruity-based analytical tool, was intended to be applicable to any instance of verbal humor, from puns
and longer jokes (Attardo 1994) to humorous texts (Attardo 1998), without having to use a different model for each subcategory. According to Binsted and Ritchie (2001), it is the most widely quoted endeavor at defining such a general model,
but, precisely because it aims to offer a systematic analysis of how verbal humor is
generated, it has received criticism in that by trying to cover all types of humor, it
is too vague and lacks formal definitions for many of its core concepts (ibid.).
One of the fundamental concepts of GTVH is the notion of scripts,5 defined
as cognitive structures that humans have for organizing information and their
knowledge of the world (Attardo 1994: 198200). Scripts contain all the necessary information required for an utterance to be understood; they can be complex
and encompass other scripts,6 and are all connected to create a semantic network
(ibid.). Each instance of verbal humor can be broken down into six parameters
(Attardo 1994: 2223), known as Knowledge Resources (KRs). Although Attardo
(1994) claims all six are required, Paolillo (1998) asserts that in certain contexts,
some KRs are redundant. The KRs are arranged in a hierarchy of descending order
(Attardo 2002: 227):
Script Opposition (SO)

Logical Mechanism (LM)

Situation (SI)

Target (TA)

Narrative Strategy (NS)

Language (LA)

5. This is similar to Alexievas (1997) concept of domains and Daviss (1997) systems.
6. For example, the script NURSE would contain all the necessary information required to understand what the word means (what a nurse does, how one becomes a nurse, and so forth),
while a complex script such as HOSPITAL contains other scripts (e.g., NURSE, DOCTOR, PATIENT, OPERATION, etc.).

168 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

The resources that are lower in the hierarchy are more concrete and will be determined by the higher, more abstract elements (e.g., LMs will place restrictions on
LA choices). They are defined as follows:
Script Opposition: GTVH holds that to create humor, two scripts which are at
the same time overlapping (some aspects of the text fit both scripts equally, thus
creating ambiguity) and opposite (actual vs. non-actual, normal vs. abnormal, and
possible vs. impossible being the most basic oppositions) must be brought together; otherwise, the effect will be another, such as metaphor or allegory (ibid. 2035).
Logical Mechanism refers to the mechanism whereby the incongruity of the
SO is revealed. It concerns bringing together two scripts, either through simple
juxtaposition or more complex errors in reasoning (Attardo 1994). Attardo (2002)
lists 27 LMs, which he claims are all that have been identified to date, including cratylism (the assumption that two words or utterances that have the same or
similar sounds must have the same meaning; Attardo 2002: 180). Paolillo (1998)
demonstrated that these are applicable to visual humor, and that they can co-occur
in the same joke.
Situation is what Attardo (1994: 225) calls the props: the participants, objects,
activity, and so forth. Paolillo (1998) notes that this KR may be redundant, as it
often corresponds to one of the scripts.
Target is the individual or group that is the butt of the joke, usually based on
the stereotypes attached to them; Paolillo (1998) again notes that this KR may be
redundant.
Narrative Strategy concerns the jokes organization, such as the dialogue or
narrative. Paolillo (1998) extends this to visual representation and it could be further extended to the four AVT codes (verbal-acoustic, verbal-visual, non-verbal
acoustic, and non-verbal visual; see Delabastita 1989: 199).
Language concerns verbalization: the wording and the order in which information is revealed.

Wordplay
Most scholars use the terms wordplay and pun interchangeably. Others (e.g., Leppihalme 1997), class puns as a subcategory of wordplay. For the purposes of this
study, the former position will be adopted. Some definitions for the term wordplay, e.g. Weissbrods (1996: 219) contrived mistakes, and Alexievas (1997: 138)
confrontation or clash of two meanings, are rather vague. Davis (1997: 25) alludes
to this and describes wordplay as a reference to the systemic operation of language, which relies for the production of meaning upon an already understood
system of rules and lexical relations, as well as upon a (usually) disambiguating
context. Delabastita (1996: 128, italics in original) provides the most comprehen-

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 169

sive working definition, which will be adopted for the purposes of this study:
Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena in which structural
features of the language(s) 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) distinguishes three significant aspects of wordplay. Firstly,

the linguistic component, which juxtaposes linguistic structures that have similar
forms but different meanings. Ambiguity of meaning is therefore a central concept (Gottlieb 1997a). Secondly, he highlights the importance of context. Klitgrd
(2005) agrees that contextual and intertextual factors must be considered and argues that greater attention should be paid to clusters of wordplay rather than individual puns.7 Thirdly, Delabastita (1996: 132) emphasizes the importance of wordplays communicative significance, which is also linked to context. He stresses the
importance of distinguishing between intended wordplay and unintentional ambiguities, whilst acknowledging the difficulty of doing so.

Typologies of wordplay
Some scholars (e.g., Wurth 1895; Nash 1985; Heibert 1993; Henry 2003) have attempted to establish taxonomies of wordplay listing every possible instance, while
others (e.g., Heller 1974; Haussman 1974; Freidhof 1984) classify puns in terms
of features. Delabastita (1997: 45) called for the consideration of models in terms
of a cline, rather than either/or classifications, so as to allow for the existence of
variable degrees of intensity and typicality. Although taxonomies can become unwieldy and they lack explanatory power, allocating a pun to a particular class reveals something about its internal structure (Attardo 1994: 112).8
Delabastita (1996: 128) contends that puns contrast linguistic structures with
different meanings on the basis of their formal similarity. He distinguishes four
types: homonymy (same sound and spelling), homophony (same sound but different spelling), homography (different sounds but same spelling) and paronymy
(slight differences in both sound and spelling). He notes additionally that the audience may be exposed to puns horizontally (both meanings are present in the
same section of text) or vertically (repetition throughout the text triggers another
meaning in a specific context). Gottlieb (1997a: 210) adopts the above typology
7. For instance, Parkers (1996) study of intra- and intertextual networks of punning allusions
in Shakespeare reveals the ideological, political, and social context of the period in which they
took place.
8. For more a detailed review of the literature regarding the classification of puns, presented according to four major types of classifications: linguistic phenomenon; linguistic structure; phonemic distance; and eclectic, see Attardo (1994: 11228).

170 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

in relation to subtitling, but subdivides the first category, homonymy, into lexical
(single-word ambiguity), collocational (word-in-context ambiguity), and phrasal
(clause ambiguity).

Humor, wordplay, and AVT

There has been a surge of interest in the topic of humor with specific reference to audiovisual translation (e.g., Zabalbeascoa 1996; Vandaele 1999; Chiaro 2000a, 2000b,
2007; Antonopoulou 2002). It is recognized that the translation of humor, and especially wordplay, in multimodal texts poses difficulties pertaining to the polysemiotic nature of these texts and the constraints that apply (see above). Although
the translation of wordplay has been studied extensively (e.g., Redfern 1984; Nash
1985; Attridge 1988; Culler 1988; Delabastita 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997), research was
mainly restricted to literary texts and much of it concentrated solely on whether
or not it is possible. As Delabastita (1994: 229) points out, when people claim that
wordplay in untranslatable, they are saying that the solutions do not meet their requirements of translation equivalence. House (1973), for instance, holds that puns
are untranslatable because they are closely tied to the semantic and phonological peculiarities of a particular language system. Consequently, their effect cannot be kept in another language, especially in ones belonging to different families
(Jing 2010: 83). These claims are based on a very narrow view of equivalence, which
is often reduced to equivalence of form and disregards other types (e.g., pragmatic, semiotic, functional), and ignore the fact that translations of (punning) texts do
exist, so that the translatability of puns and text can be (and has to be) accepted as a
matter of fact (Delabastita 1993: 172). In the context of AVT, Gottlieb (1997a: 226,
italics in original) goes as far as to say that nearly all items of wordplay are translatable. He holds that the polysemiotic nature of audiovisual texts may actually aid
subtitling wordplay, as the non-verbal elements can offer solutions not available in
words only texts. Daz-Cintas and Remael (2007: 216) concur: information can be
conveyed orally as well as visually, which can help the translator of audiovisual texts.

Application of GTVH to the translation of wordplay in AV texts

GTVH can be viewed as an attempt to bridge the gap between general humor
studies and translation studies, providing criteria for measuring the pragmatic differences of meaning and force in the domain of texts whose perlocutionary 9 goal is
the perception of humor (Attardo 2002: 175, italics in original).
9. Hatim and Mason (1990: 60) define a perlocutionary effect as the effect of the utterance on
the hearer/reader; i.e., the extent to which the receivers state of mind/knowledge/attitude is altered by the utterance in question.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 171

Attardos (2002: 183, italics in original) mini-theory of joke translation advocates: if possible, respect all Knowledge Resources in your translation, but if
necessary, let your translation differ at the lowest level necessary for your pragmatic purposes. The translator would first change the LA, then NS, and so forth, until
translation is complete. However, GTVH stipulates that wordplay be handled differently from other types of humor as it is based on a signifiant, an exact wording
that causes ambiguity (2002: 177). This intrinsic link to the source language means
that cratylism necessarily preselects some features of LA, limiting the options to
any of those which fulfill its requirements (2002: 189). Attardo (2002: 190) further
claims that this applies to any polysemiotic media and Paolillo (1998) demonstrated the successful application of GTVH to visual humor in his study of comics.
Therefore, it can be argued that this theory is applicable to wordplay in AVT.
Attardo (2002: 175) acknowledges that GTVH remains a theory that measures the similarities and differences between texts, and does not claim to explain
how wordplay is produced or interpreted, or its cultural significance. It is, however, concerned with the pragmatic difference between texts and, therefore, it can
be a useful tool for measuring translated wordplay. As Delabastita (1997: 19) notes,
while a linguistic analysis will never explain everything, it is as good a place as any
to start, given the close links of wordplay to linguistic features.

Identifying wordplay for translation

Before considering how to translate wordplay, the instances of wordplay in the
source text (ST) will have to be identified (Leppihalme 1996). Firstly, linguistic
competence is necessary: the translator must be able to recognize broken (or
merely bent) linguistic rules (Chiaro 1992: 13). Secondly, wordplay operates on
the basis of shared knowledge between sender and receiver (Chiaro 1992; Alexieva
1997), and puns can be either text-internal or text-external. In the case of the latter, prior knowledge relating to culture, people, and events is required (Gottlieb
1997a: 20910).

Strategies for translating wordplay

Leppihalme (1996) and Gottlieb (1997a) highlight the importance of achieving
the same effect in the TT as in the ST by fulfilling the function of the original
wordplay. This approach can be seen as rather prescriptive and it hinges on the
notoriously elusive notion of effect, which is often assumed to be monolithic
and can hardly be empirically demonstrated. Chiaro (2004: 138), as Leppihalme
(1996) had suggested, emphasizes the benefits of examining audience perception
and reception studies in audiovisual humor, in order to provide feedback to trans-

172 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

lators and help discover how they can improve the process (see Antonini, Bucaria,
and Senzani 2003; Chiaro 2003, 2007; Fuentes Luque 2003).
Several scholars (e.g., von Flotow 1997, de Vries and Verheij 1997, Henry
2003) have described strategies for translating puns, but Delabastita (1996: 134)
provides the most comprehensive list:
ST pun to TT pun
ST pun to TT non pun
ST pun to TT related rhetorical device
ST pun to TT literally translated pun
ST pun to TT omission
ST non pun to TT compensatory pun
ST non pun to TT pun not present in ST
Addition of editorial techniques, such as footnotes, endnotes or translators
forewords
However, these strategies were designed for their use in monosemiotic texts and
in audiovisual texts wordplay can operate through a combination of modes. With
this in mind, Gottlieb (1997a: 210) proposes the following strategies for the subtitling of wordplay: render verbatim, with or without humorous effect; adapt to the
local setting, to maintain humorous effect; replace with non wordplay; do not render, using the space for neighboring dialogue; or insert in a different textual position, where the target language allows.
As shown, there is considerable overlap between different taxonomies of translation strategies, and these will depend on text type, genre, and medium. This study
will draw on a combination of the abovementioned strategies, as appropriate.

Data and methodology

The film
The mixed fortunes of Bienvenue chez les Chtis 10 (Boon 2008) on either side of
the British Channel would appear to back up the hypothesis that comedy does
not travel well. It experienced huge success in its native France, selling over 20
million cinema admissions across 793 cinemas to become the highest-grossing
French film of all time (Cox 2008). However, despite receiving good reviews, the
film enjoyed very little commercial success in Britain: it was released in only one
10. Welcome to the Sticks (international English title) / Welcome to the Land of the Shtis (European English title).

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 173

cinema in London and entered the UK box office charts at number 31, grossing
just 15,282 in its opening weekend (UK Film Council 2008).
Its main character, Post Office manager Philippe Abrams from Salon-deProvence, in the south of the country, feigns a disability in order to gain priority
for a transfer to the French Riviera. When found out, he is subjected to disciplinary action and transferred to Bergues, a town in Nord Pas-de-Calais, in northeastern France. The thought horrifies Philippe, as Nord Pas-de-Calais is regarded as a
gloomy, cold, industrial place with rather peculiar inhabitants. Its people and dialect are known as Chti due to their accent: the sound [s] is pronounced [], and
the personal pronoun toi [twa] becomes ti [ti]. The humor in the film addresses
the prejudices of French southerners towards northerners and draws on the culture, dialect, and customs of the region. Wordplay is one of the main resources employed and it revolves around humorous incidents stemming from the use of the
local dialect, as well as stereotypes (scripts) attached to people from Nord Pas-deCalais and from the south of France.

Research methodology
The ST and TT were transcribed from the DVD, as a copy of the official film script
and subtitles were unavailable. Instances of wordplay were identified through close
reading of the script and cross-referenced against the soundtrack. They were then
classified according to the typology of wordplay proposed by Delabastita (1996)
(see Typologies of wordplay section). The interaction of wordplay within the other
semiotic modes present in the film was then examined to identify the impact of
the polysemiotic (see Gottlieb 2005) nature of the audiovisual text on wordplay.
The same process was repeated through a close reading of the TT to identify all
instances of wordplay in the English subtitles. For each instance of wordplay in
the ST, the corresponding utterance in the English subtitles was studied to identify how the wordplay had been rendered. The same was done for any instances
of wordplay that occurred in the TT and were not a match for wordplay in the ST.
In line with Attardos assertion (1998: 256) that intuition as to how amusing
wordplay appears to the audience should be rejected as a criterion for data selection and analysis, all plays on words that could be categorized according to Delabastitas taxonomy (1996) were included. Although there were many instances
where the misunderstanding of dialectal words was used to create humor, they
were only counted where the ambiguity stemmed from wordplay (i.e. not from a
lack of comprehension).11
11. The study of the translation of dialects is beyond the scope of this study; for literature concerning this area of translation studies see, for example: Hatim and Mason 1997; Bonaffini 1997;
Leppihalme 2000; and, with special reference to AVT, Jckel 2001.

174 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

For each instance of wordplay, the chapter of the DVD and the time it occurred, the full ST utterance, the type of ST wordplay, the TT subtitles, the type of
TT wordplay, the semiotic interaction, and the translation strategy were recorded.
All identified instances in both the ST and TT were then analyzed according to the
GTVH and the six KRs. If in the TT there were no two opposing and overlapping
scripts, this was counted as a loss of wordplay and a case of omission; if, on the
other hand, the opposite was the case and there were instances of wordplay in the
TT that were not in the ST, this was counted as a case of compensation.12
As discussed previously, some of the KRs (such as TA and SI, which cannot
easily be changed in AVT) can be redundant and these were left out if irrelevant.
Additionally, it was noted that LMs can co-occur: in wordplay, cratylism must be
present, but it can be combined with other mechanisms. LA is a particularly important feature of this study, but the NS is also of interest, as it pertains to the polysemiotic nature of the medium. LA in the subtitles will be presented as it appears
on screen, to show the number of characters per line and the number of lines.
Agloss in English accompanies ST examples.
Firstly, a quantitative analysis was conducted to afford an overview of the
types of wordplay in the ST and the TT. This was followed by a qualitative examination of each of the strategies adopted by the translator for the instances of wordplay and illustrated with examples from the data, before a final discussion of the
interaction of GTVH, wordplay, and audiovisual translation.

Results and discussion

Quantitative results
In total, 67 instances of wordplay were counted in the ST and 51 in the TT. They
can be broken down as in Figures 1 and 2.13 There was a 24% reduction in instances of wordplay in the TT, which equates to the number of instances of wordplay not being rendered in the TT. The breakdown shows that in the ST the most
common type of wordplay was homonymy, followed by homophony and paronymy, while homography was used in neither ST nor TT. This could be due to the
nature of the verbal humor in the data (the wordplay was delivered orally in the
ST and homography may not have been effective or recognizable). In the TT the
12. It is admittedly difficult to pinpoint the exact instance of wordplay which is compensated;
see Harvey (1995) for generalized compensation.
13. Instances of repetition have been included because the same strategy was not always used to
translate a repeated utterance of wordplay, as often different strategies were employed depending on the SI and other factors (e.g., time and space constraints).

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 175

Figure1. Instances of wordplay in the ST

trend was markedly different, in that paronymy was the most utilized, followed by
homonymy and homophony, while, again, homography was not used. There were
four instances of wordplay creation in the TT where it did not exist in the ST.
The analysis shows that the subtitler made three broad choices: keep the wordplay in the TT, omit the wordplay in the TT, or insert an instance of wordplay in
the TT where there was none in the ST. It was found that, in order to achieve this,
a variety of methods were used, the combination of which resulted in the following strategies (Figure3).
The subtitler used equivalent translation most often (33 times), followed by
literal translation (23 times), paraphrase (11 times), and omission (four times).
Equivalent translation with retention was the most frequently used strategy, which

Figure2. Instances of wordplay in the TT

176 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

Figure3. Summary of translation strategies adopted in the data

may help explain the difference in types of wordplay between the ST and the TT.
Literal translation with retention and literal translation with omission were also
often used, while the other strategies were used more sparingly, but with similar frequency. This distribution will be explored in more detail in the following
section.

Qualitative results
Each of the translation strategies identified in the study will be discussed in turn,
using examples that have been analyzed using GTVH to further understand the
subtitlers choices in rendering wordplay in the subtitles.

Literal translation with retention

(1) Philippe is having lunch in the town square with his colleagues Annabelle, Yann, and Fabrice on the first day at his new job.
ST: SO soft drink vs. noun

LM cratylism (paronymy) and faulty reasoning
NS dialogue
LA
Cest comme les amricains, avec eul Coco.

[Its like Americans, with Coco.]
TT: SO soft drink vs. noun

LM cratylism (paronymy) and faulty reasoning
NS dialogue
LA
Like Americans and Coco.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 177

Yann is talking about Coca Cola (shortened to Coca in France); however, his pronunciation makes it seem as if he is talking either about a person or a coconut. The
subtitler retained this by using a transcription of the Chti accent to create paronymy, thus changing the KR at the lowest possible level (LA) and retaining the
wordplay.

(2) Philippe and his colleague Antoine are on the beach.

ST: SO cry vs. bray

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA 
Cha va bien. Mi la mer, cha va toujours. On va pas braire, hein?
[Im fine. Me at the sea, Im always fine. You cant complain, huh?]
TT: SO cry vs. bray

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue

LA Always good by the shore.

Icant bray.

The wordplay centers on the double meaning of braire: it is the Chti verb for to cry
but in French means to bray. This wordplay has been kept in the TT by using a literal translation of the ST, and thus changing the KR at the lowest level (LA).

Literal translation with omission

(3) An inspector from the Post Office Head Office has arrived to meet
Philippe to verify whether or not he has a disability, as Philippe has
lodged two transfer applications within six months, one as disabled and
one as able-bodied.
ST: SO ablebodied vs. valid

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA 
Lune toute rcente, personne mobilit rduite, pour le poste de
Sanary. Et celle-ci, pour Cassis, qui a six mois, comme valide.
[One very recently, limited-mobility person, for the Sanary
post. And this one, for Cassis, six months ago, as able-bodied.]

178 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

TT: SO (none)
LM (none)
NS dialogue

LA One, recently,

for a limited-mobility person

for the Sanary spot.

The other, for Cassis,

6 months ago. No handicap.
In this scene the wordplay in the ST centers on the word valide which is used here
to mean able-bodied, but also means valid and therefore is a subtle play on the validity of the applications they are discussing. This is an occurrence of horizontal
wordplay, as both meanings are revealed in the ST. The subtitler has not recreated
this in the TT and the wordplay is lost, as there are no longer two opposing and
overlapping scripts.

(4) Philippe has gone to speak to Antoine, who is playing the carillon in the
belfry, after an incident at work.
ST:

SO degree vs. reprimand

LM cratylism (homophony)
NS dialogue
LA 
Cest pour eume donner un diplme eude musique ou bien un
blme que vous tes mont ichi ?
[Have you come up here to give me a music degree or a reprimand?]

TT: SO (none)
LM (none)
NS dialogue

LA Are you here to give me

a music degree or a reprimand?
The quasi-homophones diplme [degree] and blme [reprimand] create wordplay
in the ST. The use of literal translation means that it is absent from the TT (the
terms used are not homophones), yet semiotic coherence between the visual verbal and the visual non-verbal codes has been maintained. This shows how the interplay of semiotic modes can restrict the choice of strategy. However, it is worth
noting that the simultaneous presence of different semiotic codes can compensate
for losses that would have to be negotiated differently in monomodal texts.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 179

Equivalent translation with retention

(5) Philippe finds out that his punishment for having lied on his application
form is a transfer to the north of France.
ST: SO city vs. island

LM cratylism (homophony)
NS dialogue
LA
Le Nord Pas-de-Calais. Voil, tesmut ct de Lille.
[Nord Pas-de-Calais. There you are, youve been transferred
next to Lille.]

L le? Lle de quoi?

[The island? What island?]
TT: SO city vs. size

LM cratylism (paronymy)
NS dialogue

LA The North region. Near Lille.

Little what?

The ST plays on the homophones Lille [French city] and lle [the island]. Aliteral
translation would not have been possible, as the translation of lle does not sound
like Lille and the translation plays on paronymy. The KR has been changed at the
highest level, SO, as well as LA and the type of cratylism in the LM, but this allows
the subtitler to retain the wordplay in the TT.

(6) Philippe has just been introduced to all his members of staff, and things
do not get off to a good start.
ST: SO geographical direction vs. trade union

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA
Je vais lui rappeler que SUD, chest auchi un chyndicat.

[Iam going to remind him that SUD, its also a trade union.]
TT: SO geographical direction vs. state of decline

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA
His posht offish will go south.

The reference to the French trade union SUD is replaced with an instance of phrasal homonymy which retains the wordplay in a way recognizable to an Englishspeaking audience, i.e., still playing on south, but turning it into a phrase which
conveys the speakers negative feelings. The subtitler has again retained the wordplay by changing two of the KRs: LA and SO.

180 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

(7) The evening Philippe arrives in Bergues, Antoine takes him to his new
flat, only to discover that it is unfurnished. An exchange ensues during
which Philippe misunderstands what Antoine says due to his accent, as
Chti words become homophones of standard French words.
ST: SO pronoun vs. dogs

LM cratylism (homophony) and false reasoning
NS dialogue
LA
Pacque chest pttre les chiens ?

[Because its maybe his?]

Quels chiens ?

[What dogs?]
TT: SO office vs. fish

LM cratylism (paronymy) and false reasoning
NS dialogue

LA For hish new offish?

What fish?

Wordplay derives from the fact that Chtis pronounce les siens [his] as les chiens
[the dogs], making Philippe wonder why dogs would need furniture. In the TT,
the subtitler has chosen to keep the wordplay using an equivalent retention strategy, creating paronymous wordplay.

(8) The exchange continues:

ST: SO pronoun vs.cat

LM cratylism (homophony)
NS dialogue
LA
Jai jamais dit cha.

[Inever said that.]

Pourquoi les chats ? Vous mavez dit les chiens.

[Why cats? You said dogs to me.]
TT: SO crockery vs. fish

LM cratylism (paronymy) and false reasoning
NS dialogue

LA Inever said dish.

Why dish? You said fish.

Again, the ambiguity centres on homophony and Antoines Chti pronunciation, as

cha (a) [that] is taken to mean chat [cat]. It also plays on the opposing scripts of
cat and dog, thus operating the wordplay on another level. The subtitler has again

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 181

chosen a strategy of equivalent retention, creating a similar wordplay in English

by changing LA, LM, and SO. On this occasion, as suggested by Delabastita (1996:
135), faithfulness to the ST is contingent on unfaithfulness to its vocabulary.

(9) Philippes colleagues are teaching him how to speak Chti.

ST: SO interjection vs. number

LM cratylism (homophony)
NS dialogue
LA
On dit Hein ?

[We say hein?]
Hein?
[Hein?]

Ah non, cha chest le un dun, deux, trois.

[Ah no, thats the one of one, two, three.]
TT: SO interjection vs. laughter

LM cratylism (homophony)
NS dialogue

LA We say, Huh?

That shounds like ha, ha.

The wordplay is based on homophony (hein [interjection] vs. un [one]). The subtitler has also used homophony in the target language, changing the LA and one of
the SOs, while retaining the LM.

Equivalent translation with compensation

(10) Philippe is accompanying Antoine on his post round, and an elderly couple invites them in for a drink. The old woman sings a traditional Chti
song called Le ptit quinquin [The Little Child].
ST: SO (none)
LM (none)

NS song lyrics
LA
Tu me f ra du chagrin

[You will cause me grief]
TT: SO cry vs. bray

LM cratylism (homonymy)

NS song lyrics
LA
Youll make me bray

182 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

This is an example of vertical wordplay, as it refers to the word braire used previously for cry, itself an example of homonymic wordplay. The subtitler has used
bray in the TT, playing on to cry and to make a noise like a donkeys, thereby presenting two opposing and overlapping scripts where there was only one in the ST.

Paraphrase with retention

(11) Philippe has just told his wife and young son that he has been transferred
to Bergues, in Nord Pas-de-Calais instead of to the French Riviera.
ST: SO arctic vs. northern france

LM cratylism (homonymy) and faulty reasoning
NS dialogue
LA
Je ne veux pas allez dans le ple Nord.

[Idont want to go to the North Pole.]

On ne va pas dans le ple Nord, on va dans le Nord.

[Were not going to the North Pole, were going to the north.]
TT: SO arctic vs. northern france

LM cratylism (homonymy) and faulty reasoning
NS dialogue

LA Not the North Pole.

Not the North Pole. The north!
The wordplay centres on the mistake that Philippes son makes. The subtitler paraphrased the full utterance, thus saving space, but retained the wordplay. LA (lowest in the KR hierarchy) has changed, but all other KRs are maintained.
(12) Antoine is asked by Philippe to deliver an urgent package to a neighboring Post Office. Philippe instructs Antoine to call him as soon as this has
been done to confirm that the package has arrived safely.
ST: SO question vs. regional expression

LM cratylism (homonymy) and false reasoning
NS dialogue
LA
Donc vous mappelez et vous me dites quoi.

[So you call me and you tell me what.]
TT: SO question vs. expression

LM cratylism (homophony) and faulty reasoning
NS dialogue

LA Call me and say what.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 183

The wordplay in the ST here is based on the misunderstanding of the phrase vous
me dites quoi, which literally means youll tell me what. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais
the regional saying je vous dis quoi means Ill let you know whats happening,
which is misunderstood by Philippe. The misunderstanding is retained through
literal translation, as the phrase can either be a question or statement and the
wordplay creates horizontal wordplay. The subtitler has kept the wordplay and
changed the KRs at the lowest possible level (LA).
(13) Annabelle invites her new boss to join her and her colleagues for lunch at
the baraque frites [fry shack].
ST: SO restaurant vs. burger van

LM cratylism (homonymy) and false reasoning
NS Dialogue
LA
La Baraque frites. Quel joli nom.

[The Fry Shack. What a pretty name.]
TT: SO restaurant vs. burger van

LM cratylism (homonymy) and false reasoning

NS Dialogue + caption
LA The French Fry Shack.
The wordplay centres on Philippes misunderstanding that the Baraque frites is a
restaurant and not the burger van that it actually is. The italics and capitalization
in the TT signify the name of an eatery, thus making it unnecessary to render the
rest of the ST utterance. The subtitler has therefore changed the KR at the lowest
possible level, LA, whilst retaining the wordplay.

Paraphrase with omission

(14) Philippe is telling his wife that he has just missed out on a transfer to the
French Riviera as it was given to a disabled employee due to a positive
discrimination policy.
ST: SO 
to pass (figuratively) vs. overtake (literally)
stringpuller vs. engine cylinder

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA 
Mais ce nest pas de sa faute. Cest un handicap qui mest pass
devant. Cest prioritaire les handicaps. Priorit sur les pistonns.
[But it isnt his fault. Its a disabled person who overtook me.
The disabled get priority. Priority over string pullers.]

184 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

TT: SO (none)
LM (none)
NS dialogue

LA Not his fault. The handicapped

come before string-pullers.
The wordplay on the literal and figurative meanings of passer devant (which could
have been kept through literal translation by using overtake) is lost. The second instance of wordplay is dealt with by using the same strategy: the driving metaphor
is continued with pistonn, playing on its two meanings of a string puller (someone with contacts) and an engine cylinder, which is absent from the subtitles.

Paraphrase with compensation

(15) Philippe has just been woken by Antoine on his first morning in Bergues.
ST: SO (none)
LM (none)
NS dialogue
LA
Ben, oui. Chest une maison, pas une peniche, hein ?

[Yes. Its a house, not a barge, eh?]
TT: SO home vs. barge

LM cratylism (paronymy) and juxtaposition
NS dialogue

LA Yesh. Itsh a housh,

not a houshboat.
The subtitler has paraphrased the ST utterance to create a paronymous wordplay
that does not exist in the ST. Asynonym of barge is houseboat, which, when juxtaposed to the word house creates an instance of wordplay in the TT.

Omission by reduction
(16) Philippe is having lunch in the town square with his new colleagues on
his first day of work when Antoine turns up drunk.
ST: SO home vs. shack

LM cratylism (homonymy)
NS dialogue
LA 
Vous savez cqu il a fait chette nuit ? Je l invite dormir
mbaraque,
[You know what he did last night? Iinvited him to sleep at my
house,]

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 185

TT: SO (none)
LM (none)
NS dialogue

LA Last night he shlept over,
The homonymy centres on the word baraque, which means shack in French, but is
the Chti word for house. This decision was not determined by spatial constraints,
as two lines would have been in compliance with subtitling conventions and only
one was used, but may be attributable to temporal constraints.

Applicability of GTVH to AVT

Attardo (1998) maintains that the researcher must be objective when analyzing
instances of verbal humor and avoid the use of intuition, yet in practice this appears difficult, as humor is, by its very nature, subjective. In this study, instances
of wordplay were judged on whether they fulfilled the LM of cratylism; however,
as the list of SOs is non-exhaustive, intuition was required in the first instance to
recognize that there are two opposing and overlapping scripts in an utterance, and
then to determine the SOs in question according to the subtitlers understanding
and experience of the source and target languages and cultures.
Attardos (1998) claim that GTVH could be applied to any medium and Paolillos (1998) assertion that it can be successfully applied to visual media is supported from evidence derived from the analysis. GTVH can be a useful tool, as it
offers a way of analyzing the pun in detail, helping to understand the elements of
the ST utterance more fully in order to make informed decisions on the appropriate translation strategy. The model did, however, require some adaptation: the SI
and TA KRs were dispensed with, as they were redundant in instances of wordplay
and also because in AVT they cannot be altered by the subtitler. It is noteworthy
that the results of this analysis show that the LM will always restrict the LA KR, as
in wordplay it is always based on cratylism. From this it can be inferred that modifying the LA becomes more difficult if the subtitler wishes to keep the SO.

Conclusion
This study endeavored to examine the rendering of wordplay in interlingual subtitling. To do this, the script of the French film Bienvenue chez les Chtis was studied and instances of wordplay in the ST and TT were classified according to Delabastitas (1996) typology of wordplay and analyzed according to Attardo and
Raskins (1991) GTVH in order to contrast the differences between the ST and TT

186 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

instances of wordplay. The GTVH appeared to be useful in that it could show how
the puns evolved in translation and give a better understanding of wordplay to aid
the choice of translation strategy.
Anumber of observations emerged. Whenever possible, the KR was changed
at the lowest possible level (LA); however, when this was not possible the SO was
altered in order to retain the pun. With regard to translation strategies, three were
most often used: equivalent translation retaining the wordplay, literal translation
retaining the wordplay and literal translation omitting the wordplay. Paraphrase
emerged as a less often used tool, which is nonetheless useful due to the spatial
and temporal constraints that apply to subtitling. There was a 24% reduction in
the instances of wordplay in the TT, which could potentially be attributed to the
need for condensation that characterizes all subtitling. And yet the vast majority
of instances of wordplay were retained, which implies that the quantitative loss in
terms of triggers of humor in the TT was not significant in terms of the overall comedic function of the film.
Another finding was that the GTVH model has some limitations in its application to the translation of wordplay. Firstly, a reduced model of GTVH had to
be used: the TA and SI KRs were found to be always redundant and the LM was
always cratylism (albeit sometimes combined with other mechanisms), which restricted the changes that could be made in terms of LA. More importantly, GTVH
does not take into account non-verbal factors that play an important role in wordplay. With regard to subtitling in particular, the model does not provide any tools
to account for the impact of the polysemiotic nature of films on wordplay.
Instances of wordplay are unavoidably linked to the interplay of the semiotic
modes present in audiovisual texts, although the results of this study do not show
it to be as dominant as it may have intuited. Instances of homophony can prove
problematic, as homophonic pairs in the source language are rarely matched by
suitable, text-coherent homophonic pairs in the target language (e.g., example 4).
Nonetheless, as the examples show, the simultaneous presence of verbal and nonverbal codes can facilitate wordplay in translation (e.g., examples 7 and 8). The
film also provides instances of how the shift from the spoken to the written mode
can have an impact on the translation of wordplay, since the latter can clarify the
ambiguity that creates humor (e.g., example 13).
The results of this study cannot provide a comprehensive view of the trends of
utilization of translation strategies for wordplay in interlingual subtitling, and that
was not its aim. However, it has shown that an articulation of well-established theoretical and methodological tools can be successful in describing the processes at
play through quantitative and qualitative methods. Moreover, it has identified that
the GTVH could be developed to create a tool for the analysis of wordplay in interlingual subtitling and to highlight suitable strategies. This would require taking

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 187

into account extralinguistic factors such as the polysemiotic nature of the medium
and would involve the compilation and analysis of a large corpus of wordplay in
AVT across different genres. Different language pairs would have to be considered,
so as to tailor the analytical tool to the specificity derived from the language combination and the directionality of the translation process. Additionally, further research in the area of perception and reception studies is required to test the widely
accepted hypothesis that humor does not travel.
This study has shown that the translation of wordplay is possible even within
the polysemiotic structures of audiovisual texts, as long as a narrow view of equivalence is avoided, and it is hoped that it will lead to further discussion and research
into a complex area which deserves more attention and has practical implications
for the professional practice of subtitling.

References
Primary references

Bienvenue chez les Chtis. 2008. DVD. Directed by Dany Boon. France: Path Renn Productions.

Secondary references

Alexieva, Bistra. 1997. There must be some system in this madness. Metaphor, polysemy and
wordplay in a cognitive linguistics framework. In Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation, ed. by Dirk Delabastita, 13754. Manchester and Namur: St Jerome.
Antonini, Rachele, Chiara Bucaria, and Alessandra Senzani. 2003. Its a priest thing, you
wouldnt understand. Father Ted goes to Italy. Antares Umorul O Nou Stiinta VI: 2630.
Antonopoulou, Eleni. 2002. Acognitive approach to literary humor devices. Translating Raymond Chandler. The Translator 8(2): 195220.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
445 pp.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1998. The analysis of humorous narratives. HUMOR 11(3): 23160.
Attardo, Salvatore. 2002. Translation and humor: An approach based on the General Theory of
Verbal Humor (GTVH). The Translator 8(2): 17394.
Attardo, Salvatore, and Victor Raskin. 1991. Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke
representation model. HUMOR 4(34): 293348.
Attridge, Derek. 1988. Unpacking the portmanteau, or whos afraid of Finnegans Wake? In On
Puns: The Foundation of Letters, ed. by Jonathan Culler, 14055. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Beninc, Sandra. 1999. Il doppiaggio: uno studio quali-quantitative. Quaderni del Doppiaggi,
II: 53148.
Bergson, Henri. 1980. Laughter. Translated from French by Wylie Sypher. In Comedy, ed. by
Wylie Sypher, 59190. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Binsted, Kim, and Graeme Richie. 2001. Towards a model of story puns. HUMOR 14(3): 27592.
Bonaffini, Luigi. 1997. Translating dialect literature. World Literature Today 71(2): 27988.
Chaume, Frederic. 2004. Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two disciplines at stake in Audiovisual Translation. META: Translators Journal 49(1): 1224.

188 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

Chiaro, Delia. 1992. The Language of Jokes. Analyzing Verbal Play. London: Routledge. 144 pp.
Chiaro, Delia. 2000a. The British will use tag questions, wont they? The case of Four Weddings and a Funeral. In Tradurre il Cinema, ed. by Christopher Taylor, 2739. Trieste: Universit degli Studi di Trieste.
Chiaro, Delia. 2000b. Servizio complete. On the (un)translatability of puns on screen. In
La Traduzione Multimediale. Quale traduzione per quale testo?, ed. by Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli, Christine Heiss, Marcello Soffritti, and Silvia Bernardini, 2742. Bologna:
CLUEB.
Chiaro, Delia. 2003. The Implications of the Quality of Verbally Expressed Humor and the success of screen comedy. Antares Umorul O Nou Stiinta VI: 1420.
Chiaro, Delia. 2004. Investigating the perception of translated Verbally Expressed Humor on
Italian TV. ESP Across Cultures 1: 3552.
Chiaro, Delia. 2007. The effects of translation on humor response. The case of dubbed comedy in Italy. In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, ed. by Yves Gambier, Miriam
Schlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 13752. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cox, David. 2008. If these are the sticks, Ill take a forest. The Guardian, 21 July 2008, last
updated 19.42 BST. Accessed 29April 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jul/21/
french.cinema.
Culler, Jonathan (ed.). 1988. On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 224 pp.
Davies, Christie. 2005. European ethnic scripts and the translation and switching of jokes. HUMOR, 18(2): 14760.
Davis, Kathleen. 1997. Signature in translation. In Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation, ed. by Dirk Delabastita, 2344. Manchester and Namur: St Jerome.
de Vries, Anneke, and Arian J. C. Verheij. 1997. Aportion of slippery stones: Wordplay in four
twentieth-century translations of the Hebrew bible. In Traductio. Essays on Punning and
Translation, ed. by Dirk Delabastita, 6794. Manchester and Namur: St Jerome.
dYdewalle, Gry. et al. 1987. Reading a message when the same message is available auditorily
in another language: the case of subtitling. In Eye Movements: From Physiology to Cognition, ed. by J. Kevin ORegan, and Ariane Lvy-Schoen, 31321. Amsterdam and New York:
Elsevier Science Publishers.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1989. Translation and mass-communication: film and TV translation as evidence of cultural dynamics. Babel 35(4): 193218.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1993. Theres a Double Tongue: An Investigation into the Translation of Shakespeares Wordplay. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. 540 pp.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1994. Focus on the pun. Wordplay as a special problem in translation studies. Target 6(2): 22343.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1996. Introduction. The Translator 2(2): 12739.
Delabastita, Dirk (ed.). 1997. Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Manchester and Namur: St Jerome. 304 pp.
Daz-Cintas, Jorge. 2003. Teora y prctica de la subtitulacin: ingls-espaol. Barcelona: Ariel.
416 pp.
Daz-Cintas, Jorge and Aline Remael. 2007. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester and
New York: St Jerome. 200 pp.
Freidhof, Gerd. 1984. Zur Typologisierung von Wortspielen mit Hilfe von oppositiven Merkmalen. In Slavistische Linguistik 1983, ed. by Peter Rehder, 937. Mnchen: Otto Sagner.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 189

Freud, Sigmund. 1905(1960). Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Translated and edited
from German by James Strachey. New York and London: W. W. Norton.
Freud, Sigmund. 1928. Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 9: 16.
Fuentes Luque, Adrin. 2003. An empirical approach to the reception of AV translated humor.
The Translator 9(2): 293306.
Gottlieb, Henrik. 1997a. You got the picture? On the polysemiotics of subtitling wordplay. In
Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation, ed. by Dirk Delabastita, 20732. Manchester
and Namur: St Jerome.
Gottlieb, Henrik. 1997b. Subtitles, Translation and Idioms. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. 354 pp.
Gottlieb, Henrik. 2005. Multidimensional translation: Semantics turned semiotics. In EUHigh-Level Scientific Conference Series, Multidimensional Translation MuTra 2005 - Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings, ed. by Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, and Sandra Nauert. Saarbrcken 26 May 2005. Saarbrcken: MuTra.
Accessed 29April 2012. http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/
2005_Gottlieb_Henrik.pdf.
Harvey, Keith. 1995. Adescriptive framework for compensation. The Translator 1(1): 6586.
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. 258 pp.
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge. 244 pp.
Haussmann, Franz J. 1974. Studien zu einer Linguistik des Wortspiels. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
166 pp.
Heibert, Frank. 1993. Das Wortspiel als Stilmittel und seine bersetzung: am Beispiel von sieben
bersetzungen des Ulysses von James Joyce. Tbingen: Narr. 319 pp.
Heller, Louis G. 1974. Towards a general typology of the pun. Language and Style 7: 27182.
Henry, Jacqueline. 2003. La traduction des jeux de mots. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle. 297
pp.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1840. Human Nature. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury,
Volume IV, ed. by William Molesworth, 176. London: Bohn.
House, Juliane. 1973. Of the limits of translatability. Babel 19(4): 1667.
Ivarsson, Jan, and Mary Carroll. 1998. Subtitling. Simrishamn: TransEdit. 185 pp.
Jckel, Anne. 2001. The subtitling of La Haine: Acase study. In (Multi)Media Translation: Concepts, Practices, and Research, ed. by Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb, 22336. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jing, He. 2010. The translation of English and Chinese puns from the perspective of Relevance
Theory. Journal of Specialised Translation, 13 (January): 8199. Accessed 29 April 2012.
http://www.jostrans.org/issue13/art_jing.pdf.
Kant, Immanuel. 1951. Critique of Judgment. Translated from German by James H. Bernard.
New York: Hafner. 222 pp.
Karamitroglou, Fotios. 1998. A proposed set of subtitling standards in Europe. Translation
Journal, 2(2): 114. Accessed 29April 2012. http://translationjournal.net/journal/04stndrd.
htm.
Klitgrd, Ida. 2005. Taking the pun by the horns. The translation of wordplay in James Joyces
Ulysses. Target 17(1): 7192.
Latta, Robert L. 1998. The Basic Humor Process: ACognitive-Shift Theory and the Case against
Incongruity. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 257 pp.
Leppihalme, Ritva. 1996. Atarget-culture viewpoint on allusive wordplay. The Translator 2(2):
199218.

190 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 241 pp.
Leppihalme, Ritva. 2000. The translation of regionalisms in literary dialogue. The Translator
6(2): 24769.
Luyken, Georg-Michael, and Thomas Herbst. 1991. Overcoming Language Barriers in Television:
Dubbing and Subtitling for the European Audience. Manchester: European Institute for the
Media. 214 pp.
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto, Dorothy Kelly, and Natividad Gallardo. 1988. Concept of constrained translation. Non-linguistic perspectives of translation. Meta 33(3): 35667.
Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge. 236 pp.
Nash, Walter. 1985. The Language of Humor. New York: Longman. 181 pp.
Nedergaard-Larsen, Birgit. 1993. Culture-bound problems in subtitling. Perspectives: Studies
in Translatology 1(2): 20741.
Paolillo, John C. 1998. Gary Larsons Far Side: Nonsense? Nonsense! HUMOR 11(3): 26190.
Parker, Patricia. 1996. Shakespeare from the Margins. Language, Culture, Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 392 pp.
Perego, Elisa. 2003. Evidence of explication in subtitling: Towards a categorization. Across Languages and Cultures 4(1): 6388.
Pettit, Zo. 2004. The audio-visual text: Subtitling and dubbing different genres. Meta 49(1):
2538.
Pisek, Gerhard. 1997. Wordplay and the dubber/subtitler. AAA Arbeiten aus Anglistik und
Amerikanistik 22(1): 3751.
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 308 pp.
Redfern, Walter. 1984. Puns. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell. 289 pp.
Ruch, Willibald. 1993. Exhilaration and humor. In The Handbook of Emotion, ed. by Michael
Lewis, and Jeannette M. Havilland, 60516. New York: Guilford Publications.
Ruch, Willibald. 1998. Foreword and overview. Sense of Humor: Anew look at an old concept.
In The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic, ed. by Willibald Ruch,
314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1818(2010).The World as Will and Representation. Edited and translated from German by Judith Norman, Alistair Welchman, and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 696 pp.
Schrter, Thorsten. 2005. Shun the Pun, Rescue the Rhyme? The Dubbing and Subtitling of Language-Play in Film. Karlstad: Karlstad University Studies. 398 pp.
Smith, Stephen. 1998. The language of subtitling. In Translating for the Media, ed. by Yves
Gambier, 13949. Turku: University of Turku Centre for Translation and Interpretation.
Spencer, Herbert. 1860. The physiology of laughter.Macmillans Magazine 1: 395402.
Titford, Christopher. 1982. Sub-titling: constrained translation. Lebende Sprachen 27(2): 113
16.
Trnqvist, Egil. 1995. Fixed pictures, changing words. Subtitling and dubbing the film Babettes
Gstebud. TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistick 16(1): 4764.
UK Film Council. 2008. UK Box Office 46April 2008. Accessed 29April 2012. http://www.
ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/article/13750/UK-Box-Office-4---6-April-2008.
Vandaele, Jeroen. 1999. Each time we laugh. Translated humor in screen translation. In Translation and the (Re)Location of Meaning, ed. by Jeroen Vandaele, 23772. Leuven: CETRA.

The translation of wordplay in interlingual subtitling 191

von Flotow, Luise. 1997. Mutual pun-ishment? Translating radical feminist wordplay. In Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation, ed. by Dirk Delabastita, 4567. Manchester and
Namur: St Jerome.
Weissbrod, Rachel. 1996. Curioser and curioser. Hebrew translation of wordplay in Alices Adventures in Wonderland. The Translator 2(2): 21934.
Wurth, Leopold. 1895. Das Wortspiel bei Shakspere (Wiener Beitrge zur Englischen Philologie 1).
Wien & Liepzig: Wilhelm Braumller. 255 pp.
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick. 1996. Translated jokes for dubbed television situation comedies. The
Translator 2(2): 23557.

Abstract
It is frequently said that humor does not travel well, and wordplay, which is inseparably connected to humor, poses particular problems for the translator as it is intrinsically linked to the source
language and culture, and consequently is often described as untranslatable. The translators
task is further complicated when instances of wordplay are encountered in audiovisual texts
due to the constrained and semiotic nature of the medium. The aim of this paper is to examine
the translation strategies applied to wordplay in the English subtitles of the French film Bienvenue chez les Chtis [Boon 2008]. To do this, instances of wordplay in the source text and the target text were classified according to the typology of wordplay as proposed by Delabastita (1996),
and subsequently analyzed using the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) (Attardo and
Raskin 1991) in order to contrast the differences between source text and target text instances
of wordplay. The findings show the trends in the application of translation strategies and demonstrate that GTVH, albeit with some modifications, is a useful analytical tool in the context of
audiovisual translation in that it could show how the puns evolved in translation and therefore
give a better understanding of wordplay to aid the choice of translation strategy. As long as a
narrow view of equivalence is avoided, this study demonstrates that the translation of wordplay
is possible even within the polysemiotic structures of audiovisual texts.
Keywords: wordplay, subtitling, humor, translation strategies, General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)

Rsum
Il est notoire que les jeux de mots ne souffrent pas la traduction. En effet, ils posent des problmes particuliers aux traducteurs, cause de la relation intrinsque entre une langue et sa
culture. Dans le cas des textes audiovisuels, les contraintes et la nature smiotique du support
rendent la tche encore plus ardue. La prsente tude met en vidence les stratgies employes
pour la traduction des jeux de mots dans le sous-titrage anglais du film franais Bienvenue chez
les Chtis (Boon 2008). cette fin, leurs occurrences dans les textes source et cible ont t classes selon la typologie de Delabastita (1996), puis analyses grce la thorie gnrale de lhumour verbal (GTVH) (Attardo et Raskin 1991), afin didentifier les transformations survenues.
Les rsultats prouvent que bien quelle exige certaines adaptations, la GTVH est un outil analytique utile dans le contexte de la traduction audiovisuelle car elle met en vidence les altrations

192 Lee Williamson and Raquel dePedroRicoy

que subissent les jeux de mots et, par consquent, contribue une meilleure comprhension de
leur ressort comique, ce qui permet doptimiser les stratgies employes. Pourvu que le traducteur se garde des piges de lquivalence, cette tude dmontre quil est possible de traduire les
jeux de mots dans le cadre polysmiotique des textes audiovisuels.
Mots cls: jeux des mots, sous-titrage, humour, stratgies de traduction, Thorie gnrale de
lhumour verbal (GTVH)

About the authors

Lee Williamson graduated from Heriot-Watt University (UK) with an MA in International
Business, French and Spanish and an MSc in Translation and Computer-Assisted Translation
Tools. She also gained a DFIG in Marketing and Sales from the IECS Strasbourg Business School
(France). After working as a professional translator, she is currently pursuing her doctoral thesis at Heriot-Watt University examining the relationship between academic research and professional practice in the field of subtitling. Her research interests lie in audiovisual translation,
sociological approaches to translation and the interaction between research, policy, pedagogy
and practice in translation.
Address: Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS), Department of
Languages and Intercultural Studies, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK.
E-mail: lw173@hw.ac.uk
Raquel de Pedro Ricoy is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in the Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies at Heriot-Watt University, where she teaches translation and
interpreting theory and practice at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. She holds a PhD
from the University of Edinburgh for a thesis on translation. In the past, she has worked as a
freelance lexicographer for Oxford University Press and as a consultant author and reader for
the Open University. She is currently Acting Director of the Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS). Her research interests include translation theory, multimodality in translation and public service translation and interpreting. She has published and lectured in these areas both in the UK and abroad.
Address: Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland (CTISS), Department of
Languages and Intercultural Studies, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK.
E-mail: R.De_Pedro@hw.ac.uk