Translating Humorous Fiction in an Idiomatic Style: A Case Study of a Short Story by Douglas Adams

(1)

Translating Humorous Fiction in an Idiomatic Style

A Case Study of a Short Story by Douglas Adams

MA Thesis Faculty of Humanities

Emma Knapper Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

s1395017 MA Linguistics

e.m.knapper@umail.leidenuniv.nl Translation in Theory and Practice

01-07-2018 Supervisor: A.M. Bovelander, MA

(2)

1

Abstract

There is a serious lack of research in the interdisciplinary field of humour in translation. In order to contribute to this field, this thesis discusses the analysis and translation of a humorous short story by Douglas Adams. Verbally expressed humour, subdivided in verbal and referential humour, is argued to stem from incongruity and more specifically script opposition (Raskin, 1985; Attardo & Raskin, 1991; Attardo, 1994, 2001). The notion of ‘equivalence’ in the field of humour in translation is discussed and several translational procedures for translating verbally expressed humour are explained.

The short story, Young Zaphod Plays It Safe (originally published in 1986), is then subjected to a stylistic analysis based on Leech & Short’s (2007) checklist of stylistic and linguistic categories, which shows that Adams’s style is largely characterised by his use of humour. The translation of the short story is accompanied by annotations commenting on important translational choices that affect the style of the text. Referential humour that is not culturally bound is easily transferred, but verbal humour such as puns and register humour poses a problem to the translator, who needs to choose between stylistic or semantic faithfulness.

The thesis concludes with the remarks that humour theory lacks a formal set of guidelines for identifying instances of verbally expressed humour; that research in the field of humour in translation should focus on either verbal humour (puns and register humour) or culturally bound referential humour; and that the field of stylistics might be advantaged by a more in-depth analysis of Adams’s idiomatic style.

(3)

2

Acknowledgements

‘I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by.’ – Douglas Adams

I would like to thank my supervisor, Maud Bovelander, for her inexhaustible positivity and the more than useful feedback which helped shape this thesis into something of which I can feel proud. I also want to thank Katinka Zeven, for being an enthusiastic and fair second reader. Furthermore, I want to thank my peer reviewer, Maureen Walrave, for always making time to review my chapters and for always being there for me.

(4)

List of Tables

1. The GTVH’s Knowledge Resources in hierarchical order... 13

2. Malkamäki’s (2017) six translation strategies with an example translation. ... 20

3. Chiaro’s (2010) four translation strategies with an example translation. ... 21

4. Low’s (2011) eight translation strategies with explanatory examples. ... 22

List of Figures

1. “Set of solutions S: Binary branching tree structure for translating problem P”. Reprinted from ‘Humor and Translation – An Interdiscipline’, by P. Zabalbeascoa, 2005, International Journal of Humor Research, 18(2), 200. ... 18

2. “Adapting the hierarchical organization of the GTVH Knowledge Resources to binary branch translational analysis”. Reprinted from ‘Humor and Translation – An Interdiscipline’, by P. Zabalbeascoa, 2005, International Journal of Humor Research, 18(2), 203. ... 19

3. Histogram of sentence lengths in YZPIS. ... 32

List of Abbreviations

GTVH General Theory of Verbal Humour

HI Humorous instance

IR Incongruity-Resolution

KR Knowledge Resource

SSTH Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour THGG The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy VEH Verbally expressed humour

(7)

6

Chapter 1 – Introduction

What makes a joke funny? The question of funniness is a rather abstract one, appealing to all sorts of cultural and linguistic factors. Perhaps the question ‘what makes a joke a joke’ is of a more

manageable size, but even then most laypeople will not be able to pin down exactly what the requirements are that make a text, however short, a joke. It often has to do with a re-evaluation of expectations, such as in the following example taken from Young Zaphod Plays It Safe, a short story written by Douglas Adams and taking place in the universe of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Any sophisticated knowledgeable person, who had knocked about, seen a few things, would probably have remarked on how much the [flying] craft looked like a filing cabinet—a large and recently burgled filing cabinet lying on its back with its drawers in the air and flying.

The islanders, whose experience was of a different kind, were instead struck by how little it looked like a lobster. (Adams, 1986/2002d.)

A recreational reader will immediately re-evaluate their expectations of the story: ‘How weird that the islanders would expect the craft to look like a lobster! Why would they expect it to look like that?’ The islanders do not match the reader in how they experience and evaluate the spaceship, which surprises the reader.

Douglas Adams is the author of the world-famous ‘trilogy in five parts’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide

to the Galaxy, which is well-known for its ‘biting humour’ (“Douglas Adams”, 2018) and has been

translated to over thirty languages. His short story Young Zaphod Plays It Safe is a 4000-word text published in 1986; the story follows familiar character Zaphod Beeblebrox as he goes on an expedition to recover a crashed spacecraft packed with the most dangerous things the universe has ever seen (see appendix A for the full story). Although the original five novels have been translated into Dutch, the short story in question has not been translated yet.

1.1 Research question

The aim of this thesis is twofold: first, to argue that Douglas Adams’s idiomatic writing style is characterised by his use of humour and second, to demonstrate how a text in this style can be translated by producing a translation of the so far untranslated short story mentioned above. This translation will be style-centred, as is ideal in the case of literary works (Boase-Beier, 2014, p. 394). This means that the retention of the individual style of the text is considered a high, if not the highest, priority when translating it.

(8)

7

My hypothesis is that Adams’s idiomatic style is indeed largely induced by his use of humour (based on Brussee, 2015; “Literary Style”, n.d.; Malkamäki, 2017; and Shah, 2016), which implies that a style-centred translation of Young Zaphod Plays It Safe (YZPIS) would focus on the way humorous elements are transferred to the target language, which is Dutch in this case.

Humour studies is an interdisciplinary field, tackling the phenomenon from several angles, such as linguistic, psychological and sociological perspectives (Zabalbeascoa, 2005). Attardo (1994, 2001, 2002) is an established name in the field, best known for his proposal of the General Theory of Verbal Humour (Attardo & Raskin, 1991) which discusses the abstract concept behind humorous texts.

Although the most saliently humorous texts are simple, self-contained jokes, where the humour stems from the punch line, there are other ways of conveying humour, such as jab lines (Attardo, 2001) and word choice (Triezenberg, 2004, 2008). One must also recognise the difference between verbally expressed humour, verbal humour and referential humour (Ritchie, 2010), which will be explained in depth later in this thesis (see Chapter 2).

Attardo (2002), Chiaro (2010), Low (2011) and Zabalbeascoa (2005), amongst others, have discussed humour studies in the context of translation – humour in translation being an

interdisciplinary field focusing on the linguistic aspects of humour and humour studies.

This theoretical background in the fields of humour studies and humour in translation will form a steady foundation on which to perform a stylistic analysis of YZPIS, following Leech & Short’s (2007) checklist. Not only will this analysis determine Adams’s idiomatic style, it will also make it more transparent for the translator. Through the stylistic analysis and the annotated translation, this thesis aims to provide an answer to its exploratory research question: what are the difficulties in translating Douglas Adams’s idiomatic style, which stems from his use of humour?

1.2 Academic relevance

Both Vandaele (2002, pp. 149-150) and Zabalbeascoa (2005, pp. 185-186) mention the need for additional research in the interdisciplinary field of humour in translation. However specific the translation of a single short story may seem, a case study such as the one performed in this thesis can provide insights in the relevant field – humour in translation, in this case – within concrete, well-defined borders. It provides examples of and therefore the possibility to discuss practical, real-life problems that a translator could encounter when translating a humorous text. I aim to present solid arguments as to why I, the translator, have made certain translational choices. These arguments could then serve as a means to adjust humour in translation theory to real-world solutions, as theory and practice are often still found to be too unconnected.

(9)

8

1.3 Outline of thesis structure

The following chapters work towards an annotated translation of the selected short story, starting with a literature overview in Chapter 2, which discusses both humour studies as a field of its own and the interdisciplinary field of humour in translation. Chapter 3 describes the used material and method. Then, Chapter 4 reports on the stylistic analysis of the source text and Chapter 5 consists of the annotated translation and a reflection on it. Chapter 6 will conclude this thesis with a summary and suggestions for future research.

(10)

9

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Background

Before this chapter delves into the theoretical background of the fields of humour and humour in translation, it is important to determine the used terminology. I will not attempt to define why a text is experienced as funny – the ‘humour feeling’ is a hard one to formally define (Vandaele, 2002, p. 151) and the term ‘humour’ can refer to both cause and effect (p. 153). In addition to this terminological duality, a text can also be recognised as humorous but not experienced as funny (Raskin, 1985, p. 2; Vandaele, 2002, p. 150). This means that humorous texts have more layers than may superficially be perceived: not only are there, presumably, formal requirements for a text to be universally considered humorous – which means that a joke is recognised as such by all those perceiving it – but there is also an idiomatic aspect, which determines whether the audience is actually amused by the humour. The latter aspect can be considered psychological and culturally bound and is not what this thesis discusses. The next section discusses what the formal linguistic requirements are for a text to be considered humorous, without regard to the question whether or not someone finds the text actually funny.

So far, I have only mentioned texts that are considered humorous. This is the ‘type’ of humour with which this thesis is concerned, as opposed to, for example, visual humour (e.g. slapstick). The most commonly used term for this is ‘verbally expressed humour’ (VEH; Chiaro, 2010; Ritchie, 2010), which can refer to humour both spoken and written. VEH can be divided in two subtypes: verbal and referential (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2010; Ritchie, 2010). Ritchie (2004, p. 14) respectively uses the terms linguistic and propositional, but he does not use different definitions for the two subtypes; as the former set of terms is more commonly used, those are also used in this thesis for the sake of clarity.

Verbal humour refers to humour that uses language as part of the joke (Attardo, 1994, p. 95; Ritchie, 2010, p. 34). A general example would be a pun, such as the following (taken from YZPIS):

Context: Zaphod, a two-headed alien, has just been introduced.

[…] but the man with the odd, or rather the even, number of heads missed it. (Adams, 1986/2002d.)

Verbal humour is usually considered untranslatable (Attardo, 1994, p. 95), as a translator cannot assume that the target language will demonstrate an exactly corresponding instance of homophony, which is what many instances of verbal humour rely on. However, ‘untranslatability’ is a controversial

(11)

10

term, as in practice, verbal humour is translated nonetheless; for more discussion on (verbal) humour in translation, see section 2.2 and in particular subsection 2.2.3.

Referential humour refers to those instances whose humorous aspect is not rooted in language, but rather in ‘the real world’ (Attardo, 1994, p. 95; Ritchie, 2010, p. 34). This means that language is only used as a medium, which implies that referential humour is translatable (or at least, more so than verbal humour). However, the funniness of referential humour may depend on the culture in whose context it is expressed, which means that jokes that target Poles as being dumb, a common stereotype in the United States of America (Attardo, 2002, p. 187), might need to be adapted to be targeting Belgians when being translated to Dutch, as the Belgian people are the default dumb stereotype in the Netherlands. However, this is a cultural aspect of jokes, which is in principle

unrelated to the linguistic recognition of humour; it is therefore safe to state that referential humour is translatable in terms of linguistic form.

This chapter will consider three basic theories of humour, after which Attardo’s General Theory of Verbal Humour is discussed. This theory is then placed in the context of humour in translation and incorporated in Zabalbeascoa’s binary branching model. The chapter concludes with the discussion of several strategies for humour translation and a short summary.

2.1 Verbally expressed humour

2.1.1 Basic principles

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the feeling of incongruity is often associated with humour. Most humour research seems to support this principle (Ritchie, 2004, p. 46), although it is not the only theory for the ‘essential ingredient of humour’; superiority and relief theories are the major two other frameworks that have been explored in the field. As incongruity and incongruity-resolution theories are the leading theories in this field, this subsection briefly introduces the two other ones before discussing

incongruity in more depth.

Relief or release theories have received the least attention of the three mentioned theories. They are based on the concept of a release of psychic energy when humour is experienced (Attardo, 1994, p. 50). The most influential theoretician supporting this approach is Freud, whose views are in line with the idea that humour releases a person from inhibitions (Attardo, 1994, p. 50). I will not go into Freud’s theories on subconscious inhibitions and will not use the relief/release theory any further in this thesis, as too few in-depth studies have been written about this theoretical framework. Ritchie (2004, p. 7), for example, mentions it, but does not discuss it further.

(12)

11

Superiority (or hostility) theories are based on the assumedly indispensable element of aggression in humour, which makes the audience or the joke-teller feel superior towards and therefore laugh at an object (Attardo, 1994, p. 49; Vandaele, 2002, p. 156). It is inherently a social concept, with humour used even as a way to correct deviant behaviour (Attardo, 1994, p. 50). Although superiority and incongruity are argued to be combined by Vandaele (2002) in order to refine the definition of the building blocks of humour (Attardo [1994, p. 49] also claims that superiority theories are compatible with incongruity and even relief theories), it is not crucial to establish superiority theory as the one theoretical framework when speaking of the linguistic mechanisms that constitute humour (Ritchie, 2004, p. 7-8), as the feeling of superiority that lies at the foundation of this principle has little to do with the form of the language involved in humour and jokes.

Incongruity theories are the leading theoretical frame within humour studies, but they are not without weaknesses. They are based on the presence of an incongruous element in humour. Attardo (1994, p. 48) cites McGhee, who concisely defines incongruity as follows:

The notion of congruity and incongruity refer [sic] to the relationships between components of an object, event, idea, social expectation, and so forth. When the arrangement of the constituent elements of an event is incompatible with the normal or expected pattern, the event is perceived as incongruous.

Related but not entirely identical to incongruity theories, are incongruity-resolution (IR) theories. This approach entails that humour is perceived when an incongruous element is ‘resolved’ (Attardo, 1994, p. 143); what ‘resolved’ exactly means, is vague, as this process is sometimes regarded as removing incongruity and at other times as explaining it (Ritchie, 2004, p. 55). Attardo (1994, p. 144) claims that the resolution is not a ‘real’ resolution, as it does not get rid of the incongruity but rather accompanies it; since it does not have to be realistic, it is playfully accepted as a pseudo-resolution.

Ritchie proceeds to discuss two (similar) models that more concretely develop the concept of incongruity-resolution, although he warns the reader that these may not account for all subtypes of IR-type VEH, nor that IR may account for all types of VEH (2004, p. 60). As Ritchie’s book solely discusses self-contained jokes rather than longer humorous texts, I am careful to apply his claims to VEH in general.

The two models (Suls’s two-stage model and the forced reinterpretation model) have in common that they analyse a joke as made up from a set-up and a punch line (compare with Attardo’s term ‘Set up-Incongruity-Resolution Theories’ [2001, p. 66]). The set-up does not create incongruity,

(13)

12

but the punch line does; lastly, a resolution is found to allow for the punch line to make sense (Ritchie, 2004, p. 59). Although Ritchie criticises both models, he does discuss the latter one more in depth.

2.1.2 The Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour

Raskin’s (1985) Script-based Semantic Theory of Humour (SSTH) is an extremely influential incongruity-resolution theory in humour studies (Ritchie, 2004, p. 69). It exists between more

generalised incongruity theories and Attardo’s formalised General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH). It provides a concept central to the GTVH: scripts. Raskin (1985, p. 81) describes a script as:

[…] a large chunk of semantic information surrounding the word or evoked by it. [It] is a cognitive structure internalized by the native speaker and it represents the native speaker’s knowledge of a small part of the world.

In other (and simplified) words, a script consists of a word and its meaning and associations; this means that scripts may be similar among individuals, but are often not completely identical. Short (1996, pp. 227-229) discusses schemas, a concept similar to scripts (but within his concept of schemas, the term ‘script’ has a more confined use). He uses a lecture schema to extensively exemplify what types of information a schema can contain and how it can be adjusted if necessary: his lecture schema consists of, among other information, the setting of a lecture, the attending people and the order of events during a lecture. However, his ‘Chinese lecture’ subschema required an adjustment, as it was common in China to be served tea during lectures.

The place of scripts in relation to humour is in the concept of ‘script opposition’, the essential requirement for a text to be considered humorous (Raskin, 1985, p. 99). The SSTH entails that a text is humorous if it is (completely or partly) compatible with two scripts which are opposite. This opposition may be ‘universal’ (e.g. tool vs. no tool1_{), but usually it is a case of local antonymy (e.g. doctor vs.}

lover2): two concepts are only opposite for the scope of one particular discourse (Raskin, 1985, p. 108). Ritchie (2004, p. 70) states that the workings of the SSTH are an instance of the forced

reinterpretation model mentioned above, as the obvious script (the set-up) is not compatible with the

1_{The joke accompanying this opposition is the following, taken from Raskin (1985, p. 26): ‘Should a person stir}

his coffee with his right hand or his left hand? Neither. He should use a spoon.’

2_{The joke belonging to this opposition has been dissected by Attardo repeatedly (1994, 2001; Attardo et al.,}

2002) and goes as follows, as taken from Raskin (1985, p. 32): ‘“Is the doctor at home?” the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. “No,” the doctor’s young and pretty wife whispered in reply. “Come right in.”’

(14)

13

last part of a joke (the punch line), which brings the other, less obvious or ‘hidden’ script into light, which is compatible with the punch line (the resolution).

2.1.3 The General Theory of Verbal Humour

In Attardo & Raskin (1991), the SSTH was revised and developed into the first step towards the GTVH. Since then, the GTVH has been refined (see for example Attardo, 1994, 2001; Attardo, Hempelmann & Di Maio, 2002).

The GTVH states that a joke or humorous text consists of six hierarchically ordered ‘Knowledge Resources’ (KRs; Attardo, 1994, pp. 223-227). A KR influences all KRs below itself; therefore, the highest one (Script Opposition) influences all other KRs, while the lowest one (Language) influences none.

Table 1. The GTVH’s Knowledge Resources in hierarchical order.

1 Script Opposition (SO)

As taken from the SSTH, the script opposition encompasses the incongruity of the joke.

2 Logical Mechanism (LM)

Is ill-defined in the initial 1991 article, where only examples are given for lack of an explicit definition. In his 1994 book, Attardo slightly improves the situation by stating that the Logical Mechanism accounts for ‘the way in which the two senses […] are brought together’ (p. 225). In Attardo et al. (2002, p. 5), it is defined as corresponding to the resolution phase of the incongruity-resolution model. 3 Situation (SI) Includes what the joke is ‘about’. Attardo (1994, p. 225) calls it the ‘props’ of the

joke.

4 Target (TA) Determines the ‘butt of the joke’ – a certain person or group of people that is being ridiculed – and is optional, as not all jokes are aggressive.

5 Narrative Strategy (NS)

Accounts for the narrative organisation of the joke or: how the joke is presented.

6 Language (LA) Includes all information on the verbalisation of the text. It is concerned with the form of the language used.

Although the SSTH was mostly tailored to fit simple, self-contained jokes rather than longer narrative humorous texts (Attardo, 1994, p. 221), Attardo’s GTVH is supposed to be applicable to any type of VEH (1994, p. 222). In his 2001 book, he extends the theory to account for longer narrative texts.

(15)

14

He proposes that the GTVH can account for all humorous elements (‘lines’) present in a text; these lines can be mapped on a vector representing the linear character of the text and can finally be grouped together in strands (Attardo, 2001, p. 79). This implies that a longer text is merely an

enumeration of lower-level texts that the GTVH is able to tackle; or, in Attardo’s (2001, p. 80) terminology, it is a macronarrative which consists of any number of micronarratives, the latter being the simplest possible narrative consisting of one action or event. It might therefore be tempting to regard a longer humorous texts as a series of jokes (interspersed with non-humorous text needed for plot development), with a joke being defined as a micronarrative that ends in a punch line. However, there is another type of line, which does not necessarily occur at the end of a narrative: the jab line. Jab lines and punch lines are semantically identical; the only difference is their position in the text (Attardo, 2001, p. 82).

Jab lines are humorous elements fully integrated in the narrative in which they appear. […] punch lines act as disrupting elements. (Attardo, 2001, p. 82-83.)

As punch lines force the reader to go back and reinterpret the text to make sense (therefore switching to the second, less obvious or ‘hidden’ script), the punch line cannot be integrated in the narrative that it disrupts (Attardo, 2001, p. 83).

As stated above, these two types of lines can be analysed by the GTVH; this happens at the level of the micronarrative. At the macronarrative level, lines can be grouped together in strands, defined as ‘a (non-necessarily contiguous) sequence of (punch or jab) lines formally or thematically linked’ (Attardo, 2001, p. 83). In other words: recurring lines that share their form or theme, form a strand. Attardo states that three is the minimum amount of related lines necessary to create a strand (2001, p. 84). As the components of strands can occur over the course of the entire text, strands can contribute to the overall coherence of a text.

Another way the GTVH is applicable to longer humorous texts is through the notion of register humour. Attardo (2001, p. 103) states this is a humorous technique based on recurring ‘small jab lines throughout the text’. In his 1994 book (pp. 230-253) he goes to great lengths to define the very vague concept of ‘register’, but he concisely summarises it by defining register as ‘a linguistic variety defined by subject matter, social situations (...) and discursive functions’ (2001, p. 104). The most important connotations that influence register are those of the informal/formal opposition. Register humour, then, emerges when two incompatible registers are juxtaposed or when a register incompatible with the subject matter is used: the content of the text is not necessarily humorous, but the opposing connotations of the two registers or the register and the subject matter (equalling script opposition) do create humour (Attardo, 1994, p. 253).

(16)

15

2.1.4 Critical notes on and additions to the GTVH

Although the GTVH may be considered the most accepted formal theory of humour (Ritchie, 2004, p. 69), it has not gone uncriticised. Ritchie (2004) devotes most of his chapter on the GTVH (pp. 69-80) to pointing out inconsistencies and other flaws present in the GTVH. He criticises the lack of clear and formal definitions in all published work on the GTVH, which, as he remarks, is a bigger problem in the cases of Script Opposition and Logical Mechanism than for Target and Narrative Strategy. Especially the Logical Mechanism is given a hard time, as its formal role is unclear (‘what it connects to what’, p. 76) and the meanings of the different categories (e.g. figure-ground reversal, juxtaposition or garden path) are not explicitly stated – which makes it hard for scholars other than Attardo himself to determine the Logical Mechanism of jokes. Moreover, Ritchie argues that the lower four KRs are not exclusive to humorous texts and he therefore questions the necessity of (the centrality of) these parameters in a theory of humour. In addition to this, Ritchie makes several more critical remarks. It may be clear that there is still much to be further elaborated and formalised in the GTVH, which can therefore not be accepted as a flawless framework and should be applied with reasonable care.

Triezenberg (2004) argues that the GTVH is useful, but not entirely fit for humorous literature. She does not want to claim that script opposition is unnecessary for VEH, but rather that humorous literature contains so-called ‘humour enhancers’ that ‘increase the reader’s experience of humor in the text’ (p. 412), but are not humour itself as they have nothing to do with script opposition. She proposes five humour enhancers:

Diction, a certain choice of words that reinforces a humour-receptive state of mind; Stereotypes, which provide the reader with an already familiar set of, possibly humorous, personality traits;

Cultural factors, which presuppose what stereotypes and script oppositions are recognised as funny in a particular culture;

Familiarity, as, when a reader feels oriented in the text, they will be more susceptible to nuance and sophisticated humour;

Repetition and variation, which can emphasise the present incongruity and make it more incongruous, thus funnier.

She maintains and slightly elaborates these claims in Triezenberg (2008).

2.1.5 Dissecting a joke from YZPIS

The workings of the GTVH are illustrated in this subsection by the analysis of a short excerpt from

(17)

16

In the dim control room, which extended in a broad bow from the craft’s blunt prow, four heads were gathered around a computer display that was analyzing the very, very faint and intermittent signals that emanated from deep on the sea bed.

“That’s it,” said the owner of one of the heads finally.

“Can we be quite sure?” said the owner of another of the heads. “One hundred percent positive,” replied the owner of the first head.

“You’re one hundred percent positive that the ship which is crashed on the bottom of the ocean is the ship which you said you were one hundred percent positive could one hundred percent positively never crash?” said the owner of the two remaining heads. “Hey,” he put up two of his hands, “I’m only asking.” (Adams, 1986/2002d.)

The centre of this joke is the number of heads the passengers on the spacecraft possess. Other possibly humorous elements will therefore be disregarded, such as the repetition of the words ‘one hundred percent positive’. As there is no exhaustive list of the options for the six KRs of the GTVH, I cannot simply pick pre-defined categories with which to fill the parameters, which may result in slightly informal categories.

Following Attardo himself (see for example Attardo, 2001), the entry for the lowest KR,

Language, is labelled ‘irrelevant’ (or ‘irr’), as it would otherwise be the literal, superficial verbal form of the instance of VEH. Then comes the Narrative Strategy, which can be determined as a simple

narrative or perhaps a ‘joke’, as it ends in a recognisable punch line. The Target parameter remains empty; the joke could be interpreted as targeting the audience for wrongfully assuming that the people aboard the ship all possess only one head. The Situation is described in the co-text, but can be summarised as a group of people having a conversation and being described by the number of heads they possess. The Logical Mechanism may be a garden path or a faulty reasoning (or its subcategory false analogy; Attardo et al. [2002] state that faulty reasoning is too broad a category to be useful [p. 8] and proceed to divide it in subcategories [pp. 13-15], but do include it in their taxonomy [p. 18]). Although Attardo et al. (2002) devote a complete paper to the discussion of a taxonomy of Logical Mechanisms, determining one in practice remains an informal process. I can therefore not claim with certainty what the Logical Mechanism of this joke is. Lastly, the Script Opposition can be paraphrased as ‘human vs. non-human’.

Adding to the joke are the words ‘he put up two of his hands’. These words can be considered a jab line, which builds on the Script Opposition mentioned above that has just been brought to the attention of the reader. The wording of this jab line implies the same basic Script Opposition of ‘human vs. non-human’, but differs slightly in Situation (putting up a number of hands rather than

(18)

17

identifying people by the number of their heads; an informed reader will know that Zaphod possesses, in addition to two heads, three arms instead of two). The awareness of this jab line is being primed by the preceding joke.

2.2 Verbally expressed humour in translation

The interdisciplinary field of humour in translation has been scarcely researched: Vandaele (2002, pp. 149-150) compares it to a ‘vast, disorientating and dangerous […] ocean’, in need of serious

contributions and structure. Zabalbeascoa (2005, pp. 185-186) comments on the overlap between humour and translation studies and the surprising fact that this link is neglected by both fields, even though both humour and translation scholars could benefit from insights from the other field. In a more recent work, Chiaro (2010, pp. 1-2) states that humour in translation has received more and more serious attention since the mid-nineties, while earlier academic literature on the subject was more anecdotal than scholarly; her book attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the interdisciplinary field.

2.2.1 Translatability and equivalence

As stated earlier in this chapter, verbal humour could be considered untranslatable in principle, while referential humour is (at least more) translatable as it has nothing to do with language, apart from the superficial linguistic shape it takes. However, there is more to translatability than the semantic content of a text.

Chiaro (2010, pp. 6-9) revisits the concept of equivalence and its state of being ill-defined and much discussed. There are, in very basic terms, two ‘types’ of equivalence: formal and functional. Roughly speaking, the former involves similarity in lexis and syntax, while the latter focuses on the effect of the text on the audience. When translating VEH, formal equivalence is often sacrificed in favour of functional equivalence (Chiaro, 2010, p. 8). In other words, translators tend to retain funniness at the cost of literal semantic similarity. This can be argued to be the best compromise for texts whose goal it is to amuse the audience, because, as Zabalbeascoa (2005, p. 188) asks himself, ‘if […] humor is the goal of the text (as in comedy) […], what is the point in translating the contents if the humor is made to disappear in the process?’ However, this does not mean that humour should always be given precedence over literal content; a translator should be aware of the relative importance of all elements in a text.

Low (2011, p. 60) states that humour should be translated well enough to be recognised as such and to be potentially amusing – not all individuals find the same humour to be funny, after all. His article proceeds to argue in favour of functional translation: maintaining the humorousness of an item takes prevalence over the exact retention of semantic content or meaning. However, this

(19)

18

dichotomous consideration of which of the two is more important is usually unnecessary: according to Low, a joke becomes hard(er) to translate when it is language-specific and/or culture-specific, but he states that many jokes are neither and can therefore be relatively easily translated (p. 60).

2.2.2 Binary branching and applying the GTVH to translation

Zabalbeascoa (2005) provides a more detailed list of elements possibly present in humour that can influence the degree of language- and culture-specificity of a particular instance. He states that these distinctions might be relevant for the translator to determine the ‘type’ of a particular instance of humour (he calls this ‘mapping’ [p. 189] which he defines as ‘locating and analyzing textual items according to relevant classifications’ [p. 187]). However, these distinctions lack formality and differ in the way they contribute to the ‘mapping’ of a joke. Zabalbeascoa argues that translators would benefit from a ‘map of humour’, composed primarily by humour scholars, which is defined as ‘a series of classifications, definitions, and examples of instances of humor and humor-types’ (2005, p. 187). One of those classifications can then be inserted in Zabalbeascoa’s binary branching model, which is intended as a descriptive tool for scholars to assess the translator’s choices.

Figure 1. “Set of solutions S: Binary branching tree structure for translating problem P”. Reprinted from ‘Humor and Translation – An Interdiscipline’, by P. Zabalbeascoa, 2005, International Journal of Humor

Research, 18(2), 200.

Figure 1 provides a visual interpretation of a tree structure as used in the binary branching model. Zabalbeascoa devised it to be adaptable to every new case by leaving all labels and the number of branches open (p. 199). He also applies the GTVH to his binary branching model, although Attardo himself has discussed the GTVH as applied to translation in general as well.

Attardo applies his GTVH to interlingual translation in his 2002 article, in which he first defines translation as:

(20)

19

a correspondence between two texts T1 and T2, such that the meaning (M) of T1 (MT1) and the

meaning of T2 (MT2) are similar (approximate): MT1 ≈ MT2 and/or the pragmatic force (F) of T1

(FT1) and the pragmatic force of T2 (FT2) are similar/approximate: FT1 ≈ FT2. (Attardo, 2002, p.

175.)

This definition implies that the semantics of a joke may be ignored in order to retain the humorous pragmatic force (Attardo therefore agrees with the scholars mentioned in the previous subsection). The GTVH in translation is mostly useful as a means to assess the similarity between a joke and its translated correspondent; however, Attardo does not hesitate to apply the GTVH in a prescriptive manner by recommending that a translator should aim to maintain all six KRs and, if this is not possible, should start changing the joke at the lowest level possible (following the hierarchy discussed in

subsection 2.1.3; Attardo, 2002, p. 183)3. That does not mean that a lower KR should always change too if a higher one does; it is perfectly possible to merely change the Target of the joke without changing any other KR (with the exception of the Language KR, which always changes in the process of interlingual translation), which Attardo illustrates by comparing an American-English pseudo-riddle joke that appeals to the dumbness stereotype of Poles to a French semantically equivalent pseudo-riddle that targets Belgians (p. 187).

Figure 2. “Adapting the hierarchical organization of the GTVH Knowledge Resources to binary branch translational analysis”. Reprinted from ‘Humor and Translation – An Interdiscipline’, by P. Zabalbeascoa,

2005, International Journal of Humor Research, 18(2), 203.

3_{Attardo does acknowledge and discuss that maintaining all six KRs is utopian, as the Language KR will always}

differ: there are, after all, two different languages involved. He paradoxically states that ‘absolute translation’ does not exist, as that would imply the coincidence of two languages, which means there is no (interlingual) translation involved at all (Attardo, 2002, p. 191). Similar standpoints are taken by Chiaro (2010, p. 7) and Zabalbeascoa (2005, p. 189-190).

(21)

20

In Figure 2, Zabalbeascoa (2005, p. 203) has combined his binary branch model with the GTVH. This tree structure could be used as a prescriptive tool or as an illustration of degrees of similarity between the source and target text. It is just as flexible as the model is intended to be, as lower KRs do not have to differ if a higher KR differs (as already noted).

2.2.3 Translation strategies in practice

So the common practice and general rule, when it comes to translating humor, could be summed up as “translate the words and/or the contents and then keep your fingers crossed and hope that the humor will somehow come across with the rest”. (Zabalbeascoa, 2005, p. 188.)

However common this practice may be according to Zabalbeascoa, a translator will want to

systematically tackle problematic VEH rather than ‘keep their fingers crossed’. Malkamäki (2017, pp. 33-35) describes two global translation strategies: retention and recreation. She defines these

opposing strategies using Attardo’s GTVH: recreation of humour takes place if the Script Opposition or Logical Mechanism differs between source and target text, while retention takes place if the change occurs in any other KR (including the Language KR, which always changes in the process of translation). The strategy that is used more often locally is viewed as the global strategy.

With regard to local strategies, Malkamäki (2017, pp. 35-36) adapts Toury’s categorisation of six possible metaphor translation strategies to fit VEH. These strategies are illustrated by a relevant example translation. Four of the strategies are exemplified by translations of the following jab line:

“Hey,” he put up two of his hands, “I’m only asking.” (Adams, 1986/2002d.)

Table 2. Malkamäki’s (2017) six translation strategies with an example translation.

1 Humorous instance (HI) into same HI: this is the local equivalent of the retention strategy, leaving at least the Script Opposition and Logical Mechanism intact.

‘Hé,’ hij hief twee van zijn handen, ‘ik vraag het alleen.’

2 HI into different HI: this is the local equivalent of the recreation strategy, where the Script Opposition or Logical Mechanism are adjusted.

‘Hé,’ hij keek intensief naar het scherm en deed alsof hij begreep wat de metingen betekenden, ‘ik vraag het alleen.’

(22)

21 3 HI into non-humour: this means that the Script

Opposition vanishes in the target text, without the text being significantly different.

This strategy cannot be demonstrated by an example from YZPIS; Malkamäki’s (p. 52)

example describes how the word ‘to cater’ loses its ambiguity (primed by the similarly

ambiguous noun ‘taste’) in translation, because an equivalently ambiguous word does not exist in the target language.

4 Complete omission. ‘Hé, ik vraag het alleen.’

5 Non-humour into HI: this means that a new Script Opposition emerges in the target text, without the text being significantly different.

This strategy cannot be demonstrated by an example from YZPIS; Malkamäki’s (pp. 53-54) example involves the use of a semantically appropriate idiom that also creates humour, where the source text did not use an idiom. 6 Complete addition. ‘Hé,’ hij hief twee van zijn handen, ‘ik vraag het

alleen. Jullie hebben natuurlijk maar één brein om mee na te denken.’

Only two of these local strategies correspond to the two mentioned global strategies. This is not problematic, assuming that the translator will agree with the scholars that functional equivalence is the most viable approach to humour translation, which means that the translator will always – at least attempt to – produce humour in the target text in the same places as in the source text. If most local strategies turn out to be, for example, complete omission, then it is safe to assume that the translator was not handling a text whose main function was to be humorous.

Chiaro (2010, p. 11-12) provides four strategies to describe how a translator may have tackled an instance of VEH, illustrated with a translation of the only pun found in YZPIS:

[…] but the man with the odd, or rather the even, number of heads missed it. (Adams, 1986/2002d.)

Table 3. Chiaro’s (2010) four translation strategies with an example translation.

1 Leave the VEH unchanged. This strategy is impossible for this pun, as Dutch does not possess a homonym that expresses the two senses of ‘odd’.

(23)

22 2 Replace the source VEH with a different

instance of VEH in the TL.

[…] maar dat stootte de derde man niet voor de hoofden.

3 Replace the source VEH with an idiomatic expression in the TL.

[…] maar dat zag de man met de twee hoofden over het hoofd. This translation might still be

considered an instance of (perhaps weaker) wordplay, because of the use of ‘hoofd’ in the idiomatic expression.

4 Ignore the VEH altogether. […] maar de man met de twee hoofden zag het niet.

Chiaro seems to be using the terms ‘VEH’ and ‘wordplay’ interchangeably, with the latter term referring to verbal humour (as defined earlier this chapter). As the example she uses to illustrate the strategies is indeed a pun, it is unclear whether these four strategies can and should be used for referential humour as well. Malkamäki (2017, pp. 36-37) only applies these four strategies to verbal humour.

It should be noted that Chiaro’s strategies are intended for assessing the actions of the translator after the process of translation has taken place: she says that ‘we can never be quite sure whether the omission [the fourth strategy] is due to a deliberate translational strategy or to the lack of recognition of the original wordplay’ (2010, p. 12). Malkamäki (2017), too, uses the categorisations to determine the used strategy afterwards, rather than utilising them to translate a text.

However, as one of the aims of this thesis is to translate a humorous text, guidelines that are less abstract than for example Attardo’s approach would be useful. Low (2011, pp. 69-70) provides several guidelines that he also calls ‘strategies’ in his conclusion. Where Attardo focuses on similarity of meaningful content, Low is of the opinion that VEH should remain funny even if that is at the cost of semantic similarity. His strategies are the following and are illustrated with a relevant translation.

Table 4. Low’s (2011) eight translation strategies with explanatory examples.

1 Delivery, then preparation: this means the punch line should be translated first, after which the set-up of the joke is reworked and adjusted to fit the punch line.

In YZPIS, this strategy could be applied for all punch lines, e.g. for the joke discussed in subsection 2.1.5.

(24)

23 2 Compensation in kind: this means that, if a pun

appears to be untranslatable, the translator could use another type of verbal humour (such as a spoonerism or an anagram) to compensate.

Low also suggests creating amusement by the use of ‘a simile as silly as a sausage’, e.g. […] but

the man with the odd, or rather the even, number of heads missed it.  […] maar de man met de twee hoofden, daardoor natuurlijk dubbel zo onoplettend als iemand met één hoofd, zag het niet.

3 Compensation in place: this means that a humorous instance could be inserted nearby the place where it was in the source text to compensate for the loss of the source text instance.

“Hey,” he put up two of his hands, “I’m only asking.” […] but the man with the odd, or rather the even, number of heads missed it.  ‘Hé,’ hij hief twee van zijn handen, ‘ik vraag het alleen. Jullie hebben natuurlijk maar één brein om mee na te denken.’ […] maar de man met de twee hoofden zag het niet.

4 Dilution: this means that the amount of VEH in a (longer) text does not have to stay the exact same, as long as the majority of it is reproduced in a humorous manner.

In YZPIS, this strategy can be applied by not translating all informal language Zaphod uses (which are register breaks), e.g. the normalising translation of ‘yeah’ with ‘ja’.

5 Explicitation: this means that a joke might be explicitated slightly to make sure that the target text reader will understand it.

“Yup?” said Zaphod.  ‘Yep?’ zei Zaphod nonchalant. The register break of ‘yup’ is

explicitated by the adverb ‘nonchalant’. 6 Exaggeration: Low only gives an example for

this strategy and does not explain it, but it involves exaggerating the joke in order to make sure that the target text reader will understand it.

The Beeblebrox Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation  Bijsterbuil Berging en Echt Idioot Vette Gekkigheid B.V. The register humour of

the informal ‘Really Wild Stuff’ is exaggerated by using more words in the target text that are also more informal.

7 Signalling: Low calls this a ‘fallback tool’ and recommends it for interpreters who do not have the time to come up with an adequate translation on the spot, but instead can state that a joke has been made.

This strategy is not applicable to a written text like YZPIS, as there is no such temporal restraint during translation.

(25)

24 8 Substitution: this means that an instance of VEH

is replaced with a completely different one; Low does not count this as a form of translation, but states that he does condone it. However, he does not define what makes a joke ‘completely different’ from another.

[…] but the man with the odd, or rather the even, number of heads missed it.  […] maar dat stootte de derde man niet voor de hoofden.

It is probable that Low means that the VEH is replaced with VEH that has a semantically different meaning, as demonstrated by this pun translation.

Some of the translation strategies mentioned in the three tables above overlap, either in intention or in result. Malkamäki’s first and Chiaro’s first strategy both describe literal translation; Malkamäki’s second, Chiaro’s second and Low’s eighth strategy overlap as they describe retention of humour over retention of semantic meaning, but additionally, Chiaro’s third and several of Low’s strategies (the second, third, fifth and sixth strategies) also describe a translation that works around the encountered translation problem, thereby also prioritising humour over semantic content; and Malkamäki’s fourth, Chiaro’s fourth and arguably Low’s fourth strategy all describe deletion of instances of VEH. All other strategies do not overlap: Malkamäki’s third and fifth strategies are too descriptive to be used as guidelines, while Low’s first strategy is unfit for description, as the strategy would not leave a trace in the target text. Malkamäki’s sixth strategy might be considered an instance of compensation.

It appears that there are three general strategies for translating an instance of VEH: literal translation, non-literal translation or a creative way to transfer the humorousness of the text, and omission. The first two correspond to Malkamäki’s two global strategies (respectively retention and recreation); omission is undesirable, as it affects the humorous goal of the text (see subsection 2.2.1), but it can be justified on a local scale by Low’s argument that at least the majority of the VEH should remain intact. At the end of Chapter 4, these global and local strategies will return when they are discussed in relation to the stylistic analysis of YZPIS.

2.3 In summary

This chapter has outlined some major theories on humour and humour in translation. After determining the terminology (VEH and verbal and referential humour), the three major basic

principles were discussed that may underlie humour (release/relief, superiority and incongruity). Then, the latter theory was examined in depth by discussing Raskin’s SSTH and Attardo’s GTVH, which were subsequently applied to a joke from the text for translation.

Humour in translation was discussed by means of two major theories: Attardo’s GTVH as applied to translation and Zabalbeascoa’s binary branching model. In order not to lose sight of the

(26)

25

practical side of translation, I also discussed translation strategies used for description (Malkamäki and Chiaro) and strategies that may function as guidelines (Low). These strategies will return in Chapter 4.

(27)

26

Chapter 3 – Material and Method

As established in Chapter 1, one of the goals of this thesis is to produce an annotated translation of a short story by Douglas Adams, with special attention to the retention of style, which will be argued to stem from Adams’s use of humour. This chapter will introduce Adams and provide some context for the story; I will explain why I selected this text for translation; and I will describe and justify the method used for the task of style-centred translation.

3.1 Material

The text selected for translation is a short story titled Young Zaphod Plays It Safe (YZPIS) by Douglas Adams (see appendix A), first published in 1986. It consists of approximately 4000 words. Adams (1952-2001) is most widely known for his The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series (THGG) (“Douglas Adams”, 2018), which consists of five novels and started off as a radio comedy. THGG follows Earthling Arthur Dent as he is forced to travel space after Earth is demolished. Together with his alien friend Ford Prefect, related alien Zaphod Beeblebrox, depressed android Marvin, and fellow human Trillian, he is thrown into an endless number of strange adventures.

The events of YZPIS take place in the THGG universe and the main character of the story is a very familiar one: Zaphod Beeblebrox, an alien with two heads and three arms who holds the office of President of the Galaxy when Arthur first meets him. However, YZPIS takes place at an indefinite moment in time before the events of THGG, when Zaphod is still unfamiliar with the other characters from THGG and is (as far as the reader knows) not yet concerned with the Galactic Presidency.

YZPIS follows Zaphod as he, along with two officials from ‘the Safety and Civil Reassurance

Administration’, goes on an expedition to retrieve a crashed spacecraft which is filled with the most dangerous things the universe has ever seen and which was meant to be sent into a black hole. When they find the craft at the bottom of an ocean, it becomes clear why the craft crashed on this planet and that one of the dangerous inventions, a ‘Designer Person’, has escaped to ‘Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha’ (which an informed reader might recognise as the location of Earth).

There are multiple reasons why I decided to analyse and translate this text in particular. First of all, the story has not yet been translated into Dutch, although the complete THGG series has been. This means the short story itself is unexplored territory, but can be put in the context of the THGG series and its translation: a reader does not need to have read all THGG novels as YZPIS is a self-contained short story, but is likely to enjoy the story more if they have.

(28)

27

It appears that Adams displays an idiomatic style (in THGG; based on Brussee, 2015; BBC Radio 4, n.d.; and Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) and it can be assumed that this style is represented in YZPIS too, especially since the events of YZPIS take place in the THGG universe. As humour makes up a large part of this idiomatic style (Brussee, 2015; “Literary Style”, n.d.; Malkamäki, 2017; Shah, 2016) and the field of humour in translation is in need of more research, as argued before, it is useful to approach the text from this angle.

3.2 Method

In order to be well-prepared for the task of style-centred translation, I have conducted a stylistic analysis of the source text. Leech & Short’s (2007) checklist of stylistic and linguistic categories is the most comprehensive guideline for describing style in fictional works, which is why the structure of the analysis is based heavily on the four categories that Leech & Short have established: lexical categories, grammatical categories, figures of speech, and context and cohesion (see appendix B for the full checklist). In the stylistic analysis, I have paid particular attention to those stylistic elements that contribute to the humorousness of the text. To conclude the analysis, I have laid out a general

translation strategy and commented on the optimal local strategies (based on Chiaro, 2010; Low, 2011; and Malkamäki, 2017).

After conducting the stylistic analysis, I have translated an excerpt of the short story; because of spatial constraints, I have only translated approximately the first 1000 words. This translation is style-centred, which means that I have focused on the retention of the style of YZPIS as established in the stylistic analysis. Annotating the translation has allowed me to comment on individual translational choices; most annotations are concerned with stylistic and humorous elements in the text. Whenever a dictionary, definition, or suggested translation is referenced in the stylistic analysis or the

annotations, these are (from) either Oxford English Dictionary or Van Dale, both accessed via the internet, unless otherwise stated.

3.2.1 The importance of style, especially in literary translation

Stylistics in the context of translation has received not much in-depth attention in the scholarly world (Boase-Beier, 2014, p. 394). Although Leech & Short (2007) provide this thesis’ main methodological tool, they do not discuss style in translation. In this subsection, I will concisely argue the importance of style in literary texts and their translations, thereby justifying the style-centred approach of this thesis.

First of all, I should define ‘style’ and ‘stylistics’. Leech & Short (2007, p. 31) acknowledge that the term ‘style’ is ‘semi-technical’ and, although attempting to narrow down the definition, do not want to define the term all too precisely. Their first general definition of style is ‘the linguistic characteristics of

(29)

28

a particular text’ (p. 11), but after detailed discussion, they put together a list of aspects forming the basis of the term (p. 31). This includes, among others, the following statements: that style is the way language is used and it therefore consists of choices; that it is defined in terms of a domain of language use; and that style exists on a scale from transparent to opaque, determining the paraphrasability of the text.

Stylistics is the study of style; it is usually concerned with literary language (Leech & Short, 2007, p. 31). Vinay & Darbelnet (1958/1995, pp. 16-17) distinguish between internal and external (or comparative) stylistics. The latter is only relevant in the context of translation, as it compares the style of a source and target text in terms of servitudes (obligatory changes in style) and options (optional changes). Internal stylistics is concerned with describing the optional choices a writer made by contrasting elements that portray or reflect emotions (affective elements) with purely ‘factual’ elements (intellectual elements). Leech & Short (2007, p. 31) agree by stating that style consists of choices.

The importance of style in literary works lies within the viewpoint that content and form are not entirely separable. Leech & Short (2007) argue that the connection between content and form is a scale. Boase-Beier (2014, p. 393), too, states that stylisticians generally agree that content and form are not completely separable. In other (and simplified) words: part of the meaning of a text lies within its stylistic form. This inseparability is more present in poetry than in prose, and more so in literary texts than in non-literary texts (Boase-Beier, 2014, p. 394).

In the context of translation, this implies that a translator must consider the style of the text in order to transfer the meaning (which is, as argued above, always to some degree connected to the form) as completely as possible. As the inseparability is greater in literary texts, literary translators will have to be highly aware of the style of a text; a stylistic analysis of the source text will be helpful in pinpointing the important stylistic elements and their intended effect on the reader. This is, therefore, why I have performed such an analysis before translating YZPIS.

3.3 In summary

This chapter has laid out the selected material and method for this thesis. I have produced an

annotated translation of an excerpt of Adams’s short story YZPIS, which has been selected for various reasons. In order to retain the style of the text, I have first performed a stylistic analysis and evaluated to which translation strategies I would adhere during translation. I have also concisely argued why I have paid considerable attention to style during the translation process: as content and form are always to some degree connected, transferring the style of a text is necessary in order to convey its meaning as completely as possible. The following chapters will report on the findings of the stylistic analysis and present the annotated translation.

(30)

29

Chapter 4 – Stylistic Analysis

4.1 Adams’s style in THGG

Although there are informal sources that report on the idiomatic style of Douglas Adams (e.g. BBC Radio 4, n.d.; Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008), serious stylistic research is lacking. Kropf (1988) has written an article on the genre of the THGG novels; while Adams himself loosely defines them as a combination of comedy and science fiction (Adams, 1983/2002e, p. xii), Kropf argues that the novels can best be regarded as ‘mock science fiction’ (p. 61). This mock genre frustrates rather than fulfils the reader’s expectations of the regular science fiction genre, and it does that in two ways: it offers neither narrative closure nor ideational closure. The former type of closure entails that the plot will be wrapped up in a neat and conventional manner; the latter type refers to the ‘believability’ of the future as described in the science fiction work (Kropf, 1988, p. 64). The THGG novels, however, are a ‘chronicle of aborted endings and inconclusive conclusions’ (pp. 64-65) with many throwaway asides that are never mentioned again. Adams ‘does everything possible to outrage verisimilitude’ (p. 65), which Kropf illustrates with the ‘Infinite Improbability Drive’ that powers the main spaceship in THGG, which cannot be explained by modern technological developments.

Although this knowledge is useful for a broader view of Adams’s novels, it does not provide much information on their lower-level style. Brussee (2015) conducts a short stylistic analysis of an excerpt of Life, the Universe, and Everything, but also generalises (some of) his findings to apply to all of the THGG novels. Brussee lists the use of stark, absurd contrasts; lengthy sentences with rapid topic switching; breaks in narrative for (plot-relevant) world-building exposition; and absurd imagery and names in order to invoke humour (pp. 45-48). This list of stylistic devices may be considered short, but it is more than other scholarly reports on Douglas Adams and THGG mention. However, to produce a stylistically faithful translation of a text of Adams’s, more insight in the lower-level style of such a text is necessary. The next section reports on the findings of the stylistic analysis of YZPIS.

4.2 Adams’s style in YZPIS

4.2.1 Lexical categories

One of the more easily identifiable characteristics of YZPIS that falls under Leech & Short’s first heading of ‘lexical categories’ is Adams’s use of neologisms. The most notable completely innovative neologism is the name of the main character, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Although these names are probably completely made up by Adams himself, they do adhere to the phonological system of the English language, which makes the neologisms understandable. Another neological name is ‘Santa Zarquana Voostra’, only used once as an exclamation by Zaphod to express disbelief. The name is similar to

(31)

30

‘Zarquon’, used twice in this text by the co-pilot, but also often exclaimed as a blasphemous expletive by Zaphod in the THGG novels, sometimes with the adjective ‘holy’ (e.g. Adams, 1980/2002c, p. 36; Adams, 1982/2002b, p. 70).

Zaphod swears again when he uses the word ‘zarking’, which is an euphemism for the common English word ‘fucking’. It is intended as an intensifying adjectival swear word (‘a zarking fortress ship’) without the actual swearing; the offensiveness of the swearing is significantly lowered, comparable with the real-world use of, for example, ‘fudging’ instead of ‘fucking’. In the THGG novels, Adams uses ‘zark’ and ‘zarking’ in much the same way ‘fuck’ and ‘fucking’ can be used (e.g. ‘zark off’ in Adams, 1982/2002b, p. 60).

Although these three neologisms are completely innovative, Adams also makes use of other, less innovative neologisms, such as ‘Hi-Presh-A Smart Suits’ (a play on ‘high pressure’) and ‘Titan-O-Hold’ (compare with a similarly structured term used in the THGG novels, ‘Kill-O-Zap’, e.g. in Adams, 1979/2002a, p. 172). The neologisms are intended to contribute to the science fiction aspect of the text. They can be either intransparent (a reader cannot interpret the meaning of the word ‘zarking’ without context) or transparent (a reader can roughly derive what ‘Titan-O-Hold’ means without context).

Adams adds to the science fiction feeling of the text with other lexical choices as well. For example, he uses the prefix ‘ultra-’ to indicate that a thing is an enhanced and therefore futuristic version of something the reader already knows (e.g. ‘ultra-glass’, ‘ultraplating’, ‘ultra-titanium’ and even ‘Ultra-Cricket’).

Lexical choices that do not contribute to the science fiction setting, but are noteworthy nonetheless, are those that enhance the humorousness of the text somehow: diction, as Triezenberg calls it (2004, 2008; see subsection 2.1.4). Adams makes considerable use of this and thereby gives his text a particular flavour with words that are not the most obvious choice. Triezenberg’s notion of ‘diction’ is, however, rather subjective: she speaks of the ‘literary instinct in anyone’ (2004, p. 413), not providing a formal way to determine when a lexical choice is ‘unusual’ or ‘humorous’. This means that deciding which word choices are humorous or humour-enhancing is an informal process subject to relatively personal criteria. Instead of listing all (possibly) humorous lexical choices, I will discuss two instances of humorous diction.

A salient example of humorous diction is found when the characters are introduced, being described as ‘the owner of one of the heads’ or ‘the owner of another of the heads’. In hindsight, this word choice makes sense as it ensures enough ambiguity for a punch line on multi-headed aliens to be delivered. However, as the reader does not know the set-up for a punch line has begun, he will

(32)

31

people’. Adams reuses this type of diction when the co-pilot madman is introduced as ‘the owner of the screaming face’ (rather than, for example, ‘the screaming man’). In this case, these words are not part of a set-up for a punch line and can therefore be considered a true instance of diction, albeit perhaps primed by the earlier use of ‘the owner of X’.

A more subtle example is found in the phrase ‘the colorful arrangement of parts of the ship’s late lamented Navigation Officer over the floor, walls and ceiling’. The word choice enhancing the humour is the adjective ‘colorful’, which might not be a neutral writer’s first choice to describe the ‘rotting intestines’ of a dead body. The diction defies the reader’s expectations by using a word whose general use (e.g. for flowers or happy subjects) contrasts with the subject at hand (an actual dead person), but, as there is no script opposition involved, the word does not create a jab line. A more neutral, or rather subject-appropriate paraphrase could for example be ‘the nauseating way the intestines of the ship’s late lamented Navigation Officer stuck to the floor, walls and ceiling’.

The third, most important stylistic device that falls under the heading of lexical categories is the use of register breaks. Chapter 2 already briefly touched upon register humour, which plays a significant role in YZPIS. By changing to another register for one or more words, Adams creates humour. This

subsection will only discuss (some instances of) register humour in narrative parts of YZPIS; register breaks in dialogue are discussed in subsection 4.2.4.

The first instance of register humour is already found in the third sentence: ‘any sophisticated knowledgeable person, who had knocked about, seen a few things’. Adams starts the text with several descriptive paragraphs setting the scene of the short story, using words such as ‘astoundingly

beautiful’, ‘to adjourn’ and ‘it seemed to experience the greatest difficulty’: these paragraphs clearly set a formal tone, as these words are marked formal in the dictionary. The expression ‘to knock about’, however, is marked as ‘colloquial’ and the lack of a conjunction before ‘seen’ reinforces the

informality of this adjunct – resulting in a register clash and subsequently register humour. Other examples of register humour in YZPIS include the name of Zaphod’s business (‘The Beeblebrox Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation’); the way the computer screen readings are described (‘They were all squiggly with lots of long numbers and things’); and the end of the first paragraph on aorist rods (‘well, maybe it did, but the effects were immeasurable and you really had to keep a sense of proportion’). Especially this last instance is interesting, because the word ‘you’ is used, which, even when used impersonally as in this case, induces a feeling of dialogue – as if the narrator is speaking directly to the reader while telling the history of aorist rods. (For more discussion on the presence of the narrator, see subsection 4.2.4.) Another noteworthy element in the last instance is the use of ‘well’, an interjection and discourse marker that also heightens the feeling of informal dialogue, which is incompatible with the established formality of a historical account.

Translating Humorous Fiction in an Idiomatic Style: A Case Study of a Short Story by Douglas Adams